Five House Democrats from New York defended their decision to duck a vote on a resolution honoring the life and legacy of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Reps. Ritchie Torres, Dan Goldman, Grace Meng, George Latimer, and Tim Kennedy were all recorded as not voting on the resolution — a move seen as quietly avoiding taking a position and seeking cover from controversy.
Four of the five said they didn’t want to be recorded as voting no on a resolution that condemns violence and the murder of Kirk — but they also didn’t want to be on record voting yes because of some of Kirk’s views they called offensive.
“I could easily vote for a resolution that unequivocally condemns the murder of Charlie Kirk and that extends condolences to his loved ones,” said Torres, who represents the Bronx.
“But I cannot and will not vote for a resolution that romanticizes the legacy of anyone who speaks out against the Civil Rights Act of 1965—a landmark law that secured long overdue freedom for African Americans,” he went on. “We all have our red lines. For me, opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a red line.”
Goldman claimed that skipping the vote was the wisest, more prudent choice.
“I condemn political violence of any kind, including the horrific assassination of Mr. Kirk. I cannot vote no on a resolution that condemns political violence,” Goldman said.
But he added, “I do not support — and indeed condemn in the strongest possible terms — many of the hateful views Mr. Kirk espoused. I cannot vote yes on a resolution that celebrates those views. And I will not participate in an effort to use Mr. Kirk’s death for political gain.”
Stay up to date on the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk
Latimer, who represents parts of The Bronx and Westchester, said Kirk had views that he “cannot accept” — including criticizing women who use birth control and demeaning black women and affirmative action.
“I’m not going to vote `no,’” Latimer told The Post. “It’s a terrible tragedy. But I can’t endorse those kinds of things. It was an attempt to make a political point.”
For her part, Meng called political violence “unacceptable” and said Kirk’s death was a tragedy, but she said the GOP-backed resolution didn’t address “everybody’s concerns.” An alternate resolution that passed the Senate would have been a more “comprehensive” option, she said.
“I continue to pray for Charlie’s family and loved ones and the many Americans who looked up to him and are mourning his loss,” she said.
The resolution itself doesn’t specify Kirk’s views on specific policy issues other than he was a man of faith and a “fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility” and “free markets and limited government” and championed the First Amendment right to free speech.
Kennedy had no immediate comment.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other far left and progressive Democrats voted against the Kirk resolution, but House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn, Queens Rep. Gregory Meeks, and liberal Manhattan Rep. Jerry Nadler were among the NY Dems who voted “aye” along with all Republicans.
Republicans accused Democrats of being spineless.
“Democrats pretend to be the party of tolerance, but when it came time to condemn political violence and honor a man who inspired countless young Americans to fight for freedom, they refused,” said National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Mike Marinella.
“Their radical base celebrates violence, and Democrats are too weak to stand up to it.”
