Sue Minter seems to be spending a lot of time lately trying to out-ethics Phil Scott. After he announced he would sell his stake in Dubois Construction if elected governor, she continued to pound on potential conflicts of interest. Now, she’s returning campaign donations from a lawyer connected to the scandal-plagued EB-5 developments ni the Northeast Kingdom.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think this is a waste of time and unlikely to resonate with voters. It’s the kind of stuff that political insiders (and us outsiders who obsess about politics) care about, but I seriously question whether the voters do.
Besides which, trying to blacken Scott’s reputation is a mug’s game. He’s such a familiar figure with such a positive image; you’re not likely to change people’s minds unless there’s an October Surprise lurking in Scott’s closet.
Better, in my mind, to focus on the issues, where Scott is weakest.
Tell the voters why a Minter administration is a better choice for their concerns, which seem to revolve around the economy. There’s a solid case to be made; Democratic policies, even if they result in higher taxes (which is not a given), are a net positive for the economy. (See below.) Minter should devote more time to making that ase. We’ve only got a little more than a month to go before Election Day; the news cycles dwindle down to a precious few.
The campaign donations in question, totaling $1,000, came from attorney Charles Leamy. Minter returned the money on September 17, one day after Leamy was named in a lawsuit filed by two EB-5 investors. One week later, the investors dropped their suit.
Minter’s running scared of EB-5 taint, with some justification. But this money seems barely tainted if at all, and $1,000 isn’t big enough to be scandalous. It’s a diversion from the issues that could help drive up liberal turnout and make centrist voters less likely to ticket-split for Scott.
As for the economic benefits of the Democratic agenda, Phil Scott talks like any money spent by the government might as well have gone on the burn pile. In his mind, it’s just money removed from the economy.
In fact, public-sector investments in things like education and infrastructure are key for business. When you ask business leaders about the biggest obstacle they face, the answer isn’t taxes or regulations — it’s a lack of qualified workers. Minter’s plan to offer two years of tuition-free secondary education would remedy that problem in short order.
Even money spent on the social safety net — welfare, food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, LIHEAP — immediately inject more purchasing power into the economy, driving growth through that whole supply-and-demand equation you might remember from Econ 101.
Conservatives, including Phil Scott, claim that lowering taxes will grow the economy and actually increase tax revenues. Problem is, every time someone tries it, it doesn’t work.
Better to carry the attack to Scott on the solid ground of the issues than to press a doomed effort to out-image a genial, plausibly honest candidate with proven appeal.
I hear your point about the dearth of well-qualified workers, but navigating regulations is a big hurdle for small biz too — and your piece appears to trivialize that
Ms Minter appears to foolishly believe gamesmanship is her best friend — it’s not — in fact just the opposite is true imo. At recent debate rudely attempted to run down the clock to limit the questions until CSU student interrupted the continual ranting by calling it what it is. The two students who sat by as mere props Minter rendered to near silence, had two more questions but due to Ms Minters’ gaming of the format we only heard one.
Following a pattern of ducking every question & issue at hand possible while steering each conversation to what *she* wishes to discuss –even gallingly changing subject — to own highly scripted & rehearsed, rotely memorized responses & talking points. Comes across as a slick maneuverer with a smile, nothing more than the mere bureaucrat & typical politician she is, continually channeling her inner control-freak complete with air-poms which she never seems to put down comes across as oh-so desperate.
Just as counterpart in the national HRC, doesn’t seem to get that in the minds of core supporters on both sides, the mud they’re slinging is mere shit shoveled against tide — they’re not budging. Swing voters decide all elections not the entrenched minorities on either side of spectrum. As HRC summarily attacks DJT — each & every accusation is true of herself & serial-rapist/sex-predator hubby which reduces entire tirades as a pot-meet-kettle rendering them to a continual attack against selves.
With each attempt to tarnish Phil Scotts’ five-star triple-A reputation comes across as not capable & confidant but childish, petty & small — which then reflects upon her, as the real question then becomes the *why*.
Scott’s triple a rep is taking a hit with the bobble head commercials!
Pot-meet-kettle much? Personally don’t see it exactly as “negative” at all, quite simply happens to be true which Minter & minions are attempting to hide.
But Ms Minter & Dem/Prog supporters recognize pointing out that she is a Shummy surrogate & clone who was actually recruited to carry on mission-critical takeover of healthcare, continuation of nanny state — including making VT a magnet for takers. Thereby cultivating a constituency of dependents to keep Dem/Prog elitists in power to that end while continuing Shummys’ failed legacy.
Also same thing taking place in the general on national scene.
Calling Sue Minter a “clone” is an insult. She may share some of the Governor’s beliefs, but she is her own person. It does you and your candidate no honor when you willfully distort her record.
Sue Minter = Gaye Symington, both trust funders with woefully shallow resumes when running for Gov. Same result forthcoming.
This is all BS.
Why doesn’t Minter boast of some of her votes and work as a rep. How many voters know that she and Dave Zuckerman co-sponsored the first bill to legalize gay marriage? She should be proud of that and Scott should be ashamed of voting against that measure when he cast his vote.
I am not sure about Gaye, since I do not know her, but Sue’s resume is not a shallow resume at all. In fact, as far as for the office she and Scott are seeking, hers is better.
What’s the big secret? How so — do tell! Or is this just another yawn of Dems = good guys Republcans = bad guys bulletin.
Strange comment, considering that this post was more critical of Minter than Scott.
Responding to this:
“Sue’s resume is not a shallow resume at all. In fact, as far as for the office she and Scott are seeking, hers is better.”
Without Shummy handing her an instant resume which she is now running on — it’s indeed very, very thin.