HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Human Rights Campaign end...

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:28 PM

Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary ... and Mark Kirk (R)

In January, even before the Iowa Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. At the time, the Sanders campaign said, "It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record."

Hillary supporters said Sanders just had sour grapes, while Bernie supporters pointed out that when the membership of organizations are allowed to vote on endorsements, Bernie does well, but when the leadership of organizations make the decisions unilaterally, they choose Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511046133

So now, how to explain the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Republican incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk over Democratic challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois Senate campaign?

As David Nir has noted in Daily Kos:

Kirk's record on gay rights is far weaker than that of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth—according to no less an authority than HRC itself. In 2013-14, Kirk earned just a 78 percent score on HRC's report card, and in 2009-10, he managed an atrocious 39 percent. (Kirk has no rating for 2011-12, presumably because he missed many votes while recovering from a stroke.) By contrast, Duckworth, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, notched a perfect 100 percent in 2013-14. In what universe does it make sense for an advocacy group to support the candidate who is unambiguously worse on their key issues?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504481/-Shameful-Gay-rights-group-endorses-Republican-Mark-Kirk-over-Democrat-Tammy-Duckworth

7 replies, 1368 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary ... and Mark Kirk (R) (Original post)
TheDormouse Mar 2016 OP
Maedhros Mar 2016 #1
Zira Mar 2016 #2
kristopher Mar 2016 #7
ibegurpard Mar 2016 #3
sufrommich Mar 2016 #4
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #5
sufrommich Mar 2016 #6

Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:29 PM

1. They are nothing if not consistent, choosing the more conservative choice in each case.[n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:33 PM

2. And, losing their base who know better. Being associated with these people (including hillary)

 

and being a "human rights organization" is only trashing their reputation. Best not to sand next to people like Hillary if you want to say you are for Human rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zira (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 08:12 PM

7. It would seem so. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:38 PM

3. money

That's what it's all about for both HRCs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:41 PM

4. Hillary Clinton not only isn't responsible for who they endorse

but has no say in who they endorse. Lame attempt at blaming Hillary for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:45 PM

5. u obviously missed the whole point--it's about who is

endorsing Hillary. Namely, Human Rights Campaign.

Their endorsement of her needs to be re-assessed in light of their decision to choose Kirk over Duckworth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 06:53 PM

6. No,it doesn't need to be "re-assessed". What a ridiculous attempt to

place blame on her for a group she has no control over. Not only is it ridiculous it's pathetically transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread