OP-ED: Roraback: A Poor Choice For the Right
The following Op-Ed written by Family Institute of Connecticut President Peter Wolfgang appeared in the March 5, 2012 edition of the Waterbury Republican-American. Since not everyone has access to the Rep-Am Website, I'm producing this perfectly written Op-Ed for all to enjoy:
The state's Republican Party has made great strides in reaching out to social conservatives since Tom Foley's narrow loss in the 2010 gubernatorial race — a loss I attributed at the time to the state GOP's social liberalism. But the party establishment is about to blow it again, and the reason is Sen. Andrew W. Roraback, R-Goshen.
Party bigwigs believe Roraback's "moderate" positions make him the most electable of the Republicans running in the 5th House District. But Roraback is not a moderate.
If the Republican Party nominates its most socially liberal legislator to run in what is arguably Connecticut's most socially conservative House district, it is going out of its way to lose a race that can be won.
Most Connecticut Republicans who are "pro-choice" on abortion will at least support common-sense laws like banning partial-birth abortion or requiring underage girls to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. But not Andrew Roraback.
As late as 2008, NARAL, the pro-abortion lobbying organization, endorsed Roraback for re-election. NARAL says its "endorsement is given only to those candidates who have requested endorsement and who are deemed by the PAC to be 100 percent pro-choice." In other words, you cannot support any exceptions to abortion-on-demand.
Roraback not only shared NARAL's pro-abortion extremism, he wished to be identified with it and actually sought out the group's endorsement. Indeed, the connection between Roraback's family and the pro-abortion movement runs deep. Since 1980, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut has given out the Catherine Roraback Award, named after his cousin, to those who have made a contribution to the right to kill unborn human life.
Roraback also is the only Republican legislator in Connecticut ever to vote in favor of redefining marriage and imposing full same-sex "marriage" on our state.
Attempts to redefine marriage failed every year in the legislature, and same-sex "marriage" was only imposed on Connecticut in 2008 by judicial fiat. In 2009, the legislature, powerless to overturn the court, codified the ruling but added the strongest religious-liberty exemptions in the nation.
In 2005, the legislature passed a civil-union law with an amendment explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Roraback supported that amendment but flip-flopped in 2007, voting for full same-sex "marriage" in the Judiciary Committee. He was the only Connecticut Republican to vote in favor of full same-sex "marriage."
Connecticut's pro-family and pro-life voters have no illusions about our state's politics. At times, we will vote for candidates who are not 100 percent with us. A candidate who at least supports parental notification, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other common sense laws can gain our support.
But in the case of Andrew Roraback, the Republican establishment is asking social conservatives to vote for a candidate who is 100 percent against us. We will not do it. And if the GOP thinks social conservatives will vote for Roraback in the general election because we have no choice, they have not learned the lesson of Tom Foley.
After the 2010 election, the Family Institute of Connecticut's PAC received emails from our members thanking us for not endorsing Foley. They vote pro-life and pro-family foremost, these members told us, but if both candidates are social liberals, they will vote for the candidate least likely to cut their job as a state worker or teacher.
Those are the Connecticut voters you never hear about. They are the urban, or union, yet socially conservative voters who can make the difference in a close race. Tom Foley lost the governor's race by ignoring them in 2010. Likewise, the Republican Party will lose the most winnable congressional seat in Connecticut in 2012 if its candidate is Andrew Roraback.
Peter Wolfgang is president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action.
Mr. Wolfgang gets the heart of the matter when he describes the CTGOP's intentional abandonment of Conservatism in favor of a watered-down liberal version of Republicanism rarely found across the Fifty States as - a self-defeating strategy which has doomed Connecticut Republican candidates for the past 20 years. The facts show that genuine Reagan-era Conservatism brought us many victories in past elections due in part to it's widespread appeal to not only those on the right, but in the middle, and in some traditionally-minded Democratic circles.
Sadly, there are fewer Connecticut Republican candidates who are willing to accept the fact that social and economic policy is inevitably linked at the core. This shortsighted perspective has led to landslide victory after victory for our Democratic opponents who chuckle at the me-too antics of their socially liberal Republican opponents.
Like it or not, Andrew Roraback is a even more dangerous version of a socially-absent Linda McMahon or a Tom Foley - both of which fell short in 2010 for running to the left on social issues; choosing instead to publicly worship the golden calf while Party insiders cheered them on. Connecticut families hunger for men (and women) of good character who are willing to stand up on their behalf against the far left's anti-traditional family agenda. We want to see conservative opposition on important social issues, such as - homosexual marriage, gay adoption, legalizing drugs, NARAL extremism, and even permitting transvestites into our public bathrooms. Going a step further, Roraback opposes the Death Penalty - he would see our worst criminals spared from the justice they have earned through their horrific deeds.
Nominating anyone but an authentic Republican to represent the CTGOP on our slate in the upcoming election invites another guaranteed Democratic slaughter. Andrew Roraback is a proven liberal who'd be crushed at the polls by a disgusted electorate.
Looking around, Republicans find a U.S. Senate Candidate who happily voted for Barack Obama, another who's entire career experience is based on Pro-Wrestling, and a bunch of others who have abandoned Republican principles for wishy-washy centralism. One day, we'll get it through our heads that our failed strategy of mediocrity and emulating our opponents isn't the winning ticket. I just don't have much faith that it will be today.
I AM
THE KING
This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment.
 |
| Peter Wolfgang sets the Conservative standard while others copituate and hide |
The state's Republican Party has made great strides in reaching out to social conservatives since Tom Foley's narrow loss in the 2010 gubernatorial race — a loss I attributed at the time to the state GOP's social liberalism. But the party establishment is about to blow it again, and the reason is Sen. Andrew W. Roraback, R-Goshen.
Party bigwigs believe Roraback's "moderate" positions make him the most electable of the Republicans running in the 5th House District. But Roraback is not a moderate.
If the Republican Party nominates its most socially liberal legislator to run in what is arguably Connecticut's most socially conservative House district, it is going out of its way to lose a race that can be won.
Most Connecticut Republicans who are "pro-choice" on abortion will at least support common-sense laws like banning partial-birth abortion or requiring underage girls to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. But not Andrew Roraback.
As late as 2008, NARAL, the pro-abortion lobbying organization, endorsed Roraback for re-election. NARAL says its "endorsement is given only to those candidates who have requested endorsement and who are deemed by the PAC to be 100 percent pro-choice." In other words, you cannot support any exceptions to abortion-on-demand.
Roraback not only shared NARAL's pro-abortion extremism, he wished to be identified with it and actually sought out the group's endorsement. Indeed, the connection between Roraback's family and the pro-abortion movement runs deep. Since 1980, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut has given out the Catherine Roraback Award, named after his cousin, to those who have made a contribution to the right to kill unborn human life.
Roraback also is the only Republican legislator in Connecticut ever to vote in favor of redefining marriage and imposing full same-sex "marriage" on our state.
Attempts to redefine marriage failed every year in the legislature, and same-sex "marriage" was only imposed on Connecticut in 2008 by judicial fiat. In 2009, the legislature, powerless to overturn the court, codified the ruling but added the strongest religious-liberty exemptions in the nation.
In 2005, the legislature passed a civil-union law with an amendment explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Roraback supported that amendment but flip-flopped in 2007, voting for full same-sex "marriage" in the Judiciary Committee. He was the only Connecticut Republican to vote in favor of full same-sex "marriage."
Connecticut's pro-family and pro-life voters have no illusions about our state's politics. At times, we will vote for candidates who are not 100 percent with us. A candidate who at least supports parental notification, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other common sense laws can gain our support.
But in the case of Andrew Roraback, the Republican establishment is asking social conservatives to vote for a candidate who is 100 percent against us. We will not do it. And if the GOP thinks social conservatives will vote for Roraback in the general election because we have no choice, they have not learned the lesson of Tom Foley.
After the 2010 election, the Family Institute of Connecticut's PAC received emails from our members thanking us for not endorsing Foley. They vote pro-life and pro-family foremost, these members told us, but if both candidates are social liberals, they will vote for the candidate least likely to cut their job as a state worker or teacher.
Those are the Connecticut voters you never hear about. They are the urban, or union, yet socially conservative voters who can make the difference in a close race. Tom Foley lost the governor's race by ignoring them in 2010. Likewise, the Republican Party will lose the most winnable congressional seat in Connecticut in 2012 if its candidate is Andrew Roraback.
Peter Wolfgang is president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action.
---------------------------------------
The King's Commentary:Mr. Wolfgang gets the heart of the matter when he describes the CTGOP's intentional abandonment of Conservatism in favor of a watered-down liberal version of Republicanism rarely found across the Fifty States as - a self-defeating strategy which has doomed Connecticut Republican candidates for the past 20 years. The facts show that genuine Reagan-era Conservatism brought us many victories in past elections due in part to it's widespread appeal to not only those on the right, but in the middle, and in some traditionally-minded Democratic circles.
Sadly, there are fewer Connecticut Republican candidates who are willing to accept the fact that social and economic policy is inevitably linked at the core. This shortsighted perspective has led to landslide victory after victory for our Democratic opponents who chuckle at the me-too antics of their socially liberal Republican opponents.
Like it or not, Andrew Roraback is a even more dangerous version of a socially-absent Linda McMahon or a Tom Foley - both of which fell short in 2010 for running to the left on social issues; choosing instead to publicly worship the golden calf while Party insiders cheered them on. Connecticut families hunger for men (and women) of good character who are willing to stand up on their behalf against the far left's anti-traditional family agenda. We want to see conservative opposition on important social issues, such as - homosexual marriage, gay adoption, legalizing drugs, NARAL extremism, and even permitting transvestites into our public bathrooms. Going a step further, Roraback opposes the Death Penalty - he would see our worst criminals spared from the justice they have earned through their horrific deeds.
Nominating anyone but an authentic Republican to represent the CTGOP on our slate in the upcoming election invites another guaranteed Democratic slaughter. Andrew Roraback is a proven liberal who'd be crushed at the polls by a disgusted electorate.
Looking around, Republicans find a U.S. Senate Candidate who happily voted for Barack Obama, another who's entire career experience is based on Pro-Wrestling, and a bunch of others who have abandoned Republican principles for wishy-washy centralism. One day, we'll get it through our heads that our failed strategy of mediocrity and emulating our opponents isn't the winning ticket. I just don't have much faith that it will be today.
I AM
THE KING
This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment.
1 comment:
THANKS FOR POSTING "KING". WE ADMIRE PETER FOR HIS TENACITY AND DEDICATION ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT EFFECT CONNECTICUT FAMILIES.
GOD BLESS PETER, LESLIE, AND THE STAFF AT FIC!
NANCI
Post a Comment