Category Archives: David Sunderland

Still a publicity stunt

2 Replies

VTGOP Chair “Super Dave” Sunderland continues to push his hokey “challenge” to meet his Dem counterpart, Dottie Deans, for a debate on the Vermont economy. He first threw down the gauntlet in a letter dated July 10, and has occasionally refreshed it via Twitter ever since. Last night, for instance:

Screen Shot 2014-08-12 at 8.30.24 AM

Funny, it hasn’t drawn a reply from Deans, nor has it attracted the slightest interest from the Vermont media. Pretty sure I’m the only person who’s reported it (outside of GOP circles), and that’s only been to make fun of it.

Because it’s a publicity stunt, and Super Dave knows it. He knew from the start that Deans wouldn’t respond. He was just hoping for a little free publicity, or simply for the chance to call Deans a coward.

Which she isn’t, not at all. She’s kinda busy these days, having a strong party apparatus and a robust staff to manage. I realize that Super Dave is just kinda rattling around in his largely empty VTGOP headquarters (paid staff: TWO, and both probably part time*) and thus has time to issue bogus challenges. And I realize that he’s grasping at straws for free media. But he knows that it’s not the party chair’s job to engage in public debates.

*Considering that “Victory Coordinator” Jeff Bartley is still on staff at the Tarrant family firm MyWebGrocer and, per his Twitter feed, recently took a trip to Disney World, I doubt that he’s got his shoulder to the campaign wheel 24/7. 

The party chair is responsible for the organization, administration, and growth of a party’s infrastructure. It’s a big job, and it’s primarily done behind the scenes. Dottie Deans knows what her job is, and what it isn’t. You’ll note that, as reflected in the above Tweet, she doesn’t even have a Twitter account of her own. If Super Dave hasn’t achieved a similar level of clarity about his own responsibilities, well, that’s his lookout.

Besides, there’d be little public interest in a debate between two party chairs. The vast majority of voters see high-profile candidates as a party’s public face, not some internal functionary. Voters will pay attention to the Shumlin/Milne debates this fall. They would have no reason to watch a debate between two people who are not running for any office where they might actually affect public policy. 

So it’s a publicity stunt, then, now, and forever.

Johnston, Feliciano and Sunderland: Closing the circle

Leave a reply

After writing my previous posts about Darcie “Hack” Johnston’s personal attacks on Scott Milne, I happened to check my other other email account, which I sometimes neglect. And there I found the trigger to all this garbage: a press release by VTGOP Chair “Super Dave” Sunderland attacking the Libertarian Party in very extrreme terms. Specifically, the Libs’ stand on drug legalization.

Sunderland meant to remind Republicans that if they support Libertarian Dan Feliciano in the gubernatorial primary, they’re effectively endorsing a very fringey set of principles. That’s all fine, but his letter included this incendiary passage:

Let’s be clear about this:  Vermont Libertarians would release all the heroin traffickers and professional dealers who have peddled their poison on our streets.  And all those felons who were arrested, charged and brought to justice by dedicated members of law enforcement for importing and profiting from the hardest and most addictive drugs would be set free and have their criminal records expunged if the Vermont Libertarians had their way.  Then what?  You know the answer:  They’d be back at it.

That’a a very inflammatory accusation. Let’s check it. From the Vermont Libertarian Party platform: 

7. CRIME: Repeal all consensual crime laws to focus police resources on crimes to property and persons. To ease the strain on our judicial systems, we support greater use of alternative dispute solutions. We propose amnesty for all convicted non-violent drug offenders.

There’s a huge difference between the Libs’ stand and Sunderland’s characterization, and the key phrase is “non-violent.” Sunderland would be right if, and only if, all our imprisoned drug dealers were purely nonviolent offenders. And that is simply not true: the real bad guys in the drug trade commit acts of violence and are punished for same. The vast majority of non-violent offenders are either consumers or low-level dealers.

In short, Sunderland stretched the truth beyond recognition. And that explains Johnston’s Twitter rampage.

Note: I said “explains,” not “justifies.” Johnston took it from the realm of distorting a political position to attacking a person’s integrity. That’s still outrageous, and Johnston should still take it back.

But the real news here is this: Why the hell did Sunderland jam a stick into the hornets’ nest? The Libertarians are not a serious threat to our two biggest parties. At least, not usually.

My inference is that Sunderland is truly worried about Feliciano’s write-in campaign. He’s worried that Feliciano could actually beat Scott Milne on August 26. That shows how desperate things are getting in Republicanland.

Is the ground buckling under Phil Scott’s feet?

6 Replies

Lately, there have been signs aplenty of passengers taking their leave of the Good Ship Moderate Republicanism, helmed since last November by Captain Phil Scott and first mate “Super Dave” Sunderland. Or maybe Scott’s the admiral and Sunderland is captain, whatever works.

Scott and friends came away from last November’s VTGOP meeting with a rather conditional mandate to broaden the party’s base. Make it more attractive to moderate and undecided voters, and the pragmatic business types who’ve made their peace with the Democrats under Governor Shumlin.

It seemed a promising direction. Indeed, the only possible direction, since the Vermont electorate wasn’t suddenly going to turn Texas red. The conservative VTGOP of “Angry Jack” Lindley et al. had hit a glass ceiling at about 35% of the vote.

But it was going to be a tough job for Scott, previously not known for his willingness to tackle tough jobs. He was, by dint of his elective office, the only person who could credibly take it on; but he also, by dint of his personality, seemed unsuited for the task. And even if he rose to the occasion, the odds seemed to be against him. Shumlin and company have done a really good job of co-opting the center, and it’d be a hell of a job for Scott to win back all those voters and supporters without moving so far to the center that he completely alienates the easily alienated conservative base.

It’s only been about nine months, and the Good Ship Moderate Republicanism looks to be taking on water. Recent signs include:

— Bruce Lisman’ decision to forego any sort of alignment with the VTGOP, even after he stepped away from leadership of Campaign for Vermont, the self-described nonpartisan policy shop.

— Lisman’s brief and pointless flirting with a run for Governor this spring, which lasted just long enough to force State Rep. Heidi Scheuermannf (a Lisman ally) out of the race.

— The continued activity of Campaign for Vermont. Its members do include people from across the political spectrum, but the group still tilts substantially toward the right. And many of its key supporters are the kind of people who used to be mainline Republicans.

— Roger Allbee’s decision to run for State Senate as a Democrat. The former Douglas Administration cabinet functionary and self-described liberal Republican could have been a powerful ally for Scott. Instead, he’s hoping for a place on the other ticket.

— Former State Rep. Oliver Olsen’s decision to run again for his old seat, but this time as an Independent. In the 2011-12 biennium, Olsen was one of the more vocal and effective members of the House Republican minority; this time, he seems to believe that he’s better off without the “R” next to his name.

— Last week’s VTGOP campaign finance report which, as I reported in this space, was truly horrific. A quarterly fundraising total — during a campaign season, mind you —  of only $7,500. The bulk of that came from a few party insiders. And over the past year, the VTGOP has drawn virtually no small donors, a sign that so far it’s failing to reach the grassroots. In spite of Sunderland’s repeated claims that the people of Vermont are waking up to the failures of the Shumlin Administration. Well, they haven’t awakened enough to write any checks, that’s for sure.

What that dismal report means is that the VTGOP has lost some of its hard-core, ideologically driven donors, but has yet to even begin to attract a new donor base. Nor has it even begun to convince former Republican stalwarts to come back home.

— And finally, this week’s formation of Vision to Action Vermont (V2AVT), a “bipartisan” PAC aimed at supporting candidates who are focused on improving Vermont’s economy. Its co-founder is Scheuermann herself, and her decision to create this independent group is an interesting one. You’d think that Scheuermann would be one of Phil Scott’s most trusted lieutenants, with a bright future in Republican politics. But as with Allbee and Olsen, she has apparently decided that the Republican brand is too toxic to advance her goal of electing lawmakers who are focused on economic issues.

Take all these events together, and it seems like the Republican center-right is fragmenting in all directions rather than coming together behind Scott and Sunderland. That, I think, is a very bad sign for Scott’s effort to broaden his party. The people who might have been part of a new, broader, more vibrant VTGOP are channeling their energy in other directions.

It may seem unfairly early to declare Scott’s project a failure. After all, it’s been less than a year, and it took quite a few years for the VTGOP to get so badly screwed up. But Scott’s party has no resources and few candidates; if he fails to make any headway in Legislative elections, a substantial portion of the party will be ready and eager to unseat Scott’s team and return the party to its former course: down an ideological dead end.

Is the VTGOP broke?

Leave a reply

Click the link to see the Vermont Republican State Committee’s campaign finance report for July 15. Do you see what I see?

I see a party with a negative balance. More expenses than revenues for this campaign cycle so far.

Yikes.

The key numbers:

Total contributions, campaign to date: $61,367.32.

Total expenditures, campaign to date: $62,523.00.

Negative eleven hundred bucks, amirite?

Now, the VTGOP also files with the Federal Elections Commission; its most recent filing came in mid-June, and showed a balance of $36,430.25. I’m not smart enough to know the difference between the state and federal filings; I can say that either way, the bottom line is kinda pitiful. Still gonna be a long slog for “Super Dave” Sunderland as he tries to rebuild from the inglorious days of Angry Jack.

Also, there’s a curious fact in today’s state filings: while the state GOP is bereft of funds, quite a few local and county GOP organizations are rollin’ in it. Well, by Vermont Republican standards anyway. There seem to be a lot of die-hard Republicans who are supporting their local colleagues/cronies, but aren’t doing so for the state organization.

I’m still pondering the meaning of that. And I’ve got some other notes on deadline day coming along shortly. Stay tuned!

Vermont Republicans quickly becoming incoherent

2 Replies

Looks like the Vermont Republican Party has decided a guns-a-blazin’, all-out hysterical attack on “the stagnant Shumlin economy” is their ticket to the meager legislative gains they’re hoping for in November.

And, naturally, they’re doubling down on the “F” grade supposedly given Vermont in a national survey of small business owners. Not only are they repeating their earlier claims, they’re getting the facts even wronger.

The VTGOP’s latest news release again refers to “a report by highly respected national magazine The Economist which ranked Vermont among 5 states receiving a grade of ‘F’ for their small business friendliness.”

Okay, where do we begin.

It’s not a “report,” it was a survey. An unscientific survey in which thousands of questionnaires were sent to business owners nationwide.

It wasn’t by “The Economist,” it was by Thumbtack.com.

The Economist isn’t a “national magazine.” It’s a global one, and its headquarters are in Great Britain.

And, once again, Vermont did not receive a grade — at all — in this year’s survey. The “F” came out of the 2012 survey. Thumbtack didn’t receive enough responses from Vermont businesspeople to include the state in this year’s grades.

This is like a game of telephone with only one player — who, even so, manages to thoroughly garble the message as it passes from mouth to ear and on to brain. Ironically, the VTGOP’s news release includes this line:

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing and accurately defining the problem itself.

Uh-huh. And by “accurately defining the problem,” the GOP apparently means “relying on two-year-old figures from an unscientific survey.” Not to mention “exaggerating the issue with overheated rhetoric.”

This whole schemozzle shows how desperate the Republicans are for messaging material, that they have to keep on hammering over and over again on a discredited talking point. It’s embarrassing.

The news release goes on to depict Vermont’s economy as in “crisis,” which it clearly is not. We have our troubles, but crisis? No — “crisis” is what George W. Bush left us with. And President Obama and Governor Shumlin have been trying to dig out from under the Bush rubble ever since.

The Republicans also assert that “Vermont Democrats denied there were any problems with Vermont’s… economy,” which is also patently untrue. I don’t think there’s a Democrat in the state who would argue that we don’t have our share of problems and issues, and the Shumlin Administration has been trying — in its own way, whether you agree with it or not — to make things better. When you consider how awful things were in 2008-09, plus the severe blow of Tropical Storm Irene in the summer of 2011, things in Vermont have gotten a whole lot better.

Republicans are already in danger of losing touch with reality, and losing credibility with undecided and centrist voters. Hysterical, over-the-top rhetoric won’t convince anyone that we’re on the cusp of apocalypse.

Speaking of doubling down, the news release concludes with a challenge for a debate on the economy between party chairs “Super Dave” Sunderland and Dottie Deans “in a neutral forum.” This bit of red-flag theatricality is completely meaningless. The Republicans hope that Deans ignores the challenge, so they can accuse her of ducking the issues.

In fact, the job of the party chair isn’t to take part in debates; that’s what candidates do. Party chairs are supposed to spend their time managing and organizing their parties. And that, in itself, is at least a job and a half.

At least it is for Deans, who leads an active, vibrant organization. Super Dave, on the other hand, has a paid staff of ONE to oversee, a sickly grassroots network, and a meager budget. Maybe he has time for pointless media events, but Deans has work to do.

Your VTGOP: sacrificing integrity for a tired talking point

Leave a reply

No, I didn’t seriously think the Vermont Republican Party would retract their latest news release, even after I showed it was completely without foundation. But I was a little bit hopeful that the Republicans would quietly drop the issue, rather than making fools of themselves.

But they can’t help it. In spite of my most recent blogpost (and I know a lot of top Republicans read this site), VTGOP chair “Super Dave” Sunderland continues to tout his baseless claims about Vermont’s poor showing in this year’s survey. When, in fact, Vermont hasn’t been included in the last two years’ editions due to a lack of response from Vermont business owners. The “F” came out of the 2012 survey. It’s two years old, and who knows how much has changed since then.

Plus, recall that the spring of 2012 was smack in the middle of the Tropical Storm Irene recovery. Governor Shumlin’s first-term agenda had been kicked over and strewn about like so much debris. If he’d had any plans to improve Vermont’s small business climate, he certainly hadn’t had time to implement them by spring 2012.

In fact, if you think about the timeline, you’d have to conclude that Vermont’s small business atmosphere was much more the responsibility of Shumlin’s Republican predecessor, the sainted Jim Douglas, than the current Democratic administration.

But I don’t expect Super Dave, the guy who’s allegedly making the VTGOP more inclusive and broad-based, to have a sudden attack of conscience. It’s his job, I guess, to ignore the still small voice within, and loudly publicize any possible campaign issue.

Whether or not there’s a shred of truth to his claims.

When cold comfort is the only comfort you’ve got

Leave a reply

Ah, the sweet stench of desperation is emanating from the Vermont conservative camp.

First, the political consultant who hasn’t won anything since unhitching her wagon from Jim Jeffords more than a decade ago, Darcie “Hack” Johnston has responded to my previous post about her Tweets supporting Dan Feliciano, the Libertarian candidate for Governor. He of the typo-riddled website.

Well, I Tweeted about the post, and the Hack replied:

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 3.31.05 PM

First of all, let me say I am humbled and honored that the Hackster has taken notice of my existence on this earth. Second, yuh-huh, sure, tons of Vermonters will be joining the Feliciano parade. About the time there’s a snowball fight in Hell. And third, if Feliciano’s campaign had the tiniest hint of hope about it, Johnston has officially given him the kiss of death.

Now let us turn to “Super Dave” Sunderland, occupier of the most thankless job in Vermont, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. With virtually no reason to think his party can unseat Governor Shumlin, he’s resorted to touting the results of a new “poll” indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the Guv:

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 3.30.19 PM

Mmmm, about that “poll.” First, it was an online survey, and we all know how useless those things are. And second, it was posted on the Vermont Business Journal website, and we all know which way the VBJ’s readership leans politically. Also, while the “poll” was in progress, Sunderland was touting it on Twitter, which further skewed the results. Actually, it’s surprising how many “A” grades the Governor got.

But hey, Vermont conservatives find themselves with nothing but a big basket of sow’s ears, so I can’t really blame them for trying to make a silk purse.

Me. on the radio (part 2)

Leave a reply

Hey, I’ll be back on WDEV radio this Wednesday 6/25, guest hosting the Mark Johnson Show. And I’ve got a couple of guests I’m really looking forward to.

At 9:00, I’ll be speaking with former Agriculture Secretary Roger Allbee. The lifelong Republican was responsible for one of the bigger surprises of the June 12 filing deadline when he put himself up as a Democratic candidate for State Senate in Windham County. I’ll ask him why he switched parties, whether he had any contact or involvement with the Democratic Party before filing, his positions on the issues, and why we shouldn’t cynically see this as an opportunistic move to get elected in a strongly liberal constituency.

And in the second hour of the show, I’ll go one-on-one with Dave Sunderland, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. I’ll ask him about his efforts to make the party more inclusive, the GOP’s failure to field candidates for four of the six statewide offices, the longshot candidacy of Scott Milne for Governor, and whether this is an honest move to the center or just another effort to “rebrand” the same old conservatism. Should be fun.

WDEV can be heard throughout much of northern Vermont on 550 AM, and from central Vermont to Burlington on 96.1 FM. Hope you can join me!