State’s Top GOP Lawmakers Back Pro-Abortion Candidate
August 21st, 2007 by Peter
Why do we have Democrat supermajorities in both houses of our legislature? In part, because state GOP leaders seem intent on snubbing social conservatives:
The legislature’s top two Republicans, state Sen. John McKinney and state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, will spearhead efforts in Connecticut to promote former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to the White House…
McKinney said he and Cafero will work to rally Republican Town Committees around Giuliani and help raise money…
McKinney said he was torn between supporting Giuliani and another GOP contender, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, but decided Giuliani is more moderate on social issues.
Yes, Giuliani’s “more moderate” on social issues, if “more moderate” means being pro-partial birth abortion, pro same-sex unions, pro-public funding of embryo destruction and a host of other culturally Left positions.
Guiliani is, in fact, the most socially permissive of all the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination…and at least one of our state’s top GOP lawmakers appears to support him for precisely that reason. For more on Guiliani and the moral issues visit Catholics Against Rudy.
Peter,
Thanks for this post. I never heard of Catholics Against Giuliani, but I will now be a frequent visitor to that sight.
I’ll give Giuliani one plug: at least he’s honest about his views, unlike “Flip” Romney, who has more positions than Baskin Robbins has flavors.
Neither Cafero nor McKinny are even ermotely rock solid conservatives, and more so, I think, with McKinny. Their support of Giuliani and being named satte campaign co-chairs hardly surprised me, but frankly, I’m sick and tired of this incesant drivel that a pro-life candidate cannot win statewide offfice here. Who first determined that, and by what standard? I haven’t seen anyone of any kind of real name recognition even try yet. We would all still think the world was flat if Columbus didn’t take a boat ride.
This is fear of Hillary, and once again, settling for second best, which is the eternal bane of the feckless GOP. Giuliani is even doing well in South Carolina. The pro-life plank, I beleive went into the GOP platform in 1980, or 84 or 88. But despite the ideals of the base, theparty elites have done little more than give it lip service ever since, and in some cases, even worse. In CT, our GOP doesn’t even have a platform. My, how conveinient! After several attempts of asking him, I finally got one former chairman to explain to me that they don’t wish to offend anyone. When you don’t stand for anything, you stand for nothing!
I terminated my membership in the so-called Christian Coalition for similar reasons. Candidates in the 2000 race such as Keyes, Phillips, Smith, Ashcroft, Bauer, and Buchanan had much stronger pro-life credentials than Dubya, who as Texas governor allowed for hospitals to be empowered to eutahnize long term, and expensive patients, but the CC backed Dubya because he was the fair haired boy. Party over principle. Many Republicans now are making the same mistake; agreeing to a coronated candidate rather than building their own. At the end of the day, despite their tough talk, many people are like water and tend to just seek the least path of resistance. That’s nationally speaking. In this liberal bastion that is mostly comprised of real Democrats and closet Democrats, we can reasonably expect no more, and probably even worse.
There is a conservative base among the CT GOP, but a brand new Ferrari will never serve you any pleasure if you keep it locked in the garage and never drive it because you are afraid to scratch the paint. Barring presedential years, about a 50% voter turn out is about average, and about 75% in the presedential years. Much of that apathy are voters who now stay home and vote with their feet because they are sick and tired of voting for whatever mediocre leftovers the party gives them. Forcing voters to vote for the lesser of two evils every year is not conducive to electoral passion.
Theer is a ntionwide movement now for a “NOTA”, or, “None of the Above” line on a ballot. The way it works is that if a certain percentage of the voters vote NOTA, both candidates are disqualifieed and a new election must take place a month or twio later with differnt candidates. If we have any chance of enacting such change, it would be at a Constitutional Convention, but try and get some of these career politicans to back it!
Father Corapi of EWTN once cited a suggestio from a nun that our current poor leadership may be God’s punishment for our collective societal evil.
I wouldn’t rule out that possibility, but at least part of the problem is the electorate. Until we stop obsessing over “American Idol” and start paying attention to American government, we will continue to get fleeced like the sheep clueless lemmings that we are. As the saying goes, “No one is ever voted in to office; only voted out.” That, in turn calls for the separation of butt and couch. Until more of us wake up, get up, and rally for that kind of separation, it’s just more of same old, same old.
The irony with Giuliani is that even pro-lifers, I beleive, are capitulating on thier principles because of terrorism and how Rudy walked tall on September 11th. What they forget however, is that while Giuliani did not enact New York’s sanctaury status for illegal immigrants (Koch did that), he didmainatain and defend it. Ironically, those 19 hijackers could have just as easily come from New York as anywhere else, which means that Giuliani is as equally dangerous to both the born and the unborn. Of all the GOP candiates so far (both announced and unannounced), he is the only one beating Hillary in any of the polls, and that’s only some of the polls, and usaully by a handful of points that could equate to the margin of error.
Giuliani isn’t the solution. He’s very much part of the problem, and sadly, so are many of us, the electorate.
As for the Republi-crats in Hartford, no guts, no glory. They reap what they sew, bland mediocrity. There is sound reason why a long yellow streak exists in the “middle of the road.”
Doug
I believe Giuliani has stated that we would strive to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, (and hopefully!) Roberts, and Alito. His argument being that though he is personally pro-choice, legalized abortion should be decided state by state.
I’m basing this on material I’ve read on NRO but the memory is a bit fuzzy. If you are skeptical, I’ll try to dig up the quotations.
I think this is a reasonable position and I won’t have any trouble voting for Rudy Giuliani should he win the Republican nomination.
Best,
Scott
Scott,
Be careful of what Rudy promises. Giving him due credit, he is far more of a straight shooter than “Flip” Romney, but to a far lesser degree, Rudy has also tried to somewhat modify or water down some of his issues for the campaign.
I recently read an editorial about him, and I forget where, but the writer claimed that when Rudy was Mayor of New York, he nominated some pretty radically far left judges to the city courts. To varying degreees, all these guys will tell us what they think we want to hear to get elected. I’m more interested in what they’ve done, rather than what they promise.
I am a firm beleiver in strong states’ rights and a lesser centralized federal government, as our forefathers intended. On the issue of abortion, however, I have to part company with you.
Abortion is an issue pertaining to the sanctity of life. Of all the civil rights, it is the primary civil right. Without life, we have no other rights. Remember that in the 60’s, when blacks were getting oppressed and killed in the south, the feds stepped in, not just because the states were doing an abysmal job of protecting them, but also because the civil rights of those southern blacks were being violated, and the violation of civil rights is legally within federal purview. Thus, abortion is also legitemately is a federal matter, more so than a state matter.
As a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudy knows this very well also. He is very craftfully cherrypicking his words.
Which then brings us to the next very feasable step: Rudy or Hillary?
God help us!!!!
Doug