|
Answer the question, please
Thursday, Sep 20, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller * Click here and scroll down to read the transcript, and watch below to see how Erika Harold refused for about four minutes to offer a straight answer to a simple question about her stance on gay marriage… Painful. * The problem for Harold is she filled out an Illinois Family Institute questionnaire in 2014 and gave an interview to the Champaign News-Gazette in 2013 that say something quite different than what she’s saying now. Perhaps you think that’s “old news.” OK, but here’s what she said she believed just a few years ago…
People can change their minds. But Harold will only say today that she supports the law of the land. Laws can always be changed, however, and a constitutional amendment (which she supported) would obviously overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage.
|
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
“We hear you not answering our question.”
LOL.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 2:41 pm:
And the big problem here is state AGs can- and routinely do- file amicus briefs in support or opposition to positions up before SCOTUS. So it’s just not enough to say she supports the law. She can be an active part of changing the law.
- Texas Red - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 2:48 pm:
Many people have been opposed to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act based on religious exemption issues rather than on sexual orientation.
- Anonymiss - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 2:59 pm:
I don’t hear her saying that though, @Texas. Or saying anything really.
- Earnest - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:01 pm:
Until I have more information from her, I’m going to equate “it is the law of the land” to Ives’ “Gay people have the same rights as everyone else.”
https://capitolfax.com/2018/03/13/strangest-year-ever/
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:04 pm:
Ridiculous. Whose bright idea was it to dodge on this one? Just shows that you can’t be trusted by supporters or opponents.
- Anon - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:07 pm:
It does not matter the number of Amicus briefs AGs file from across the country; it’s up to SCOTUS rule period.
- SinkingShip - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:11 pm:
===- Texas Red - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 2:48 pm:
Many people have been opposed to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act based on religious exemption issues rather than on sexual orientation.===
The post included a link, which states: Federal candidates were asked if they Support or Oppose: (5) Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (S. 815) grants special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. Harold responded that she was opposed.
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:13 pm:
Only Erika could turn softball talk show host John Williams into sounding like he’s Mike Wallace or Sam Donaldson.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:16 pm:
Two radio hosts apologizing for piling on and asking the same question over and over again to Erica Harold because she did not give them the soundbite they were looking for.
Erica Harold, if she was Attorney General could not change or write laws and would be constitutionally obligated to enforce the law whatever it is.
The Kwame ad about her supporting firing gay people because they are gay is ludicrous.
Meanwhile the hosts ignore the issues the Attorney General could actually effect.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:28 pm:
===Attorney General could not change or write laws===
You truly are completely clueless.
- Leslie K - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:36 pm:
===Ridiculous. Whose bright idea was it to dodge on this one?===
Totally agree. Everyone knows she opposes gay marriage. Own your beliefs, then pivot to “but my job is to uphold the law…” She could have even tried to use Raoul’s ad against him by saying “my opponent has admitted he will let his personal beliefs dictate what he does as AG.” Instead she just looks like a coward to those who agree with her and untrustworthy to those of us who do not.
- Duopoly - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:36 pm:
The IL AG has a history of supporting certain types of non-sexual orientation employer wrongdoing while declining to defend or support any adverse employment actions against LGBTQ employees.
- illini - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:43 pm:
“People can change their minds” is absolutely correct, Rich.
However, as we are discovering, yet again, in this campaign season many are parsing their words and purposefully attempting to deflect their record as well as their previous positions or their voting records.
Is it not understandable why so many voters are totally turned off by the political ads and less than truthful statements we are hearing now?
Consider this to be yet another example of political expediency by some of our candidates in the hopes of deluding and decieving the voters.
- B-non - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
===Attorney General could not change or write laws===
Wrong. If you listened to the Sun-Times debate, Kwame said that AG Madigan got more legislation passed while she was AG than when she was state senator.
- Moby - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:54 pm:
== Erica Harold, if she was Attorney General could not change or write laws…. ==
Can’t anyone “write laws”?
- Nick Name - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
===Own your beliefs, then pivot to “but my job is to uphold the law…”===
Exactly. Pro-choice politicians have been doing this for decades: “I’m personally opposed to abortion but…”
Seems to work pretty well for them.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:58 pm:
==Erica Harold, if she was Attorney General could not change or write laws==
False. The AG’s office has an active Legislative Liason Department that both drafts bills the AG would like to see passed and lobbies legislators. In addition, the AG is empowered to file, join, or file amicus briefs in law suits challenging state or federal law.
- DarkHorse - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 3:59 pm:
Harold is smart, but her non-answers are dopey, so I’m guessing the high priced advisors Rauner has floated on her are responsible for these silly evasions.
- Real - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:12 pm:
Two radio hosts apologizing for piling on and asking the same question over and over again to Erica Harold because she did not give them the soundbite they were looking for.
-Ummm her refusing to answer the question is worst than any soundbite.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:14 pm:
If Erika Harold wins the Attorney General race, I doubt she would have as much luck influencing legislation with Speaker Madigan as Lisa did
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:14 pm:
Can’t give a “straight” answer…made me chuckle.
She appears as a poor evader?
Her former statements are reprehensible on her face…She stated her actual opinions regarding sexual orientation as disqualifying …and now she has to face the public at The Voting Booth…and that’s the straight truth.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:21 pm:
=Meanwhile the hosts ignore the issues the Attorney General could actually effect.=
This has to be on purpose, nobody is this obtuse by accident. I am more and more convinced you are in the Rauner bunker.
Umm, gay marriage is an important issue to many voters. The state AG’s can have tremendous influence on the issue. Be it writing an Amicus brief, to influence the USSC or how aggressively one pursue legal action (in the AG’s case filing or not filing suit against a violator) the AG’s can have an impact.
When she says she considers it law, well no kidding since it is a law. Do you agree with it or not. A fair, valid issue even if you refuse to accept the obvious truth. As usual.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:44 pm:
==about her supporting firing gay people because they are gay is ludicrous.==
“Erika stated that she opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).”
What do you think that Act protects gay people from? Yes, she supported the idea of being able to base employment decisions on sexual orientation. You aren’t very good at any of this are you?
- Chicago 20 - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:52 pm:
- “Answer the question please.”
The question won’t be answered because the constituents can’t handle the answer.
- Steve - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 4:56 pm:
All she had to say is: a future Supreme Court might interpret the 14th Amendment in a different way. Marriage is a state issue. It’s really up to the Illinois legislature.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 5:33 pm:
–The question won’t be answered because the constituents can’t handle the answer.–
How noble, then, that she protect the proles from the power of her beliefs.
Or something like that, right?
Or. maybe, she’s just another wishy-washy politician scared to reveal her true beliefs because it will honk off the voters — until after the election.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 8:58 pm:
“They told me that if I said ‘that’s the law of the land’ you’d ask me a new question…”
– MrJM