Category Archives: 2014 election

Honest government, if not honest elections

4 Replies

Now comes a brief spurt of outrage from the Kingdom, in the form of a belatedly-organized “group” (mainly one guy, William Round, with some money and a grudge) agitating for the election of Scott Milne as governor by the state legislature.

Newly-minted Seven Days political reporter Terri Hallenbeck says Round told her that “the group started over coffee among friends and includes more than 50 Vermonters he described as ordinary residents.”

Only one of the 50 shows up on the group’s FCC filing, and that would be Mr. Round. His filing asserts that VfHG has no officers, executive committee, or board of directors, so I have to assume that its organization and funding begin and end with William Round.

The lion’s share of the $30,000 ad buy is on WCAX. The ads will run from Dec. 30 through Jan. 7, the day before the legislature will hold its usually ceremonial election. Ad buys are targeted on WCAX and CBS news programming.

The ad says nothing about the close outcome of the November election; it simply recycles Republican complaints about Gov. Shumlin — high taxes, overspending, “broken promises,” etc.

VfHG’s emergence does give Milne the opportunity to deny the validity of the November vote:

“It points out to the people that we’ve got a constitution that essentially says we’ve had no election for governor. That happens on January 8,” Milne said.

Ah, so the votes cast by nearly 200,000 Vermonters? They don’t count. Sorry. We failed to cast them with sufficient clarity of purpose.

Well, it’s just more of Milne’s self-interested pseudo-logic, nothing new there.

As for Mr. Round and his willingness to spend $30,000 in a doomed effort to re-litigate the election? I fully support his Constitutional right to waste his money.

Finally, I suppose it would be churlish of me to reproduce the evidence of ungrammatical haste in filling out an official form? Yes, it probably would.

William Round FCC form

 

Rob Roper’s Machiavellian fantasy

Leave a reply

Oh, the Robster spun a tale, he did.

In a brief commentary on the Ethan Allen Institute’s occasionally-good-for-a-laugh website, Roper laid out a cunning plan to land Scott Milne in the corner office.

"I have a cunning plan," whispers Baldrick.

“I have a cunning plan,” whispers Baldrick.

Fasten your seat belts, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

First postulate: Gov. Shumlin’s “single payer healthcare system has been a disaster for Democrats,” which is quite a trick considering his system doesn’t exist yet. What he means is that initial reaction to a possible financing plan has been, as expected, a mixed bag, and that the Democrats lost seats in the Legislature due, so says the Robster, to disillusionment with health care reform.

Which sets the stage, so says the Robster, for Republican momentum leading into 2016. Further GOP gains and maybe a Republican governor.

But, he says, the Dems have a way out: Elect Scott Milne as governor.

That way, they rid themselves of Shumlin and single payer, and have a handy scapegoat for the death of single payer and anything else that goes wrong in the next two years. And since Milne would enter office as a political neophyte who hasn’t made any plans for an administration or a budget, the Legislature could walk all over him.

Quite a temptation for the Speaker (who many think is eyeing a run for governor in 2016 anyway, and this would clear an easier path) and the Senate President Pro Tem as well as the committee chairs.

A Milne governorship, if he does not rise to the occasion, could kill Republican momentum.

Roper finds a shred of “evidence” in support of his fantasy in the fact that “Democrats have not come out in full-throated support for Shumiln in the upcoming legislative vote.”

Well, there’s a much simpler explanation for that: the Democrats know the legislative vote is going to be over and done with very quickly, and there’s no need for them to “campaign” against Milne, who is certain to lose.

I realize that the Robster has to provide regular content to justify his salary at the EAI, but this is… well, it’s the kind of stuff I’d expect to hear from Baldrick.

Shorter Milne: “My heart will go on”

1 Reply
Scott Milne, the lone constant in an ever-changing world.

Scott Milne, the lone constant in an ever-changing world.

Scott Milne’s Dec. 8 announcement that his campaign for governor would continue was, perhaps, the quintessential Milne event.

Defiance of conventional wisdom? Check.

Tortuous logic in support of his own position? Check.

Abandonment of previous tortuous logic? Check.

Self-serving interpretations of history and recent events? Check.

Sarcastic cracks about the media? Check.

References to his own humility? Check.

References to his own brilliance? Check.

Malapropisms? Check.

Outright blunders? Check.

And, finally, an almost complete absence of Republican bigwigs? Check.

Double-check, in fact. Milne made it clear that there’s no love lost between him and the VTGOP establishment.

First the topline, then we’ll go down the checklist. Yes, Milne will carry his campaign forward into the Legislature, where he wants each lawmaker to do his/her Constitutional duty and select the best person to govern Vermont. His remarks were full of the usual exaggerations about the calamity that awaits Vermont if Peter Shumlin returns to office.

But at the same time, he won’t be actively campaigning.

I am not going to proactively be trying to convince legislators to vote for me. My door is open. …I don’t think it’s something I should be twistin’ arms for.

As I wrote earlier, Milne was rhetorically aggressive and tactically passive.

And now, the checklist.

A pre-launch moment, with WCAX's Kyle Midura doing some TV thingy.

A pre-launch moment, with WCAX’s Kyle Midura doing some TV thingy.

Defiance of conventional wisdom. Almost too many examples to count. He will carry on, in spite of (1) historical precedent, (2) a heavily Democratic legislature, (3) common sense.

Oh, and he’s done virtually nothing to prepare for running the state, should the Legislature elect him:

Tortuous logic in support of his position. Milne took a page from the Antonin Scalia Book of Constitutional Originalism by saying that the state Constitution was the only relevant text to be considered. He patched together two separate items from said document: The mandate for the Legislature to settle elections when no single candidate wins a majority, and the oath taken by lawmakers. (Which, as we’ll see a little further on, turns out NOT to be the right oath.)

Abandonment of previous tortuous logic. Earlier, Milne had posited a couple of rationalizations for his election: (1) Lawmakers should vote the way their constituents did, instead of abiding by the statewide results. (2) The historical precedent is significantly weakened because wasn’t obeyed in the 1978 election for Lieutenant Governor.

There was no hint of either argument today. He’s on to brand-new tortuous logic that we haven’t had a chance to disprove yet.

Self-serving interpretations of history and recent events. He asserted that there is no historical precedent for electing the top vote-getter, even though the last time it didn’t happen was in 1853. Apparently he’s spent some time in the history books, and has constructed his own aircastle of argument. It goes like this:

After the mid-1800s, there was almost a century of unbroken Republican rule with no close tallies in the general election. That wipes out most of the precedent. Then he posits a self-servingly narrow definition of history: 1986 was the only comparable occasion, because it was the only other time when an incumbent governor received less than a majority. All other occasions, like Jim Douglas’ win in 2002, conveniently enough, do not apply.

Nor does Mr. Douglas’ own advice to maintain the precedent and exit the race.

Sarcastic cracks about the media. This time, Seven Days’ Paul “Be Your Own Boss” Heintz was the main target. (Although when I asked for a copy of his speech “so I wouldn’t misquote you,” he shot back with “You’ll probably misquote me anyway.”) Milne slammed Heintz a couple of times for asking the same question four times. Heintz only repeated the question because Milne didn’t give a straight answer.

Mahatma and the media in the Cedar Creek Room. VPR's Peter Hirschfeld is crouching stealthily at left.

Mahatma and the media in the Cedar Creek Room. WPTZ’s Stuart Ledbetter suffering from head tilt at center; VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld crouching stealthily at bottom left.

References to his own humility. “I think what Vermonters like about my humble campaign is that we didn’t try to sell people things.”

References to his own brilliance. This came in response to questions about whether he’s been preparing to assume the Governor’s office. Like, say, naming a cabinet or prepping a budget.

All this mumbo-jumbo about how tough it is to be Governor and how you’ve got to do all this stuff. You look to Governor Walker in Alaska who won in a recount and was inaugurated two weeks later.It’s entirely possible to put together a team that can do a credible job.

Later, when asked if he had started writing a budget (due two weeks after inauguration), he lifted up a page from his prepared speech, showed the blank back side of the paper, and said “It’s right here.”

Governing Vermont: it’s a doddle.

Malapropisms. The best one came directly after the above quote: “I have zero lack of confidence that this isn’t going to go in a very good direction very quickly if I’m elected.”

If I count correctly, that’s a triple negative.

Outright blunders. See my previous post about Milne’s apparent confusion over Constitutional oaths. He said that lawmakers, in choosing the next governor, should abide by their Constitutional oath. And then he quoted the Voter’s Oath, formerly known as the Freeman’s Oath.

The oath taken by lawmakers is completely different. Oopsie.

Almost complete absence of Republican bigwigs. There was a small cheering section stationed behind the gaggle of journalists, cameras, and blogger*, but as far as I could tell, no Republican officeholders or state party officials attended the event. Which is curious, since most top Republicans profess to backing Milne’s claim to the governorship. If they were serious, you’d think they’d be on hand to provide some moral support and give some good quotes to reporters.

*That’s me. 

When asked about party support, Milne was rather cold toward the VTGOP.

I think I helped the Republicans statewide about as much as they helped me. I’m not indebted to them, they’re not indebted to me. …I don’t owe the Republican Party anything in the state of Vermont. I clearly don’t owe the national Republican Party anything. This is clearly going to be a Scott Milne administration, designed to do what’s best for Vermont regardless of politics.

Perhaps this is nothing more than political repositioning: in the Legislature, he doesn’t need to convince Republicans, he needs to get centrist Dems on board. So it’s only natural that he’d try to brand himself as a moderate maverick with no particular party ties. On the other hand, he professes to be an honest, humble, anti-politician, so it’s difficult to imagine him taking a position out of pure political convenience.

Isn’t it?

Anyway, the news conference was kind of a clusterf*ck… but exactly the kind of clusterf*ck we’ve come to expect from 2014’s answer to Fred Tuttle.

Mahatma makes a boo-boo

Leave a reply

I’m in the process of doing a full write-up of Scott Milne’s news conference this morning. But while I was putting it together, I came across something I couldn’t resist sharing right away.

In his prepared remarks, he called on state lawmakers to vote for Governor in accordance with their “constitutional oath,” which he quoted in the following way:

… in giving my “vote or suffrage touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, [I] will do it so as in [my] conscience [I] shall judge will most conduce to the best… as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.”

Small problem, bucko.

That is the Voter’s Oath, which can be found on Vermont’s voter registration form.

There are two Oaths in the state constitution (Section 56) that officeholders must swear: the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office. They read like this:

The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance

You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont and that you will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.

The Oath or Affirmation of Office

You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will faithfully execute the office of ____ for the ____ of ____ and will therein do equal right and justice to all persons, to the best of your judgment and ability, according to law. (If an oath) So help you God. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.

If he’d found the right Oaths, Milne could perhaps have made a case that lawmakers should vote against Gov. Shumlin to avoid doing “any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government,” but that’s not the argument he made.

It was obvious from his news conference that he’d spent a lot of time researching Vermont history and government. But apparently he didn’t quite spend enough time.

As ever, if anyone has contrary information I will happily correct this post.

 

Addendum. Members of the House and Senate actually take a longer oath than that cited in the constitution. However, (1) it does not contain the language cited by Milne, and (2) it’s part of the Legislative Rules, not the Constitution. So Milne remains wrong. 

The Milne campaign: Rhetorically aggressive, tactically passive

Leave a reply

(This is a brief update post. I’ll have a longer take later today.)

Well, at least he didn’t postpone again.

Scott Milne emerged from his secret undisclosed location and saw his shadow, so we’ll have six more weeks of campaigning.

Not really. He did announce, as expected, that he would carry the gubernatorial race forward into the Legislature. But the announcement was curiously bifurcated: he laid out a strongly-worded case against Governor Shumlin seemingly borrowed from Roget’s entry for “disaster.”

An incomplete sampling: “real trouble,” “poor leadership,” “wreaking havoc,” “arrogant,” “deaf,” “botched,” and, of course, “disaster.”

At the same time, seeking to tamp down talk of a looming Constitutional crisis, he also allowed as to how “If Peter Shumlin gets elected, life will go on.”

Beyond that, Milne called on the Legislature to elect him Governor, but he said he’s had little contact with any lawmakers and has no plans to actively solicit their votes: “I don’t think it should be a PR campaign.”

Curiously, he appears to have abandoned his earlier rationale that lawmakers should vote with their constituents. Now, he’s citing the state Constitution and arguing that each lawmaker should vote as he or she sees fit, regardless of personal or political interests.

In addition, he said he’s made little or no moves to prepare for his potential election as governor. When asked if he’d done any work on a budget, which the governor will have to present two weeks after his inauguration, he displayed a blank sheet of paper.

All in all, it was a typically Milne performance.  A bit strange, a lot inconsistent, and reliant on his own brand of logic.

That’s it for now. More later.

Now that I have their attention

1 Reply

Funny thing happened Thursday, unprecedented in my three-plus years of political blogging.

My sources. Not exactly as illustrated.

My sources. Not exactly as illustrated.

I got calls from not one, not two, but three different top Democrats seeking to gently upbraid me for stuff I’d written this week, and offer some guidance toward alternative views. Their own views, of course.

Which is nice for the ego. They read, and they care.

Also, their messages were valuable. They did offer some good information. But I’m not completely convinced.

The callers offered some pushback on the subject of newsdumps. They insisted that what appear to be newsdumps — the offloading of bad news when people are least likely to see it — were not newsdumps at all, but simply cases of the calendar conspiring against them.

There was a second message: the upcoming round of budget rescissions do not single out Human Services. They don’t deny that AHS is going to feel the pain, but the problem, as they explain it, is that vast areas of the budget are off-limits for rescissions, which makes AHS the only real target of substantial size.

They made some good points. The problem is this: the Shumlin administration has a well-earned reputation for (1) deviousness, (2) political gamesmanship, (3) newsdumps, and (4) targeting Human Services. Their own track record colors my views of recent events. In other words, if I was overly cynical, I put much of the blame on their doorstep.

I’m sure those inside the administration don’t see it that way. For the most part, they honestly believe they’re trying their best to move the state forward through tough times. But the 2014 election should have been a wake-up call: their view of things is often at odds with others’ views. Say, the voters’ views.

Let’s take their points, shall we?

First, on Human Services having to make almost two-thirds of the cuts in the upcoming rescissions. It’s true, but the reason is that AHS takes the lion’s share of general fund money. And only general-fund programs are open to rescission. Schools and transportation don’t get much money from the general fund, for instance.

According to outgoing Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding, appearing on VPR’s Vermont Edition Friday, AHS accounts for 40% of the total budget — but 75% of General Fund spending.

Which sounds reasonable to me. But…

1. This wouldn’t be the first time the administration targeted AHS. The most notorious case is Shumlin’s ill-fated effort to slash the Earned Income Tax Credit, one of our best bulwarks against the rising tide of income inequality.

2. The rescissions list was released on the Thursday before Thanksgiving. This may or may not have been a newsdump (see below), but it gave little or no opportunity for journalists and bloggers to seek clarification of the raw numbers. When I saw the raw numbers, they looked really, really bad for AHS.

And now, on to newsdumps. I had identified three: the rescissions release, the deadline for submitting rescissions, and the Governor’s release of his single-payer financing plan at the end of this month.

The rescissions release on Thanksgiving Eve wasn’t a newsdump, my callers insist. They had put together the list and informed agency officials earlier that week. Many agencies wanted to tackle the budget-cutting immediately — over the holiday weekend. That meant releasing the list on Wednesday, so the process could begin.

The deadline, Friday Dec. 5, they say, wasn’t a newsdump because they hadn’t planned to release anything on Friday. It was an internal deadline only.

I can accept that. But once again, history informed my cynicism. When I see something bad happening on a Friday or a holiday eve, my Weaselometer begins to howl.

Finally, the long-awaited and catastrophically overdue reveal of the single-payer funding plan (which VTDigger’s Morgan True appears to have uncovered the substance of already) on either Monday December 29 or Tuesday December 30. Many voters will be out of town or otherwise occupied during that time; media outlets will have bare-bones staffing. So of course it looked like a newsdump. 

Not so, insist my callers. They blame the calendar, mostly. You see, the 29th and 30th are on Monday and Tuesday. They couldn’t release it on Friday the 26th, and New Year’s Eve would be universally viewed as a newsdump.

The week before is problematic as well. The 24th, 25th, and 26th are out. Monday the 22nd or Tuesday the 23rd would hardly be any better than the 29th or 30th. And the week before that is too early; the plan may not be completely done by then.

Okay, spin it ahead. New Year’s Day is a Thursday; Jan. 2 is not only the day after a holiday, it’s a Friday, so that’s no good.

Which brings us to Monday the 5th — only two days before the Legislature convenes. That week is likely to be a circus, what with Scott Milne’s Dance of the Seven Veils, various ceremonial activities, and other hard news. (Such as the RAND Corp. report on marijuana legalization.)

The fear, so I’m told, is that a single-payer unveil on Jan. 5 could get lost in a blizzard of news. It would also give lawmakers less time to look it over. And, I’m told, lawmakers wanted to get their hands on it as quickly as possible. Hence, a pre-New Year’s release.

Again, it all makes sense. And again, given the administration’s iffy history, you can understand why an outsider would look at a late-December release and scream “Newsdump!”

This all illustrates how much the administration will have to do, to repair its tattered and battered public image. Much of those batterings were self-inflicted, as the administration acted out of unwarranted hubris and, sometimes, arrogance.

They may not believe they acted badly in the past. But a lot of Vermonters, including a whole lot of liberals, are convinced that they did. That’s why Shumlin’s pre-election approval numbers were so dismal, and why his very expensive campaign hardly moved the numbers at all.

And that’s why I’ve said the Governor should avoid newsdumps or anything that looks like a newsdump, or anything that looks like a political maneuver or a transparently bogus explanation. He’d be better served by standing up in broad daylight and owning the bad news, instead of reinforcing his reputation.

Of course, he’d be far better off by having an administration that didn’t produce so much bad news. But that’s another matter.

Callers, thanks for reading theVPO and taking it seriously. And thanks for calling.

Just wake me when it’s over

Leave a reply

Scott Milne, eyes wide shutAs predictable, and as tiresome, as the early-autumn snowfall that sends everybody running to get their snow tires on:

Milne to Delay Gubernatorial Decision — Again

That utterly unsurprising word comes from Mr. Politics Editor, Paul Heintz, who helpfully recounts Scott Milne’s oft-delayed decision on whether he will actively promote his gubernatorial candidacy before the Legislature. When last we heard from Mahatma’s secret redoubt, he was promising a decision this week. But now?

On Thursday, he told Seven Days by text message that the announcement was “sliding into next week.”

And I’ll believe that when I see it.

 

 

 

Our favorite country lawyer spins a yarn

1 Reply

Joe Benning, top Republican in the State Senate, has made a decision. And he wants us all to know about it.

In a short essay posted by VTDigger, the good Senator reveals that when the legislature reconvenes in January, he will vote for Scott Milne for Governor.

Gee, “Scott Milne.” There’s a name I haven’t heard in a while.

Benning’s vote, to hear him tell, has nothing to do with partisanship. The fact that he’s backing the #2 vote-getter, who happens to be a fellow Republican, over the top finisher, a Democrat? Nothing about that in his essay.

Well, not by name. He does, however, depict his vote as an attempt to block the imminent ruin of Vermont at the hands of a certain incumbent governor.

But he begins with a veiled shot at any lawmaker who fails to follow his example in publicly revealing his vote:

 Other legislators may feel differently, but this legislator feels a responsibility to explain his intended vote to his constituents.

Well, yeah, but the choice will be made on a secret ballot. A phrase which conspicuously includes the word “secret.” Feel free to tear back the curtain from your own voting booth, Senator, but don’t imply that those who fail to do so are acting improperly. And yes, that’s what you did.

The next paragraph points to the closeness of the election and Milne’s lopsided majority in Benning’s district, and then creates a false equivalency between the tradition of electing the top vote-getter and the freshly minted “tradition” of voting with one’s district. Uh-huh. One tradition has been unbroken for over 150 years, while the other has never been heard of in Vermont until this month.

Myself, I prefer the weightier term “precedent” in referring to this consistent principle in electing a governor. I can see why Benning does not. But there is wisdom in this precedent; to elect someone other than the top finisher creates the appearance that the legislature is thwarting the will of the people, and sows the seeds of partisan rancor.

Which is exactly what happened the last two times that precedent was flouted, in the 1976 lieutenant governor’s race and in the 1853 contest for governor.

The final cowpat in Benning’s castle is his citation of John F. Kennedy and his self-branding as an embodiment of political courage — a Gandalf staring into the gaping maw of chaos and bravely crying, “You shall not pass!”

Sorry, senator. You’re no hero; you’re just another opportunist.

Now appearing for an indefinite engagement: Scott Milne in… Hamlet

Leave a reply

Last week, Scott Milne was promising a decision this week on whether to actively pursue the gubernatorial race into the Legislature. At the time, I noted: 

“Next week,” by Milne’s standards, might be anytime between tomorrow and Christmas Day.

Welp, I was right. Today, Milne announced that his announcement would be delayed.

I will be listening to Vermonters and talking with my family over the next two weeks. I will follow up with a formal announcement of our plans, regarding the constitutional demands placed on our Legislature to elect our next governor, in early December.

ReplyHazyWay to keep your promises, Mahatma.

Instead of a resolution to this foofaraw, we get at least two more weeks of trolling. Great.

Funny thing: from the rest of the Republicans, we’re pretty much hearing the sounds of silence. They seem to have moved on to the Next Outrage, Jonathan Gruber. As has been true since the election results came in, the VTGOP has done nothing publicly to include Scott Milne in its strategy or tactics.

Which would be downright strange if they thought he had a snowball’s chance of being the next Governor — and the leader of their party going forward. Nah, they just saw him as a convenient whip to flog the Democrats with. They were trolling, not only the entire state, but Scott Milne himself.  That’s what friends are for.

We shall continue to eagerly await future pearls of wisdom from Mahatma’s mountaintop retreat. But we won’t be holding our breath.

We have all failed Bruce Lisman

Leave a reply

Our favorite Wall Street panjandrum turned everyman policy expert knows what the 2014 election was all about: it was about our collective failure to heed the wisdom of Bruce Lisman.

And he’s mad as hell about it.

We’ve just re-elected a government that has made bad ideas, bad management, and bad leadership seem ordinary.

… We want [our leaders] to take seriously the embedded philosophy of Vermont that would offer a helping hand or a comforting hand to those in need but balanced with those other great Vermont characteristics, frugality and commonsense.

The latter phrase taken, word for word, from previous Lisman bumpf. The rest of the column is of a piece: the lesson of this election is that Bruce Lisman is right and everybody else (especially the Democrats who, as a figleaf of nonpartisanship, are not identified as such) is wrong. Wrong! WRONG!

Hide your children. good people; he's searching for skin again.

Hide your children. good people; he’s searching for skin again.

What is it with you people, failing to heed the words of Bruce Almighty?

The rest of the column is more of the same, except there’s a new edge to Bruce’s tone. He’s getting angry. And he’s moving to the right. Sounding more and more like John McClaughry, in fact.

The (unnamed) Democrats’ policies? “bad ideas executed badly,” “a special hell for Vermonters.”

Democrats’ ideas for school spending and organization: “like someone breaking your leg and then offering you a crutch.”

“Our leaders… make decisions blindly.”

Vermont Health Connect? “a catastrophe of major proportion.” Too bad, Bruce: you wrote those words before the successful relaunch of Vermont Health Connect.

But you look at Lisman’s laundry list, and you wonder how in hell the Democrats got a single vote, let alone a sizeable majority.

Which maybe is why Bruce has a bug up his butt. The people of Vermont are eschewing his wise counsel.

Well, okay then. But riddle me this, Lisman: if you felt so strongly about all this, why did you almost entirely sit out the 2014 election? We barely heard from you. We never saw you alongside Scott Milne or Phil Scott or your Campaign for Vermont colleague Heidi Scheuermann.

Now that I think of it, last time we heard from Bruce, he was torpedoing Scheuermann’s nascent gubernatorial bid with some poorly-timed and pointless musings of his own. After that, a conspicuous absence of Lisman.

The man’s policy insights may be arguable, but his political acumen is not: he has none. I wrote about this on Green Mountain Daily in May, but his post-election rage makes it freshly relevant.

Bruce Lisman could have made a substantial difference in the election. All he had to do was drop the mask of nonpartisanship and openly declare himself an ally of Phil Scott and company. He could have helped bankroll the party and a real live gubernatorial candidate. Say, Heidi Scheuermann.

His active backing would have helped the VTGOP recruit candidates. Its failure to field anything like a full slate limited its ability to gain seats in the legislature.

Is his increasingly-tattered nonpartisan image that important to him? When his rhetoric is in the same ballpark as conservative Republicans’, who does he think he’s fooling? Just because he doesn’t say “Democrat” or “Shumlin” doesn’t make it any less obvious.

If Lisman felt this strongly about the direction of Vermont, he could have done something about it. He chose not to, by all visible evidence. So whose fault is it that Vermont failed to heed his (inaudible) warning?