Friday, March 29, 2013

Senate Election Special: Who is Michael Sullivan?

Former US attorney Sullivan eyes Senate bid

Let me check his website:

"Michael Sullivan’s website borrows from past" by Eric Moskowitz  |  Globe Staff, March 12, 2013

The biography on former US attorney Michael J. Sullivan’s campaign site is his own, but, Monday afternoon, seven statements on his “Issues” page (under the headings “Debt,” “Iran and Israel,” “Jobs,” “Health Care,” “Seniors,” “Education,” and “Veterans”) all borrowed from statements on Republican Richard Tisei’s site, who lost in his bid for a North Shore congressional seat last fall.

He lost to the Democrat scum Tierney in a result that really stinks.

Sullivan’s eight-sentence statement on Iran and Israel was the same as Tisei’s, including this line: “After traveling to Israel several years ago, I’ve seen firsthand how truly precarious is her mere existence.”

That disqualifies him for me. The last thing the Senate needs is more slaves for Israel.


Now for the second-most important constituency:

"Sullivan launches Senate campaign at Abington VFW post" by Jeremy C. Fox  |  Globe Correspondent, March 10, 2013

Even before the official announcement, the campaign hit its first hurdle Wednesday, when the state Democratic Party attacked former US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan over interviews in which he voiced his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Actually, I was thinking the war-makers; fact is, the gay lobby may even be more powerful than the Lobby these days (or maybe it is all one in the same; that would certainly explain all the attention in my agenda-pusher).  As for me, I've just given up on this issue.

Sullivan softened his position later that day in a statement saying he supported the reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex unions. The other four candidates all support same-sex marriage.

I've never seen people move so fast to politically correct themselves.


RelatedSullivan under fire over stance on marriage

Also see:

Look who else is "supporting" him:

"Democrats strike early against Republicans in Senate race" by Frank Phillips  |  Globe Staff, March 06, 2013

Massachusetts Democrats, still humbled by their defeat in the 2010 US Senate special election, are launching unusually early campaign attacks on the Republican Party, particularly targeting Senate candidate ­Michael J. Sullivan for his conservative social positions.

Democratic Party leaders and gay rights activists have planned a press conference for Wednesday where they will highlight Sullivan’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

This is not the issue I want deciding the campaign.

The party will hold another event later in the week to attack the former US attorney, who is considered the early front-runner in a three-way GOP primary, for his opposition to banning assault weapons.

Point for Sullivan.

The preprimary election engage­ment with the GOP is atypical in Massachusetts politics, where Democrats tend to pay little attention to Republican primary candidates, their fights often overshadowed by the higher-profile battles on the Democratic side.

They take it for granted they will win most of the time.

And where is the RECIPROCAL OUTRAGE about messing with another party's primary, huh?

But Republican Scott Brown’s stunning defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley in the January 2010 special election to fill the seat left empty by the death of Edward M. ­Kennedy is seared in the party’s memory, a lingering political trauma that is prompting its leaders to develop an aggressive strategy in the second US ­Senate special election ever held in Massachusetts.

Know who is responsible for the waste of time and money?

You guys traumatized yourselves.

The state Democratic Party, which has not endorsed either US Representative Stephen F. Lynch or US Representative ­Edward J. Markey, said it is convinced that focusing exclusively on attacking Sullivan as the face of the GOP in Massachusetts will help insulate the party against another special election upset.

“We believe that by shining a light on Sullivan, who is widely recognized as the Republican front runner, we can show that the Republican Party is much like the national Republican Party, out of touch, driven by the Tea Party to take extreme positions, and on the wrong side of the issues for Massachusetts,’’ state Democratic Party chairman John W. Walsh said in a statement Tuesday.

But there is another angle to the Democrats’ strategy. By highlighting Sullivan’s socially conservative positions, they hope to energize the GOP primary electorate, propelling ­Sullivan to victory and thereby ensuring that the Democratic nominee will face the most conservative of the three Republican candidates in the June 25 election.

That's how we got Reagan for president. Don't Democraps ever learn?

Rob Gray, a GOP political consultant, called the Democrats attempt to shape the ­Republican race “highly unusual.”

Sullivan “is already the front-runner; the biggest question is whether he can raise enough money,” Gray said. “That is the area where he is unproven. The Democrats’ ­attack on him buys him free name identification, which he otherwise would have to pay for.’’

Sullivan has firmly staked out conservative social positions in the GOP primary. He has said he is opposed to abortion rights and gay marriage. He also opposes a ban on ­assault weapons and high ­capacity ammunition clips. His two primary opponents, state Representative Daniel P. ­Winslow and Cohasset businessman Gabriel E. Gomez, support gay marriage and abortion rights, but do not favor a ban on assault weapons.

With his political connections and electoral experience as a former state representative and Plymouth district attorney, Sullivan starts off the race as the GOP favorite, observers believe. His strength was demonstrated in his ability to collect some 20,000 certified voter signatures in just two weeks, using only volunteers. His two rivals used paid signature-gathering firms and still did not equal the numbers Sullivan’s volunteers collected.

He's got grass-roots support, huh? I wonder how Karl Rove feels about him.

Sullivan’s campaign manager, Paul Moore, accused the Democrats of trying to stir up “politically motivated cultural divisions” in holding a press conference.

Yeah, leave that to the newspaper, will ya?

“Shame on the politicians who, for their own political gain, promote cultural and class divisions between our people in times like these. We need leaders who bring people together, not tear them apart for political gain,” Moore said....

We need leaders who will bring us peace and justice.

State Democratic Party leaders say they will focus exclusively on helping to shape the Republican race to help make certain that they get the nominee they feel they are best poised to beat.

Be careful what you wish for.

Walsh would not comment further on the Democrats’ strategy. But a memo from state Democrats, obtained by the Globe, indicates that the Democrats are also focusing on engag­ing the grass-roots organization that developed around Elizabeth Warren’s Senate candidacy and President Obama’s reelection campaign. They created what experienced political observers say was the most effec­tive get-out-the-vote organization the state has seen.

The party is particularly trying to hold onto the enthusiasm that was displayed last year in black, Asian, and Latino ­enclaves in the state....

That fades fast, and it is not a even regularly-scheduled election.


"Former US attorney Michael J. Sullivan is ahead in the battle for the GOP nomination, according to a new WBUR poll released Tuesday. Sullivan leads with support from 28 percent of respondents who are likely voters, compared to 10 percent for state Representative Daniel B. Winslow, and 8 percent for Gabriel E. Gomez, a private equity investor and onetime Navy SEAL. Even more respondents — between 30 and 36 percent, depending on the candidate — said they had never heard of or were undecided about the GOP candidates." 

Then I suppose the Democrats are getting what they wish for.