Scott Lively
Scott Lively, the Springfield-based anti-gay activist on trial for the persecution of LGBT people in Uganda, has announced that he is running for Governor of Massachusetts. Yesterday the blog Conservative Patriot reprinted an email from Mr. Lively in which Mr. Lively states:
After long contemplation and prayer I am convinced that I should run for Governor of Massachusetts. I will run as an independent.
The Christians and conservatives of this state need a candidate who can clearly and unapologetically articulate Biblical values without fear or compromise. They need a candidate who will tell the simple truth that abortion is murder, and homosexuality is condemned by God (but that Jesus forgives and heals those who repent). That parents and not the state have authority over their children, because government is our servant and not our master. That socialism is slavery and humanism breeds corruption. But mostly they need a leader who will remind the people that Massachusetts was founded upon Jesus Christ and the Bible and that our future security and prosperity depend on restoring our trust in Him. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!” Psalm 33:12.
Mr. Lively confirmed via email this morning that he is indeed running (right).
Mr. Lively’s decision is sure to delight Democrats and radical-right social conservatives, but will not be welcome news to mainstream Republicans; a Scott Lively candidacy will peel away radical-right votes and other support that otherwise would have gone to the Republican candidate.
Radical-right voters in Massachusetts were so desperate for someone like Mr. Lively to vote for in the 2010 gubernatorial election that some of them advocated writing in Mr. Lively’s name instead of voting for the Republican candidate, Charlie Baker. Mr. Baker is the Republican front-runner for the 2014 election as well. As Brian Camenker of MassResistance said in 2010:
Lively is everything that Charlie Baker is not. He is principled, pro-family, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-2nd-amendment, pro-religion, pro-parents’ rights, and utterly fearless.
Imagine the increased enthusiasm this year among Mr. Camenker’s radical-right cohort to campaign for Mr. Lively — and peel away votes from Mr. Baker — once Mr. Lively officially becomes a candidate. By becoming a spoiler, Mr. Lively increases the probability that Massachusetts will elect another pro-LGBT equality, pro-choice Democratic governor.
Related: Pray That Scott Lively Runs For Massachusetts Governor
Originally posted at Justice For All.
Like Christy Mihos and Tim Cahill did. If no debates with the other candidates, then out of site/out of mind. The exception was Kennedy in the special 2010 election, I’m sure some thought he would be a spoiler and hurt Scott Brown. Then again, Brown was a special candidate, which Charlie is not, so Baker needs to make sure he is not in the debates.
These positions are too extreme for any but a small handful of super-right-wingers who would probably not vote for Baker anyway. I’ll be surprised if he gets his signatures; even if he does, he won’t play any significant role in the campaign.
I agree that he won’t play a significant role in the campaign in terms of numbers of votes, but as we all know from a certain close presidential election, sometimes every vote counts. You never know.
Democratic candidate Chris Gregoire beat her Republican challenger by only 129 votes.
In hopes of peeling some votes from Baker.
it doesn’t say much for Baker.
One could easily put together a positive ad on this guys beliefs. Hell, who doesn’t like being “fearless” as his supporter states.
So using Citizens United (gasp), the Dems run a nice puff piece, “true conservative” or whatever, gun owner, and peel some votes away. Unlike you, I wouldn’t complain or cry about it, I leave it up to the people to filter out the noise from these ads. If they don’t, can’t legislate against stupidity.
it would be a boneheaded idea to run ads for a crackpot.
Let’s instead talk about the similarities between Baker and Lively. They must have to share similar qualities if as you say, people who would normally vote for Baker might instead opt for Lively. Right? What are they Dan, since you started this peeling off “Baker voters” conversation.
During the Republican primaries. Bush ran ads for Ralph Nader in 2000. Don’t act like this doesn’t go on, johnk.
You could run an ad about this guy believing in a strong second amendment that would appeal to one issue voters, you don’t see that?
and Lively whom you noted share similar voters. Why Dan?
You have Coakley. She and surely Dems, would love to take your guns away, become like England. Baker, wants gun limits, just not as extreme. So me thinks gun lovers would vote for Baker and hope for the best. But this guy loves guns, no restrictions for law abiding citizens.
So you run ads saying how great this guy is, believes and will protect gun owners from those who want to take your rights away, and that would appeal to otherwise Baker voters. Unless you think gun owners love Coakley, I could be wrong. If not, use another issue, perhaps school choice. Not rocket science, I won’t be surprised that Democrats get the signatures for him.
the question is not about Coakley and Baker, use Lively and Baker in your comparison. You argued that Lively will peel off voters from Baker.
How about this ad. Lively would make it easier for people to obtain a conceal-carry permit, instead of what goes on today when I had to go to the police and they took my fingerprints. I felt humiliated, to be honest.
So the Dems run nice ads, like Joe Manchin did in 2010, and that would get some normally Republican votes. Him and Baker don’t have to agree on the issue, just muddy the waters and confuse people and force Baker to defend his right flank on certain issues.
you were HOT, then you walked the other away. Try to focus Dan. Scott Lively doesn’t talk about conceal and carry.
You get my drift, National Dems are great at confusing and blurring issues, just get some Axelgrease to run some ads thru his PAC.