McMahon Loses Family Institute Endorsement
by CTNewsjunkie Staff | Oct 8, 2012 2:09pm
(7) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon’s change of heart over the Defense of Marriage Act forced the Family Institute to have its own change of heart.
During and after the first televised U.S. Senate debate Sunday, McMahon said she would vote to repeal DOMA. She said her opinion of the law has changed over the past two years, but she couldn’t pinpoint exactly when.
The comment has Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute, saying his initial endorsement is no longer accurate.
“I’m still voting for Linda because her victory could mean the end of Roe v. Wade,” Wolfgang wrote on his Facebook page. “But because Linda McMahon flip-flopped and now supports a repeal of DOMA—the one federal law that stops Connecticut’s judicially imposed re-definition of marriage from being imposed on the rest of the nation—my September 18th endorsement of her is no longer accurate.”
Check out his Facebook page to see what else he had to say.
Tags: Peter Wolfgang, Linda McMahon, DOMA
(7) Comments
posted by: MGKW | October 8, 2012 4:14pm
Hi I’m Linda “the Panderer” McMahon…I will say and do anything to make sure I get elected…I have Mitt Romney on speed dial!
posted by: johns | October 8, 2012 6:12pm
A)As a freshman Senator, it is unlikely she will get out of line should DOMA come up for a vote.
B)What does that even mean when the head of some group announces that the endorsement is off but that he is still voting for her? How is that not still an endorsement?
C)If she gets elected, she won’t be voting on CT’s marriage laws, so why do we care WHO the Family Institute endorses?
posted by: AndersonScooper | October 8, 2012 6:28pm
Linda = Typical Politician
Will say or do anything and everything to get elected….
And in yesterday’s debate, the reason she gave for running for the US Senate? She’s worried her grand-kids will have a tough go of it financially! (Well, maybe if she blows their entire trust funds on a 2nd vanity run.)
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | October 8, 2012 8:06pm
Um, DOMA… support it? Repeal it? Darn, I can’t remember… which position will buy me more votes?
posted by: 17beachboy | October 9, 2012 9:14am
Putting aside the anger expressed in the posted comments - why is it when a politician changes his or her mind on a key issue are they ridiculed? Seems to me we need people representing us that are willing to learn about the issues, study them, hear what their constituents are saying, and - if necessary - change their position. Times change, people change, what can’t a politician change his or her stance on an issue? I am not by any means sticking up for Mrs. McMahon. Perhaps she came out with these new viewpoints to pander to the undecided voters. But is it ever possible for her - or any candidate/elected politician to change their mind? Wow - are we a ruthless society or what?
posted by: MGKW | October 9, 2012 10:28am
The debate really exposed MaMahon for what she is…a business person who thinks that they can easily transfer business skills to legislating. She is rehearsed, staged, stiff, and looked out of place in the debate…Murphy may be a smooth talker but intellectual ability and curiousity are requisite competencies for this job and Ms McMahon by her performance confirmed that she does not have them. It is quite obvious and should really answer the question who is qualified and who is not. Yes, Murphy is not perfect and I disagree with him on some issues (fiscal responsibility bein one)but he is knowledgeable, a quick study and is articulate…now you see why McMahon can’t sit down with the press—-she has what Romney has “foot in the mouth” disease.
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | October 9, 2012 10:57am
To 17beachboy: A politician legitimately having a change of heart or mind on an issue is one thing. McMahon tried to have it both ways: when asked her view, she said she lives in CT (trying to imply she supports CT’s law allowing gay marriage) but then said she supports “America’s law” (that would be the federal DOMA law which does not recognize gay marriage), then said she’d vote to repeal it. So what is her real position, assuming she has one? Who can tell? She’s dishonest and a panderer.