Message to AFL-CIO members re: Esty: "If it was fine in 1992, then why isn't it fine in 2012?"

If members of the AFL-CIO bailed on James Lawlor in 1992 because of his HORRIBLE progressive and women's rights track record, twenty years later, when it comes to those same matters, what makes Elizabeth Esty any different?

Remember what you said in the past...Jul 30 2012:

"I thought Emily's List was a cool thing - women supporting women - but not anymore," said Julie Kushner, a Danbury resident and director of UAW Region 9A. "I'm standing up with women of the 5th Congressional District and questioning Emily's List's  endorsement of Elizabeth Esty. Esty's record on women's issues falls short -- and doesn't compare to Chris Donovan's stellar support of issues important to women."

"In 2010, when Esty had an opportunity to help school paraprofessionals, most of whom are low-wage working women, she turned her back on us and voted against legislation1 that would have allowed us to earn family and medical leave benefits," said AFT Connecticut member Jane Blakeman, a paraprofessional in Watertown. "That's not the kind of representation we need in Washington."

During her only term in the General Assembly, Esty was among a group of legislators to propose an alternative budget that would have drastically cut public services, including healthcare coverage for women and domestic violence prevention.

1 SB 300 An Act Concerning Family and Medical Leave Benefits for Certain Municipal Employees.

2 Synopsis of the Democratic Alternative Budget Plan

If it was good enough to withhold support for Lawlor 1992 then why isn't it good enough to do the same in 2012 when you have a candidate who, in the minds of many progressives, makes the winner of the Democratic primary twenty years ago look like a saint?

It should be deal, no dice.

Go to CT State Page
origin Blog: 
origin Author: 
Comments Count: 
Showing 0 comments