Will the GOP Nominate an Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay Marriage Senate Candidate?

Michael Sullivan enters the Senate race, and his social issues offer the state party a choice.

debate

Former U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan’s candidacy in the Republican primary for the open U.S. Senate seat is going to offer the state party a chance to put into practice some of the soul searching everyone urged on them in the wake of Scott Brown’s loss last November.

The Boston Globe suggests that Sullivan, who turned in enough signatures to appear on the April 30 primary ballot Wednesday, is “seen by many analysts to be the early front-runner for the April 30 primary.” This despite the fact that he confirms to reporters at his first press availability today that he remains anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality.

The Massachusetts electorate, meanwhile, is, well, not. Among Sullivan’s rivals, Gabriel Gomez hasn’t expanded much on his political positions, but Dan Winslow, has expressed support for abortion rights and gay marriage. That means Republican voters have options. 

Nationally, Republicans have done some soul searching since November, with Karl Rove going rogue on the Tea Party by launching the Conservative Victory Project PAC to make sure the party stops letting the Todd Akins of the nation win their party primaries, thereby destroying their chances at a general election victory. In Massachusetts, Republicans wondered in November whether it’s even worth thinking about electability in a general race. Should Republicans just nominate someone who represents the national brand or someone better tailored to the Massachusetts electorate? The Globe’s conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby cast the latter option this way:

There have always been partisans, both Republican and Democrat, for whom politics is chiefly a kind of sport, with tribal loyalties and campaign playbooks and a prize to be won through shrewd tactics and subtle strategy.

Hence the endlessly-recycled nattering about the damaged Republican “brand” in Massachusetts, and how the GOP is doomed to keep losing until it rids itself of positions that are incompatible with the Bay State’s political culture. Invariably this comes down to a call for Republican candidates who are liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on fiscal issues, and generally eager to distance themselves from the national Republican Party

We’ll say this, the stark difference between Michael Sullivan and Dan Winslow on the popular social issues of the day is going to give the Massachusetts Republican electorate a chance to decide which way they’re going to go.

  • WilliamWood

    How can you say that the Massachusetts electorate is for, what you call, “marriage equality”? Our legislative and judicial overlords have done everything they could for years to prevent us from voting on it. Not exactly what one would expect from people who, well, you know, think that overwhelming popular support is behind their ideas.

    Now, if supporting a law which says any man can use a woman’s bathroom any time he wants, simply becuase he “feels like a woman” at the time, is your idea of championing the “popular social issues of the day” then sure, Dan Winslow must be your guy. Not that I think you, you know, vote Republican that often.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Janice-Valverde/507069685 Janice Valverde

    Will the GOP pick an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage candidate? Not sure yet. Will the Vatican? Duh. Of course they will. So, maybe the GOP is just ever so slightly more progressive than the Vatican. haha

  • Crusader

    Hurrah for Michael Sullivan! I look forward to making the only pro-life, pro-marriage candidate my choice. I only wish he weren’t pro-Israel.