Ruh-roh. Governor Nice Guy is putting his hard-won reputation at risk.

This morning his office put out a press release slamming critics of Zoie Saunders, his unqualified choice for education secretary. It’s a real piece of work, and I’d like to think I had a hand in inspiring this outpouring of wrath.

Not just me, of course. There are plenty of people who’ve questioned the Saunders nod. But you know, hope springs eternal.

Saunders’ nomination is subject to Senate ratification, and there are signs it might be in some trouble. A sizeable number of senators are raising questions about her selection. It’s unclear how many will sign on, but Saunders isn’t going to get a quick rubber-stamping. The governor’s people clearly see this, which is why he is striking back so aggressively.

The statement begins with Scott decrying those who have been “spreading or believing misinformation, making assumptions and levying attacks on her character.”

Well, that last bit definitely isn’t me. I wrote nothing about her character, and I have no opinion on the matter. But framing legitimate criticism as “character assassination” is a well-established rhetorical trick designed to delegitimize opposition, so it comes as no surprise.

The governor claims the criticism is “based on the state she currently lives in, and a cherry-picked part of her resume that’s been turned into a boogeyman.” I don’t think you can turn a resumé into a boogeyman, not even a cherry-picked part of one, but let’s move on.

The “cherry-picked” claim is farfetched because her resumé is so thin that there’s nothing much to leave out. The truth is, most of her educational work experience is in for-profit charter schools, and her only experience working in public schools consists of less than three months developing a plan to close schools and sell off property. That’s not cherry-picking; it’s a plain reading of her LinkedIn page*.

*Speaking of which, it’s been said that Saunders spent five years working for Charter Schools USA. According to her LinkedIn page, she actually spent six years and seven months at the for-profit charter school developer. Just correcting the record. Wouldn’t want to deny her credit for her accomplishments.

And now we get to the unsubtle allegation of misogyny from Gov. Nice Guy.

“Frankly, I’m embarrassed by the message it sends, that a smart, extremely capable professional woman, who has dedicated her career to improving outcomes for kids and addressing inequity for impoverished communities and families, is being villainized simply because of the state she currently lives in.”

Nope, I’m not accepting that, not a bit of it, not at all. None of the criticism is about her gender, and the governor is wrong to use it as a shield for his ill-considered decision. And while her residence in Florida does raise an initial red flag, it would carry no weight at all if she hadn’t spent her professional career engaged in the Floridian enterprise of undercutting public education.

Scott says the criticism “sends a terrible message” in a time when we’re struggling to recruit people to Vermont. Hey, I don’t mind if Saunders moves here, I’d just prefer that she takes a job she’s qualified to hold.

The closing paragraph you can read for yourself. It’s an attempt to reposition Saunders as a champion of education using the chosen language of those who deflect their true intention of undermining public schools by emphasizing their deep concern for THE CHILDREN.

Scott closes with a brief callback to a phrase I haven’t heard him say in years: “cradle to career.” It was one of the common themes of his initial campaign and early governorship, but he has never proposed a “cradle to career” plan because it would involve extending the Education Fund to include preschool and secondary education, which would mean substantial cuts to public K-12, and that’s politically unsustainable. It’s been a while since he uttered the phrase, and it’s kind of nice to hear him playing the hits. Maybe we’ll get a reprise of “protect the most vulnerable” next.

Phil Scott likes to talk about civility in public life and working across the aisle to get stuff done. But what he really means is “Let’s all agree to do what I want to do.” Because whenever someone questions a Scott decision, civility goes right out the window. Trouble is, his choice of Zoie Saunders is eminently questionable and his angry attack doesn’t change that.