Category Archives: Peter Shumlin

The most significant thing about Governor Shumlin’s first TV ad of 2014

Leave a reply

The Shumlin campaign has taken to the airwaves with a 30-second commercial that features real-life Vermonters who have benefited from Shumlin initiatives. The aim of the ad is to remind viewers of the administration’s many accomplishments — to counteract the stream of bad news about Vermont Health Connect and the Department of Children and Families, and to remind liberal voters that the Governor has, indeed, delivered on many of his promises.

All he needs is rainbows and unicorns.

All he needs is rainbows and unicorns.

Pretty standard stuff, and it’s been duly reported in the media. But they haven’t noticed* the most significant thing about the launch: its timing.

*Correction: All but one of them failed to notice. Sevan Days’ Paul Heintz reported it two days before I did. That’s why they call him The Huntsman.

In 2012, the Shumlin campaign didn’t take to the airwaves until roughly two weeks before Election Day.

This year, the campaign hits your TV screens almost a full month earlier.

According to campaign finance reports, the Shumlin camp spent $125,000 on ad buys in 2012. Campaign manager Scott Coriell isn’t saying how much they’ll spend this year, but it figures to be a lot more.  They’ll be filling airtime for six weeks instead of two, so it’s fair to guess that they’ll triple their spending this year. Or more.

So, why?

In 2012 Shumlin faced an underfunded, underorganized, mismanaged opponent. Shumiin’s re-election was never in doubt. This year, he faces one opponent who’s far worse in all three categories, and another who represents a fringe viewpoint with a proven track record of appealing to a sliver of the electorate. Recent polls (and deeply flawed polls at that) notwithstanding, his re-election is once again in the bag.

But the Governor isn’t aiming his campaign at the broad electorate. He’s trying to pump up the base and generate higher turnout by core Democratic voters. Hence the reminders of popular Democratic initiatives.

If he can get a pure majority of the vote — at least 50% plus one — he’ll have a lot of political capital to spend in next year’s debate over single-payer health care.

But if he wins with a plurality and, worse case, he gets fewer votes than the Republican and Libertarian candidates combined, he’ll have a lot less pull with the Legislature. And right now, he’s polling in the mid-40s. He needs a boost.

Plus, of course, the higher his vote total, the more Dems and Progs will ride his coattails to victory. And he’ll need every liberal vote he can get, if single-payer is to pass next year.

That’s the significance of the early TV launch this year.

Who’s writing the headlines @MilneforVT?

Leave a reply

News release just landed in my inbox from the Scott Milne campaign:

POVERTY NUMBERS INDICATE A NEED FOR CHANGE

Mm. Mm-hmm-hmm. Mm-hmm-heh-heh-HAHAHAHAHA.

From Clipboard“Poverty,” “Need for Change.” Get it?

I’d say somebody chez Milne has a sly sense of humor, but the truth, I suspect, has more to do with cluelessness.

The rest of the press release is unimaginative bumpf about Governor Shumlin’s reckless spending. Nothing at all about job creation or what Scott Milne plans to do. Just a mindless, poorly aimed attack-by-the-numbers.

With a really stupid headline.

Shorter Feliciano: Money is Bad, when it’s not mine

4 Replies

One of the lesser pieces of flotsam to hit the beach after Governor Shumlin’s first campaign commercial went on the air was a written statement from Libertarian candidate Dan Feliciano. (I guess Scott Milne was too busy doing… something… to issue a stattement, so Feliciano seized the token-response space.)

And here it is, in all its hypocritical glory:

The reality is Governor Shumlin’s failed leadership is what is hurting Vermonters, but Peter Shumlin will reach into his million dollar war chest and run endless ads spinning a false narrative and trying to convince hard working Vermonters that his big Government programs are the solutions to their problems.

Oh, that’s rich. Dan Feliciano thinks that the Governor will use his big honkin’ bankroll to pull the wool over Vermonters’ eyes.

This, from a guy who believes that money is speech, and there should be no limits on campaign contributions. Stop it, Dan: you’re embarrassing yourself and undermining your own principles.

Your own narrative of the political process should lead you to congratulate the Governor for going out, working hard, and convincing people to give money to his campaign. It’s the American Dream, right?

Reminds me of a time a few years back when I was listening to professional Liberty Puppet Rob Roper flappin’ his gums on WDEV Radio. He was complaining about the imbalance in Vermont’s nonprofit community — that those on the left were far stronger and deeper-pocketed than those on the right. The Robster, at the time, was fronting his own struggling nonprofit, so you might say he had a conflict of interest. But I certainly never heard him complain about the vast Koch Brothers nonprofit network. Nor will he complain about the Kochs’ money underwriting his current gig at the Ethan Allen Institute.

But in the case of Vermont nonprofits, as with gubernatorial warchests, the shoe’s on the wrong foot for our doughty, independent Vermont conservatives. To put it another way, it’s not fair when liberals have the money.

Shumlin’s strategy is focused on 2015

Leave a reply

The Shumlin Administration’s decision to shut down the Vermont Health Connect website drew the predictable response from his opponents.  “Catastrophic failure,” said Scott Milne. “I still think it’s going to be a disaster,” said Dan Feliciano. And VTGOP chair “Super Dave” Sunderland floated a conspiracy theory: VHC “will be shut down for repairs until after the election” (Italics mine), implying that Shumlin is trying to run out the clock and put off his Day of Reckoning until after he is safely re-elected.

Sorry, not buying it. The timing appears convenient, and Sunderland is well within his rights to make as much hay about it as he can. But the timing makes perfect sense in a non-conspiratorial way: Harry Chen came on board as Human Services Secretary a month ago. His top priorities were (1) trouble in the Department of Children and Families, and (2) review of VHC implementation. He’s had a month, and now he’s got a plan.

But even more importantly, the mid-November relaunch has far less to do with the election than with the open enrollment period. The VHC website has to be back online by November 15.  Repairs have to happen either before then, or after the enrollment period closes in February. It’s a lot easier to do repairs during a shutdown.

Besides, the truth is, Republican (and Libertarian) attacks are irrelevant. The Governor knows he’s going to win the election, and he doesn’t care what they say. His goal is the 2015 legislative session, when he will (finally) roll out his single-payer health care plan.

And in order to do that, he needs to have a functional VHC website. He can’t wait until February to start the repairs because that’s when he’ll be trying to convince lawmakers to vote for single-payer — and he can’t expect them to take that step if VHC is still dysfunctional.

The Governor does, to be sure, have a goal for the campaign: he has to activate the Dem/Prog base. He needs a decent margin of victory and, more crucially, he needs as many Dems and Progs in the Legislature as possible. As Vermont Pundit Emeritus Eric Davis points out, his worst enemy is an enthusiasm gap.

A fully-functional VHC website before Election Day would be the best thing for his base. But failing that, a robust response to its problems and an action plan with a completion date is second best. That’s what Shumlin has delivered. And, Republican snark notwithstanding, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the Administration will have very good news to report before Election Day. In fact, I expect to see a VHC relaunch on or about November 1.

That requires solid progress on the IT front, of course. But I’m sure that’s the plan.

Thanks to the organizational decrepitude of the VTGOP, the ineptitude of Scott Milne, and the fundamentally fringey nature of Dan Feliciano’s appeal, Shumlin doesn’t have to worry about re-election. He can’t say so, of course; but his goal is to activate his base and set the stage for the single-payer debate next year.

By that standard, the VHC shutdown is a short-term tactical setback, but it makes all the strategic sense in the world.

Jim Douglas: It gets worse

Leave a reply

As I reported a couple days ago in this space, Jim Douglas’ new memoir includes a passage that accuses Governor Shumlin of public corruption — of giving a seat on the Vermont Supreme Court to Beth Robinson, a political ally, as a reward to her and to an important constituency. Here it is again:

“The Senate leader, who succeeded me in the governorship, was a strong proponent of gay marriage. Since he was nominated by a scant 200 votes in the Democratic primary, their support may well have provided the margin of victory. He later reciprocated by appointing one of the leading lobbyists of the movement to the Vermont Supreme Court.”

The key word there is “reciprocated.” Douglas is saying that there was a quid pro quo — one of the state’s highest offices was bartered away as a political reward.

Well, on September 11, Douglas was a guest on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show. When Johnson asked him about the passage, Douglas doubled down — claiming that Robinson is unqualified:

With all due respect to the Justice, I think it’s hard for most Vermonters to believe that she would have risen to the top of the pack but for her leadership on that issue.

“With all due respect,” my ass. Jim Douglas is saying that Beth Robinson had no business being chosen to the high court, and that this is so obviously true that “most Vermonters” would have a hard time believing she was nominated on merit.

Johnson, taken aback by this rather bold assertion, asked if Douglas really believed she was appointed because of her work on the marriage equality court case.

She obviously became well known because of that, and, um… [long pause] who knows?

A wonderful piece of passive-aggressive political attack. Johnson asked “What do you base that on?” Douglas offered no evidence; instead he quickly changed the subject.

His comments about Robinson were baseless and mean-spirited. They’re of a piece with his allegation that Shumlin made a corrupt deal to put her on the high court.

Which, I say again, should have been the top headline news out of Douglas’ memoir. I remain stunned that, with the exception of Mark Johnson, no one in the media has mentioned it at all.

 

Vermont Health Connect Triggers Zombie Apocalypse; Milne Camp Issues Press Release

Leave a reply

Earlier today, the Shumlin Administration announced that the Vermont Health Connect website had been taken offline until mid-November to repair its functionality. Fine. A good step, managerially speaking.

It does, of course, create a prime opportunity for the Governor’s Republican challenger to launch an all-out attack on VHC’s failures. Unfortunately for the VTGOP, its “challenger” is Scott Milne. Who, instead of organizing his own news conference and blasting Shumlin with (cough) a “laser-like focus,” what did he do?

He issued a lame, predictable press release. (Which I can’t link to because it’s not posted on his website.)  (Oh wait, there it is. Took him a while.)

No, no, NOOOO.

Don’t crank out a few unmemorable paragraphs of partisan bumpf! Get out in front of the cameras! Get your face and your attack on the teevee news! Gitcher pitcher in the papers!

Well, admittedly, if Milne held a news conference he’d have to answer questions. And as usual, he has no answers.

“I’ve been meeting with some of the top health care leaders in the state throughout my campaign, discussing the right path for Vermont moving forward. I will continue to do what Gov. Shumlin should have been doing: engaging medical professionals, Vermonters looking for affordable care, and insurance providers to develop a solution to healthcare that expands access and provides more options to consumers.”

Mahatma Milne, The Man Without A Plan.

Lasers, lasers everywhere

Leave a reply

This morning, the Shumlin Administration did a very good thing. It announced that the Vermont Health Connect website will go offline for several weeks, to try to fix its problems before the start of the next open-enrollment period on November 15. In the meantime, VHC access will be offered through a call center.

If the Administration hadn’t taken this drastic step, the repairs would have had to be postponed until after the open enrollment period —  in February, right at the time when lawmakers will be asked to approve single-payer health care. And how could they do so, if VHC wasn’t yet working properly?

So yes, this is a positive development. I hope we get progress reports in the interim, and I really hope they can pull it off by mid-November. That’d clear the decks for single-payer.

Also today, while the Governor didn’t take my advice (shocking, I know) and “fire some folks,” he did shuffle Health Access Commissioner Mark Larson off to the side:

Shumlin moved oversight for the insurance program from Larson’s department and placed it under the leadership of Miller, the governor’s longtime troubleshooter and former secretary of commerce.

… Larson appeared at the press conference but did not speak.

I’ve been told that the Governor is loyal to those who are loyal to him, and is loath to let people go. (Didn’t apply, obvs., to Doug Racine.) Which is a laudable trait, but can sometimes go too far.

Anyway, give Larson other stuff to do. Fine.

I do have one other suggestion for the Governor: find a new metaphor. Today:

“We have more work to do to make sure Vermonters have a well-functioning website by November 15,” Shumlin said at a press conference in Winooski. “I’m focused on that goal like a laser.”

That “laser focus” thing sounds great, but not when he uses it every time he faces a challenge. December 2012:

“There isn’t a Democratic governor who doesn’t understand climate change is the challenge we must focus on like a laser,” he said.

Also December 2012: 

Shumlin also told House Democrats to “focus like a laser” on health care implementation.

At the September launch of his 2012 re-election bid:

“When I ran two years ago I promised that I would focus like a laser on getting tough things done to create jobs and better economic opportunities for Vermonters.

This past June, signing a bill promoting clean heating technologies:

“For years, through Efficiency Vermont and other organizations, our state has focused like a laser on reducing our electric energy consumption.

Old Habits Die Hard: Back in 2002 when he was running for Lieutenant Governor, Shumlin promised a three-for-one deal:

There are three things I’m going to focus on like a laser beam. The first is bringing about fair prices for prescription drugs. …The second issue is juvenile justice. …The third is job creation.

One of the rules of handling metaphors: they lose their impact with repeated use.

Mr. Empty Suit steps to the mic

Leave a reply

“I’ve got plenty of great ideas.”

So said Republican Scott Milne during Saturday’s gubernatorial debate. His comment came after Governor Shumlin repeatedly slammed his failure to give “us one single plan” on a variety of issues.

And then Milne, predictably, failed to name any ideas.

Well, he did have one: a two-year cap on property taxes, which would put public school into a dire budget situation because many of their costs will continue to rise. It’d force spending cuts from the top down, the very opposite of his claim to be in favor of local decision-making. But hey, at least it was an idea.

Otherwise, nothing much. At another point he said “I’ve got two ideas.” The first was that the Governor had spent too much time out of state. Which is not an idea; it’s an attack.. The second was the property tax cap.

Sigh.

As I said in an earlier comment, Milne managed to exceed the minimal standard of competence, e.g. he didn’t poop his pants. Shows you how dismal his campaign has been, that keeping his shorts clean seems like an accomplishment.

As for actually putting forward an inspiring message, nope. Not at all. He hammered repeatedly on the same old attack lines he’s used since launching his campaign: Shumlin is “the most progressive, radical Governor” who insists on pursing single-payer health care. Milne’s idea for health care reform?

“I will be working very hard with people to get something figured out.”

That is, word for word, what Scott Milne actually said.

On trying to keep young people in Vermont, his only contribution was to assert that the Shumlin Administration “has not been business friendly,” and Vermont needs “a new tone” in its dealings with business. F-sharp, perhaps?

When asked about problems at the Agency for Human Services, he pivoted back to his attack on the troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect, and cited it as an example of poor management. When he actually addressed AHS, he said we need an agency that “puts the family first.” How imaginative.

When asked about cutting state spending, he gave a halfhearted shoutout to the discredited Challenges for Change initiative, then said “I’m not into cutting,” and then said property taxes are too high.

Confused?

In his closing statement, Milne referenced his late mother Marion’s run for State House in 1994 when, as Milne tells it, a local politico gave her no chance to win. But she ran anyway and won. And so can Scott Milne, if people only believe. And he closed with a bombshell: “Vermont needs a different path. I believe it needs a more moderate path.”

Having, once again, failed to give any real hint of his preferred path for Vermont. It’s been defined almost entirely in the negative: He wouldn’t repeat the alleged mistakes of Governor Shumlin.

And, as I reported earlier, he’s postponed a meeting with VTDigger’s editorial board because his platform isn’t ready yet.

Scott MIlne’s campaign is very close to flat broke. Its campaign manager just resigned. The best you can say about Milne’s debate performance is that he didn’t flame out. But he did nothing to advance his campaign, to provide a substantive option to Shumlin. Or to Dan Feliciano, for that matter.

He did okay by his standards, but that’s not nearly good enough.

Jim Douglas accuses Governor Shumlin of public corruption

1 Reply

The most dramatic moment of Saturday’s gubernatorial debate had nothing to do with the 2014 campaign or the positions of the four candidates. Instead, it came at about the 36-minute mark, when moderator Mark Johnson asked Governor Shumlin about a passage from former Governor Jim Douglas’ memoir, “The Vermont Way.”

Here is the direct quotation from Douglas’ book, as read by Johnson:

“The Senate leader, who succeeded me in the governorship, was a strong proponent of gay marriage. Since he was nominated by a scant 200 votes in the Democratic primary, their support may well have provided the margin of victory. He later reciprocated by appointing one of the leading lobbyists of the movement to the Vermont Supreme Court.”

Am I the only one who is shocked by that?

Jim Douglas is accusing Peter Shumlin of public corruption at the highest level — of giving away a seat on our state’s highest court as part of a political deal. By doing so, he implies that the recipient of Shumlin’s putative largesse, Beth Robinson, is unqualified to be on the Court.

Jim Douglas has said repeatedly that he isn’t in the business of criticizing his successor. He sure has a funny way of showing it.

Not only did Douglas think this, not only did he say it — he committed it to writing in his own official account of his years in office. (His editor/publisher, Democratic State Senator Chris Bray, allowed it to stand. What was he thinking?)

This is despicable, and Douglas deserves full criticism for it. And it is certainly not, in the words of his self-aggrandizing title, “The Vermont Way.”

Funny thing, though: Every media outlet in the state produced stories about the Douglas memoir. As far as I know, not a single one mentioned this passage, in which Jim Douglas accuses Peter Shumlin of public corruption. A crime.

Mark Johnson was the first, and only, media person to report this.

Most of the media accounts of the Douglas memoir (aside from Paul Heintz’ hard-hitting review in Seven Days) were softball affairs. They sorta mentioned Douglas’ long-held grudges against the media, but otherwise downplayed anything that might be controversial or reflect badly on Douglas. That is a remarkable failure by our watchdogs of the Fourth Estate.

By the way, the other three candidates for Governor recognized a white-hot potato when they saw it. None expressed the tiniest bit of criticism for Shumlin or Robinson. They all, including Republican Scott Milne, backed away from the question as fast as they could. None even mentioned the name “Jim Douglas.” A wise choice.

The Four-Ring Circus: First thoughts on the gubernatorial debate

Leave a reply

Still to come: longer takes on Scott Milne and Dan Feliciano. (As Milne would say, “Stay tuned!”) For now, overall grades plus miscellaneous notes:

The first gubernatorial debate of the campaign, broadcast live on WDEV Saturday at 11 a.m. (from the Tunbridge World’s Fair) was a spirited affair, kept lively by moderator Mark Johnson who, IMO, should be Vermont’s Moderator Laureate, the #1 option for all our debate needs. All four candidates — Governor Shumlin, Scott Milne, Dan Feliciano, and Emily Peyton — gave good representations of themselves. In the case of one candidate, that was a good thing.

(Audio of debate available via Mark Johnson’s podcast. Video courtesy of CCTV.

First off, overall grades.

Peter Shumlin: A. Did what he had to do. Spoke forcefully and clearly, presented his point of view, and defined the race to his advantage. Because of the four-candidate format, Shumlin wasn’t fully tested on responding to attacks, particularly over health care reform. I’m really hoping there’s at least one face-to-face debate between Shumlin and Milne. That would be a real service to Vermont voters, more so than paying lip service to “fairness.” Fairness is nice, but in truth, the vast majority of voters are only going to consider two of these folks, and they deserve to see how Milne and Shumlin measure up in a direct encounter.

Dan Feliciano: B-. He did give a solid accounting of his candidacy. He did present some actual ideas, unlike Mahatma over there. Strictly grading on quality of presentation, he came across as a credible candidate. The biggest problem: his views are not shared by the vast majority of voters. To the extent that they got a clear view of Feliciano, they almost certainly decided that he’s not their man. Credit to his advance team for planting some shills in the audience, though.

Scott Milne: C. The top headline from this debate, in truth, was “Scott Milne Doesn’t Poop Himself.” Sounded a lot more coherent than in previous interviews, such as his notorious Mark Johnson disaster. He was fully programmed with talking points, attacks on Shumlin, and even pre-planned “ad libs” meant to play to the crowd. However, there were three huge drawbacks:

— He was handicapped by the four-person format. He had a hard time engaging Shumlin directly, which is what he has to do.

— He often sounded pre-programmed. His delivery was rushed, even frantic at times, as though he was trying to get through his talking points before time ran out.

— He still hasn’t defined his campaign positively. He had to fall back on his standard “Stay Tuned” promise when asked for specifics. His lack of clarity allows Shumiln an easy, and accurate, attack line: Milne has no ideas.

Emily Peyton: No grade. Who cares. Go away.

Really, I mean it. Her presence added nothing to the debate. She could have provided a service by giving voice to the leftist critique of Shumlin on taxes, campaign finance, and human services, plus his endangerment of single-payer health care because of the inept rollout of Vermont Health Connect. But her views are too quirky for that. She’s a unique combination of progressive, libertarian, and classic Vermont weirdo. She has no business being allowed in the gubernatorial debates.

Bonus demerits for turning her closing statement into an infomercial for hemp. Shameless. And pointless.

During the debate, she complained over a perceived slight from Johnson, and asserted that she’d nearly been shut out of the debate. For which she blamed sexism. I certainly believe that we need more female candidates and officeholders, and one of the only knocks against the Democratic Party is its failure to promote women to top offices. But that doesn’t mean you let an unqualified nutjob onto the stage simply because she has the requisite gender characteristics. No more Peyton. Please.