Tag Archives: Mark Johnson Show

The Milne Transcripts, part 4: The Great and Terrible Doug Racine

Leave a reply

Yet another instlalment in my epic series of posts from Scott Milne’s horrific appearance on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show on July 25. It was his first long-form interview since formally opening his bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, and it was bad on so many levels… 

One of the many intricate dances Milne was trying to perform was projecting an image of moderation without alienating the GOP base. A difficult task, given that some prominent GOPers are already talking up Dan Feliciano, the Libertarian candidate.

During an attack on the Shumlin Administration’s alleged managerial failings, Milne went off on a tangent about the 2010 campaign. As you may recall, after Jim Douglas bowed out of the race, five Democrats jumped in — and Peter Shumlin eked out a win in the primary, with Doug Racine finishing a close second. Take it away, Mr. Bunny…

I would have loved to have seen a Brian Dubie/Doug Racine governor’s race. I think Doug Racine is an accomplished state public servant, a man of great integrity, and I would have loved that governor’s race. I would have supported Dubie in that, but I thought that would have been a good governor’s race with two very different, um, paths forward for Vermont. But where I would have felt like both people were just being totally candid about what they thought, and not trying to read polls and figure out what they needed to say to get elected.

Got that? Liberal Democrat Doug Racine, man of integrity, “accomplished public servant,” and quality gubernatorial candidate, unlike the unprincipled opportunist who won the nomination, and who shall remain nameless because Milne has declared that his campaign will not “vilify” anyone. (Just as I am not vilifying Scott Milne, a fine businessman who possesses many fine qualities — political skill being conspicuously absent from the list.)

But this remark was preceded by a direct attack on poor management at two agencies: Natural Resources, and Health and Human Services. The latter helmed, of course, by none other than Doug Racine. Just before this, Milne had slammed Governor Shumlin’s so-called “Team of Rivals” cabinet that included some of his adversaries in the 2010 primary. Milne said “I don’t think those were good management choices.”

Okay, so I guess the “accomplished public servant” Doug Racine would be a crackerjack candidate for Governor, but he has no business heading a state agency?

Of course, Milne made it clear that he, personally, wouldn’t have voted for Racine, but still: making Racine the Democratic nominee is putting him in line to run the entire state government, when you think he’s not even capable of running a subset thereof. It’s like saying Sarah Palin was a darn fine candidate but would’ve made a lousy Vice President.

It was a very poor way to make a very weak point. Milne apparently wanted to have something good to say about a prominent Democrat in order to burnish his bipartisan credentials. In the process, though, he managed to compliment and crucify the same person in the space of two paragraphs.

Stay tuned for more installments of The Milne Transcripts, coming soon to this space. But first, I gotta do some weed-whacking. 

The Milne Transcripts, part 2: The accusation

Leave a reply

Early on in Scott Milne’s epic appearance on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show last Friday, the Republican gubernatorial candidate unleashed a tough accusation against Governor Shumlin’s team — basically accusing them of bringing political pressure to bear against Republican donors.

Johnson had asked Milne about fundraising, and specifically about his relatively paltry take of $20,000 so far. Milne asserted that things were going according to plan, and said “I’m not all that actively pursuing money yet.” Johnson was surprised by this, and asked “You’re not actively pursuing money?” And Milne responded:

We’ve got a strategy for fundraising. I’ve got a fundraiser on board and she knows what she’s doing. But I’m not going to spend eight hours a day on the phone begging for money, and I’m clearly not going to call people up who donate to my opponent and ask them why, which is a widely known fact about this administration. 

Emphasis mine. Johnson was a bit incredulous, and followed up: “They do that? To people who contribute to you?” Milne’s response:

No, not me. But in the past. Get people on the show and ask them. But that’s clearly part of the Shumlin agenda.

Milne didn’t directly present this as a case of political blackmail, but that was the clear intent. A pretty damning accusation, presented completely without evidence. Yeah, “get people on the show and ask them.” As if victims of political pressure would freely own up to it on the radio.

Well, I ran this by Erika Wolffling, Shumlin campaign staffer this year and in 2012, which would seem to be the year Milne is hinting at. (A pressure play would have been ineffective in 2010, when Shumlin wasn’t even Governor yet.) Her very concise response:

That’s a bizarre statement, and it’s absolutely false.

So there. Ball’s in your court, Mr. Milne. If you have people willing to substantiate your accusation — on or off the record — I would be happy to speak with them. If you’ve read my stuff for very long, you know that I’m a liberal but an honest broker, willing to criticize members of any party if they’re in the wrong. And if there’s evidence that this accusation isn’t “absolutely false,” I’d consider it newsworthy and I would report it in this space. You know where to find me.

The Milne Transcripts series will continue very soon. 

The Milne Transcripts, part 1: An inauspicious beginning

Leave a reply

On Friday July 25, Scott Milne sat down for his first extensive media interview since launching his Republican candidacy for Governor. He was a guest on The Mark Johnson Show on WDEV Radio; Mark has archived the interview as a podcast. 

It’s a rich vein of material, and I’ll be rolling it out in sections over the next couple of days. I’ve transcribed the first 15 minutes so far, working my way through dense overgrowths of verbiage and sudden shifts of topic, delivered in a quick, stumbly, nervous monotone.

Let me pause here and say that I have a lot of respect for Scott Milne the businessman, and I appreciate his courage in taking on the thankless task of challenging Governor Shumlin. And just as he doesn’t mean to “vilify” Shumlin by referring to him as brazen, bullying, headstrong, radical, and ultra-progressive, I don’t mean to vilify Milne when I say that his performance was so inept as to be almost unlistenable, or that his campaign is off to a terrible, horrible, really bad start, or that any chance he had of mounting a serious challenge to the Governor has already evaporated like the mist of a midsummer morning. Nor when I call him the political equivalent to the 1962 Mets.

Nope, no vilification here.

He came across as a — well, here’s a choice quote:

I’m more interested in the campaign, making sure I’m out meeting Vermonters and reconfirming the reason I got into the race, which is a real fear of the direction the Shumlin Administration is taking the state, and the need for a, hopefully what the people will judge me as an articulate voice of opposition to that. 

Emphasis mine. “Articulate voice of opposition,” my Aunt Fanny.

Milne is a novice to the big political stage, and it may seem unfair to criticize his first sally. But good grief, he put himself in this position by jumping into the race at the last minute. He has no time for missteps, and he surely has no time for on-the-job training. He needed to hit the ground running with a coherent, convincing narrative. Instead, he’s hit the ground face first.

Want more? Oh Lord, there’s more.

There are some real problems with the economy in Vermont, there’s some real lack of leadership from the Shumlin Administration over the last four, or I would argue six years, ’cause he spent his last two years as President Pro Tem of the Senate really running for Governor. So he’s got six years into this, he still can’t even tell us too much about how he’s going to pay for VHC, to say nothing about taking accountability for the total mismanagement of it.

“Six years.”

Peter Shumlin’s been Governor since January 2011. Three and a half years. I don’t know what Milne is hoping to pull off with this six-year bit — which he also hammered home in a media scrum after his campaign launch. It’s transparently phony and unconvincing.

Milne then pivoted to another talking point, delivered with the same skill and grace.

Secondly, we’ve got this big problem with the school system, and we’ve got a Governor who, between vacations in Bimini or wherever his Caribbean vacation home is, and flyin’ all over the country to raise money from special interest groups, he found all kinds of time to do that during the Legislative session, but didn’t find the time or the need to roll up his shirtsleeves, walk across from the Pavilion fifth floor to the Capitol, sit down with House and Senate leaders and get something on the table that’s going to restructure property taxes so that, you know, you’re talking about my announcement in Barre, I stopped at Central Market, which has been there for at least two generations, I stopped in there for a coffee on my way over to my announcement on Wednesday at the Aldrich Public Library, ran into three people all of whom supported me emotionally, all of whom live in Florida and don’t live in Vermont anymore.

You can practically smell the smoke when he shifts mental gears from one talking point to another. He sounds like he’s been stuffed full of briefing notes and hasn’t had time to digest them. They just come spewing out in raggedy chunks whenever he opens his mouth.

Again, I am not vilifying Scott Milne, whom I respect as a person and businessman.

That’s enough for part 1. Coming up in the second installment: Milne makes a striking accusation against Governor Shumlin, the man he is not at all vilifying. And he provides not a speck of evidence.

Stay tuned, and getcha popcorn ready.

Meet Windham County’s Favorite Republicrat

Leave a reply

One of the bigger surprises of last month’s filing deadline was the appearance of an old face in a new place: Roger Allbee, Ag Secretary under Jim Douglas and self-described “liberal Republican,” is running for the State Senate in Windham County.

… as a Democrat.

Well, last Wednesday I guest-hosted the Mark Johnson Show on WDEV*, and I booked Allbee as one of my guests. I thought it worthwhile to try to pin him down on his move to the Democratic side.

*For those unfamiliar with the show, Mark frequently does in-depth interviews with key figures in politics and government. He posts his more noteworthy interviews in an online podcast, available anytime for people outside of WDEV’s range or who can’t listen live between 9-11 a.m. because they, y’know, have to work and stuff. The podcast is a bit out of date right now because Mark’s been on vacation. But it’s worth bookmarking. 

The result, such as it was, has earned Allbee a nickname: The Artful Roger.

He bobbed and weaved, ducked and parried, and determinedly changed the subject at every opportunity. In a very genial way, I should add. It wasn’t at all contentious; he simply wouldn’t say much about it. If you’re a Windham County Democrat wondering about the sincerity of his party switch, well, you can keep on wondering. The Artful Roger didn’t lay any doubts to rest. Indeed, my conclusion is that he hasn’t changed a bit: he’s still a moderate Republican, and his positions are more or less in line with the likes of Phil Scott.

His case for his candidacy as a Democrat: “People who know me know that I have always worked in a very bipartisan manner, and even when I was Secretary, to bring things together.”

Want more?

I’m passionate about Vermont and the values of our community, and believe that with my knowledge of the state and my reputation for working with people on all sides of the aisle in a very bipartisan way, that I can bring my great passion and knowledge to the Senate. I know how it works, and have been there as Secretary and think that my values, my skill and my background can help make a difference.

Prospective slogan: “Vote for Allbee: He’s Very Bipartisan.” Alternatively: “Allbee: ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Democrats.'”

He says he hasn’t moved, but the GOP has moved away from him:

When I grew up in Brookline many years ago, party labels really didn’t mean much. People voted for the individual, and for what the individual believed in. I still believe that, but the Republican Party that I’ve known in the past, the Aiken party, the Dick Snelling party, that party has certainly moved in a way that it doesn’t represent my views today.

True enough, but with Phil Scott trying to make the party more inclusive, this seems like exactly the wrong time for a liberal Republican to jump ship. Allbee replied that he respects Scott, but still believes his views “haven’t been included as much as they should be” in the party. Which doesn’t really answer the question.

Then again, he gave no indication that he has actually jumped ship. When I asked about switching to the Democratic Party, he replied, “I can’t say I really did switch parties.”

As quickly as he could, The Artful Roger launched into a lengthy explication of what he sees as the three big issues facing Vermont: Health care reform, the public school system and how to fund it, and economic development. An explication that lasted more than five minutes.

And it sounded like the kind of stuff you’d hear from Phil Scott (or, Lord help us, Bruce Lisman): long on exploration, short on specifics, plenty of talk about “concerns” with current policies but no outright criticism, and invocations of a more balanced approach to stuff like taxes and regulation.

I redirected the conversation by noting that Allbee should expect skepticism about his candidacy, and asked him to convince me it wasn’t sheer opportunism — his only way to win in a very liberal constituency. His answer was more of the same.

I think people who know me and know what I’ve done and how I’ve worked collaboratively with others and know my personality and my values, know that it’s not opportunism, but it’s using my experience. Obviously there will be some who say that. So be it. I think I have a history of working with all sides, and supporting candidates like Pat Leahy and Peter Welch and working with them, even Bernie Sanders. Governor Shumlin asked me to stay on [as Ag Secretary], because I had the reputation of being collaborative and working on the issues. So some will say that, but my history demonstrates otherwise.

“Even Bernie Sanders.” Nice touch.

My conclusion: Allbee’s a nice enough guy with a lot of experience and knowledge. I think he’s more or less honest about running as a Democrat, although there’s clearly an element of opportunism at work. He’s running in a solidly Democratic county at a time when one of the two incumbents is stepping down, leaving an open seat.

Still, he’d be a fine Republican candidate — from somewhere else, like Rutland or Caledonia. But Windham? One of the most liberal counties in the state shouldn’t be represented by a neo-centrist.

Besides, the State Senate already has too many of these types, both Democrats and Republicans: centrists or center-rightists who’ve helped block a lot of progressive legislation during the Shumiln years. We really don’t need another Dick Mazza, do we?

Postscript. There hasn’t been any coverage of the Windham County race in the statewide media (except my own stuff on Green Mountain Daily), which surprises me. I realize the primary isn’t until late August, but this is a slow time for political coverage and Allbee’s entry sets up perhaps the most intriguing primary race in Vermont: a four-way run for two Democratic nominations, including one incumbent (Jeanette White), two newcomers (Becca Balint and Joan Bowman), and Allbee. And with no declared Republican candidates, the winners of the Dem primary will waltz their way into the Senate.

Me. on the radio (part 2)

Leave a reply

Hey, I’ll be back on WDEV radio this Wednesday 6/25, guest hosting the Mark Johnson Show. And I’ve got a couple of guests I’m really looking forward to.

At 9:00, I’ll be speaking with former Agriculture Secretary Roger Allbee. The lifelong Republican was responsible for one of the bigger surprises of the June 12 filing deadline when he put himself up as a Democratic candidate for State Senate in Windham County. I’ll ask him why he switched parties, whether he had any contact or involvement with the Democratic Party before filing, his positions on the issues, and why we shouldn’t cynically see this as an opportunistic move to get elected in a strongly liberal constituency.

And in the second hour of the show, I’ll go one-on-one with Dave Sunderland, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. I’ll ask him about his efforts to make the party more inclusive, the GOP’s failure to field candidates for four of the six statewide offices, the longshot candidacy of Scott Milne for Governor, and whether this is an honest move to the center or just another effort to “rebrand” the same old conservatism. Should be fun.

WDEV can be heard throughout much of northern Vermont on 550 AM, and from central Vermont to Burlington on 96.1 FM. Hope you can join me!

Me, on the radio

Leave a reply

Guest hosting The Mark Johnson Show on WDEV Radio, Wednesday June 18 from 9-11 a.m. First hour guest: Paul Burns of VPIRG, talking about the group’s new push for campaign finance reform, its recent successes on GMO food labeling and toxics in children’s products, plus a new poll showing broad support for renewable energy in Vermont.

Second hour: Historian Rachel Hope Cleves of the University of Victoria, author of “Charity & Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America.” It’s the story of two women who lived openly as a couple in a small Vermont town in the early 19th Century. They were married in all but title, and were widely accepted in their community. They were even buried in the same plot with a single headstone. In the book, Cleves tells the story of these two women, and what it has to say to the America of today and our current debates over marriage equality. The book is published by the Oxford University Press; Dr. Cleves’ blog is  here.