Saturday, October 30, 2010

A Question for the Candidate – David Sullivan

Dave Sullivan is the State Representative for the 6th Bristol District, a position he has held since 1997. This year Dave is facing off against a Republican also named Dave in the general election. We asked Representative Sullivan what was it about his platform, leadership style, and goals that best represent the needs and interests of the people of Fall River. Below are excerpts from his response, with my commentary. The entire unedited response can be read here.

I believe that my education and experience combined have helped me to be an effective legislator. I possess both a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters degree, and went on to work in the field of social work for many years before becoming a state legislator.

The thing that Dave's detractors love to say is that he is not an effective legislator. That love to cite that he has failed to get any appointments on any of the big committees and that he often seems on the outside looking in, even within our local delegation. Now, personally I like that Dave isn't afraid to stand by himself. At the same time I think Dave has been proven he can work with other legislatures far more effectively than he has gotten credit for.  

I have developed a reputation for being persistent with regard to issues that are important to my constituents, an approach that has led some to dub me "a pitbull." I have taken on big fights against corporate giants like Hess LNG, and also have taken on fights that others might have ignored, defending the elderly, the mentally ill, and just this session preventing much-needed services at Corrigan Mental Health from being shut down.

Dave has been very active in the fight against LNG. He has pushed hard on this even when it angered other members of the local delegation. Dave has also worked hard to protect social services. I have always admired the stance he took, almost a decade ago, as the only member of the local delegation to not be in favor of tearing down Watuppa Heights. It was a decision not popular with everyone but there were citizens who disagreed with tearing down the project and they deserved representation too.

My approach is always to see the big picture, passing Economic Development legislation this session that will help the private sector create jobs while always remembering that there are individuals in need of a hand up as we all have been at some point in our lives.

I wish Dave had spoke about what he wants to push in the next session to benefit the city, bring jobs, create tourism, etc.

 I ask my constituents to keep in mind that past performance is indicative of future success and I am proud of my track record and will continue to work hard on economic development, public safety and other initiatives if the voters are kind enough to give me their vote on November 2nd.

When I think of Dave's past performance I see someone who is easily accessible and has been the champion of the little guy. Yes, I suppose Dave could be more influential but he has managed to work effectively with his peers while still being independent and standing up for what he believes despite what political wisdom may say. I thank Representative Sullivan for taking the time to respond and wish him the best in the upcoming election. His entire response can be read here.


Anonymous said...

I believe Rep. Sullivan probably did not get any major leadership roles because he would not kiss up to the right people. I have followed his voting record and comments on issues and often takes the side of the under-represented. But you are correct that he seems to be able to get along well with colleagues. I know his constituent services are wonderful. He has my vote.

Anonymous said...

Well he took the time to respond, I guess that's more than can be said about David Rose, didn't see a response from him.

I heard the Sullivan and Rose WSAR debate and for all the talk of Mr. Rose being a rising star in the Republican party he seemed painfully unprepared in the 1st part of the debate. When the panelists were asking questions about specific bills he came across clueless. I would've thought a rising star would've done some homework on major legislation that he might have to deal with if he is elected unless he isn't planning to be elected and this is just a launching pad for him toward another office as some have speculated.

In the 2nd part of their debate Mr. Rose also was killed on a couple questions with Mr. Sullivan pointing out that he hadn't been involved with several issues prior to his run for office. I'm not sure why Mr. Rose is running if he never was interested in issues before and can't even be bothered to answer questions like the one posed by this blog. I don't think we need another inaccessible legislator up in Boston.

Lefty said...

I was a bit surprised by the Herald's comments on David Rose. I haven't paid a ton of attention to his campaign but what I have seen has not led me to believe he is a rising star. I did listen to the WSAR debate thought he did poorly.

Anonymous said...

Rose is a rising star in the local Republican party? Unfortunately since the local Republican party is basically a collection of misfits that's a little like saying that he is the brightest kid in your remedial English class. Come to think of it, David Rose probably was in a remedial English class, if you heard the debate then you heard him ask the question, "Representative Sullivan, how is jobs created?" Seriously, "How is jobs created?" Try "How are jobs created" you dunce!

Anonymous said...

you all are right maybe Dave R gets too much credit but would rather an opposed race, maybe you do when you're so would honestly like a walk thru for D. Sullivan.. you're fucked if so...AS

Anonymous said...

None of that last comment made any sense. Complete sentences? Nope. Expressing an actual complete thought. Nope. Did you by any chance run the Dave Rose campaign? No wonder he got his backside handed to him.