Connect with us

News

Anti-LGBT ‘Study’ Continues Long, Dark Legacy of Right-Wing Junk Science

Published

on

‘New Atlantis’ Authors Follow in Fraudulent Footsteps of Paul Cameron, George Rekers, Mark Regnerus

The New Civil Rights Movement’s Robbie Medwed recently called attention to a new anti-LGBT “study” that appeared in The New Atlantis, which describes itself as a “Journal of Technology and Society,” and which is published by the anti-gay Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Roman Catholic organization.

As Medwed reported, the “study” — “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (pictured) — purports to show that there is no evidence that people are born gay, or that transgender kids are more successful when treated with compassionate and inclusive care.

After documenting the long record of anti-gay activism of its authors and publishers, Medwed points out that the new “study” comes with a slick video, which suggests that “far right-wing monied interests are behind it.”

Indeed, the “study” has already been widely publicized in right-wing circles, from The Federalist and The National Review to The Daily Signal and Breitbart, and has been acclaimed by homophobic ideologues such as Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, who sent out an email promoting it, absurdly proclaiming that, “Scientific Research Debunks LGBT Propaganda.”

Actually, the “study” has little to do with real scientific research. Rather, it is a prime example of anti-LGBT pseudoscience.

The purpose of the “study” is not to further knowledge or advance scientific understanding. It would never have been accepted by a respectable academic journal.

This kind of publication has no influence on real science, for despite its accoutrements of scholarship — graphs, footnotes, bibliography, etc. — it is actually a parody of real research. Its conclusions were reached before the investigation even began. The researchers cherry-picked evidence, which they then assembled to support the preordained conclusions.

The purpose of this kind of junk science is not to persuade the scholarly community, which will immediately note its sloppy methodology and dismiss it out of hand. Instead, it is produced to provide naïve readers some quasi-respectable justifications for their prejudices and to fuel social conservative political chatter. (Any “study” that is simultaneously acclaimed by the likes of Matt Staver, Ryan Anderson, Austin Ruse and Maggie Gallagher may safely be presumed to be dishonest.)

The pseudoscience produced by right-wing ideologues is targeted toward people who are more interested in the confirmation of their biases than in the truth. They live in a fact-free world and lack the willingness or ability to distinguish real science from propaganda dressed up to look like science.

This kind of junk science also serves the purpose of providing other producers of junk science something to quote and cite as they also manufacture facsimiles of scholarship.

Thus, the Mayer-McHugh “study” will soon be quoted with approval on the National Organization for Marriage blog and the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) website (which has recently and cynically been renamed the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity), as well as by the “experts” at such hate groups as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council as they prepare their own anti-LGBT pseudoscience to be circulated in the same echo chamber that is the conservative blogosphere.

The Status of Anti-LGBT Pseudoscience

Traffic in anti-LGBT pseudoscience has a long and ignoble history, but it has existed in a curious and increasingly defensive position since the work of UCLA psychologist Evelyn Hooker in the 1950s and 1960s challenged the assumption that homosexuals are necessarily psychiatrically disordered. Her research demonstrated that the patterns of homosexuality are as varied and as complex as those of heterosexuality and that one cannot distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on the basis of emotional and psychological adjustment.

Although the research studies by Hooker and colleagues who reached similar conclusions were fiercely contested by those who had a great deal invested in the sickness theories of homosexuality, her position prevailed and eventually became the accepted scientific view. It ultimately led to the rescinding of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders in 1973.

Since then a host of other scientific studies have replicated Hooker’s conclusions and extended them in a variety of areas. For example, numerous studies have verified that same-sex couples are as capable parents as opposite-sex couples. They have also documented the failure and dangers of attempts to change sexual orientation.

In reaction to the scientific consensus that emerged in the 1970s and has solidified ever since, anti-LGBT professionals retreated from mainstream scientific organizations and formed their own groups, such as NARTH and the deceitfully named American College of Pediatricians (as distinguished from the American Academy of Pediatrics, a major professional organization).

In addition, in response to the modest political gains made by the early gay liberation movement, an entire industry of anti-LGBT hate groups emerged. Often affiliated with the Christian right or with particular religious denominations, they often cloak their anti-LGBT agenda by adopting names that include “Christian” or “family” or “children” or “marriage.” They raise money by defaming LGBT people and are often aligned with more established and well-financed right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation.

These organizations are the principal purveyors of anti-LGBT pseudoscience in the United States. They perpetuate myths and stereotypes and lies in the name of religion, the preservation of “traditional values,” and conservative politics.

Three producers of pseudoscience — Paul Cameron, George Rekers, and Mark Regnerus — are profiled below. Their modi operandi help illuminate how this genre of deceit is manufactured and the obstacles posed by pseudoscience to the pursuit of equality.

Paul Cameron

One of the leading practitioners of anti-LGBT pseudoscience is the charlatan Paul Cameron, who has made a career of gay-bashing. Not only does he campaign against LGBT rights and call for the criminalization of homosexual acts, but he also attempts to buttress his dark view of homosexuality with “studies” that link homosexuality with child abuse and a reduced life expectancy.

Cameron has the distinction of having his work condemned by the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association, among others.

Cameron’s Family Research Institute, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, takes as its mission the generation of “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality,” though its research is merely the repackaging of his prejudices.

A number of real scholars have demonstrated how Cameron has manipulated his data in various ways to reach the dubious conclusions that he asserts.

Because of Cameron’s “continued demonization of LGBT people and the shoddy and suspect research methods he uses to advance his claims,” the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Family Research Institute an “anti-gay hate group.” 

In 2012, Cameron appeared on David Pakman’s talk show to discuss President Barack Obama’s support for same-sex marriage and to spew a great deal of misinformation.

Despite its having been condemned by mainstream academic associations, and thoroughly discredited by legitimate researchers, Cameron’s junk science is routinely cited by anti-gay authors and crusaders as they compile their own pseudoscience. It has even been cited in court decisions, as in a dissent in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, and in the majority decision by the Florida Supreme Court that upheld the state’s prohibition on adoption by same-sex couples in 2004.

George Rekers

Another practitioner of pseudoscience who has recently been exposed is George Rekers, who was one of the founders of Focus on the Family, a viciously anti-gay activist group, and a former officer of the ex-gay organization, NARTH.

Rekers has published a number of books extolling reparative therapy and received large funds for his anti-gay testimony as an “expert witness” in a number of high-profile court cases in which he testified that homosexuality is destructive and that gay people are unfit parents.

Rekers’ fall came in 2010, when he was discovered to have employed a male escort as a traveling companion on a trip to Europe. Although he protested that the escort was his “baggage handler,” when it was revealed that the young man was hired from the Rentboy website, Rekers’ reputation was destroyed. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, Rekers was exposed as a hypocrite. His fellow bigots in the anti-gay and ex-gay movement quickly distanced themselves from him.

But the biggest exposure of Rekers as a purveyor of pseudoscience (rather than merely a hypocrite) came later that year.

In a riveting example of investigative journalism, Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin excavated the heartbreaking real story of Kirk Murphy, who as a 5-year-old effeminate boy was subjected to treatment by Rekers when he was a graduate student at UCLA.

Rekers later used the story of his “successful” treatment of Murphy as the basis of his doctoral dissertation and, indeed, of his career. He frequently cited it as proof that homosexuality can be “cured” and used it to justify the practice of reparative therapy.

The story of “Kraig,” as Kirk Murphy was referred to in Rekers’ publications, was offered again and again as an example of how early intervention with “sissy boys” could prevent the development of homosexuality in them.

Burroway, however, discovered that Murphy had committed suicide in 2003 at the age of 38 after a life-long struggle with his sexuality. Far from having been “cured” of homosexuality, as Rekers and other reparative therapists had repeatedly claimed, Murphy was tormented by the treatment he received as a child.

A homosexual who was never able to form a lasting relationship with anyone, Murphy suffered depression and anxiety as a result of his experience.

The story of Murphy not only exposed the fraudulent claims made by Rekers and other therapists who profess to cure homosexuality, but it also graphically illustrated the lasting damage inflicted by such dangerous therapy.

Burroway’s investigation was the inspiration for a story featured on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 called “Sissy Boy Experiments,” which reached a large audience and served to discredit the ex-gay movement.

Mark Regnerus

One of the most audacious examples of anti-LGBT pseudoscience is sociologist Mark Regnerus’ 2012 “study” titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings of the New Families Structure Study,” which was published in Social Science Research and purported to prove that the children of gay and lesbian parents have adverse outcomes.

Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, had achieved something that most purveyors of pseudoscience these days do not. He managed to place his work in a supposedly peer-reviewed journal.

The “study” was immediately embraced by opponents of same-sex marriage, but serious scholars noted its flawed methodology and quickly dismissed its conclusions.

They also became suspicious that the “study” was not just poor scholarship, but, rather, a desperate and deliberate attempt to smear gay and lesbian parents and thereby provide a “rational” justification for courts to deny equal marriage rights.

That suspicion was stoked not only by the obvious methodological problems but also by the article’s unusually quick acceptance by the journal — five weeks from submission to acceptance, while submissions typically take over a year to be accepted — and by its unusually generous funding by anti-gay sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIKGXz5CIPw

The “study” was funded to the tune of almost $800,000 by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, both organizations actively opposed to marriage equality. The notorious Princeton philosophy professor Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage, sits on the boards of both institutions.

As a result of loud protests by social scientists, some 200 of whom signed a letter alleging that the paper could not have survived a rigorous review process, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, was pressured to appoint an auditor to review the way the paper was handled before being accepted for publication.

The auditor, Darren E. Sherkat, a member of the journal’s editorial board, found that “the peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems” with the paper. He also found conflicts of interest among the reviewers; stated that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process”; and criticized the author’s use of scholarship to push a political agenda.

In an interview, Sherkat described the paper succinctly: “It’s bullshit,” he said.

Documents obtained by The American Independent and NCRM contributor Scott Rose through the Freedom of Information Act later confirmed that Regnerus was funded in order to impugn the parenting skills of same-sex couples in judicial proceedings. The documents revealed that the Witherspoon Institute enlisted Regnerus to undertake the “study” in order to influence anticipated Supreme Court deliberations on same-sex marriage.

The documents also revealed that Regnerus had consistently lied about the participation of Witherspoon Institute officials in the “study.”

Regnerus’s “study” was indeed cited in briefs filed in the judicial proceedings that ultimately culminated in the Supreme Court landmark Obergefell ruling of June 26, 2015 that led to marriage equality throughout the nation, but by then attorneys for marriage equality could cite the denunciations of the “study” by leading academics and even the American Sociological Association and the Sociology Department of the University of Texas, where Regnerus teaches.

Regnerus himself testified in the Michigan marriage trial, DeBoer v. Snyder, the first full-length trial of fact on the subject of same-sex marriage after Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic Proposition 8 trial in 2010.

During the trial, Regnerus was forced to admit on cross-examination that his “study” actually said nothing cogent about the parenting abilities of same-sex couples. He also was forced to admit that his opposition to same-sex marriage was “faith-based” and had nothing to do with whether same-sex couples were good parents.

Moreover, Regnerus’s testimony was countered by such leading scholars as Harvard historian Nancy Cott, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, UCLA demographer Gary Gates and University of Michigan law professor Vivek Sankaran, scholars who pursue real reseach not pseudoscience.

In his opinion, handed down on March 21, 2014, invalidating Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, Judge Bernard Friedman eviscerated the testimony of Regnerus, which he found “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” The judge not only found Regnerus’s fraudulent “study” flawed on its face, but he also correctly perceived it as hack work intended to deceive rather than to contribute to science. “The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged,” Friedman observed dryly.

A Dangerous, Ongoing Assault

Pseudoscience is dangerous for many reasons. While it may be tempting to dismiss someone like Cameron as a crackpot, his work, as absurd as it is, has been repeatedly used to confuse and manipulate the naïve and to reassure the bigoted. It is routinely cited in other works of pseudoscience and even in legal briefs. Indeed, as the Southern Poverty Law Center reports, Cameron’s “ludicrous statistics are frequently referenced in sermons, news broadcasts, politicians’ speeches and even court decisions.”

Although now discredited as the hypocrite and fraud that he is, Rekers managed to build a prosperous career on the backs of vulnerable children. As a highly paid “expert witness” in court cases involving the neediest of children—those seeking families to adopt them — Rekers was willing for a price to argue that prospective same-sex parents were necessarily unfit.

The exposure of the tragic consequences of Rekers’ “treatment” of “sissy boy” Kirk Murphy should remind us of the real-life consequences of pseudoscience for LGBT people. The number of people who have been driven to depression and even suicide as a result of reparative therapy can only be imagined.

The academic fraud perpetuated by Regnerus and his paymasters may not have succeeded in the way they hoped, but they managed to corrupt the system of scholarly publication, including the peer review process itself. Luckily, Regnerus’s “study” was quickly debunked, but neither he nor the editor of Social Sciences Review or those who colluded in the fraud have been held to account for their disgraceful actions.

Moreover, even though the Regnerus “study” has been debunked, it has nevertheless been used to justify discriminatory legislation both in the United States and abroad, including Russia, where it inspired laws prohibiting adoption by LGBT people and a bill mandating the removal of children from the custody of homosexual parents.

Opponents of equality have shown little scruple as they have resorted to behavior that is unethical and disgusting. Their penchant for lying about our lives says far more about them than about us.

It is sad but necessary to observe that many — perhaps most — of the groups and individuals who so regularly produce or promote anti-LGBT pseudoscience are religious. They seem to think that they have a special dispensation to lie about and defame us in the name of their religious beliefs. Quite apart from the fact that “bearing false witness” violates the tenets of their religion, their strategy is self-defeating, for their unethical behavior alienates not only LGBT people but many of their co-religionists as well.

We need to be suspicious of so-called “studies” of homosexuality and LGBT people. We need to ask hard questions about publishers and authors and funding agencies before accepting scholarship as legitimate. As David Hart has observed in his blog The Slowly Boiled Egg, “Research is published to double-blind peer reviewed scholarly journals. Everything else is bullshit.”

The dissemination of anti-LGBT pseudoscience also needs to be seen as part of the larger assault on science that has occurred in the country recently. Corporations routinely attempt to buy influence in the hiring of university faculty and in shaping research agendas by funding pet projects and preventing research in areas like climate change or industrial pollution. Truth itself has increasingly become negotiable as conspiracy theories abound and a gullible public seems willing to believe the most outrageous assertions.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Democrats Rake in a Quarter-Billion Dollars in 24 Hours After Biden Exits Race

Published

on

The floodgates have opened after President Joe Biden’s selfless and historic decision to end his re-election campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for President on Sunday. Democrats across the country are opening their wallets and sending a mountain of money to Democratic groups, especially the Harris for President campaign. In total, nearly $250 million to Democrats in the first 24 hours, including a historic $81 million directly to Harris for President, the campaign has announced.

ActBlue, which acts as the fundraising platform for Harris for President, and many other Democrats, on Sunday alone took in almost $67 million, according to a third-party ActBlue tracking program. President Biden’s announcement was made around 2:00 PM ET that day.

On Monday, as of 3:30 PM ET, ActBlue has taken in another $35 million – for a 25-hour total of over $100 million.

By comparison, on Saturday, the platform took in just under seven million dollars. Sunday is listed as ActBlue’s highest single day ever.

READ MORE: Anti-Harris Propaganda Begins, Expert Cites Kellyanne Conway as Example

(The ActBlue tracker cautions: “ActBlue is a fundraising vehicle for Democratic candidates and campaigns, state-level committees and progressive nonprofit organizations who are also using this moment to ask for support,” and adds, “the picture will become clearer once ActBlue and the recipients file their own campaign finance reports.”)

In addition to the $100 million infusion Democrats just received, Politico reports, “Future Forward, the flagship super PAC blessed by President Joe Biden, received $150 million in new commitments from major Democratic donors in the 24 hours since the president announced he would step aside from the race.”

“Future Forward already had $122 million on hand as of the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission filings.”

That means approximately $250 million – about a quarter of a billion dollars – was just added to the coffers of Democratic campaigns, including Kamala Harris’s, and PACs.

The Harris for President Campaign announced Monday afternoon it had taken in $81 million in its first 24 hours.

READ MORE: RFK Jr. and Trump Explored Endorsement Deal in Exchange for Administration Post: Report

“Team Harris raised $81 million in its first 24 hours, adding to the existing near quarter-of-a-billion dollar war chest already amassed this election cycle,” the campaign said in a press release. “This haul reflects money raised across the campaign, Democratic National Committee, and joint fundraising committees. This surge of support is also accompanied by numerous endorsements from federal and state elected officials as well as major Democratic and advocacy groups united in the effort to defeat Donald Trump this November.”

Inside those numbers, the campaign notes, are more than “888,000 grassroots donors” who “made donations in the past 24 hours, 60% of whom made their first contribution of the 2024 cycle.”

“Team Harris’ 24-hour raise is the highest 24-hour raise of any candidate in history,” according to the campaign. “In the last 24 hours, Team Harris has added 43,000 new recurring donors, with over half of these recurring donors signing up for weekly donations.”

“A call on Sunday evening hosted by Win with Black Women raised approximately $1.6 million in grassroots contributions alone,” the campaign also noted.

The Daily Beast’s Roger Sollenberger, pointing to the campaign’s press release, observes, “If these numbers are accurate, more than 532,000 people just made their first Biden/Harris donation of this election cycle.”

On top of all that, The Daily Beast reported late Sunday night a small Super PAC tied to former Trump UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Haley Voters for Biden, has now become Haley Voters for Harris.

READ MORE: Where Kamala Harris Stands on Securing Dem Endorsements and Cash After Biden Announcement

 

Continue Reading

News

RFK Jr. and Trump Explored Endorsement Deal in Exchange for Administration Post: Report

Published

on

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seen by some as a spoiler whose candidacy could help Donald Trump, held talks with the ex-president after the assassination attempt, reportedly discussing an endorsement in exchange for a position in a second Trump administration.

Late Saturday evening on July 13, hours after a 20-year old man shot at Trump, apparently causing a bloody ear while killing a Trump supporter and wounding two others at a Pennsylvania rally, Trump and Kennedy spoke by phone. During that call, The Washington Post reports, the two presidential candidates agreed to meet the following week in Milwaukee, on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Audio and video of that Saturday night call was “leaked” by Kennedy’s own son, prompting the anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist to publicly apologize to Trump, as NCRM reported last week.

In that video, Donald Trump could be heard telling Kennedy, “I would love you to do stuff and I think it’d be so good for your and so big for you. And we’re gonna win. We’re way ahead of the guy.” It was not clear in what context Trump meant “do stuff,” although he could have possibly meant endorse Trump, or hand Kennedy a post in his administration.

READ MORE: Where Kamala Harris Stands on Securing Dem Endorsements and Cash After Biden Announcement

The two candidates’ discussions on Monday, “included possible jobs that Kennedy could be given in a second Trump administration, either at the Cabinet level or posts that do not require Senate confirmation. The discussion also included the prospect of Kennedy leaving the race and endorsing Trump, the people said,” The Post reported.

“The discussions surprised Trump and his aides. But there were concerns among some Trump advisers that Kennedy — a fervent critic of vaccines — would not be appropriate in such a job and that such an agreement could be problematic, the people said. Two of these people did not rule out the campaign eventually wanting Kennedy in the fold or potentially giving him a job in the administration if Trump wins.”

They also “did not result in an agreement amid concerns in Trump’s orbit about the complications of promising a job in exchange for a political endorsement, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.”

“Whoa,” remarked Democratic strategist Lis Smith, responding to The Post’s reporting. Kennedy “offered to endorse Trump in exchange for a job…the Trump people declined b/c RFK Jr was pushing too explicitly for a quid pro quo.”

Kennedy, who is an environmental law attorney, has focused on his anti-vaxx activism in recent years. The Post reports the discussion between Kennedy and Trump included him possibly “overseeing a portfolio of health and medical issues.”

“All I will say to you is I am willing to talk to anybody from either political party who wants to talk about children’s health and how to end the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy also told The Post in an interview. “I have a lot of respect for President Trump for reaching out to me. Nobody from the DNC, high or low, has ever reached out to me in 18 months. Instead they have allocated millions to try to disrupt my campaign.”

READ MORE: Anti-Harris Propaganda Begins, Expert Cites Kellyanne Conway as Example

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Where Kamala Harris Stands on Securing Dem Endorsements and Cash After Biden Announcement

Published

on

Vice President Kamala Harris, now the Democratic Party’s leading presidential candidate, said Sunday she will work to “earn and win” the nomination after President Joe Biden’s historic decision to pull out of his re-election race. In under twenty-four hours she has managed to secure the almost unanimous endorsement of House and Senate Democrats, Democratic governors, and a cash haul reportedly of over $75 million.

In the weeks after Biden’s damaging debate performance, critics demanded he prove he had the mental and physical capacity at 81 to continue the race and win the election. But even after numerous speeches and interviews, the goalposts changed, and critics pointed to his poll numbers. On Sunday afternoon in a letter he announced he would not continue his campaign. Shortly thereafter, he endorsed Vice President Harris.

Some Democrats had pushed for an open convention, with many rank and file members engaging in a kind of “fantasy football,” matchups promoting their favorite candidates for the top of the ticket and their running mates.

Fox News late Monday morning reported, “Democrats thrown into chaos as they face tight deadline to replace Biden,” but there has been little chaos.

READ MORE: Anti-Harris Propaganda Begins, Expert Cites Kellyanne Conway as Example

All of the major potential candidates who might have opposed Harris have now declared they would not run against her, making her path to the nomination, while not certain, extremely likely. Delegates will still have to choose.

Most of those major top-of-the-ticket potential candidates who have now endorsed Harris are believed to be under consideration to be her vice presidential running mate (links to endorsements): Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Governor Wes Moore of Maryland, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Late Monday morning Gov. Whitmer declined to be considered for the vice presidential slot, according to Crain’s Detroit reporter David Eggert.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, considered one of the top potential contenders for the nomination but not a potential running mate, quickly announced he would not oppose Harris and endorsed her: “Tough. Fearless. Tenacious. With our democracy at stake and our future on the line, no one is better to prosecute the case against Donald Trump’s dark vision and guide our country in a healthier direction than America’s Vice President.”

Harris also earned the endorsement of Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois, also considered one of the top candidates who might want the nomination.

READ MORE: ‘Wake Up People’: Trump ‘Elevating Criminals’ as MAGA Wants to ‘Wreck America’ Says Expert

Colorado Governor Jared Polis appeared to endorse Harris in a self-deprecating social media post.

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV), 76, endorsed Harris on Monday, after reports suggested he had called former acting DNC chair Donna Brazile to learn the process for entering the nomination race. ABC News reported Brazile told Manchin, “I had to remind him that to put his name in nomination he has to sign a form that he’s a Democrat.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer has been tracking the Harris endorsements since Sunday. Late Monday morning she writes they include: President Joe Biden, Former Secretary of State and 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and former U.S. Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, along with current Cabinet Secretaries Pete Buttigieg, Miguel Cardona, Jennifer Granholm, and Gina Raimondo.

And, “at least 33 of 47 Democratic senators,” “at least 159 of 212 House Democratic members,” “at least 18 of the 26 Democratic state and territorial governors,” “all 57 state and territory party chairs,” “all DNC delegates for Louisiana, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and South Carolina,” “SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, and too many other organizations to list here.”

“I don’t think folks appreciate what we’re seeing from the Ds right now,” observes political scientist and strategist Rachel Bitcofer. “Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro- every top tier Democrat- has put personal ambitions aside to come out and help the party coalesce around Kamala Harris.”

Political commentator Bob Cesca adds, “And they’re putting their ambitions aside for what could end up being 8 more years.”

CNN’s Haley Talbot, known for her spreadsheets, early Monday afternoon reports former President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama have yet to endorse Harris. She adds the “holdout” list includes seven Democratic and one independent U.S. Senators, just 18 Democratic U.S. Representatives, and four Democratic governors.

But key among the Democratic holdouts are Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Political commentator and writer Keith Boykin at 10:05 AM Monday, citing data from ActBlue says, “Democrats have now raised $75 million since Vice President Kamala Harris announced her campaign for president yesterday.” Clymer commented, “Vice President Kamala Harris may very well raise $100M in a 24-hour period. Flat-out bonkers sum.”

ActBlue declared Sunday, “the biggest fundraising day of the 2024 cycle.”

See the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Unmitigated Disaster’: Conservatives Stunned by ‘Clinically-Insane Trump Speech’

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.