Those needing evidence that the Human Rights Campaign thinks it knows what is in the best interest of the Gay Community can read HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg insulting Gay New Yorkers when she writes, "In many ways, this endorsement was about much more than the New York Senate race" ("D'Amato endorsement strengthens integrity,", Nov. 6, Blade). No wonder an exit poll found that 77 percent of Gays surveyed said they cast their vote for Schumer.
Stachelberg was referring to HRC's bipartisan mandate. Apparently, there are other criteria for endorsements, despite HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch's claims to the contrary, besides a candidate's record or incumbency status. "At a time when Republican leadership itself has aggressively demeaned Gay people, this endorsement has told all Republican candidates and elected officials that if they oppose the bigotry, extremism, and ignorance of their leadership, they can look to the Human Rights Campaign for support," she writes.
That support is meaningless, however, if HRC can't deliever the votes. Supporting a candidate who has lower scores because of his party affiliation is hardly evidence that an organization is bipartisan. Apparently, HRC believes in an affirmative action plan for candidates, giving them extra points based on their party affiliation.
HRC is not the only organization that has faced a difficult decision that could divide its membership. When the National Organization for Women leadership was divided on what position to take in the Clinton sexual harassment case, they asked their members. HRC never asked the New York membership their opinion. |
