08.15.2011 09:06 AM

GritChik on Hudak the So-Con

GritChik this morning, who I want to quote word-for-word:

“I’ve been posting all summer about Hudak’s record on abortion. (He’s pro-life and has pledged to defund abortions on a petition he first denied signing, then finally ‘fessed up to it). All summer this issue has dogged him but he stupidly refused to answer any questions from the media and now sees his party sliding in the polls, in part, because of it.

On Saturday I posted about a new pro-Conservative group that boasts Tristan Emmanuel as one of its creators. Emmanuel is a far-right evangelical preacher who is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

To wit:

In a 2005 interview with the Hamilton Spectator, Emmanuel described homosexuality as “a choice,” said that he regarded it as “the wrong choice, a bad choice,” and further argued that “the state shouldn’t sanction wrong choices.”

And:

[Emmanuel] has described homosexuals as sexual deviants.

Where am I going with this? Well, Tim Hudak’s abortion quotes, helpfully captured by the Canadian Life Coalition, also highlighted this:

Tim Hudak believes that it’s “government’s role” to ensure the success of the “traditional family.” Tristan Emmanuel, the anti-gay activist, is one of the leaders of a group whose sole purpose is to elect Tim Hudak premier of Ontario.

Hudak should be judged by the company he keeps. Elect Hudak and you’ve also given people like Emmanuel a seat at the table.”

22 Comments

  1. Brian says:

    Has Hudak endorsed Michelle Bachmann yet?

    Watch this video: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/bachmann-on-mtp.html

  2. Chamberlain says:

    This is not going to win you the election.

    • Warren says:

      I love getting election advice from Conservatives. Keep it comin’!

      • Chamberlain says:

        I am not a big-C conservative. Some consider me right of centre, others, leftist. Good luck to you my friend, I guess.

        P.S.
        This is not going to win you the election.

        • Jan says:

          Nobody admits to being a big ‘C’ conservative these days.

          • The Doctor says:

            That may be because in Canada (unlike in the US), truly big “C” conservatives are a rather rare, exotic species. E.g., try to find a right-of-centre politician in Canada who says he/she wants to get the government out of health care completely. In the US Republican Party (and certainly among Tea Partiers), that’s practically an article of faith.

        • Chamberlain Winner of the Most Arrogant Commenter Award (2011) says:

          (But at least I now know what to do with Sorbara’s mail.)

    • Mike says:

      It won’t lose it. Hudak sounds like he wants to take Ontario back to the 30’s.

      • Chamberlain says:

        Of course it will. It’s a waste of time. Warren knows what is not going to lose it is not going to win it.

        Take it for information. Or not.

    • Ted says:

      No one little piece of information will win anyone any election.

      But we sure are getting lots and lots of little pieces of information.

      They are starting to add up.

      Makes you wonder: just who would we be electing to government if Hudak wins?

  3. DL says:

    There are even more examples of scary social conservative religious crap at the federal level and no matter how much the Liberals try to beat the drums about it – it doesn’t seem to put a dent into federal Tory support. If you think Hudak’s past statements are bad – look at all the things harper has said in the past – yet no one seems to care! Or maybe the message just doesn’t have any credibility coming from the Liberals when everyone knows that the Liberal party is honeycombed with its own share of socially conservative pro-Vatican types. Remember what a farce it was in the 2006 election when Paul Martin would rant about the Tories being a threat to abortion rights and same sex marriage – always in a riding with a Liberal incumbent who was homophobic and anti-choice!

    • Jan says:

      Honeycombed? I’m a feminist and I can vote for the Liberals wiith the security of knowing my rights will not be threatened by them, even though there are a few social conservatives. I felt the same way voting for the former PC’s. Not so with the current Conservatives.

      • DL says:

        I’m not sure why you have such a soft spot in your heart for the old PCs under Mulroney – they tried (and failed) to recriminalize abortion, they went out of their way to keep persecuting gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces…there was nothing remotely socially liberal about the PCs under Mulroney. i think a lot of people are projecting something onto that government that was never there.

    • frmr disgruntled Con, now Happy Lib says:

      Up til now, Mr. Harper has never had a majority govt with which to implement his social conservative agenda……time will tell my friend, but it will soon be payback time to the socons who are the very backbone of the Conservative Party of Canada. The same thing goes for the Tristan Emmanuel’s who are supporting Mr. Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives……it may not be through govt legislation directly, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, and private members bills and “starving the beast” (a tactic commonly used by our Republican neighbours to the south) are just two ways the socon agenda will be implemented.

    • The Doctor says:

      It’s true that at that time, Tom Wappel was the most open, active and prominent opponent of abortion in Parliament. It was noteworthy how many “progressive”” Liberals at the time chose to ignore this.

      • frmr disgruntled Con, now Happy Lib says:

        It is also true that during his tenure as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, in his infinite wisdom, kept Mr. Wappel as far away from the front benches as humanly possible.
        This ensured that Mr. Wappel was speaking on behalf of himself, and his pet cause, certainly not the Liberal Gov’t……..

      • Jan says:

        And how much influence did he have? The Liberals allow people to have different views.
        Harper wouldn’t tolerate a vocal pro-choice MP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*