Prunier and Aylward mulling runs for Republican Party Chair

The Boston Globe reported this morning, as did the Boston Herald, that Chanel Prunier and Steve Aylward are both, independently, considering a run for Republican Party Chair.

Baker’s camp declined to comment on the 2018 remarks. But the Swampscott Republican publicly backed Hughes for another two-year term yesterday, saying the Quincy city councilor “deserves a lot of credit” for helping the long-beleaguered party pick up eight seats between the House and Senate on Election Day.

“I think every group … always has some interesting conversations about where we’re going and how we’re going to get there,” said Baker – who just prevailed over Democrat Martha Coakley in part due to bitter schisms in her own party.

“I don’t think the Republicans are any different than the Democrats with respect to that,” Baker said. “Part of the process is always going to be some back and forth.”

Prunier, the executive director of the Coalition for Marriage and Family, confirmed in an email she is weighing a run for the state GOP chairwoman, saying she has good relationships with “many individuals on both sides of the divide in the state committee,” as well as with Baker.

“I feel I’d strike a good balance between being a team player and looking out for the party’s interests independently of the governor’s office,” Prunier wrote.

What say you RMG?

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno

  • youngcon

    I think Chanel would make a great chair, granted that she doesn’t push her social conservative agenda too much. She has proven through her work in the past couple elections that she has what it takes to get good people elected. Although the coalition lost a lot of battles this time, she did far more than Hughes to get Reps and Sens elected.

  • Steve and Chanel would both be great party Chairs. Each brings different gifts and talents to the table. Both have proven track record or achievement and both are motivated to re-build the MA-GOP from the Grassroots up.

    We’ve heard a lot a lip service from Ms. Hughes about the Grassroots and haven’t seen great results. The failure to have a statewide message, an air game that was targeted at helping all down ticket races, is an indication that puppet-masters at the MA-GOP could care less if Republicans make serious gains in the Legislature.

    Let there be no mistake… Kirsten Hughes is not the only problem. She’s just there do as she told. It’s really time for certain people in leadership to retire early.

  • BrocktonDave
  • is definitely not what we want right now. The Governor is our ONLY statewide office holder at this time.  He will be essential to raising money.  Charlie should have the person he wants.  

  • Let’s look at some facts…. After the convention fiasco, just about every Republican candidate running for office said they had immense difficulty in raising money.

    So we have Kirsten to blame for this. Like it or not… Kirsten took credit for the 2010 Convention (I believe she was political director at the time)…. so if she claims credit for that convention, which was problematic as well, she gets the “credit” for what at best was total cluelessness and at worse malfeasance at the 2014 convention.  

    Money will follow infrastructure and message. When donors see progress being made, local committees organizing and being effective, when donors see that races in great Republican Districts, no longer go unchallenged, when donors see the Minority Caucuses in the Legislature standing up to the Majority, rather than punishing those caucus members that “make waves”… then donors will start giving again.

    And finally,  How much did Charlie spend to eek out a 50,000 vote razor thin victory, compared to how much money the Tank the Gas Tax Committee spent and were outspent.  The Question 1 folks managed to get 50,000 more votes. So I think maybe we ought to put people in charge that know how to get more bang for the buck !

  • If they allow executive amnesty or any amnesty I’ll consider never supporting republicans again.  

  • If the party follows the adage, “Charlie should have the person he wants.” and the party apparatus becomes a creature of the corner office look to ’15-’16 to be the high water mark and the beginning of a long decline for the party statewide. That is what happened starting with Weld and ending, dismally, with Healy. If history repeats then the ranks of executive jobs under a Baker administration will filled with “Republicans” who essentially despise the party and its average member. The principled activists will fight for a while for a place at the table and when they eventually lose some of them will start third parties but most will take their old signs to the landfill close their checkbooks to anybody but out of state and national candidates and throw the fundraising letters from Merrimack Street into the circular file. At that point the state system will be even deeper in the grip of the Democratic machine and a Republican governor will be largely irrelevant as regards government policy (check to see just how much RommeyCare resembled what Romney wanted) except to hire fewer crooks. Even so, if the state’s finances are no worse than the other forty nine and the unemployment number ticks below the national average than look to have Charlie bruited as a “new” style “moderate” Republican governor and possible presidential material. If his head gets swelled enough or if he just gets tired showing up at the office only to get steamrolled by the REAL governors of the state he may retire early and designate his successor as did Weld/Cellucci/Romney (lest the rank and file rabble have different ideas). RINSE, REPEAT.

    I emphasize IF history repeats itself. I have more respect for Charlie out of the gate than I ever did for Weld or Cellucci or Swift. But when I hear the words: “(fill in the blank) should have the (whatever) he wants,” without even a passing nod to what the party members want, well I detect the far-off pipes of deja-vu all over again.

  • I give Hughes no credit for the modest gains made in the legislature this year. The candidates all worked their tails off just like they did in 2010 when once again all the focus was on the governor’s race and the legislative candidates had to fend for themelves.

    I blame Hughes for the debacle that was the convention and I question her lack of response over Bill Weld’s endorsements, one of which led directly to a loss for a great candidate. It’s time for new leadership in the Mass. GOP, leadership that will be responsive to the concerns of ALL Republicans, not just a privilaged few.

  • Okay folks. I hear what all of you are saying. Some of you, in your heart of hearts, would rather have seen Martha win than “RINO” Charlie Baker.  Sorry.  Charlie will be governor.  If we unseat his endorsed party chairwoman, the libtard press will have a field day about how Charlie doesn’t control his own party.  That would be bad for ALL of us.  Like it or not, Chrlie’s win, by whatever margin, is a big plus for rebuilding the MA GOP.  That is not to say Aylward and Prunier have a place in the party; Aylward especially given his magnificent efforts on the Gas Tax. However, you are in a party of which Charlie Baker is the titular head.  If you cannot accept that, God help you. The governor should have his choice of party chairman, period.  

  • Thank you for great post you shared, I like your writing skill, You are the best, read our traveling blog : Bali Driver, Bali Tour Driver and Bali Driver Services