NOM’s Chairman testifying in Congress tied IRS leaks of the NOM’s donor lists to a specific liberal group, [the pro-gay] Human Rights Campaign — One day after the NOM’s President and NOM NY PAC formally endorsed a Democrat candidate for Mayor of NYC, Erick Salgado, and pounded Mike Long’s Conservative Party for endorsing Joe Lhota, a Republican
While John Eastman, the Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, was testifying Tuesday at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee that his organization has proof that the IRS leaked confidential donor details last year, calling for prosecution into what he described as a "felony" — news was spreading around New York City of that organization’s president Brian Brown’s endorsement of Erick Salgado for mayor; and that Brown had made a very critical statement about the Conservative Party’s endorsement in the mayoral race
According to Fox News, “Eastman testified Tuesday alongside several Tea Party activists who all claim they were targeted by the IRS. The Tea Party groups offered a first-hand account of how the IRS singled them out when they applied for tax-exempt status, asking them onerous questions and dragging out their application process. ***.But Eastman shed light on another potential controversy involving the IRS -- the unauthorized disclosure of tax document information....”
The President of NOM gave detailed testimony as to how information on their donors was leaked last year and published on the website of the Human Rights Campaign.. According to Eastman, the HRC is the "principal political opponent" of the National Organization of Marriage on the issue of same-sex marriage. When asked by Congressman Paul Ryan, if he had "proof" that it was the IRS that leaked that specific material, Eastman said that he did. Eastman then testified that while some information was redacted in the posted version, his group's "forensic" specialists were able to determine that "the original document that was posted [by the HRC] had originated from within the IRS.[the HRC version] had "internal IRS stamps," which "only exist within the IRS."
According to the President of the National Organization for Marriage, “The [IRS-HRC] effort seems to have been designed to subject our donors to abuse, to intimidation and more significantly for our purposes to chill them from donating again so we can keep up the political fight that we're in the middle of.”
Still making news from the day before, many on the right in New York City politics, especially in the Conservative Party and parts of the GOP, also were surprised yesterday by the spread of the NOM’s announcement of its endorsement of Democrat Erick Salgado for mayor. "NOM is proud to endorse a candidate who has the courage to stand up for conservative principles and join us in our support of traditional marriage," NOM President Brian Brown said (See “National Organization for Marriage NY PAC Endorses Erick Salgado for NYC Mayor” release contact Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell, 6/3/13 [http://www.nomblog.com/]).
Almost as significant were the NOM’s comments about the leadership [Mike Long and Jerry Kassar] of the Conservative Party. The headline of its release late Monday, “Question Conservative Party Endorsement of Candidate ‘Excited’ to Perform Gay Marriages” showed more than a little displeasure about Mike Long’s endorsement Monday of Joseph Lhota, one of the three liberal-style Republicans running for the mayoral nomination in the GOP primary.
My discussions with a local NOM activist indicated that there might be some continued efforts by him and others to put more pressure on the Conservative Party leadership to do the right thing between now and the GOP and Democrat Party, and possibly Conservative Party, primaries in September.
5 comments:
In 2009 the Conservative Party cared about social issues and nominated Stephen Christopher.
In 2013, suddenly social issues is not a city issue.
In 1994, 1998 and 2002 the Conservative Party endorsed George Pataki even though he did not share all of that party's socially conservative positions. In certain instances, the Conservative Party will un-bundle some of their core positions to win with particular candidates.
So then what is the difference between them and the Republican Party?
As a splinter group off of the right-wing, shouldn't they stick to their principles and keep the Republican Party honest?
They are worse than the Independence Party.
The way Wilson-Pakula works in New York is corrupting to the system of free elections. It results in dirty "deals" with Third-Party old-time leaders like Long and Harding of the old Liberal Party that their members and public don't know about or get any benefit from.
I agree. The wilson-pekula needs to go. Who was the last con-servative to win an election on that line alone?
If anything the cons cause republicans to lose more often than not by running a candidate that has no shot of winning and taking votes from the republican.
This happens when the republicans don't make "deals" or monetary contributions to them and should be investigated.
Post a Comment