Stonewall DFL Split on Whether to Endorse Hatch and Otto
Stonewall DFL is in a pickle. Before and during the DFL convention, Mike Hatch avoided Stonewall DFL like the plague. Since Mike Hatch got endorsed by the DFL, they do not have the option of endorsing Becky Lourey for the primary. Their board is divided over what to do about endorsing Mike Hatch. Mike Hatch has met with the Stonewall screening committee. A source who was present at the meeting, said Hatch wants the Stonewall endorsement, but is not interested in doing anything to earn that endorsement. Hatch said that he thought his statements to the Pioneer Press were misunderstood. Recall that Hatch said this:
"As far as I know, we have identical positions on gay marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".
Source: Bill Salisbury, All Bets are on Political Clash of Titans; No Love Lost Between Pawlenty, Likely Foe Hatch, St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
November 14, 2005
Now that is pretty clear to me. Hatch says that as far as he knows, Pawlenty and Hatch have identical positions on gay marriage. If he was misquoted by the Pioneer Press, then Hatch has the obligation to request a correction. As far as I know he has not done so.
Stonewall is in a similar predicament with Rebecca Otto. Otto apparently came to a Stonewall caucus meeting and cried, and said she was sorry for her vote in favor of the Bachmann amendment. Wellstone did a similar thing a few years back, and Stonewall accepted it. It will be interesting to see if they accept this from Rebecca Otto.
Both Otto and Hatch got acceptable ratings and so were able to ride in the Pride Parade.
As I said, Stonewall DFL is in a pickle. Do they be team players for the DFL, and be a DFL organization, that has no responsibility to the gay community to distinguish between the wheat and the chaffe - or do they stand on principle, and be called disloyal or worse?
Personally, I think Stonewall should ask the Hatch and Otto campaigns help come up with ways for them to defend their endorsements to the gay people who give them grief for the endorsement.
This reminds me of the very divisive internal deliberations within Log Cabin Republicans in 2000 about endorsing Bush.