I actually wish the HRC had endorsed in both Presidential Primaries

I can clearly understand why HRC endorsed Obama. While he has definately made some mistakes in regards to gay issues he also, in the end, got two of the big three (hate crimes, DADT, ENDA) accomplished. But on the GOP side there are two candidate who are actually pretty good on gay issues, including one candidate who is openly gay. Gov Gary Johnson of New Mexico favors federal civil unions though I don't know his stance on ENDA. Fred Karger is openly gay and in favor of both marriage equality and ENDA. Now, admittedly neither has much chance of winning the GOP nomination (both are pro choice as well) but HRC should have endorsed one or both to send an important message. Candidates who take pro gay positions will be endorsed against those who don't. I wouldn't vote for either Johnson or Karger over a Democrat but I am liberal on most other issues too. Not everyone is, and having one political party inalterably opposed to gay rights is a terrible thing. HRC missed an opportunity here. They should have endorsed in both primaries and then endorsed Obama again in the general when some other Republican won.

But my first thought was what would be the point of endorsing multiple candidates, especially if it is clear the others won't win. I guess in the end it would be personally up to her as to who she would endorse.

As I wrote here http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/05/24/have-republicans-already-lost-the-2012-presidential-election/#more-3315

but his position is the same as Obama's so if we are going to endorse Obama then we should endorse him as well.

reason HRC endorsed Obama:

“President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history”

It's likely that the organization didn't endorse a Republican candidate because their overall position on civil rights suck and they cannot be taken at their word. One cannot claim to support civil rights when advocating to dismantle the social contract.

"his position is the same as Obama's"

So is it your understanding that had Johnson been elected in 2008, he'd have had the same record as Obama? That he would have "improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history”?

Are you presuming a Johnson Presidency with the Congress Obama had, if that happened he may well have had a similar record of accomplishment. The fact is HRC has endorsed GOP candidates in the past (D'Amato and Jeffords to name two) and here I think in a GOP primary they should have endorsed. Gays are hurt badly by having one party unalterably opposed to our rights. Even if Obama is better than Johnson, and he would be on ENDA for example, gays would be helped immeasurably by a Johnson win in the GOP primaries.

"Are you presuming a Johnson Presidency with the Congress Obama had, if that happened he may well have had a similar record of accomplishment."

Seems you have an idea, and it suggests that you have high hopes for him if he ever becomes President.

"Even if Obama is better than Johnson, and he would be on ENDA for example, gays would be helped immeasurably by a Johnson win in the GOP primaries."

Cheney supports gay marriage, maybe you should recruit him. He wouldn't win, but imagine the benefits!

I can easily see him lobbying for and signing an end of DADT just like Obama did. As to Cheney, on gay issues I wish the GOP took their tack. The fact is gay rights won't be secure in this country unless both parties are for it. That is the way it is in all of the countries in which we have seen full equality. Otherwise we will be at the mercy of either changing governments or changing courts.

"I can easily see him lobbying for and signing an end of DADT just like Obama did."

...now you're campaigning for him.

Maybe Planned Parenthood can endorse him because he claims to be pro-life. Never mind that he would repeal Roe v. Wade.

like they are in places such as Spain, Canada, France, Germany, and Scandenavia. What do all of those places have in common? Full or nearly full equality for gays that have or will survive conservative governance. I would love the GOP nominee to be someone supportive of gay rights. I also like Johnson on drug policy. If you want to dishonestly call that campaigning for Johnson go right ahead.

asked you to apologize. Civil rights shouldn't be a partisan issue.

The HRC issued an endorsement based on the President's record, not on hypotheticals and rhetoric.

when Obama had no record on gay rights? The positions of candidates matter. I think endorsing in the GOP primary would have been wise for the HRC.

"The positions of candidates matter."

...the only position that matters that he claims to support civil unions?

Should every organization who wants out of Afghanistan and Iraq endorse Rand Paul because he claims to be anti war?

Seriously, what is the issue here? You actually believe that HRC should base their decision solely on a claim?

Do you think an endorsement is for the strongest candidate and the runner up (as you believe Johnson to be)?

If another Democrat decided to primary Obama, should HRC endorse Obama, the Democratic challenger and your GOP favorite, Johnson?

Does Johnson's overall position on civil rights matter to you?

if they were equal or nearly equal then endorse Obama, but if you had a clearly better from a gay rights perspective candidate then endorse that candidate. I think Obama's record should let him win both ties and close calls. I think in the general Obama should get the nod. As to your other question. I don't know all of Johnson's positions on civil rights but if we were to end the war on drugs that alone would be a huge civil rights coup given the disproportionate impact it has on minorities.

So why are you insisting that HRC endorse him?

not a civil rights organization. I don't think if Johnson is actively opposed to civil rights like say Rep Paul, he should be endorsed, but if he is reasonable on them then I don't see why they shouldn't endorse.

"because it is a gay rights organization not a civil rights organization. "

...that's brilliant!

"I don't think if Johnson is actively opposed to civil rights like say Rep Paul, he should be endorsed, but if he is reasonable on them then I don't see why they shouldn't endorse."

So you went from calling for an endorsement, to admitting you don't know his positions, to now stating that these position's don't really matter as long as they're not as bad as Paul's?

Why not just admit that this, “President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history,” is what's bothering you?

Can't have that out there, have to try to justify why a Republican with questionable positions on civil rights should also be endorsed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because as long as one party is unalterably opposed to my rights I am stuck with any Democrat who wins the nomination no matter who two faced they may be on gay issues. the fact is I voted for Obama pretty much only because the GOP is so horrible on gay issues. I didn't trust him at all on gay issues for frankly quite valid reason. He had no discernible personal relationship with gay people, had shown practically no interest in gay issues, refused to be interviewed by gay press, and had a series of anti gay preachers at important events. Incidently, in 1992 we were faced with the exact same problem. Clinton had a sketchy record and Gore an awful one but we had to vote for them because of the terribleness of the GOP. Gays lucked out that both turned out to be reasonably decent, not perfect but decent, on gay rights. But imagine how much easier our lives would have been if because the GOP actually had a wing of reasonable people on gay rights we could count on say ten GOP votes to repeal DADT in the Senate. We wouldn't have the stupid certification process we have now (to appease Byrd and Webb). We don't have that in part because we ignore GOP candidates who take pro gay risks even in GOP primaries.

though the reason why isn't entirely clear.

I want politicians literally fighting to see who is most pro gay rights just like they fight now over who is most pro Israel. That won't happen as long as one political party is left to the curb.

"That won't happen as long as one political party is left to the curb."

The Republicans, not HRC, decide their platform. Insisting that HRC endorse a candidate with questionable civil rights positions is absurd.

From one of your previous comments: "I think in the general Obama deserves the endorsement over any of them but in the primary I think HRC should pick the best candidate on gay rights who has a shot of winning the nomination."

The organization did just that.

about supporting a state sponsored marriage license? whether pro or anti gay marriage. He is taking the populist position and not the libertarian one.

his position is civil unions for all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry but being right on 1 major issue does not warrant Democrats showing you any kind of favor for the office of President. I only want to see Democrats endorsing 1 candidate for President and thats the Democratic nominee, which I'm 99.999% sure will be Barack Obama and thats the only person I want to see Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat that still wants to be called a Democrat endorsing for President.

I was like WTF (and not the Win the Future kind).

My bad.

tunes as they are forced to follow the Right wing religious pledge. President Obama has shown through his actions that he is working to improve the lives of LGBT folks. What have the Repugs done? Nothing but attack the LGBT folks.

who challenge the GOP on these issues.

When did HRC become "we"?

HRC isn't going to endorse him. Again, people endorse the candidate whose record they support and who they want to win. Johnson is a Republican with questionable positions on a lot of issues. He doesn't deserve an endorsement from anyone.

I pay a membership each year for that priviledge so sue me. Letting one party be the repository of our issues will lead to exactly what pro choice people are facing now. Nearly 40 years after a court case that allegedly ended the issue you see state after state passing restrictive laws.

"Nearly 40 years after a court case that allegedly ended the issue you see state after state passing restrictive laws."

Yet you're advocating that the HRC endorse a candidate who would support the states on this issue.

Progress on this issue would likely have been further along had Clinton not supported DOMA in the 1990s. Still, there has been progress. In fact, this year for the first time, a majority of the public now supports gay marriage. No doubt that by declaring DOMA unconstitutional and indefensible, the administration will help to achieve more progress.

without sizable support in both major parties, and given the amount of pro choice sentament in the GOP even with it, a court case won't last forever. BTW either you or Johnson are wrong about his position on abortion. He clearly states that women should make the decision up to viability which is what Roe v Wade says.

BTW either you or Johnson are wrong about his position on abortion. He clearly states that women should make the decision up to viability which is what Roe v Wade says.

...now you're advocating for him on this issue?

Weekly Standard



What a guy!!!!

Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.

clearly he is double dealing here. Incidently his position on civil unions is Obama's too so to the extent it is wrong they are both wrong.

:rofl:

"Incidently his position on civil unions is Obama's too"

Obama said marriages should be left to the "church"?

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ludicrous!

"So under Johnson, I would have all the legal rights of straight couples and a church wedding, while under Obama I would have the lesser legal status of civil union. Again, I was actually trying to be nice, you should have not been snide."

So you actually want Johnson to become President?

because I disagree on alot of other things Johnson would do. But on that one issue, he actually, is better than Obama. I also think that civil unions for all would end up being less popular that allowing gays to marry would be making Johnson's position impractical. But in theory his system would treat gay couples more equitably than they would be treated under what Obama envisions. You can post blue links until the sun dies out, and I am pretty sure you will, but facts are facts and the fact is civil unions for all is more equitable that marriage for straights and civil unions for gays.

because you were disappointed that HRC endorsed Obama and not Johnson, and you clearly have no idea what Johnson's positions are.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I actually do have an idea of what Johnson's positions are. "

"I don't know all of Johnson's positions on civil rights"

Do you know what your positions are?

Honestly I don't know his position on every issue. I would bet the HRC doesn't know Obama's on every issue either. Frankly I don't know Obama's position on the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine, do you? That is a civil rights issue, you know. As to the particulars of his civil rights stance, honestly I don't know. I would guess he isn't a fan of affirmative action but I don't know for sure. That is a huge minus to me. I do think his position on the drug war would be a huge civil rights gain since the poor and minorities are targeted way more than the rich and the white. Ending the drug war would make a whole class of people employable who currently aren't. That is a pretty big plus.

I would bet the HRC doesn't know Obama's on every issue either."

The HRC likely knows more about Johnson's positions than you do. In fact, it's obvious that HRC knows more about Obama's position than you do.

It's still not clear why you're insisting that the group endorse a candidate who would roll back civil rights.

Roe v Wade isn't a civil rights case, it is women's rights. You have not shown Johnson would do anything to civil rights, I am not saying I know for sure he wouldn't but you haven't shown he would. Oh, and what is Obama's position on crack vs powder?

Huh?

Oh my!

dsc: "Roe v Wade isn't a civil rights case, it is women's rights."

Wow. That's revealing, isn't it?

you may not like that but it does. If you were referring just to roe v wade you should have said so. Just like, incidently, I would clarify that I meant gay rights if I did when asking a candidate's position even as I think civil rights and gay rights are the same thing.

"Oh, and what is Obama's position on crack vs powder?

FYI:

I knew it had been lowered but didn't know he had lobbied to remove it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Personally, I don't give a shit about Republicons. If I did, I wouldn't be at a pro-Democratic forum.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.