Category Archives: Phil Scott

Vermont Republicans adopt the Fox News playbook

6 Replies

I don’t know what the hell has happened to Vermont Republicans. With a couple of exceptions (Phil Scott, Kevin Mullin), they seem to have gone batshit crazy.

And crazy in a very particular way. They have taken up the chief weaponry of national Republicans and the Fox News crowd by distilling a complicated issue to a single word.

The issue is health care and the word, of course, is GRUBER!!!!!!

Republicans have not been deterred in the last by Gov. Shumlin’s renegotiation of Gruber’s contract, cutting off further payments to Gruber and thus saving the state $120,000 — some of which will go to independent checking of Gruber’s work.

But it doesn’t matter, at least not to Republicans. They’ve decided “Gruber” is an all-purpose cudgel to attack Shumlin, the Democrats, and the cause of health care reform. Their entire health care focus is on Gruber.

It was only a couple weeks ago that the VTGOP had a big post-election news conference to call for repeal of Vermont Health Connect. We don’t hear that anymore; it’s all Gruber, all the time.

It’s the first time I can remember that virtually every notable Republican and conservative activist seems to be singing from the same hymnal. Kurt Wright sounds just like Rob Roper, and Heidi Scheuermann’s doing her best Darcie Johnston.

This fact hit home for me while reading Rep. Wright’s opinion piece in the Sunday Freeploid. Wright asserts that Gruber’s work on single-payer “will undermine the entire process and debate going forward.” When there’s no evidence that Gruber has done anything more than provide top-flight economic modeling. No matter; as ACORN allegedly poisoned the electoral process and Lois Lerner allegedly proved an Obama conspiracy against the right, the mere presence of Gruber fundamentally undercuts everything about single-payer.

So I guess, by Wright’s logic, we have to throw out all the work that’s been done on single-payer over the last three years and start over? Or is he arguing that by axing Gruber now, when the work is virtually complete, the entire process will be purified as if by cleansing flame?

Wright’s words are identical in meaning to Rob Roper’s. Over at his Koch-funded nonprofit, the Ethan Allen Institute, he claims that Gruber’s entire body of work is useless and cannot be used at all. And Darcie “Hack” Johnston, Tweeting out her policy stances, pronounes Gruber’s work is “tainted” and…

Just watch him, Darcie.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Benning is clearly intoxicated by his sudden Fox News fame, referring on his Facebook page to Gruber as “the gift that keeps on giving.” Which sounds disconcertingly like naked political opportunism. He goes on to brag that “FOX wants me back!”

Of course they want you back, Joe: you fit right in with their agenda. And I don’t mean that as a compliment.

On another front, House Republicans have filed a public-records request for Gruber’s work for the state and for communications between Gruber and the Shumlin Administration, I’d applaud them for trying to learn the truth, but given all their public remarks, it seems more like a Darrell Issa-type fishing expedition. What they’re really hoping for is more Gruberisms.

And then there’s the proto-Republicans at Campaign for Vermont, still flogging their online petition calling for Gruber’s firing. Too bad that since Shumlin’s termination of payment, CFV’s petition has pretty much stalled out. As of this writing, it’s at 233 signatures, and it’s been in the low 200s for several days now.

This isn’t about the truth. It’s about using a handful of remarks by Jonathan Gruber to try to undermine the push for single-payer health care.

The weird thing about this is, we just went through an election that provided two object lessons (Phil Scott and Scott Milne) in how Republicans can win in Vermont: by presenting a moderate, inclusive image. Now they’re all foaming at the mouth as though the election never happened and “Angry Jack” Lindley is still running the joint.

They would be well advised to rein in their inflammatory rhetoric lest they alienate the very voters they just managed to attract.

Phil Scott #2016 rumbles out of Pit Road

Leave a reply

In my previous post, I noted a report of some uncharacteristically aggressive remarks by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. As it happens, Mr. Nice Guy did a brief radio interview this morning on WCVR, “Real Country 1320 AM” in Randolph,”playing all your favorites from yesterday and today!”

Well, maybe not my favorites. I doubt their playlist includes King Crimson or Talking Heads (yesterday) or Arcade Fire or Cold Specks or Godspeed! You Black Emperor (today), but I know what they mean.

Morning deejay Ray Kimball took a few minutes from spinnin’ the tunes to talk with Our Lieutenant Governor. And thanks to Real Country’s livestream, I could listen from my snowed-in central Vermont hilltop redoubt.

Hey Vermont, need a lift?

Hey Vermont, need a lift?

I must say, Phil Scott was on his game, combining his customary aw-shucks charm with some well-crafted jabs at the (unnamed) Democrats.

It wasn’t much of an interview, maybe five minutes. And as an interviewer, Ray Kimball is a darn fine deejay. But it gave me a sense that Mr. Nice Guy will be a very dangerous candidate in 2016 if he wants to be. And, for the first time in his career, he’s showing signs that he does indeed want to be. I guess we shouldn’t have doubted the competitive fire of a man whose third profession is auto racing.

Ol’ Ray started by mentioning the expected presence of Fox News, which is apparently nosing around the Statehouse looking for fuel for its festive Jonathan Gruber stake-burning. Initially, Scott didn’t take the bait, instead pivoting to Governor Shumlin’s overdue rollout of a single-payer health care plan. And, in his customarily genial tones, he delivered a fist-in-a-velvet glove shot at Gov. Shumlin.

I’m looking forward to the Governor presenting his plan as he was supposed to do quite some time ago, as was named in the law itself. He’s missed a couple of deadlines. I don’t want there to be any excuses, I want to hear what this financing plan is, what this single-payer looks like, so we can make a decision as to whether it works for Vermont or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, I want to move on. The uncertainty it’s created in Vermont just having this discussion, I think has had a negative effect on our economy. So I want to get this over and done, and then move on from there.

Nicely done, sir. Slam the Governor for missing deadlines, assert that the “uncertainty” has hurt Vermont’s economy*, but leave the door open, barely, for consideration of single-payer.

*Please stop with the uncertainty bullshit. Truth is, life itself is uncertain. Businesspeople face far bigger and more pressing uncertainties every damn day. Single-payer, if it happens, is three years away. How much other uncertainty will be packed into those years? 

Ray-Ray then asked a garbled follow-up, and that’s when Scott pivoted back to Jonathan Gruber’s videotaped comments, delivering a skillful punch in his unthreatening way.

His comments were made about Obamacare, but it does bring to light some, ah, you know, you might question some of the tactics and some of the things he’s said, in terms of trying to manipulate the public and perception, so I think some of his, ah, some of his data might be questionable.

Aha. Laying the groundwork for disbelieving the Governor’s plan while maintaining the facade of open-mindedness. He didn’t even call for Gruber’s head on a plate; he just undermined Gruber’s work.

Then Kimball asked about the budget. Scott took that ball and ran with it.

I know we can’t continue to look back, but I look back a few years as, uh, as to when Governor Douglas vetoed the budget…

Let’s stop for a moment and note the contradiction there: we can’t look back, but I’m looking back. Okay, Phil, continue.

… when Governor Douglas vetoed the budget, said it was unsustainable in the future, and it turns out he was right. We, uh, the Legislature overrode his veto and put that into place, and I think that’s where it started. And I think we’re living, ah, beyond our means. We’re spending, we, ah, we’re spending more money than we’re receiving. Revenues are down. So we’ve had to make corrections, and we’re going to have to tighten our belts, and it’s going to take all of us to determine how we’re going to do that, because we can’t spend more than we’re taking in.

Well played! Referring to the halcyon days of Jim Douglas, blaming the Democrats and Gov. Shumlin without naming them, couching harsh criticism in kitchen-table terms, and even calling for bipartisanship while, at the same time, trumpeting Republican orthodoxy. Ingenious.

There have been persistent doubts that Phil Scott has the fire in the belly, that he’d most likely stay within his comfort zone as Mr. Nice Guy, Lieutenant Governor For Life. It’s very early, but I suspect we can lay those doubts to rest.

Phil Scott exits 2014 with over $100,000 in campaign cash, and he’s proven he can be a big-time fundraiser within the humble boundaries of Vermont. If he can mount a credible campaign, and I think it’s clear he can, he’ll start drawing some outside money as well. He is developing a solid message, combining Jim Douglas-style plausible moderation with skillfully coded shout-outs to the True Believers.

If he wants the 2016 gubernatorial nomination, he’ll have it. And he will be the most formidable Republican candidate since Jim Douglas left the scene.

Hell, at this rate, he might turn out to be better than Jim Douglas.

Postscript. This was a brief interview, but a couple of items were notable by their absence. The name “Scott Milne” was not mentioned. And there was no talk of repealing Vermont Health Connect which, if I recall correctly, was the Republicans’ clarion call less than two weeks ago. 

“The 2016 campaign is already underway!”

Leave a reply

I didn’t write those words in a paroxysm of political-blogger wishful thinking. No, that sentence was crafted — exclamation mark and all — by one “Super Dave” Sunderland, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. It’s the closing line in a fundraising pitch that’s posted on the VTGOP website and, I’m sure, spammed to every Vermonter on its contact list.

So much for the Vermont tradition, more honored in the breach than the observance, that campaign season won’t start until the Legislature adjourns in the spring of 2016.

What Super Dave means, of course, is that he needs your money right now to begin the long build toward 2016. But in another, equally real, way, the Republicans have begun the 2016 campaign in earnest — with their words and their newly aggressive attitude.

Donkey walks into a bar, says "I'll have a Heady Topper." Bartender says, "Sorry, you elitist snob. We only serve Bud."

Donkey walks in, says “I’ll have a Heady Topper.” Bartender says, “Hit the road, you elitist snob. We only serve Bud.”

It started with their big post-election news conference on Nov. 7, in which the Party’s top elective officials got together to call for the immediate dismantling of Vermont Health Connect. (Leaving aside, for this narrative, the unfeasibility of the idea and the curious incident of the Milne in the night-time.) It was a deliberately confrontational opening move for a party still on the short end of lopsided legislative majorities. I took it as a signal that the VTGOP was feelin’ its oats.

At the same presser, some GOPers expressed interest in further exploring The Milne Theorem, an unproven assertion postulating that 87,075 is greater than 89,509. Scott Milne had first floated the trial balloon a couple days earlier; that news conference was the first outward sign of broader support for his unlikely proposition. And a sign that the Republicans were (like a pro wrestler looking under the ring for the folding chairs and kendo sticks that are always, curiously, stashed there) eagerly grabbing for whatever weapons they could find to whack the Democrats.

A few days later came the annual meeting of the Vermont Rail Action Network, a chance for politicians to promote and/or give lip service to rail travel. As reported by outgoing State Rep. Mike McCarthy on Green Mountain Daily, Gov. Shumlin was there and did his duty, giving “a rousing speech about rail and cross-border trains.”

And then Mr. Nice Guy, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, took the mic:

The room of about 150 railroad officials, government agencies, and legislators was a little surprised that instead of talking about rail, Lt. Governor Scott focused solely on last week’s election and slammed “Montpelier” for not listening to Vermonters.  I guess this is what the beginning of a 2016 gubernatorial run looks like: No More Mr. Nice Phil.

McCarthy pronounced himself “shocked” that Scott “for the first time in his political life seemed to have gone tone deaf.”

Granted, Mike McCarthy is fresh off an electoral defeat and might be feeling a little bitter, but he’s generally a reliable correspondent.

I’m guessing that Phil Scott’s been giving himself a few dope-slaps since Election Night. It’s very easy to imagine him imagining himself winning the governorship. Has that experience suddenly got him yearning for the corner office, and sharpening his message and his political profile for the first time in his soft-jazz political career? It would seem so.

More coming shortly in this space.

Signs of hubris in the VTGOP

Leave a reply

Vermont Republicans gained significant ground in last week’s election. But when you get right down to it, they’ve still got a long, long way to go. They didn’t field serious candidates for most of the statewide offices; they made nice gains in the legislature, but remain on the short end of big Dem/Prog majorities. They made progress on the back-office stuff, but they remain heavily out-organized and out-fundraised by the Dems.

And whatever made Scott Milne a serious contender in spite of a deeply flawed campaign with virtually no resources, well, can you bottle it and spray it on the next guy? Nope. I don’t think anyone really knows why Milne made such a strong showing, and I doubt it’s replicable.

My point is, the Republicans still have serious work to do. The VTGOP is not yet a serious contender — not statewide, not in the legislature. And already, there are signs that this whiff of success is going to their heads.

The most obvious sign is their eager acceptance of Milne’s reasoning for continuing the campaign into the legislature. Or should I say “Milne’s reasonings,” since he has a number of them on offer.

There’s the “ideological majority” notion, that lumps all of Dan Feliciano’s votes in with Milne’s, plus (I guess) most of Emily Peyton’s and Cris Ericson’s and Peter Diamondstone’s to, somehow, get Milne to 50% plus 1.

There’s the “incumbent rejection” idea: since most voters rejected the incumbent, that means the second-place finisher really won. In spite of the fact that more voters rejected Milne than rejected Governor Shumlin.

Then there’s the “legislative district” argument, which says that Milne won more districts than Shumlin and therefore demonstrated broader support. Which is obvious nonsense because many of Milne’s wins came in districts heavy on real estate and light on population.

And finally, we have the “there really isn’t a precedent” argument, in which Milne cites the handful of counter-precedents he can find — all of them emitting a fishy odor. The problem is, there really is a precedent, a very solid one; and when it hasn’t been honored, things have gone haywire.

In football, they say if you have two quarterbacks, you really have none. Well, Scott Milne has four arguments, but really has none. He’s throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

Among the people seeing through this are the two most popular Republicans in Vermont: Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and former Gov. Jim Douglas. Both have said that if it comes to the legislature, the top vote-getter should be elected. Here’s Douglas on VPR:

“It would seem to me unlikely that that would be a useful strategy and perhaps he should consider what Doug Racine and others have done historically which is to acknowledge the result and come back and fight another day,” said Douglas.

In 2002, Racine lost to Douglas by about 5,800 votes but since neither candidate won a majority, the vote went to the Legislature. Racine told lawmakers to vote for Douglas because he was the top vote getter.

… “It would seem to me that the good will that he’s accrued during the last several days ought to be preserved,” said Douglas.

I can kinda understand why Milne is sowing seeds of doubt; he came incredibly close to winning, which, in a way, must be harder to accept than losing decisively. (Gollum!) What’s harder to accept is that top Republicans like Don Turner and Joe Benning are grabbing at this logical apparition. Do they not, in Jim Douglas’ words, risk losing “the good will that [has been] accrued”? I think they do.

As they also do with their immediate call for repeal of Vermont Health Connect in favor of the federal exchange. They offer this as a serious proposal, but as VTDigger’s Morgan True reports, they haven’t worked out any of the details. Like how we’d make good all the premium assistance the working poor and middle class receive thanks to Vermont having its own exchange. Turner’s got a kinda-sorta plan for that, but he clearly hasn’t thought it through.

So why pull a half-baked cake out of the oven? The obvious answer is, to try to capitalize on the election results. And because the hubris is strong in the VTGOP right now.

Turner goes so far as to insist that VHC might need repeal even if it’s up and running when the legislature reconvenes.

Hmm, yeah, kill something that’s finally working after all the investment of money, time, and toil? Don’t think so.

The Republicans would do well to consider the letter and the spirit of Jim Douglas’ advice. Don’t get over your skis. Don’t, in the words of Gov. Shumlin, get too far out in front of the troops.

In renewing the war against health care reform, and in promoting the idea that the legislature should elect the second-place candidate, the Republicans show early signs of turning into the balls-to-the-wall ideologues we all love to hate in the national GOP. By now they should know that’s a recipe for disaster in Vermont. And it’s the opposite of Phil Scott’s alleged vision for a broader, more inclusive party.

A little diplomacy, a little statesmanship, might seem like a step backward right now. But it’s the best thing for the longer-term prosperity of the Vermont Republican Party.

Maybe Vermont Republicans have forgotten how to handle success?

2 Replies

Confusing little presser the Republicans held at the Statehouse Friday. Confusing in a couple of fundamental ways. They’re already well on their way to a fatal overdose of hubris; they’re toying with an ill-considered attempt to grab the governorship, or at least undercut Peter Shumlin; and they still don’t know what the hell to do with Scott Milne.

I wasn’t there, but I’ve been told that Milne was actually in attendance, but wasn’t invited to speak.* Indeed, even as they slapped each others’ backs over a relative handful of legislative victories, they “didn’t mention Milne until prompted by reporters,” according to VTDigger’s Laura Krantz.

*Note: Per the Comments below, multiple attendees say that Milne was not present. I’ll accept their word for it.

They “didn’t mention Milne,” the man who might still become their leader, not to mention the state’s.

What… the… hell.

Also, even as they were ignoring the Miracle Man, they were boldly announcing their plans for legislation to dump Vermont Health Connect.

(Let me just pause and note what a Boehnerian idea that is: promising a bill to kill a Democratic reform, a bill they know will never pass, just for the sake of some political posturing.)

Uh, fellows, d’ya think maybe it’d be a good idea if you’d, oh, consult Scott Milne before you make your big plans? Especially since some of you, at least, are going to do what you can to overthrow historical precedent and install him as our next governor?

Presumably, if legislative Republicans get their way, it ought to be Scott Milne setting the agenda, not them. But what do I know.

In fact, according to Seven Days’ Mark Davis, there’s been virtually no communication between Milne and top Republicans since Tuesday. Or before Tuesday, either, since they gave him damn little help during the campaign, believing (like everybody else) that he was a radioactive loser.

As for overthrowing historical precedent, take a bow, top House Republican Don Turner and top Senate Republican Joe Benning. Both of them indicated that they would vote for Milne if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of 161 years of precedent that says the legislature always installs the top vote-getter, whether it’s a Republican (Jim Douglas, 2002) or a Democrat (Peter Shumlin, 2010).

And as I wrote earlier, the last time the #2 vote-getter was installed as governor, it was the result of a dirty backroom political deal between the #2 and #3 parties to take down #1. Kinda like if the Democrats and Progressives united to block a Republican who’d won a plurality. So I don’t think the stolen election of 1853 is the kind of precedent anyone should want to emulate.

While we’re on the subject, Mr. Turner: when the governorship was decided by the legislature in 2010, did you vote for Peter Shumlin? If so, you are a hypocrite and an opportunist.

On the other hand, there was the current top Republican officeholder in the state, Phil Scott, saying that he’d obey precedent and vote for Shumlin if he had to choose. Leadership, boys.

Milne and Turner and Benning have devised a new interpretation of the legislature’s role, by saying that each lawmaker should follow the electoral results in his or her district. Which is a brand-new idea that happens to coincide with their own short-term interests. Statesmanship, boys.

Tuesday was the first taste of victory the Republicans have enjoyed in quite a long time. It’s been more than a decade since they gained seats in the legislature, and six since they won the governorship. This sudden burst of success must be terribly disorienting. It’s obviously gone to their heads, and not in a good way.

Hopefully they can regain their balance and learn to use their hard-won scraps of political power in a positive way.

Scott Milne takes it to the limit

Leave a reply

Before the election, when Scott Milne was sure he was going to lose, he was fully prepared to resume his humble life as a travel mogul and disgruntled developer. Indeed, his official schedule, as posted by his campaign last weekend, had him in travel industry-related meetings yesterday and today.

My precious…

My precious…

But now that he came sooooo close, he’s starting to act like Gollum chasing after the Ring. He’s digging for any possible justification to not only avoid conceding, but to grab the governorship in spite of historical precedent.

I’m not saying he should give up. Not yet. He is well within his rights to delay conceding for now. We can wait until next Wednesday, when the vote will be certified. After that, if the margin remains under two percentage points, he should call for a recount if he wants.

After that, he needs to stop. He should concede gracefully and get on with his life, content in the knowledge that he followed his own path and far exceeded anyone’s expectations. He has no business twisting logic and Vermont history to justify an attempt to usurp the process.

Since he still hasn’t publicly addressed the voters he claims to care so deeply about, all we have is a statement from his campaign:

“It’s clear that 54% of Vermonters want a new Governor, and a new path forward” according to Scott Milne, after reviewing preliminary numbers in what appears to be the closest race in Vermont history.

Yeah, well, as I’m not the first to point out, 55% of Vermonters didn’t want Scott Milne to be their Governor, so that dog won’t hunt. What else ya got?

“We are gathering information for the requirements of a recount and weighing whether that is in the best interest of the people of Vermont, and we are looking closely at the legislative districts across the state on a district by district basis to determine which candidate won the most counties and legislative districts” said Milne.

Oh, so now you’re makin’ shit up.

There’s nothing in the state constitution that tells lawmakers how to elect a governo, when that task befalls them. But more than a century and a half of precedent says the individual with the most votes is chosen governor.

To illustrate how much precedent there is, the last time it was flouted, the Whig Party was involved. And our Statehouse had yet to be built.

Not to mention that it was a pure case of political chicanery, in which two lesser parties struck a deal to screw the first-place finisher (the Whig, as it happens). So I don’t think Milne wants to invoke that as a precedent.

No, he has the 1976 contest for Lieutenant Governor in mind.

Lawmakers last bucked a plurality vote in 1976 – in the Lt. Governor’s race – like now, the plurality winner- John Alden- faced confirmation by a House and Senate controlled by his own party.

“If we move forward, I expect Peter Shumlin has a good likelihood of facing the same fate as John Alden, and I will be Vermont’s next Governor” according to Milne.

What Milne conveniently omits is that Alden was facing legal trouble at the time. Shortly after his non-election, he was indicted on fraud charges and later convicted. It’s believed that enough people in the Legislature knew about it, that the vote went against him to avoid a huge embarrassment. (And I do hope that when Milne says he expects Shumlin to face “the same fate as John Alden,” he doesn’t mean criminal conviction.)

So that’s not a convincing rationale either. Not to mention, there’s a hell of a big difference between electing a Lieutenant Governor and electing a Governor, with all due respect to buckets of warm spit.

There’s also the inconvenient fact that before the election, Milne said that “he would concede the race if Shumlin won a plurality, and hoped Shumlin would do the same if the situation were reversed.”

Now, he says that wasn’t a statement of his position, it was a “challenge” to Shumlin to follow the will of the voters. And since Shumlin didn’t embrace his “challenge,” then Milne gets to take it back.

To be fair to Milne, he’s just kinda spitballing at this point, which is consistent with his behavior during the campaign. He hasn’t actually taken any of the actions he’s threatening to take. Indeed, his bottom line is that he will wait until the election is certified next Wednesday and then decide on his next move.

At that point, if he’s still in second place, he should do the right thing and concede. As his running mate, Phil Scott, said today:

Vermont’s newest pundit

3 Replies

Er, that would be me.

I just got off the phone after spending almost 90 minutes on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, looking back at the gubernatorial election, how we got it so wrong, and what it all means. There were a lot of great phone calls from all parts of the political spectrum, and Mark was (as always) a great host, gently guiding the discussion while allowing plenty of room for callers to drive the conversation.

I didn’t always agree with the callers, and I’m sure they didn’t always agree with me. But they were intelligent and thoughtful. They saw things from their own viewpoints and interpreted events accordingly, but they weren’t shrill or doctrinaire. It was a pleasure to spend time and share ideas with them.

My big takeaways are:

— People are smarter than the likes of me give them credit for. One of the structural drawbacks of being a writer or reporter or politician is that you live in your own little world. I do my writing from my home office. Reporters spend the vast majority of their time in their offices. Reporters and politicians spend their time talking to each other. Sure, politicians hit the road and press the flesh. But that’s a small part of what they do.  Our perspectives are skewed by how and where we spend our time and who we talk to.

— Governor Shumlin’s biggest problems are that he’s seen as out of touch, and as a bad manager. And that’s job one, whether you’re a liberal or a conservative: take care of business. Get the roads plowed and the cops on the beat and the teachers in the classrooms. Spend the people’s money wisely and well. If you do that, people will reward you, no matter what your ideology.

His out-of-touchness was a constellation of things: the outside travel, the fundraising from corporate interests, his habit of saying whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear.

Look at the people who’ve won respect in Vermont. People like George Aiken and Dick Snelling and Bernie Sanders and Jim Douglas and Pat Leahy and Phil Scott. Ideologically, they have very little in common. But they are seen as honest brokers who care about doing government well and taking care of the people as best they can.

Governor Shumlin was brilliant during and after Tropical Storm Irene. He has been far less effective in the day-to-day business of government. The continued failure of Vermont Health Connect is the single biggest thing, but there’s also the problems at the Department of Children and Families and the failure to address rising school costs and the failed IT contracts (which was also a trouble spot for Jim Douglas, but Shumlin hasn’t fixed it).

I’m sure I’m forgetting a few other things. But the point is, if the voters entrust you with public office, you have to carry out the office’s duties effectively. That’s the most important thing. Especially if you’re a liberal who wants government to do more. People will go along with you if they think you’re doing a good job.

And pretty much nobody, on the left, right, or center, thought Shumlin was doing a good job.

— By contrast, Scott Milne, for all his faults (in some ways, because of his faults), did seem authentic. He was a real person, warts and all. He was open to new ideas from all sides, and his primary focus was to make government work well. In many ways, he was the perfect anti-Shumlin.

That’s the message I got over and over again on the radio this morning. Well, there were many messages, but those are the big ones. It was informative, and it was a lot of fun. Thanks to Mark, his listeners, and WDEV for giving me the opportunity.

The biggest winner of the Vermont election

1 Reply

You can probably guess. It’s Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.

Not just because he cruised to an easy victory over Dean Corren. Not just because he leaves the campaign with almost $100K in cash on hand for whatever he wants to do next.

Not just because the decks are clear for him to be a very dangerous candidate for Governor in 2016.

No, on top of all that, there’s this: the results of the election ought to cement his control of the Vermont Republican Party. The true believers ought to be marginalized by the impressive success of Scott Milne as a moderate Republican candidate and the dismal failure of their pet project, Dan Feliciano.

Hey, remember when two of the VTGOP’s top four officers, Brady Toensing and Mark Snelling, openly supported Feliciano in the Republican primary? Brady Toensing and Mark Snelling were the two holdovers from the Jack Lindley era who retained their offices last fall in a patched-together compromise with the Phil Scott people.* At the very least, their views ought to take a back seat. At the very most, Scott and party chair “Super Dave” Sunderland ought to feel free to replace them with more like-minded people.

*Correction: I mischaracterized the VTGOP’s leadership race last fall. Toensing was not a holdover from the previous admin; originally, according to Paul Heintz, the conservatives wanted Toensing as chair and David Sunderland as vice chair, while the Phil Scott camp wanted them switched. In the end, the party unanimously went with Scott’s pairing. 

And, lest we forget, prominent conservatives Wendy Wilton and John McClaughry also jumped into the Feliciano lifeboat, only to see the S.S. Milne sail on blissfully without them.

And if there’s any justice, this ought to be the death knell for Darcie “Hack” Johnston as a serious political voice. She piloted Feliciano’s campaign straight into the Randy Brock Memorial Iceberg. As far as I can tell, she represents nobody but herself. Her true-believer approach to politics is a proven loser, a dead end for the VTGOP. She might keep on being quoted in the media because she’s an easy get, but as a political strategist? Nope.

For all his faults as a campaigner, Scott Milne succeeded where nobody has since Jim Douglas: he convinced a lot of centrists, independents, and even Democrats to abandon their standard bearer. Part of that is circumstance; a lot of it is a loss of faith in Governor Shumlin; but it also had to do with a Republican candidate who was not an ideologue, who even entertained the notion that some Democratic ideas might be acceptable.

Future Republican candidates would do well to learn the art of public speaking better than Milne, but they would also do well to follow the moderate Republican playbook.

And that’s the biggest win of all for Our Lieutenant Governor.

Money can’t buy me love

Leave a reply
"I'm not dead yet!" said a soft, muffled voice.

“I’m not dead yet!” said a soft, muffled voice.

The race for Governor of Vermont had all the makings of “Bambi Vs. Godzilla II: The Re-Flattening.” Scott MIlne was a badly underfunded candidate who ran a goofy, error-filled campaign, while Peter Shumlin was the consummate political pro with a huge bankroll and a far stronger party apparatus.

And yet, here we are in the early morning hours of Nov. 5, and the race is technically too close to call. Shumlin’s almost certain to finish first, but with an embarrassingly small margin. This election is a crippling blow to his dream of single-payer health care, and to whatever his hopes were for the rest of his political career. No longer is he the guy who outsmarted a tough Democratic field and Brian Dubie in 2010, romped to re-election two years later, and built a fundraising operation the likes of which had never been seen in Vermont; he is now, and forever will be, the guy who spent nine hundred thousand bucks and almost lost to Scott Freakin’ Milne, who now looks like 2014’s answer to Fred Tuttle. Which would put Shumlin in the role of Jack McMullen, ugh.

The lessons of that Beatles lyric will also have to be learned at Democratic Party headquarters, where much money was spent and a lot of smart people were paid to run a campaign machine capable of overcoming all the obstacles in their path. Myself, I put a lot of stock in that operation, and I was wrong. The Dems have some serious soul-searching to do. How could they have such a strong grassroots organization, and yet be so out of touch with the grass roots?

In terms of issues, my diagnosis is that the Democrats (and the Progressives) misread the electorate, failing to address the issue of the year — property taxes. There was a fatal degree of hubris in the Shumlin Administration’s continually trotting out fresh issues, all of which were worthy of attention — but which diverted the government away from the lunchpail concerns of real folks.

You know, all those people who get to vote.

Property taxes were #1 on that list. And the Democratic majority was seen as unwilling or unable to tackle the issue.

Aside from property taxes, the second biggest problem (in my humble and sometimes dead wrong opinion) is the feeble economic recovery, featuring endless stagnation for the working and middle classes. This is not Governor Shumlin’s fault; it’s the way America’s economy is going. But he gets credit when times are good, and takes the blame when they’re not. Times are still tough for a lot of Vermont voters. I’m not sold that Vermonters favor the Republican prescription of cutting taxes and regulation, but they do have to see some tangible benefits from a Democratic administration.

Finally, if 2012 showcased Peter Shumlin’s good side — the solid helmsman who kept things running after Tropical Storm Irene and steered Vermont on his chosen course — then 2014 showed him at his worst: the all-too-polished politico who says whatever he thinks people want to hear, who can’t be trusted, who’s not nearly as good at day-to-day operation as he is at crisis management, and who is, frankly, seen as arrogant and unwilling to listen to those who disagree with him.

Scott Milne was, literally and figuratively, the anti-Shumlin. He got a lot of votes merely because he was Not Peter Shumlin. But beyond that, his extreme lack of polish — which seemed to be a fatal flaw — actually made him seem authentic, especially in contrast to Shumlin, the political animal. That’s why I compare him to Fred Tuttle.

But the avatar of out-of-touch liberalism was Dean Corren, the spectacularly failed Prog/Dem candidate for Lieutenant Governor. He qualified for public financing, which gave him enough money to run a competitive race. And he failed to come anywhere close to Cass Gekas’ late-starting, underfunded campaign in 2012. Corren had good ideas, but again, they were untethered to the everyday concerns of voters. It was the worst possible year for a rather prickly Progressive policy wonk with blue-sky ideas on energy and health care. And Phil Scott was his worst possible opponent.

I’m sure somebody will accuse me of lipsticking the pig here, but this could turn out to be a very good thing for the Democrats. It ought to kick the complacency out of them, and the hubris out of the governor’s office. They’ll have to take a serious look at how it all went wrong and try to fix it. If they do, they can reform and refocus themselves without the usual necessary step of actually losing power.

On the other hand, we could be in for a period of infighting, mutual recrimination, and descent into actual defeat in two years’ time. One thing’s for sure: a lot of potentially good Republican candidates sat this one out because they thought there was no chance.

They won’t make that mistake again.

Yep, I was wrong.

2 Replies

dunce-cap-599x320Yesterday’s elections turned out to be a lot more favorable for Vermont Republicans — or, to put it more accurately, unfavorable for Vermont Democrats — than I thought.

My fearless, not to mention feckless, predictions were:

— Governor Shumlin would easily clear the 50% barrier.

WRONG! As of early Wednesday morning, he still has a mathematical chance of losing to Scott Milne, and there’s no way he’ll get 50%.

— Dean Corren would come closer to unseating Lt. Gov. Phil Scott than Cass Gekas did two years ago, finishing in the mid-40s.

WRONG! Scott cruised, with better than 62% of the vote. Corren was depantsed AND wedgied, finishing with a mere 36%.

— Republicans would have to be satisfied with a bare minimum of legislative gains.

WRONG! They took two Senate seats and at least seven in the House. A couple of races are still hanging, and they might even reach Phil Scott’s seemingly rose-colored projection of double-digit gains.

I wasn’t completely shut out. The Republicans failed to mount serious challenges in the Washington and Orange County senate contests, and Dan Feliciano stumbled to a very poor finish. He couldn’t even gain automatic ballot status for the Libertarian Party.

But those are mere bagatelles. On the big races, I was as thoroughly depantsed as Dean Corren.

And now I learn from my mistakes, or try to. Explanations in my next post. But first, where’s that crow pie? I’ve got a hankering’ for some crow pie!