A few days ago, the Nikki Haley campaign announced the formation of a Vermont State Leadership Team. I didn’t take much notice at the time because it’s not going to make the least bit of difference. Donald Trump is going to steamroll his way to probably all of Vermont’s 17 delegates as he grinds along to his inevitable nomination.
The only things that can stop him are (a) a quick and decisive criminal conviction or (b) a clear and obvious slide into dementia. Haley’s not going to do it, and her newly formed Vermont committee doesn’t have a prayer of carrying her to a primary win.
I wasn’t going to bother covering it at all until a Haley supporter took to The Formerly Robust Platform Formerly Known as Twitter to complain that there had been no coverage of the Vermont announcement. “Shameful that press has not covered this news in Vermont — it’s a big deal,” wrote Court Mattison. “Haley would help win down ballot and bring balance to #montp.”
Well, okay, your wish is my command. But be careful what you wish for.
It must be said that the Haley campaign has put together an impressive list of Vermont supporters, including pretty much everyone who can lay claim to some semblance of moderation. The co-chairs include former governor Jim Douglas, former gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman, House Minority Leader Patricia McCoy, former senate minority leader Joe Benning, state Reps. Ashley Bartley and Casey Toof, and longtime conservative power couple Mary and Tom Evslin. There’s also a lengthy list of Haley endorsers, including nine more state lawmakers and several former lawmakers.
Also prominently mentioned is Gov. Phil Scott’s endorsement of Haley, although his endorsement was carefully confined to the New Hampshire primary. He made no commitment beyond that. He didn’t say he would vote for Haley, not even in the Vermont primary.
Anyway. Nice list. Couldn’t be much better. And it won’t make the slightest difference. Two reasons: (1) the “moderates” hold no sway in state party circles, and (2) the delegate selection process is rigged to favor the front-runner, i.e. Trump. Haley could win 49% of the vote and come away with zero delegates.
Let’s take #2 first. Vermont will have 17 voting delegates at the Republican National Convention. Ten will be selected “at large,” which in the GOP usually means the winner will take all. Another three are apportioned on the district level. I think that means Congressional districts, and we’ve only got one of those. That’s another three for the winner.
Three more are “party delegates.” Well, the state party committee is all Trump supporters or at worst Trump-adjacent. The final slot is a “bonus delegate,” which will likely be the state party’s to award. Maybe they give a place to Douglas for Auld Lang Syne, but otherwise the state committee will be choosing Trump supporters for any available seats. I can’t see any way Haley will win more than one or two of the 17.
“But John,” you may be asking, “what if she wins?”
Nope. Ain’t gonna happen. Remember 2022 when Scary Bird Man Gerald Malloy beat the Great Moderate Hope Christina Nolan? That’s the VTGOP primary electorate for you.
Back to my first point: the Haley supporters’ place in the VTGOP.
They don’t have one.
The party begrudgingly puts up with Scott, the only Republican who can win statewide elections. He has completely absented himself from party doings since 2017, when he backed “Not the Reporter” Mike Donohue for party chair only to see him lose to ardent Trumper Deb Billado. During the 2022 campaign, I wrote this about the large number of extremists on the VTGOP ticket: “…these people can’t be classed as the exception. They are the norm. It’s Phil Scott who’s the exception. The party he once knew and loved is no longer with us and it ain’t coming back.”
The party’s four elected officers are very conservative: chair Paul Dame, who doesn’t overtly support Trump but doesn’t say a word against him; former state representative and devout Trumper Samantha Lefebvre; secretary Dan Feliciano, last seen running for office as a Libertarian; and Billado, now treasurer. The party’s two RNC members are the very Trumpy Jay Shepard and Suzanne Butterfield.
And let us not forget that John MacGovern, Haley supporter who’s identified by the Haley campaign as chair of the Windsor County GOP, may not have a real claim to that position because he has faced a revolt from the heavily pro-Trump county party grassroots. There are many other city, town, and county party committees dominated by Trumpers, including some very liberal portions of Vermont.
Well, I think I’ve proved my point. Nikki Haley has a nice list of Vermont endorsers. At best, that will add a bit of heft to the speed bump of her primary campaign.
And as for Mattison’s other point — that a Haley nomination “would help win down ballot and bring balance to #montp” — my response is also Hell to the Nah.
Haley is extremely conservative herself, badly out of step with the general Vermont electorate. You think Vermonters are going to vote in large numbers for someone who can’t clearly identify slavery as the cause of the Civil War and flirts openly with embryonic personhood?
You think they’ll vote for Haley in such large numbers that they will turn around the wretched fortunes of the VTGOP? Which, if 2022 is nay indication, is going to put up a slate full of far-right MAGA types? You think Haley can suddenly pack grassroots and fundraising muscle on the deathly frame of the Vermont Republican Party?
Even Phil Scott hasn’t been able to turn that trick.
This is all academic anyway because Haley isn’t getting anywhere near the nomination unless Trump’s heart explodes or he’s fitted for a jumpsuit even oranger than his face. And even if Trump were forcibly removed from the scene, I’ll bet his devoted supporters would shift the nomination to anyone other than Haley, the only Republican who dared to oppose their hero. In fact, I’d put her as the third most likely South Carolinian to be the Republican presidential nominee behind Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham. And i’d put their chances at roughly 0.0001%.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
Good lord, this just boring as dirt. The Vermont Republican committee is so “robust” they have taken to holding their meetings on the last Thursday night of the month in the men’s room of the Rutland Ramada Inn.
We do still need to pay some attention. The status of the VTGOP does matter. We’d be better off if there were more Ashley Bartleys and fewer Art Petersons in the Legislature and local office.
Well, I look forward to the likes of John Klar and Wayne Townsend showing up in the lists again next autumn, Republican wannabes who appear — like Don Bolduc over in NH — every couple of years as regularly as foot fungus.
The VTGOP does scrape the bottom of an empty barrel for quality candidates with great fervor, that’s for sure.
He admires and quotes Hitler and Putin, and he displays his “manhood” by raping women in department store dressing rooms. His name is Donald J. Trump, and he’s the GOP/VTGOP’s definite favorite to be President of our United States. This is the legacy of VT Gov Phil Scott’s Republican Party.
“Consequently, the fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused – indeed, raped – Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” See page 35 of the Judge’s decision … https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.252.0.pdf
More questions about Donald J. Trump being a rapist? See the Judge’s opinion at https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-Defendants-Rule-59-Motion.pdf (warning: this court decision contains extremely graphic and blunt descriptions)
“This case, Carroll II, was tried in April and May 2023. Ms. Carroll contended that Mr. Trump had assaulted her in a dressing room at a New York department store where, among other things, he forcibly penetrated her vagina with his fingers and his penis. She testified in person for most of three days and was cross-examined intensively. Her sexual assault claim was corroborated by two “outcry” witnesses in whom Ms. Carroll had confided shortly after the attack, and was supported by six other fact witnesses. Mr. Trump’s defense – based exclusively on an 2 Case 1:22-cv-10016-LAK Document 212 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 59 3 attempt to discredit Ms. Carroll and her other witnesses – in substance was that no assault ever had occurred, that he did not even know Ms. Carroll, and that her accusations were a “Hoax.” Mr. Trump, however, did not testify in person or even attend the trial despite ample opportunity to do so.”
Carroll. Ms. Birnbach testified in relevant part:
“Q. What was the first thing that Ms. Carroll said when you picked up the phone?
A. She said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what happened to me.
Okay. I don’t believe what just happened to you. Now what?
Just because ‘Lisa’ believed what Ms. Carroll said to her doesn’t make the accusation truthful. The evidence is hearsay. Every bit of it. I could make the same accusation against John Walters, call a couple of friends, and tell them ‘you’re not going to believe what happened to me’. Yada, yada, yada. That six other people made similar claims with similar evidence doesn’t change the only true ‘fact’ of the matter. It’s all hearsay. There was no tangible evidence of this claim ever occurring. None.
‘Present-sense impressions are generally not admissible when they are made hours or days after the event.”
Our judicial system has explicit directives and precedent on the use of hearsay testimony.
Federal Rule of Evidence 807 maintains in its ‘catch all’ provision ‘judges to consider the “totality of the circumstances” to determine trustworthiness,’ if:
• It is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness;
• It is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other reasonably obtainable evidence; and
• The other parties have been notified of its intended use.
Whether or not I believe Ms. Carroll isn’t the point. Whether or not the incident occurred isn’t the point. The point is whether or not our judicial system is worthy and being adhered to. Did Ms. Carroll call her friends? Perhaps. They said she did. Did her friends corroborate the fact that Ms. Carroll said what she said on the call. Most certainly. But those claims are hearsay too. There is no recording of the conversations. There are no witnesses. The testimony against Trump fails all acceptable hearsay criteria.
But that doesn’t preclude the fact that a biased judge and jury can’t rule based on their biases. Is that what happened in this case? I suspect this ruling and its prescribed damages will be appealed. And who knows…. maybe the rulings on appeal will be similarly determined. After all, Bridget Bishop was hanged in Salem, MA in June of 1692 based on the hearsay testimony of a group of young girls. Anything can happen. But that doesn’t make it right or wrong.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” ― Friedrich W. Nietzsche
Agreed. Whether or not you believe Ms. Carroll is not the point. The point is, a court of law believed her. Under our system, that settles it, right?
Not yet, John. The appeal process must play out.
Good luck with that.
I hate, with all my being, that Haley is universally referred to as “a moderate”, simply by virtue of not being an overt fascist or deploying a rhetorical style resembling a permanent mental breakdown. The bar is truly in hell.