Guess I overestimated the stupidity of the Vermont Republican Party. In a rare flash of insight, the party faithful elected David Sunderland over John MacGovern for state party chair. Sunderland was the choice of Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, and MacGovern was the three-time loser whose last campaign is still in debt. But MacGoo had the backing of outgoing state party chair Jack Lindley, who’d rather leave the VTGOP in the hands of an incompetent than accede, even slightly, to Scott and his merry band of putative moderates. In the end, the tally was Sunderland 48, MacGoo 30.

On the other hand, Lindley’s right-hand-man (and anti-Scott attack dog) Mark Snelling was re-elected as party treasurer, edging out Deb Bucknam by two votes. Maybe in his second term, Snelling can figure out how to bring a little money into the cobwebbed coffers of the VTGOP. It should make for some interesting leadership meetings, at least.

VPR’s John Dillon interprets the Sunderland vote as a change of course:

Vermont Republicans chose to follow a moderate path with the election Saturday of former Rutland Town representative David Sunderland as party chairman.

Yeah, well, I wouldn’t go that far. Sunderland had a decidedly conservative voting record in his five-year stint as a State Rep from Rutland Town — a fact given the absolute minimum coverage by the state’s political media. And his speech to the delegates included a heapin’ helpin’ of Republican red meat:

“As your chair I will work diligently to bring our varying views together on the core issues that define our party: an affordable Vermont that works for our small businesses and families, efficient government that is by your side and not on your back, an education system that reins in spending and gives parents a seat at the decision table, and a health care system that enhances the doctor-patient relationship instead of destroying it.”

Let’s take those one at a time, shall we? “Affordable Vermont” is VTGOP-speak for “lower taxes.” “Efficient government” means “cut spending.”

“An education that… gives parents a seat at the decision table” is a curious statement. Parents already have a seat at the table. It’s called VOTING FOR SCHOOL BOARD and voting for school budgets. Besides that, there are few institutions more open to constituent input than public schools. Most teachers and administrators would love it if parents were more involved in their kids’ education.

Sunderland topped it off with a slam at health care reform, which he says is “destroying” the doctor-patient relationship. Hell, I thought the insurance companies had been doing a bang-up job of that under the old system.

So maybe Sunderland will be a better organizer than Lindley, but I don’t see much change in policy. I certainly don’t see any moderation. Methinks Dillon leaped to the shallowest, most obvious interpretation of events. And given that he’s now VPR’s chief journalist, that’s pretty damn sad.  

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz did much better in his report for Seven Days’ Off Message blog:

A divided and politically marginalized Vermont Republican Party on Saturday chose a new leader who pledged to turn the state GOP’s attentions away from internal conflict and toward winning elections.

… “I think today what we can take away from this is that the Vermont Republican Party has voted for change – a change in direction, a change in tone, and we plan on going forward,” Sunderland said after the election.

The “change in direction” is less about policy than about turning “away from internal conflict.” (Which, again, will be a neat trick with Mark Snelling on the leadership team.) As for “change in tone,” that’s been said a lot lately by the Scott camp. It appears to mean putting a Phil Scott smiley face on doctrinaire conservatism, voicing criticism with more politeness and less overt vitriol, and blowing more quietly on the usual dog whistles.

I mean, how much did the VTGOP really change today? They’ve got a new party chair who, politically, isn’t much distinguishable from the old one. (If anyone out there can show me evidence of Sunderland’s “moderation,” I’d love to see it.) They’ve got the same old treasurer. And in the other two top offices, the winning candidates ran with the backing of both sides: Brady Toensing (of the conservative attack-dog law firm of DeGenova and Toensing) and Jackie Barnett.

Take a look at this, and tell me if there’s any real change in the VTGOP:

“We need to keep our disagreements inside our family,” said national committeeman Jay Shepard. “Our enemy is not in this room. As we sit here, the Democrats are planning another step in taking away our freedoms, our liberties and our way of life. Those are the people that are the real threat … We need to know who the real enemy is. I’ll tell you right now, the worst Republican I know is a much better person than Barack Obama.”

Yeah, that’s the angry face behind the smiley mask. The Democrats are supposedly stealing our freedoms and our way of life. They are “the real threat,” “the real enemy.” The worst Republican (Darrell Issa? Ted Cruz? Paul Broun? Michelle Bachmann? …no wait, Shepard doesn’t mean literally “worst,” he means “most moderate.” Never mind) is “a much better person than Barack Obama”?

Hey, John Dillon: could you explain exactly how this is a new, “moderate path”?

The guns are a-blazing on this eve of the Vermont Republican Party convention. And the #1 target, by far, is Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, head of the “moderate” wing of the party. The shooters are prominent conservatives who would rather see a teeny-tiny but ideologically pure VTGOP than, oh, win some elections.

Up first is Darcie “Hack” Johnston, who never met an election she couldn’t lose. Yesterday on her Facebook page, she posted an excerpt from something Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz wrote — in September of 2012. The occasion was Scott’s appearance before Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, in which the Lt. Gov. allowed as to how the GOP ought to “give the Affordable Care Act a chance to work.”

For Johnston, Vermont’s staunchest opponent of health care reform, this is treasonous apostasy. And her apparent purpose in dredging up this bit of old news is to fan the flames of anti-Obamacare hatred and train them on Scott and his cadre. (She put the cherry on this little shit sundae by referring to Scott as “Lite Gov.” Never thought I’d see the Hack stealing lines from Peter Freyne. Of course, the Late Lamented was referring to Brian Dubie, but who’s counting?)

Johnston’s post drew several responses from like-minded conservatives, and a pair of rebukes from Republican lawmakers Joe Benning and Patti Komline. Here’s Benning:

Darcie: it baffles me wondering what it was you thought you would accomplish with this posting. Only hours before we are meeting in an attempt to unite as a party, you’ve taken a year old quote, on a divisive subject we all know to be quite complicated, to disparage the only state-wide office holder we have left. This posting merely invites further fracture, leaving us all in a toxic environment. It forces us to explain ourselves (once again) to those who might otherwise be looking for a party that presents itself with a positive image espousing basic constitutional principles. With all due respect, please do us all a favor and take down this post.

Somehow I don’t think Johnston will comply.

And now, on to an acorn that fell really, really far from the tree: Mark Snelling.  The failed candidate for Lieutenant Governor and treasurer of a nearly-bankrupt political party (heck of a resume, Snelly) rowed himself up Shit Creek in a really weird attempt to disparage Phil Scott and David Sunderland (the “moderate” candidate for VTGOP Chair) — by publicly accusing Bruce Lisman of secretly plotting a run for Governor.

For which he later issued an abject apology. And after issuing said apology, saying he still believed the stuff he’d just apologized for. Yeesh.  

This comes to us from Peter Hirschfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau, and is available on its non-paywalled website.

Snelling’s original claim:

“The reality is that within the last eight weeks, Bruce Lisman has considered running for governor,” Snelling said Thursday afternoon. “He’s had a budget put in front of him, saying that it would cost $3.2 million to run for governor. And he sat through a three to four-hour meeting and thought about it and looked at all sides of it and decided against it.”

Now, here’s some tortured logic. Snelling reasoned that if Lisman ran for Governor, he’d run as an independent — and he would try to convince the VTGOP to stay out of the race, to give him a clear shot at Gov. Shumlin. And in Snelling’s mind, if Sunderland were chair, he’d be more likely to accede to Lisman’s hypothetical request. Plus, Snelling pointed to Scott’s “lack of public enthusiasm” for Randy Brock as a sign that Scott might throw his support to Lisman.

All of this, remember, is purely an invention of Mark Snelling’s overactive political imagination. And it got him in hot water with the Lisman crowd, forcing this apology emailed to Lisman Thursday night — only a couple of hours after Snelling’s original comment:

Bruce,

I owe you an apology.

I was doing an interview and I was trying to make a point about future elections and the dynamics of the various parties and how they can interact along with possible third parties.

To make my point, I spoke about your organization and made statements about which I have no first-hand knowledge.

It was a discussion where CFV was a tangent and I should not have gone down that tangent.

It was a mistake and I apologize.

Mark

Within hours of sending his apology, Snelling told Hirschfeld that he stands by his claim that Lisman harbors gubernatorial ambitions:

“I fully believe that what I said was true,” Snelling said this morning.

Way to apologize there, Snelly.

These hapless sallies by Snelly and the Hack are good examples of their approach to party-building and reaching out to independent and undecided voters: they’d rather be ideologically pure than broaden the VTGOP. They’d rather lose with conservative principles intact than win under a slightly more moderate banner.

And they sure as hell would rather cling desperately to the little bit of power they have now, than risk losing it for the sake of their own party’s fortunes.

If this crowd wins the convention — and I expect that they will — then the VTGOP is in for a long, dark night of electoral irrelevance.

And if Phil Scott wins the day, he’ll inherit a party with no base and few resources, and he will have alienated the conservative base that’s been driving this damn bus.  

The internal battle for the booby prize that is the Vermont Republican Party has reached truly insane levels. It’s kind of like two dumpster-divers fighting over a moldy bucket of KFC.

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz has a lot of detail on the Off Message blog, and I’ve heard much of the same stuff from my own sources.  

Summing up the situation: The VTGOP may get stuck with the thoroughly inadequate John MacGovern as party chair because Mark Snelling and Phil Scott can’t stand each other.

The tangled story, per Heintz:

Both Snelling and Scott were trying to put together “compromise” slates for the party offices that will be filled on Saturday. Snelling, who was publicly certain that Jack Lindley would run for re-election as party chair, was privately constructing a ticket that didn’t include Angry Jack.

According to Heintz, Scott’s team included former State Rep. David Sunderland, a staunch conservative, for chair; attorney Brady Toensing (of the infamous conservative attack-dog law firm of DeGenova and Toensing) as vice chair; current interim party chair Deb Bucknam (also a staunch conservative) for Treasurer, and Jackie Barnett of Barre for secretary.

The Snelling/Taliban entry included Toensing as chairman, Sunderland as vice chair, and yep, Snelling remaining as party treasurer.

In his Wednesday evening email withdrawing from the race, Angry Jack split the difference, endorsing Toensing for vice chair — not chair — plus Barnett for secretary, Snelling for treasurer, and John MacGovern for chair. Why Toensing for vice chair, I’m not sure; the only rationale I can think of is that Lindley couldn’t stomach endorsing Sunderland for any office because he had Scott’s backing.

That seems awfully ugly, but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.

But that’s not the worst part.  

The worst part is the crucial role played by the Scott/Snelling acrimony, which apparently dates from the 2010 Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor, in which Scott beat Snelling by a 56-44 margin. (Ouch.)

As Snelling tells it to Heintz, the hard feelings are all on Scott’s side:

According to Snelling, negotiations broke down, in part, because Scott’s faction insisted upon Snelling leaving the party’s leadership. Scott defeated Snelling in the 2010 Republican primary for lieutenant governor.

“It just appeared to me that Phil Scott was being vengeful about, ‘Hey, we ran against each other in a primary three years ago,'” Snelling says.

My sources put most of the onus on Snelling. And that makes the most sense, when you think about it: who would you expect to bear a grudge, the guy who won or the guy who lost? The guy who’s widely popular, or the one who utterly failed in his attempt to cash in on a renowned family name?

I’ve been told that the two competing sides could have agreed on a compromise ticket with Toensing at the top and Sunderland as number two, except for the office of Treasurer. The Snelling folks insisted on, yep, Mark Snelling. The Scott camp wanted somebody not named Mark Snelling. The compromise talks collapsed over that issue, leaving Lindley and Company with one option: backing the hapless MacGovern.

Maybe the most important political aspect of all this, is what it says about Phil Scott’s version of moderation. He was apparently okay with Brady Toensing as chair, he’s backing Deb Bucknam for a top office, and his own choice for chair, Sunderland, has a very conservative voting record.

So again I ask, exactly how is Phil Scott a moderate?  

One more note down the ballot. Remember Jeff Bartley, the failing-upward guy who harbored hopes of being the next party chair but couldn’t beat out John MacGovern? He’s pursuing a consolation prize, the currently dormant office of Chair of Chairs, which coordinates activity among the 14 County chairs.

But poor ol’ Bartleby appears to be all by his lonesome. Lindley has endorsed Kevin Beal, chair of the Washington County GOP (and director of alumni relations at Norwich University). From Beal’s statement of candidacy:

One of the most important opportunities which we as fellow County Chairs can work on throughout the next year is to improve communication between the state party leadership and county committees, and improve opportunities for shared, mutually beneficial ventures, like fundraisers and events. We must also work together to ensure all of our Vermont towns have organized.

With that said, I do not have an agenda. This position is an important one in that it is the foremost opportunity for the county chairs to have direct input in the highest-level decision-making for our party. The individual representing the county chairs should have a strong reputation-one who seeks to be above reproach, but not beyond scrutiny.

He’s making the right noises for a low-profile, party-building job. More so than the fail-prone Bartley. Not that any Republican will ask for my opinion.

Anyhow, should be a fun Saturday at the Elks Club. Maybe the VTGOP can buy a few scratch-off tickets while they’re there. Might be their best hope for raising a little money.  

Huh boy. Only three days before the Vermont Republican Party’s convention on Saturday, current chair “Angry Jack” Lindley is pulling out of the race because he’s still recovering from a grave illness. He was hospitalized for a month and only returned home last week, but he kept the door open as long as he could:

As recently as Wednesday morning, political allies including Mark Snelling, the GOP’s treasurer, said Lindley was planning on trying to retain his chairmanship at the party’s state convention Saturday.

“Yes, it’s my expectation that he’s going to run,” Snelling said Wednesday morning.

Methinks he waited so long because the conservative wing of the VTGOP is completely bereft of good leadership. An ailing Jack Lindley, who’s done little to rebuild the party, was their best option.

The proof? Lindley is throwing his support to John MacGovern.

Oh, God. It’s really hard to believe that a “major” political party would be reduced to this. MacGovern ran a no-hope campaign against Bernie Sanders in 2012 on a Tea Party-style platform: railing against government spending, taxes, and regulation, and in favor of Paul Ryan’s entitlement cuts. His campaign was a fundraising flop, and remains mired in debt.

Before his run for Senate, MacGovern’s Vermont political career included two losing effortts at the State Senate, finishing at the back of the pack in the 2008 and 2010 Windham County senate races.

This is the guy who’s now leading the charge for Vermont conservatives. Incredible.

After the jump: the whole conservative clown car.

And the rest of the conservative slate isn’t a whole lot better. (This part of the story is only available on the Times Argus/Herald websites, behind a paywall.) Lindley endorsed the slate in a Wednesday evening email announcing his withdrawal:

“I strongly support and endorse John MacGovern for Chairman of the Vermont Republican Party and I’m asking you to do me the personal favor of supporting John MacGovern for Chair, Brady Toensing for Vice Chair, Jackie Barnett for Secretary, Mark Snelling for Treasurer, Wendy Wilton for At Large, Randy Brock for At Large and Kevin Beal for Vice Chair of Chairs,” Lindley wrote. “This team will lead the Vermont Republican Party forward on the principles we all believe.”

Nice to see the VTGOP is such a strong believer in recycling. Mark Snelling, Treasurer who can’t raise any money? Randy Brock? Brady Toensing, member of a Birther-friendly DC law firm? WENDY WILTON?????

This little Neocon Clown Car will be opposed by a “moderate” slate fomented by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and his allies, and headed by former State Representative David Sunderland of Rutland Town. Sunderland is no liberal; he had a solidly conservative voting record in the Legislature. But apparently being endorsed by Phil Scott was too much for the hard-core right wing. They’d rather elect John Freaking MacGovern than support a guy with Scott’s backing.

Anyone else see a problem here?

That Saturday meeting at the Montpelier Elks Club should be something. You’d think that Vermont Republicans would take a look at the track record of MacGovern et al, and opt for a new direction.

Somehow, I don’t think that’ll happen. I think the VTGOP true believers are too angry, too poisoned by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, to adopt a broader vision. And too many of the would-be “moderates” seem to have withdrawn from the scene. Do you see anyone from the Douglas Administration — which, while pretty conservative, at least had a strong sense of realpolitik — taking an active role? Neale Lunderville? Betsy Bishop? Jason Gibbs?

Brian Dubie?

I don’t see any outcome of Saturday’s meeting that would strengthen the VTGOP. If the conservatives keep the helm, they’ll limit themselves to a hard-core 35-40% of the vote. If the “moderates” win, the conservatives will sit on their hands and Phil Scott will have to rebuild from the ground up. (With a chairman who really isn’t a moderate.)

For Vermont Republicans, it’s a lose-lose situation.  

A headline in the “Vermont” section of the online Freeploid caught my eye today:

Ex-Barre tax collector pleads not guilty to fraud

Wow, big news, I thought to myself, and clicked the link. The story, from the Associated Press, said that former Barre tax collector Marcia Langelier is accused of stealing more than $300,000, which is quite a lot for a place the size of Barre. But it didn’t ring a bell with me. I live in central Vermont and follow the news pretty closely, so you’d think I might have come across this story before.

Then I noticed the dateline “WORCESTER, Mass.” And the fact that the defendant was arraigned in Worcester Superior Court. And that the story was originally reported in the Worcester (Mass) Telegram & Gazette.

The last line of the story provided the final proof: “Barre has about 5,400 residents and is about 60 miles west of Boston.”

Yep, there is, in fact, a Barre, Massachusetts. And that’s where the (alleged) embezzlement took place. You can exhale now, good citizens of the Granite City!

Methinks the Freeploid is goosing its “local” content with some sort of automated news aggregator. Hey, it’s easier than journalism. Cheaper, too.  

Looks like we’ll be seeing a 2014 rerun of an especially dispiriting battle from the 2013 legislative session: a standoff between the Democratic Legislature and Governor Shumlin on taxes.

Last spring, lawmakers launched a veritable flotilla of taxation trial balloons only to see them blasted out of the sky, one after another, by Big Pete’s absolute (yet conveniently conditional) no-tax-increases stand. The last iteration was a proposal to impose a cap on itemized deductions, which would have raised taxes on top earners while cutting lower-bracket rates in order to make the plan revenue-neutral. Seemed like a no-brainer, but the Administration shot it down, claiming that it was too late in the session to bring up a new idea.

(Even though the idea had been proposed two years earlier by the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission.)

Over the summer, Shumlin et al cooked up a new excuse: we shouldn’t tinker with the tax code in the year before we’ll have to create a new tax structure for single-payer health care.

Which kicks the can, not only past 2014, but also past 2015. Because obviously, we’ll be too darn busy in 2015 to consider any non-health-care related tax proposals.

House Speaker Shap Smith isn’t buying it:

“If income tax reform made sense in 2014 I think we would do it in 2014,” Smith said. “It wouldn’t matter that we had potential financing for health care coming in 2015.”

(Smith supports the concept of a deduction cap; Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, a.k.a. Shumlin’s Doorstop, is ambivalent but leans toward the Administration’s point of view.

The latest twist, as reported by Peter Hirschfeld (of course) in the Mitchell Family Organ*, is that legislative leaders are actively pursuing the idea and the Administration seems to be withholding important data.

*Paywall alert. Story published in the 10/31 print editions.

From lawmakers in its own party.  

Let’s go to the Hirsch:

Shumlin has made numerous cases against the plan, saying Vermont risks tax flight if it increases burdens on the rich, and also that lawmakers couldn’t guarantee revenue neutrality. Based on 2007 tax data, Shumlin said, the proposal would actually result in a $10 million tax increase on the whole.

… Rep. Janet Ancel and Sen. Tim Ashe, heads of the House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance, respectively, are working on getting solid numbers. Complicating that effort is the Legislature’s inability to secure from the Shumlin administration the tax data that would provide the foundation for that analysis.

(Italics mine.)

Looks like a stonewall to me. But I dunno, maybe retrieving the tax data is just too darn hard for the Administration. It does have the convenient result that Shumlin can continue to oppose the measure “based on 2007 tax data.”

I guess we’ll have to wait until 2019 to have this debate based on 2013 data.

At a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means Friday, Ancel will ask Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding to help her retrieve that data.

“Friday” meaning today. Get your popcorn.  

… a new reality TV series in which esthetically-unappealing restaurants and bars get a thorough critique and makeover, courtesy of that well-known Arbiter Of Style, State Sen. Tim Ashe.

The state Lottery Commission, bumping up against the market ceiling for its current offerings, is looking for more ways to scam the gullible raise money for Our Children’s Book-Learnin’. Our government-sanctioned dispensers of false hope would like to start putting electronic lottery machines — called, without a trace of irony, “WinStations” — in bars and restaurants. To date, the “lighted, arcade-style vending machines” (description from the VLC) are only available in convenience stores.

And some state lawmakers want to have a whack at the idea before it’s put into effect.

[Rep. Janet] Ancel, who chairs House Ways and Means, said she is not personally in favor of expanding the lottery. Putting lottery vending machines in bars, she said, is a “big step,” and the Legislature as a whole ought to review the proposal.

Sen. Tim Ashe, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, says the commission can’t go forward with consoles in restaurants and bars without the Legislature weighing in.

So far, so good. As you may have gathered, I have no particular love for government lotteries, which are egregiously regressive taxation schemes. If Ashe wanted to block any lottery expansion, cut it back (or end it altogether)(and fully fund public education from the General Fund), I’d be okay with that. However, he went on to kinda-sorta make an ass of himself:

“My own feeling is these things are like indoor billboards, they are completely vulgar,” Ashe said. “While they might have a place in a convenience store under today’s rubric, but in bars and restaurants they are just going to be garish.”

Tim Ashe, manning the barricades of style.  

Heaven knows, we don’t want any traces of vulgarity to besmirch Vermont’s hallowed watering holes. I shudder to imagine the horror of an “arcade-style” machine destroying the homespun charms of, say, The Other Place or Charlie-O’s. We may have already lost the battle for the creative soul of Vermont’s convenience stores, but we must Draw The Line at our eateries and taverns, all of which are a delight to the eye as well as the palate. (Lookin’ at you, Handy’s Lunch.)

Need I say that Ashe’s argument is absurd? If VLC goes ahead with its plan, it’ll be up to individual owners whether they want a WIn Machine sitting on their bar. Market forces would take care of Ashe’s concerns: the corner bar will happily accept a lottery machine, and Hen of the Wood will, I’m thinking, give it a pass.

So, Tim: If you’re against expanded gambling, just say so. Don’t give us this pretentious arty nonsense.  

A couple days back, I tossed some cold water on the notion that David Sunderland, the obvious front-runner for chair of the Vermont Republican Party, represents a new, “moderate” approach, even though he has the backing of the party’s figurehead of moderation, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. I pointed out that, in terms of policy or ideology, Sunderland’s statement of candidacy could have easily come from the pen of “Angry Jack” Lindley or Randy Brock or Sunderland’s fellow Rutlander, Wendy Wilton.

Even so, in the initial round of stories about the race for VTGOP Chair, the notion of Sunderland as the “moderate” was dutifully repeated. No hint of a critical look at the idea.

Now, I’m just a humble blogger, sahib. My investigative assets are limited to (a) my spare time and (b) The Google. Most of our media’s archives are off-limits to outsiders unless you pay, and I don’t have a budget. So I’ve found very little information about Sunderland’s political past.

But look. David Sunderland spent five years in the state legislature. Somewhere in the dusty back offices of the Freeploid or Seven Days or the Mitchell Family Organ or VPR or WCAX or WPTZ*, there has got to be a ton of material about his campaigns, his political allegiances, and his voting record. God knows there are several reporters active today, who were covering the Golden Dome when Sunderland was in office (2003-2007).

*not VTDigger, because they didn’t exist back then.

So, I hope to hell that somebody’s been assigned to examine Sunderland’s political history and tell us exactly how “moderate” he really is. It wouldn’t be hard for a reporter with access to media and legislative archives, and I believe there’s a big story to tell. After all, unless Jack Lindley stages a truly remarkable recovery from his lengthy hospitalization, Sunderland is going to be the chair of the VTGOP in a couple weeks’ time.

Rutland isn’t exactly a fount of moderation, and I’ve been told that Sunderland is tight with the tiny but rabid pro-lifer community in Vermont. His recent public statements have been boilerplate conservative Republicanism: anti-tax, anti-health care reform, accusations that the “extreme left” has hijacked the state government. OTOH, I haven’t detected any sign of moderation in the man’s outlook.

My efforts at Googling his background didn’t produce much, but there was one little gem from the Seven Days archive:

Back in 2006, the Legislature approved House Bill 865, which added “gender identity and expression” as a protected category in the state’s anti-discrimination laws. After the bill was approved by a House committee on an 8-1 vote, it moved to the House floor. As Cathy Resmer reported:

Just one legislator, David Sunderland (R-Rutland Town), raised questions during the House floor debate; approved by a voice vote on Wednesday, March 1, the bill now moves on to the Senate — and, ultimately, a Republican governor.

(That would be Jim Douglas who, of course, vetoed the bill.)

Just to be clear, Sunderland wasn’t the only person to vote against H. 865, but he was the only one who “raised questions during… floor debate.” Not exactly a marker of moderation.

I’m sure there’s a much fuller story to be told about David Sunderland’s politics. And I’m sure I don’t have the time or resources to tell it.

So how about it, VTDigger or VPR or Freeploid or Mitchell Family Organ? Will somebody please do a little digging and tell us who this David Sunderland really is?  

The news of a local employer leaving our green and pleasant land is, I’m sure, warming the cockles of conservative hearts. Huber + Suhner, a Swiss-owned manufacturer of radio frequency cables (well, somebody has to do it), will leave its current location in Essex Junction, and move its assembly operations to New Jersey and its management offices to North Carolina.

H+S employs 63 people, so it’s not exactly an IBM situation. But I’m sure the likes of El Jefe General John McLaughry and Vermont’s Loudest Economist Art Woolf are already drafting their opinion pieces: See, Vermont is business-unfriendly! We’re chasing good employers away!

And at first glance, it looks like they have a point:

“Obviously, the cost of doing business here and the tax perspective is a significant reason why we’re moving,” [H+S President Andy] Hollywood said. “For the most part, (North Carolina) is a lower overall tax implication to the company.”

“AHA!!!” comes the cry, rolling down from the Ethan Allen Institute and the Republican leadership. But wait, there’s more:

A spokesman for the firm, Joe Choquette of the Burlington-based law firm Downs Rachlin Martin, said that lower real estate prices in North Carolina contribute greatly to reduced property tax liabilities.

Huh. Well. So North Carolina’s “lower overall tax implication” has more to do with property values than tax rates. In other words, land in Vermont (and particularly in the Burlington area) is much more valuable than land in North Carolina.

Darn! Vermont’s just too nice!

The company also cited a bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with Vermont’s tax or regulatory environment, like a shortage of qualified administrative applicants (an argument for boosting education, not cutting government), better and more numerous transportation options (not much we can do about that), and a “competitive salary environment.” In other words, in North Carolina we can pay peanuts and get away with it.  

So, when the business types and conservatives start howling about Shumlin “losing another employer,” just remember that they’re only telling the part of the story that fits their preconceived narrative.  

Well hey, the race for chair of the Vermont Republican Party is heating up. So says our political media, which (following up on an initial post by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, although only VTDigger gave him any credit) has jumped on the emergence of two candidates like a house cat on a wounded bird. (After all, it’s a rare day when there’s any relevant, or even halfway relevant, news about the VTGOP. And the political media desperately want to cover the Republicans whenever they can, to “prove” their objectivity.)

Said emergence came, not coincidentally I’m sure, at the same time as sidelined party chair “Angry Jack” Lindley’s recovery from a grave illness. (And I am truly happy to hear he’s doing better. Get well soon, A.J.) After all, it would’ve been unseemly to launch a candidacy to replace a guy while he’s still in intensive care.

But time’s a-wastin’, with the VTGOP set to elect a chair on November 9. And so, we have two candidates — plus, Angry Jack himself has not ruled out a re-election bid. (I seriously doubt he’ll actually run. His health is too big an unknown, and his leadership was in question even before his illness.) I can categorize them as: The No-Hoper, and The Alleged Fresh Young Face.

The No-Hoper is our friend, John “Mr. MacGoo” MacGovern, last seen trying desperately to dig himself out of debt from his failed candidacy for U.S. Senate. You know, the one he lost to Bernie Sanders by a nearly 3-1 margin.

Last time I checked, MacGovern had managed a truly rare feat: he increased his campaign debt in the first half of 2013, spending $13,454 while raising only $11,324, while not actually running a campaign. And he was, once again, begging for money from his head-of-a-pin donor base.

And now, this guy wants to chair the Vermont Republican Party. Balls of steel, I tell ya.

We can dismiss his candidacy out of hand, I think. Not because he’s a complete failure in Vermont politics; no, considering the track records of folks like Darcie “Hack” Johnston and Jeff Bartley, failure is no barrier to upward mobility in the VTGOP. MacGoo is a nonstarter for one simple reason: he’s Not From Around Here. House Minority Leader Don Turner, in VTDigger:

Asked about MacGovern, Turner confessed, “I don’t really know much about him.”

Lt. Gov. Phil Scott said pretty much the same thing about MacGoo, and in a small place like Vermont, being unfamiliar is a greater liability than being a failure.

(By the way, what does it say about the VTGOP that its top elected leaders “don’t know much about” the man they nominated to be a U.S. Senator? Pretty damn sad, if you ask me.)

Yeah, I think we can safely consider John MacGovern doomed to roam the barren wasteland of his unrequited ambitions, and safely turn our attention to the only plausible candidate: David Sunderland.  

Sunderland’s an engineer at Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and a former State Representative from the Republican redoubt of Rutland Town. He was first appointed by Governor Jim Douglas to fill a vacancy in the House, and later won two terms on his own (in a district so lopsided that a Republican candidate would have to be a confessed serial ax murderer to lose) before stepping out of politics to concentrate on his day job. (Which begs the question, how will he have time to be an effective chair of a party with very little paid staff?)

Sunderland is being touted as a fresh young face: he’s only 48, which is downright pubescent in Republican terms. He’s the Chosen One of the Phil Scott-led “moderate” wing of the VTGOP, but he’s getting rave reviews from the “other” wing as well. No one is willing to openly endorse a candidate, out of respect to Angry Jack and to the process, but the party’s top two lawmakers, Turner and Sen. Joe Benning, are both saying nice things about Sunderland. And Jeff Bartley has recused himself from the race and thrown his support, FWIW, to Sunderland.

Now, I cannot speak to Sunderland’s potential as a party builder. He may be terrific at organizing, fundraising, and convincing good Republicans to run for office. But a moderate, a harbinger of a new era at the VTGOP? Not so much.

In his letter seeking support for the chairmanship, Sunderland harkened to the Douglas era, calling for politics done “the Vermont Way,” a phrase Douglas used.

Oh goodie. In the words of Firesign Theater, “Forward… Into the Past!”

I sympathize with Vermont Republicans who hearken back to the halcyon days of Smilin’ Jim, because they’ve had an unbroken series of failures since he left office. But then Sunderland said this:

“The lack of balance in Montpelier has allowed the extreme left of the Democratic Party to take us in the wrong direction.”

He’s referring to the “extreme left” of people like Peter Shumlin, Jeb Spaulding, John Campbell, and Shap Smith. Yup, a buncha bomb-throwers if I ever saw any.

If David Sunderland thinks of the Shummy Bunch as “extreme left,” that shows you his perspective on the political spectrum. But wait, there’s more.

Sunderland’s Twitter account (@DASunderland) is basically a series of anti-health care reform and anti-government messages like these:

Sound like a voice of moderation to you?

I also found an opinion piece by Sunderland, posted on VTDigger in June 2013, ripping the “Shumlin Gas Tax.” Republican boilerplate, n’est-ce pas?

The lopsidedly Democrat Legislature argues that our crumbling state infrastructure can only be fixed through a regressive tax hike that particularly impacts the middle class.

Please note the use of the pejorative “Democrat” beloved of Republicans everywhere. But not cool if you’re trying to present yourself as a “moderate.” Anyway, Sunderland’s argument is that Shumlin should have cut the General Fund budget instead of raising taxes — ignoring the fact that failing to raise the gas tax would have cost Vermont $60 million in federal transportation funding.

Nope, Sunderland is a hard-liner on taxes. And on health care.

If this is Phil Scott’s idea of “moderation,” then I have to ask: who, exactly, is Phil Scott? And what does he actually stand for?

Again, I have no idea if Sunderland is a skilled organizer and team builder. If he is, then he’ll be a good chairman. But in terms of policy? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.