Among Democratic Party activists at the Hamburger Summit, some of whom attended Saturday morning’s VDP State Committee meeting, the overall perception was that Attorney General Bill Sorrell is campaigning badly. A few even suggested he’s “phoning it in,” whether from ineptitude, laziness, or a sense of entitlement. Several themes emerged in discussions of Sorrell’s endorsement loss.
[Note: the vote was reported to us as 16 for endorsement, 12 against, 2 abstentions; 19 yes votes, or two-thirds, were required for the endorsement motion to pass; the motion failed. The “No” voters of the Committee were given several opportunities to request a reconsideration, and no one volunteered.]
Among those themes:
- Sorrell failed to file his endorsement paperwork on time to receive a co-endorsement with TJ Donovan in May, despite outreach from the VDP staff to facilitate that outcome.
- None of the State Committee members received a call from the candidate asking for their votes (a Tip O’Neill moment).
- The candidate didn’t come to the meeting, citing a prior commitment to a parade in Lyndonville (Northeast Kingdom, where no doubt there was a ton of Democratic primary voters).
- Sorrell used a non-union shop for printing campaign materials which have been in distribution for more than a week.
- Sorrell’s surrogates, campaign manager Mike Pieciak and Chief Deputy AG Janet Murnane, did not do a good job selling the candidate or his approach to issues raised by State Committee members.
- Sorrell has a long history of refusing to contribute to the coffers of the Coordinated Campaign.
The overall impression is that the incumbent Sorrell has barely moved into campaign mode, although his campaign staff was on board more than three months ago. Further, several observers characterizeded Sorrell’s approach as “taking it for granted” that he would be endorsed.
[After the jump: what happened at the meeting.]
Pieciak opened his presentation by ineffectively apologizing for his candidate’s absence, saying, in part, “We only just found out earlier this week that this meeting was happening today …”
And that is the sort of political ineptitude that keeps happening for Sorrell’s campaign, and is unexpected from a 15-year incumbent. Although, one observer noted that Sorrell was appointed to the position (once his predecessor was moved on to the state Supreme Court) and has rarely faced opposition since.
The questions raised at the meeting included Sorrell’s recent court losses on state control of the Entergy Yankee nuclear power plant’s closure, campaign finance regulation, and protection for physicians from data-mining based marketing by pharmaceutical companies.
The ethics of Chief Deputy A.G. Janet Murnane’s status as an employee campaigning for her employer was also questioned, along with Sorrell’s inaction on other states’ DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act) cases.
Murnane sprinkled some form of the word “active” throughout her explanation of her office’s current activities, about every sixth word: “Bill Sorrell is actively pursuing …” “We are taking an active role on …” But the argument was obviously not convincing.
In the committee meeting there was a lot of discussion as to the meaning of a State Committee “endorsement.” The process originated as a way to support Bernie Sanders’ first run for the Senate; without a state party endorsement, he could not receive help from the DNC. In a couple of cases since then, it has also allowed the committee to keep Republican ringers out of the state party’s campaign funds and off the Democratic ballot line. The bylaw provision is, said VDP Treasurer and longtime activist Linda Weiss, more of a certification that this person is a bonafide Democrat. (Or, in the case of Bernie Sanders, someone Democrats should and would support due to shared values.)
In an odd twist that led to yesterday’s vote, the committee is allowed to “endorse” multiple candidates for the same office.
Rutland County Democratic Committee Chair Kathy Hall apparently shared Sorrell’s expectation of an easy and automatic endorsement. Visibly and audibly angry at the results, she said she was leaving, because the vote did not reflect explanations of the meaning of the “endorsement” vote she heard at the May meeting where T.J. Donovan was successful. She walked out of the meeting and sat in a hallway, despite a plea from Weiss to stay.
“We’re Democrats, this is what we do: we fight with each other,” said Weiss. “We don’t walk out, we sit down and try to figure out how to make it better.”
In reaction, we expect Bill Sorrell to discount the importance of the vote and maybe even to denigrate the State Committee rather than take responsibility for his own campaign errors.
There’s a faint chance that Sorrell’s pre-primary campaigning in the Republican-friendly Northeast Kingdom instead of among his own party activists, may be a counter-intuitive strategy: courting Republican voters to cross over to vote for him in the Democratic primary.
If he wins the primary, the State Committee’s no-confidence vote will likely come back to haunt its members.
The above implies that those on the committee who voted “no” now have a very strong incentive to campaign, hard, on behalf of TJ Donovan. Since so many active-voter constituencies (anti-VT Yankee, pro-privacy, pro-campaign finance reform, anti-taser, etc.) are angry at Sorrell on issues that are near and dear to their hearts, it may not take a huge campaign to defeat him in the primary.
as posted to Terri Hallenbeck‘s vt.Buzz blog post on the subject and prior to having read this or the following GMD blog posts concerning these matters (i.e., third paragraph; slightly edited to include the correction of the third paragraph posted within my follow-up comment post), here:
“the sort of political ineptitude that keeps happening for Sorrell’s campaign, and is unexpected from a 15-year incumbent.”
But it is expected from a long-term incumbent that expects to be so easily re-elected that he doesn’t fell he should have to work for it.
Very few voters check to see who the Democratic party has “endorsed” before they vote. Even fewer care whether they had their campaign material printed in a union shop. Many would rather that politicians use the little local “mom and pop” printer. Who, by-the-way, are sometimes liberal Democrats, maybe even Progressives. All this party stuff is old hat politics that is quickly becoming nothing more than hot air. A bunch of folks who dream about playing a role in the elections – a pipe dream.
Your six ‘bullets’ about Sorrell’s campaign incompetence bring into question his ‘competence’ as Attorney General. He has always seemed to me to be on coast, riding on the back of Howie Dean. And, as I recall, in 2010, didn’t Sorrell fail to show up at a Dem gathering of all the primary candidates for Governor and other offices? I guess he’s just an ‘independent’ sort of guy–one who will run regardless of his defeat, be it hoped for, in the Dem primary next month. So, although the evidence suggests he is an incompetent running on a record of re-election against no serious opposition, I wonder if he doesn’t have some other shoe ready to drop? Could it be a split from the Dem Party and a campaign of the ‘fighting underdog’ courting Republican and Tea Party votes? I’ll bet the Tea Party would go for Sorrell over Donovan. Or, WORSE, will we see the spectacle of Governor Shumlin saying to Vermonters: “Hey, no offense to the State Dem Committee, but I urge all of you voting for me to vote for Bill. What’s good enough for Howard Dean is good enough for me.” Can’t help it, I ‘smell’ something here. And, with the kind of AG Sorrell has been, it smells of that career politician at work on something that flies in the face of the record. I mean, is he THAT STUPID? I just can’t buy it. Who’s the Repub asshole running for AG in the primary? McMullen? Gee, I think if Fred Tuttle could beat him, Sorrell has a ‘fighting’ chance. Or, maybe Sorrell will turn Prog? Nah. Don’t think the Progs would want him. But he has been a very good Republican (for a Dem). We shall see.
he runs his office like he runs his campaign… its no wonder why VT keeps losing in court.