Across The Aisle

Daily Kos: HRC idiocy

This may come as a surprise, but I don't actually agree with Kos here. Single-issue advocacy groups like HRC and NARAL only have credibility if they don't tie their fortunes to those of a political party, and they only have influence if they're willing to honor alliances where they exist. How are you going to get respect from Republicans if you demonstrate that you'll sell them out no matter what they do for you? As much as a majority is worth, it's more important to establish and nurture cross-party ties in anticipation of enjoying broad-based support.

Refusing an endorsement to Chafee would have been a pretty low thing to do. I don't think Rhode Island should be represented by a Republican, and I think he's generally a weakling unfit for national politics, but the only thing he's done to hurt gays is to support the party that openly oppresses us.

As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to refuse to support any candidate for any office. But that is not and should not be the standard that HRC is held to.

NARAL is the group that crossed a line: before endorsing Chafee, it pressured pro-life Democrat Jim Langevin (the top-tier choice) to stay out of the race. That's out of line--if it didn't intend to give the eventual Democratic nominee at least a dual endorsement if pro-choice, it should not have interfered. Democrats are within their rights to feel betrayal at this one.