Category Archives: 2016 election

Phil Scott, ultraconservative

In my previous post, I explored the fiduciary contradictions of Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s recently posted essay on VTDigger. For those just joining us, Scott believes he can hold the line on state spending and reject any tax or fee increases, while also increasing spending in several areas and somehow hold harmless our social safety net and environmental protections. Which, hahahaha.

That was enough for one post. But there’s something else in his essay that’s worthy of attention. It’s stunningly radical, putting him way, way out in Tea Party territory on a crucial, all-encompassing issue of governance.

… the Legislature needs to set a clear standard for all legislation. If a proposal responsibly decreases the costs of living and doing business in Vermont, they should pass it. If it increases costs in any way and leaves us open to financial uncertainty, they should set it aside.

Whoa. This ain’t the bland, inoffensive, centrist Phil Scott we’ve all come to know and love. This is a hard-line stance that would warm the cockles of David Koch’s heart, if he’s got one.

It’s also completely unworkable, natch. In the abstract it’s simple and elegant; in practice, it would create all sorts of problems.

Continue reading

Terms and conditions

Phil Scott and Bruce Lisman have spent this week trying to define their positions on admitting Syrian refugees. The issue is a sure-fire hit in Republican constituencies across the country, but here in Vermont the blowback seems to outweigh the benefit.

The topline for both men is pretty much identical — a “pause” in the refugee program until we can be reassured about security safeguards. But the devil, don’tcha know, is in the details. And if you take them both at face value, they want to put the program on the shelf for a long time.

Scott makes happy noises about “a nation of immigrants” and our values and the Statue of Liberty. But look closely at his terms and conditions he presented in his essay on the subject:

…my goal is to ensure the federal program moves forward with security protocols Vermonters, and all Americans, can have confidence in.

And there’s the deal-breaker. If Scott means what he wrote, he wants the refugee program shelved until every American is satisfied. That will never happen. How can you possibly convince people who think Obama is a Kenyan and see Islam as a religion of hate?

Lisman’s position is essentially the same, but his rhetoric is angrier and his conditions are more overtly unreachable.

Continue reading

Bruce Lisman sees an opening on the right

This week has seen Republican front-runner Phil Scott having a bit of trouble articulating a clear policy on America’s refugee program. Of course, he’s not terribly experienced at the job; one of the main perks of being Lieutenant Governor is that you don’t have to articulate clear policy stances. You can just kind of fuzzle around.

Meanwhile, his opponent Bruce Lisman has been shading his positions in the other direction. You may recall that, at first, the two seemed to be saying the same thing. But while Scott has shifted in a more welcoming direction, Lisman has sharpened his attacks on the security of the refugee program and on Governor Shumlin and President Obama.

Sigh. I fondly recall the good old days of Campaign for Vermont, when Lisman insisted he was nonpartisan and, in fact, had been a Democrat for most of his life. Well, now he’s declaring that he has no faith in the President’s ability to maintain security.

It looks like he has realized his only shot at the Republican nomination is to run to Phil Scott’s right. His opening gambit: a chorus of dog whistles aimed at stirring up anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.

Good God, I hope he goes down in flames. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Continue reading

Phil Scott dials back the demagoguery

Man, I can’t tell you how nice it is to live in a state where xenophobia isn’t a sound political strategy.

It hasn’t been 48 hours since our two Republican gubernatorial hopefuls cracked open a jug of Doctor GOP’s Universal Snake Oil Cure-All, and not only have they not made a dent in Governor Shumlin’s forthright support for allowing Syrian refugees into Vermont, but they have found it necessary to ‘splain themselves. Even worse, a Democratic candidate is firing back with both barrels.

Lt. Gov. Phil Scott went so far as to fire off an opinion piece which (a) blamed the media for distorting his views, natch, and (b) set forth a new position that’s either carefully nuanced or tortuous, depending on how you look at it. His basic point: he wants a brief “pause” in the refugee program so all Americans can be fully informed, and become fully confident, in its absolute integrity. Which is bullshit, because no amount of information will convince, for instance, the roughly 30% of Americans who still believe President Obama is a Muslim. There is no reasoning with those people.

So if we wait for the “information” to convince every American, then we will never, ever, ever admit another refugee. Ever.

But let’s hear more from Phil “I Am Not A Xenophobe” Scott:

Continue reading

Cautionary notes on the Phil Scott inevitability, part 3: Deadweight party

See also: Part 1, addressing the massive turnout difference between presidential and non-presidential years; and part 2, on the unhelpfully archconservative nature of the Republican presidential field.

Strangely, there was no media presence at last Saturday’s meeting of the Vermont Republican Party.

I say “strangely” because the VTGOP’s four officers were up for re-election. And they haven’t been all that successful; the party continues to trail the Democrats in finances, staffing, and organization, both statewide and grassroots.

I couldn’t be there because I was out of town all weekend, but I have heard some news.

To begin with, in a sign that Executive Director Jeff Bartley doesn’t have his finger on the pulse, he scheduled the meeting for the opening weekend of hunting season. That’d seem to be a no-no for The Party Of Traditional Vermont (And Guns), if not for a young urbanite like Jeff. From what I hear, they barely mustered a quorum.

On the topline, there was no drama. All four officers were re-elected. Maybe the conservatives were out baggin’ deer, or maybe they just don’t have much to offer. (Two years ago, their choice for party chair was John MacGovern, who’s best known in these parts for being an ultraconservative joke candidate against Bernie Sanders in 2012. If he was the conservative wing’s best option, then ugh.)

Here’s something you’ll be surprised to hear. Both gubernatorial candidates addressed the “crowd,” and from the whispers reaching these ears, Phil Scott was underwhelming. How underwhelming? Well, Bruce Lisman looked good by comparison. Apparently, Scott rolled out his usual bumpf, while Lisman actually offered some red meat to the faithful.

In the long run, that’s probably meaningless. Scott remains the overwhelming favorite for the nomination, but there might just be a few chinks in the favorite’s armor.

Continue reading

In the best possible way for the worst possible reason

If anyone doubted that there was a deep well of humanity inside the flinty-eyed vote-counter, today’s announcement removed all doubt.

House Speaker Shap Smith has left the gubernatorial race, citing his wife Melissa Volansky’s continuing battle with breast cancer. He chose family over ambition, despite Volansky herself urging him to stay in the race.

His announcement was concise, graceful, heartfelt, and noble. It speaks volumes about Shap’s character and priorities, and it makes me hope that he can return to politics someday.

For now, no. He rejected any talk of re-entering the race even if circumstances permit, and he announced he will not seek re-election to the House next year. And if this does turn out to be his last act in politics, then (a) it’s one hell of an exit, and (b) Vermont will be the poorer for it.

And now, since this is a political blog, we don the green eyeshade and consider the political impact.

To put it bluntly, Sue Minter may have just won the Democratic nomination.

Continue reading

Cautionary notes on the Phil Scott inevitability, part 2: Bad candidates

So I forced myself to watch the Republican presidential debate last week. Overall impressions?

Ben Carson excepted, these guys are articulate spokespeople for a worldview completely at odds with reality. Also, whoever gets the nomination is going to be an albatross around Phil Scott’s neck.

I mentioned this in my previous post, but the point deserves further attention.

In a relatively serious, issue-oriented debate, the Republicans presented an array of positions that made George W. Bush look like a liberal. And we all know how popular George W. was in Vermont — the only state he never visited as President. (Dick Cheney made one stop, a quick in-and-out at the Burlington Airport.)

To put it another way, the Republican presidential nominee will not help Phil Scott or his party-broadening project. Not the least tiny little bit.

Continue reading

Cautionary notes on the Phil Scott inevitability: The numbers game

Submitted for your consideration, two politicians. One is widely seen as a failure; the other, a stunning success.

Now, two numbers: 110,970 and 87,075.

Finally, we raise the curtain.

The first politico is Randy Brock. He won 110,970 votes in his “disastrous” 2012 run for governor.

The second is Scott Milne. He garnered 87,075 votes in his 2014 near-victory.

Randy Brock the “failure” outpolled Scott Milne the “success” by nearly 24,000 votes.

Continue reading

Your next lieutenant governor might just be an anti-vaxxer

Note for those freshly landing on this page: Please also see subsequent post with response from Rep. Kesha Ram.

Interesting factoid about the Democratic candidates to succeed Phil Scott. One, Garrett Graff, is in day three of radio silence following reports that he may not qualify to run. One, Brandon Riker, must prove he can be competitive despite a lack of experience and little name recognition. As for the other two?

They each voted “No” on the bill that removes the philosophical exemption to childhood vaccinations.

State Sen. David Zuckerman’s opposition was widely noted, as he made a last-ditch maneuver to derail the bill in the Senate, asserting that the science on vaccine safety is “disputed.”

Well, I guess he’s right that it’s “disputed.” But not by the broad scientific consensus and decades of real-world experience.

Less noted at the time was the “No” vote cast by State Rep. Kesha Ram. As far as I can tell, she kind of went under the radar with her opposition.

Continue reading

Good Luck Zuck

While existential doubt continues to swirl around Garrett Graff’s proto-candidacy, yet another liberal has stepped into the race for lieutenant governor. So much hankerin’ for Vermont’s very own bucket of warm spit.

This time, it’s David Zuckerman, Dem/Prog State Senator from Chittenden County, confirming what many had expected: he’s in the race. Originally a Progressive, he’s campaigned for Senate on both Prog and Dem tickets, and he plans to enter the Democratic primary.

And in a sign of the Progs’ perilous position, he probably won’t run at all if he can’t get the Dem nom. This is either a high-stakes gamble, or Farmer Dave is tired of the Senate: he’s trading in a sure thing for what looks like a lottery ticket — one entrant in a field that already includes either two or three Democrats, depending on the disposition of Young Graff’s residency issue. And there may be further entrants from the Senate Democratic caucus, although I suspect that when push comes to shove, most (or all) of them will prove unwilling to let go of their comfy Senate perches.

(Really, can you imagine the likes of John Campbell or Dick McCormack entering a race they’d actually have to work hard to win?)

Zuckerman’s candidacy begins with inconvenient questions about fundraising. He says he may pursue public financing — but Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck reports that he may already be disqualified from that very restrictive process because of his early announcement. (The rules say no campaigning, period, before February 15. Which is far too late in the unprecedentedly early Vermont campaign season.)

Continue reading