Tag Archives: Jim Douglas

More nuggets from the party of fiscal responsibility

Writing my most recent post on the continuing troubles inside the Vermont Republican Party brought me back to a subject I’d been ignoring: the VTGOP’s monthly finance reports to the Federal Elections Commission. Even though the VTGOP is a state party, most of its activities are now classified as “federal” under FEC rules.

The last time I looked over the filings was a few months ago. There have been three new reports since then, and some curiosities emerge after close examination.

Remember when Jeff Bartley was hired as VTGOP Executive Director last December? Them’s was good times.

Bartley was chosen in a last-minute election announced slightly more than 24 hours before the Dec. 1 [state Republican Committee] meeting. Insiders say the decision was rushed to leave no time for other candidates to come forward or for a search process to take place. Bartley was confirmed by a 6-4 vote of executive committee members.

Three of those “No” votes came from prominent conservatives with ties to former party chair Jack Lindley: Mark Snelling, Wendy Wilton, and Randy Brock. After the vote, Snelling resigned as party treasurer.

At the time, VTDigger reported that Bartley would draw an annual salary of $50,000.

Funny thing about that. As of the end of June, according to FEC filings, Bartley had already drawn $37,516 in salary. That projects out to an annual salary of about $75,000.

Continue reading

Like it or not, the Vermont Legislature needs to address ethics

Secretary of State Jim Condos is making a welcome, and timely, push for an independent State Ethics Commission. In a press release issued this morning, he also called for “a clear law regarding ethics, conflicts of interest, and financial disclosure for our elected officials.”

This really shouldn’t be an issue; we are one of only three states without such a body. And in a year that’s already seen Attorney General Bill Sorrell facing an independent investigation, a sitting Senator arrested on felony charges on the Statehouse grounds, significant questions about the Senate President Pro Tem, and a secretive House Ethics Panel with a very permissive interpretation of “ethics,” you’d think we could dispense with the old “We’re Vermonters, we do the right thing, we don’t need an ethics law” argument.

I mean, if anybody still believes that, they’re whistling past the graveyard.

Continue reading

We have our answer: Don Turner is a hypocritical opportunist

Or “opportunistic hypocrite,” take your choice.

To reset the stage, House Minority Leader Don Turner yesterday said he would vote for Scott Milne for Governor if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of a century and a half of precedent that lawmakers ought to opt for the top vote-getter instead of, as the Burlington Free Press charitably put it, being “free to vote their consciences.”

"Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of 'conscience.'"

“Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of ‘conscience.'”

To which I can only say, if their consciences lead them to any other conclusion than Peter Shumlin, then either they’re not listening closely enough to that still small voice, or their consciences are on the fritz.

Anyway, I speculated on how Mr. Turner had voted the last time this very question was before the legislature. Well, the answer comes to us courtesy of Terri Hallenbeck, soon to be late of the Burlington Free Press.

Turner acknowledged that’s a different stance than after the 2010 election, when the Legislature ratified Shumlin’s election over Republican Brian Dubie after Shumlin had a plurality but less than 50 percent of the public vote. That year, lawmakers also ratified the results of Republican Phil Scott, who received the most votes but less than 50 percent of the total for lieutenant governor.

Which means that virtually every lawmaker (including Don Turner) presumably voted against his/her political interests, and in favor of established precedent, at least once. Republicans ratified a Democrat, and Democrats ratified a Republican. It’s worked both ways over time. But now, Turner is pulling a brand-new rationalization out of his butt because it suits him politically.

Gee, I thought Republicans were the guardians of traditional Vermont values.

Or, as somebody who was on the short end of this Vermont tradition put it:

Doug Racine, a Democrat who lost the 2002 governor’s race to Republican Jim Douglas in a campaign that was also decided by the Legislature, said Democratic legislators told him at the time they felt compelled to vote for Douglas, who received the most votes in the election. “For a lot of legislators and for Vermonters it became about fair play,” Racine said.

Perhaps “fair play” is out the window for Republicans who suddenly see an unexpected opportunity to grab the biggest prize. In other words, they’re a whole bunch of Gollums.

p.s. We’re starting to get a glimpse at the future of a clickbait-oriented, post-Remsen-and-Hallenbeck Freeploid. Its coverage of Friday’s important developments consisted of two short articles from the Associated Press. Plus, those stories were pretty much buried on the Freeploid’s website, while more pressing matters — the LL Bean grand opening, a ladybug-infested house, a moose shooting — were given due prominence.

And the crudification of the Burlington Free Press is only just beginning.

Scott Milne’s missed opportunities

Yesterday, over at Green Mountain Daily, I wondered whether the Scott Milne campaign was a real thing or an Andy Kaufman-style work of performance art. 

Still wondering. 

In the last week before Governor Shumlin takes center stage, Milne is spending the vast majority of his time not campaigning. At least not visibly. Yesterday, he sat in on ex-Governor Jim Douglas’ book launch thingy in Burlington, which got him no attention whatsoever; and then, a few hours later, he got five minutes of free airtime on WCAX’s “The :30.” And, as I reported earlier, this was one of his more active days in a week when he should have been taking full advantage of Shumlin’s absence from the fray. 

Meanwhile, the other guy who has no chance of winning, Libertarian Dan Feliciano, was occupying the political spotlight with a clever maneuver straight out of Campaigning 101: Holding a news conference and delivering a simple, headline-friendly message. His reward: what must be the most widespread media coverage ever received by a Libertarian candidate for any office anywhere. 

Libertarian candidate for governor Dan Feliciano says Vermont Health Connect should be scrapped and the state should adopt the federal health care exchange.

Government is standing in the way of health care reform, Feliciano said. He also called Wednesday for the repeal of the state’s health care reform plan (Act 48), the elimination of the Green Mountain Care Board and a return to an open marketplace for health insurance.  

Feliciano said Gov. Peter Shumlin’s goal of creating a single payer health care model in Vermont is “fantasy.” 

He’s wrong, of course. Switching to the federal exchange would result in much higher costs for a lot of Vermonters. He’s also kinda self-contradictory: he wants government out of the way of health care reform, but he wants us to go along with Obamacare. To be fair, it’s a fait accompli, but still: it’s a bit rich for him to call government an obstacle to reform while calling on Governor Shumlin to accept the federal system instead of pursuing a uniquely Vermont approach. 

But my point here isn’t who’s right or wrong — it’s who won the day’s battle for attention. And Feliciano clearly kicked Scott Milne’s ass. 

While Feliciano was delivering a clear message, Milne was rambly and waffly on Channel 3. When asked about single-payer health care and his own idea for reform, he made like an octopus and squirted a cloud of ink: 

I think there’s people on the Governor’s extreme end of radical progressive legislative agenda, which believes uh without facts to back it up, without a plan for how we’re going to pay for it, uh without really a plan for how it’s going to work, believe that single payer’s going to solve all of our problems. I believe on the other extreme are people who don’t even want to consider it because it’s a government takeover of one part of the economy.

The primary plank upon which I’ll be running this campaign, and upon which I’ll be governing Vermont, ah is that we really need to be focused on what’s practical, uh not being driven by what’s a political ideology. So I think the, ah, Vermont Health Connect disaster is a great example of taking a political ideology from the top down, shoving it down the throats of Vermonters without really havin’ a plan in place. So, ah, our team is working hard to get a plan in place, ah, we’ll have very specific ideas for voters to talk about, think about, and hopefully use as one of many criteria for deciding to vote for Scott Milne for Governor in November.  

Got that? Shumlin’s plan is extreme and radical, but not out of the question. Also, Milne doesn’t yet have a plan of his own. 

Yeesh. 

According to his own absurd timetable, August was Phase One of the “unconventional” Milne candidacy, in which he would assail Shumlin’s record. Then, in September, he’d unveil his own agenda. 

Hello? It’s September Fourth. 

All that said, while Feliciano clearly won the battle for September Third, he still ain’t winning in November. However, if Milne keeps up this kind of stuff, Feliciano will be an effective spoiler — earning a double-digit share of the vote, and pushing Milne down into the 20s. The longer Milne goes on looking like a bumbler, or a performance artist, the more Republicans will abandon his cause and vote Feliciano out of disgust or desperation. 

Which would be very damaging to Phil Scott’s party-broadening project. The Milne implosion is emboldening the True Believers to continue resisting Scott’s plan. It could even lead to a blood-on-the-floor battle for control of the party after the election. And, worst case, a permanent split in the already-small VTGOP, with conservatives either joining the Libertarians or deciding to opt out Vermont politics entirely. 

And while the True Believers are a small group that cannot hope to win elections in Vermont, they are the most dedicated and supportive Republicans. Their absence from the VTGOP donor rolls has pushed its already-dire finances into virtual nothingness. 

If the VTGOP had managed to find a credible candidate — say, Heidi Scheuermann, or Phil Scott himself — it would still lose this year, but it might be on the road to self-reinvention as an influential political force. Instead, they’re saddled with Scott Milne. And whatever enthusiasm exists among Republicans is there for Dan Feliciano’s taking. 

VPR gives Peter Welch a big fat sloppy wet kiss

Well, that’s four and a half minutes of my life I’ll never get back again.

This morning, VPR’s Bob Kinzel delivered himself of a lengthy (by modern public radio standards) piece devoted to a subject that was already in the realm of clear, obvious, unquestioned fact: Congressman Peter Welch likes to work cooperatively with people from both parties.

Everybody knows that. It’s an occasional source of irritation to Vermont liberals, who’d like to see a bit more fire and brimstone from the guy. So why did we need a news story exploring a settled question?

The host’s intro to the piece was all you needed to hear:

Congressman Peter Welch has one of the most liberal voting records in Washington. At the same time, he’s one of the few Democrats to work closely with some of the most conservative Republicans in the House. VPR’s Bob Kinzel has the story.

What followed was four minutes and thirty-eight seconds that added nothing to the above statement. It was one person after another complimenting Welch on his bipartisan spirit and willingness to work with even the most conservative tea-party nutbars in the Republican caucus.

This piece took a great deal of effort on Kinzel’s part. He got quotes from former Governor Jim Douglas, two very conservative Republican members of Congress, and a Congressional correspondent for the beltway publication Roll Call, plus some file tape of Welch at a committee hearing. You don’t often hear that many different people in a single public radio piece.

And for what? To re-establish a universally known fact?

Who came up with this story idea anyway? And how did it get through VPR’s notoriously painstaking editorial process? There was no “news hook” — no current event that shines a spotlight on Welch’s collaborative proclivities.

Plus, it seems inappropriate to send an unvarnished love letter to a person who’s currently running for re-election, for God’s sake. If I were Mark Donka, I’d be complaining vociferously to VPR for broadcasting what amounted to a lengthy advertisement for Peter Welch’s political virtue.

But most of all, it was a complete waste of time for a skilled reporter, VPR editors, and me, the listener.

Oh, what the hell. Let’s judge a book by its cover

September 3, 2014: Vermont’s bookstores are certain to crack open their doors at the stroke of midnight, in anticipation of an overwhelming response to Jim Douglas’ three-years-in-the-making autobiography. Yeah, it’ll be just like the Harry Potter release crowds.

Well, maybe not. But while we still have almost three months to wait for St. Jim’s tome, we have gotten a gander at the cover.

And boy howdy, is it ever a… er… well… a thing. Jim-Douglas-book-released-Sept--3---img

The picture, title and subtitle, taken together, paint a broad-stroke portrait of arrogance in exile.

The image, Douglas in a suit w/obligatory flag pin, is a reproduction of his official state portrait. Next to him is the title: “THE VERMONT WAY.”

Oh dear.

The unspoken, but clear as day, message: Jim Douglas is the embodiment of the Vermont Way. He is the quintessential Vermonter, the carrier of Vermont values into a new and uncertain century.

And then the subtitle: “A Republican Governor Leads America’s Most Liberal State.” Underscoring what, I fear, will be one of the book’s central messages: Jim Douglas was a uniquely talented politician — the only person who could lead a constituency largely inimical to his party’s policies.

Which omits the fact that Vermont wasn’t nearly as liberal when Douglas took office as it was when he departed. During his eight years as Governor, the Republicans lost ground everywhere else in state government. By the end of his tenure, he could do little beyond castigating the Democrats for overriding his vetoes and ignoring his wise counsel.

Douglas definitely deserves some credit for passing a conservative camel through the eye of a liberal needle. But doesn’t he also deserve blame for the leftward shift of Vermont politics while he occupied our highest office? Doesn’t he deserve blame for leaving his party in shambles, with scant resources, no grass-roots organization, and a nearly complete lack of up-and-coming talent?

And doesn’t he deserve blame for leaving a legacy so pitiful as to be virtually nonexistent? How did he shape Vermont politics during his tenure, and how have his policies influenced post-Douglas political discourse? The answer, it seems to me, is not very much at all.

So he managed to “lead” America’s most liberal state, if only in the sense that he occupied the corner office. But while he was Governor, and even more so since he retired, his state did not follow him. In fact, it moved steadily in the other direction. It’s a severely limited kind of “leadership.”

As for the book cover’s visual equation of Jim Douglas with The Vermont Way… well, if that were true (which it’s not), we’d be well and truly fucked.

 

The Mystery Memoir emerges after two years of silence

How about that. No sooner do I inquire about Jim Douglas’ autobiography, which was supposed to have been published in 2012, than the news comes out that the (cough) long-awaited tome will be published in September of this year. It must be true, ‘cuz Stewart Ledbetter sez so: 

The book, “The Vermont Way – A Republican Governor Leads America’s Most Liberal State” was completed 18 months ago, said publisher Chris Bray.

An extensive editing process followed, but Bray describes the book as “the best political memoir by a Vermont governor yet.”

Yeah, I suspect that “extensive editing process” was needed to hack through the thickets of Douglas’ turgid prose and overcome his natural reluctance to say anything of substance.

I am so looking forward to not reading this. And I’ll bet his long-awaited guidance on how a Republican can succeed in a liberal state will amount to “Be More Like Jim Douglas.”

My thanks also to publisher, and Democratic State Senator, Chris Bray for failing to respond to my inquiry about the book.

The strange case of the missing memoir

May 29, 2012: a night that will live in blandness.

Then-WCAX anchor Kristin Carlson sits down with former Governor Jim Douglas for a friendly  interview about the ex-Guv’s autobiography, which was said to be on its way to the printer. Release date: fall 2012. And, as Carlson said in her intro,

During his four terms as Governor, Jim Douglas was seen as a leader who carefully guarded what he said publicly. But now, he’s opening up about his time as Governor and his nearly four decades in elective office.

“Opening up,” heh? This oughta be good.

What follows, of course, is anything BUT good. In fact, it was a textbook display of that signature Jim Douglas combination of blandness and insufferability.

The classic dead-eyed Jim Douglas "smile"

The classic dead-eyed Jim Douglas “smile”

The ex-Guv hints that “there will definitely be some surprises.” And then absolutely refuses to even hint at a single solitary surprise. Sample colloquy:

Douglas: “… the stories I haven’t had a chance to tell.”

Carlson: “Such as?”

Douglas: “Well, you’ll have to wait, Kristin. but I’ll, I’ll have some stories.”

When pressed, Douglas offered a vague list of subjects, “even the press.” He hinted that his book would chronicle the failings of the Vermont media.

What failings?

“Well, I think you’ll have to wait and see what I write.”

Carlson made one more try, asking about one of the book’s alleged themes: “How a Republican can win in Vermont.” Any hints?

“Well, I’ll get into more detail, obviously, in my memoirs…”

Well, thank you, Governor Douglas, for saying absolutely nothing about the topic of this interview. And thank you for wasting our viewers’ time.

Carlson was too much of a pro to vent her annoyance. But Christ on a cracker, that was a thoroughly painful six minutes. The word that came to mind unbidden was “jackhole.” Jim Douglas deigned to grace Channel 3’s airwaves with his presence, and damn it, his presence is all they’re gonna get.

This trip down Memory Lane was prompted by an inquiry from fellow Green Mountain Daily stalwart “BP,” who emailed the group asking whatever became of the Douglas memoir.

The answer? Nothing, apparently. There’s no hint of any publicity after that brief May 2012 outburst. There’s no hint of a Douglas autobiography appearing anytime since, nor any inklings of a pending publication.

There was a book published in 2011, before the WCAX interview, entitled “The Douglas Years: Dedicated to the People of Vermont.” It’s currently ranked #2,523,904 on Amazon.com’s sales chart. But I seriously doubt this is the purported memoir. For one thing, there’s the date discrepancy.

But mainly, “The Douglas Years” is mighty thin gruel, even by Douglas’ standards. It’s a little over 200 pages long. More than half of that is taken up with photographs and transcriptions of Douglas speeches. As for the content, it’s a painfully dry (even by Douglas’ standards) recitation of issues that faced Vermont during his Administration and how they were dealt with. It reads as though it was written by committee.

(No, I haven’t bought the book; I’ve just thumbed through it using Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature. The Table of Contents alone nearly put me into a coma.)

So I have to conclude that the Great Jim Douglas Autobiography is, after more than two years, missing in action. Did Douglas balk, like a spooked showhorse, when he came face-to-face with putting those closely-guarded stories in print? Did his publisher take one look at the manuscript and judge it unreadably stiff and boring?

I’ve put out a few inquiries via email and to my tens of Twitter followers; so far, no responses. I’ll update if I hear anything.