Which Pro-2A Candidate in MA Special Election Senate Race?

dans said:
So assume I vote for Winslow and he wins the republican primary. In this state the only way he can win is if he is running against a pedophile or Martha Coakley. My goal is to help that happen.
Click to expand...

Since the Dems are putting up Markey (he is going to waltz to victory on Tuesday), and not a pedophile (at least that we know of) or Marsha Jokely, I see Markey winning this election easily. Even though most of the people on this board that live in NH probably have spent more time in MA in that past week than Count Markula has in the past 30 years. [thinking]

If you are a commie liberal and have the backing of the special interests in this state, all you need is a pulse to convince the sheep to vote for you. Granny Warren proved this fact in November.
 
Acujeff said:
GOAL/NRA Rating
F Rep. Edward Markey D
F Rep. Stephen F. Lynch D
A+ Daniel B. Winslow R
100% Michael J. Sullivan R
NR Gabriel E. Gomez R

Though Lynch may be a better "person/politician" than Markey, they both present the same threat to the RKBA if nominated for Senator. Gomez is pretty much the same threat - publically supporting Obama and the Dems gun control proposals. So if gun owners don't want an election race between an anti-2A Democrat and an anti-2A Republican, we need to pay attention to getting Winslow or Sullivan nominated. If we split the Republican vote - Gomez will likely get the nomination.

Winslow and Sullivan both claim to be the more pro-2A candidate but they seem to have about the same pro-2A record and positions. Sullivan looks like he has a better financed and more aggressive campaign than Winslow, and may have a better chance against either Democrat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they both have the same positions. I believe Winslow said he would have supported the Senate background check bill where Sullivan said he opposed it. I think we need to be suspicious of any R that has an endorsement from the Globe.

Senate primary endorsement: Dan Winslow for GOP - Editorials - The Boston Globe
 
southshore said:
I'm not sure they both have the same positions. I believe Winslow said he would have supported the Senate background check bill where Sullivan said he opposed it. I think we need to be suspicious of any R that has an endorsement from the Globe.

Senate primary endorsement: Dan Winslow for GOP - Editorials - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...

Re:Dan Winslow - "In the Senate campaign, he’s broken with much of the national GOP on gun control and environmental protection, though on neither issue does he go as far as most elected Democrats: He wants to claim the center ground, and declares that the Massachusetts Senate race will be the first step in remaking the national Republican Party.

If that sounds familiar, it is: Winslow’s politics bear some resemblance to those of Scott Brown, whom Winslow advised. Brown’s willingness to seek bipartisan solutions was widely admired — even though he ultimately lost by 8 points to a Democrat who promised to be a stronger advocate."

So, basically, the Globe recommends Winslow as a "Scott Brown" RINO who they would be perfectly happy for him to lose to a "stronger advocate" which is any Democrat on the ballot.

The same Globe editorial criticizes Sullivan as "too conservative". That's a good endorsement as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
Acujeff said:
Dan Winslow - "In the Senate campaign, he’s broken with much of the national GOP on gun control and environmental protection, though on neither issue does he go as far as most elected Democrats: He wants to claim the center ground, and declares that the Massachusetts Senate race will be the first step in remaking the national Republican Party.
Click to expand...

As we've seen other Republicans who flipped, this is what worries me. Being in the center means no dedication. I think I've heard that center ground and change thing before and it sounded a lot like Obama.

Acujeff said:
If that sounds familiar, it is: Winslow’s politics bear some resemblance to those of Scott Brown, whom Winslow advised.
Click to expand...

I'm also not voting for anyone that wrote Scott Brown's playbook. I might as well say, "I support Feinstein." 'nuff said.

Scott Brown backs assault gun ban - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com

and if that don't break it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/gun-control-advocate-bloomberg-backs-sen-scott-brown/

Oh wait, there's more!
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...hlil-byrd-and-dan-winslow-where-are-they-now/

Also Winslow in the past has even used the word, "anti-life" which was far more offensive that "pro-choice" and people have called him out on it.

Now lets put him in bed with Bloomberg.
http://www.boston.com/politicalinte...-king-maine/gwmqapv4yFsBDQFuB5sGBL/story.html

Have fun guys!
 
Last edited:
vipprimo said:
Also Winslow in the past has even used the word, "anti-life" which was far more offensive that "pro-choice" and people have called him out on it.
Click to expand...

Actually, Winslow is the only pro-choice candidate on the Republican side. Sullivan wants to repeal Roe v. Wade.

As for the Globe, I wouldn't expect them to understand a distinction between Brown and Winslow that rests on the latter's respect for the Constitution. I didn't vote for Brown (or his Democratic opponent) either time he ran. But I'm happy to cast my vote for Winslow.

Edit: Winslow has also been endorsed by the Boston Herald. But it's important that he's liked and respected by the liberal-dominated media. Sullivan, on the other hand, will be ripped apart as a Bush Republican and anti-choice extremist.
 
Last edited:
Sullivan wrote:
My opponents cannot claim nearly the same record of support for this constitutionally granted right. #####[/QUOTE said:
This guy is a lawyer and believes the constitution grants the right to bear arms?

I don't believe it matters which one we pick. They will all turn on us eventually.
Click to expand...
 
Winslow has been a victim of at least 2 attacks on his family. (Back when he was a judge)
He understands the RKBA.
Gomez, has hired most of Browns campaign staff, and his 'playbook' He is basically Brown, only browner.
 
Winslow or bust for me with Fishman out, I can't vote for a social conservative like Sullivan, and a social conservative like him can't win the general election anyway.
 
LR2a said:
Sullivan wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. He was also appointed by Bush (twice) and worked for Ashcroft. Dems will have a field day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Sullivan does have the potential to carry white, suburban Catholics. That's the "swing" demographic in MA.

Anyone who thinks Gomez has a shot is delusional. I thought he was running in the Democratic primary anyway...
 
LR2a said:
Actually, Winslow is the only pro-choice candidate on the Republican side. Sullivan wants to repeal Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
Seeking a repeal of Roe doesn't mean a person is per se pro-life. I actually know quite a few people who are pro-choice but think Roe was wrongly decided.
 
I'd like to see a majority of gun owners in MA all get behind one candidate. We'd need all our numbers focused in one spot or we won't stand a chance in this state
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Seeking a repeal of Roe doesn't mean a person is per se pro-life. I actually know quite a few people who are pro-choice but think Roe was wrongly decided.
Click to expand...

Very true. I should have specified that Sullivan is pro-life and is being supported by social conservative activists. Add to that his Bush connections and I think you have a candidate who will be very easy for Democrats to run against. With an open seat opportunity like this, I think we'd be crazy to not go with Winslow. Winslow is also the more pro-liberty candidate -- that's a win-win, in my opinion.
 
John Haxx said:
I'd like to see a majority of gun owners in MA all get behind one candidate. We'd need all our numbers focused in one spot or we won't stand a chance in this state
Click to expand...

I don't think we're going to decide it in the Republican versus Republican battle, but whether Sullivan or Winslow wins it I will be voting for that winner.

I think our desired effect here is to make sure Gomez doesn't take it and I think we're good there.
 
LR2a said:
Very true. I should have specified that Sullivan is pro-life and is being supported by social conservative activists. Add to that his Bush connections and I think you have a candidate who will be very easy for Democrats to run against. With an open seat opportunity like this, I think we'd be crazy to not go with Winslow. Winslow is also the more pro-liberty candidate -- that's a win-win, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm still up in the air but definitely leaning Sullivan. What in your opinion makes Winslow the more pro-liberty candidate. Is it Sullivans endorsement of the Patriot Act? Not sure where Winslow stands on that.
 
southshore said:
I'm still up in the air but definitely leaning Sullivan. What in your opinion makes Winslow the more pro-liberty candidate. Is it Sullivans endorsement of the Patriot Act? Not sure where Winslow stands on that.
Click to expand...

For an apples-to-apples comparison, look at their positions on the treatment of bomber #2. Sullivan wanted to give him a military detention before trying him as a civilian. Winslow said we could only treat him as an enemy combatant if he was a member of Al-Qaeda. While I have my questions about both positions, Winslow's was at least based on Supreme Court precedent. At a time when many Republicans were demanding that we keep the bomber away from a judge, I think it's significant that Winslow was instead concerned with following Constitutional law.

On drones, all of the candidates claim to "stand with Rand," but Winslow has been more vocal about privacy concerns in general. He's also the only candidate to question whether our foreign use of drones is making us more enemies than friends. Winslow also wants to end the war in Afghanistan. Sullivan, on the other hand, seems to support a more activist role for our government overseas.

On crime, Winslow sees the war on drugs as causing more harm than good -- he wants to legalize marijuana and revisit other drug laws.

Winslow is hardly a Ron Paul republican, but he's clearly more concerned with following the Constitution and questioning government than are most Republicans. I'd vote for Sullivan over Markey or Lynch, but I'm just not excited about putting one more "me too" Republican in the Senate. I think a lot of MA voters would feel the same way, even if their feelings have more to do with Sullivan being a social conservative.
 
Here is the thing. The "Gun Lobby" needs to stand behind one candidate.

By standing as one, we can show EVERY candidate that we can be a voice (a special interest group if you will)

With Winslow, if we lose, we still have support in the state house. With Sullivan, he will go back to Lawyering.

Regardless of the primary, If we want to be a group worth pandering to, we need to form up.

I like Winslow, I met all 3 candidates, and Dan is the most genuine.
 
LR2a said:
For an apples-to-apples comparison, look at their positions on the treatment of bomber #2. Sullivan wanted to give him a military detention before trying him as a civilian. Winslow said we could only treat him as an enemy combatant if he was a member of Al-Qaeda. While I have my questions about both positions, Winslow's was at least based on Supreme Court precedent. At a time when many Republicans were demanding that we keep the bomber away from a judge, I think it's significant that Winslow was instead concerned with following Constitutional law.

On drones, all of the candidates claim to "stand with Rand," but Winslow has been more vocal about privacy concerns in general. He's also the only candidate to question whether our foreign use of drones is making us more enemies than friends. Winslow also wants to end the war in Afghanistan. Sullivan, on the other hand, seems to support a more activist role for our government overseas.

On crime, Winslow sees the war on drugs as causing more harm than good -- he wants to legalize marijuana and revisit other drug laws.

Winslow is hardly a Ron Paul republican, but he's clearly more concerned with following the Constitution and questioning government than are most Republicans. I'd vote for Sullivan over Markey or Lynch, but I'm just not excited about putting one more "me too" Republican in the Senate. I think a lot of MA voters would feel the same way, even if their feelings have more to do with Sullivan being a social conservative.
Click to expand...

Fine job dude.

I'm with Winslow. I refuse to vote for the candidate that is most likely to win, i will vote for the candidate that i feel will best represent me regardless of the assumed consequences.
 
ProGun said:
Yep, saw that debate. I am supporting Sullivan. And in another thread someone mentioned that we might be better off if Winslow remains in the MA state senate. Sullivan is pro gun, and "available"...so we won't lose a friend in the state legislature.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I have heard some comment on how in the ATF he was hard on some dealers but at least then he was ENFORCING laws on the books and not advocating new crap. That aside, I am not a fan of his Patriot Act stance, but you can't have everything...

- - - Updated - - -

OfficerObie59 said:
Seeking a repeal of Roe doesn't mean a person is per se pro-life. I actually know quite a few people who are pro-choice but think Roe was wrongly decided.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Poorly reasoned decision that infringed upon state police powers.
 
Heard an ad on WEEI while on the road this morning with Sullivan proclaiming his love for the Patriot Act, using the Marathon Bombing as his prop. No way and no thanks.
 
Last edited:
smitty216 said:
As a shooter why would you choose Lynch, or even more to the point, vote for an idividual solely based upon the letter after his name? Please do MA a favor and stay home. We already have enough blind voters.
Click to expand...

This is a primary. If a person is registered as an independent but wants a Republican, voting for the weakest D isn't a bad strategy.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
NH - Governor's race
Replies
17
Views
442
Grendizer138
Grendizer138
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Lasering and race pistols
Replies
5
Views
174
WojtekWeaponry
WojtekWeaponry
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
218
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
907
Lxpony
Lxpony
Back
Top Bottom