Recently I wrote a post criticizing Democratic Party bigwigs’ underwhelming support for their gubernatorial candidate Amanda Janoo. During the month of August, not a single Democratic officeholder donated to the badly underfunded Janoo campaign. (A few did donate to her campaign before August 1.) This is looking like a missed opportunity given recent signs of slippage in Gov. Phil Scott’s favorability numbers and the very real signs of life in Janoo’s organization. (She’s holding dozens of canvasses and honk-and-waves in coming weeks, which must mean she’s generating grassroots energy and attracting a lot of volunteers.)
But now it’s time to throw the same shade at Vermont’s very elder statesman, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. To his credit, he continues to work hard and travel his buns off in support of progressive-minded candidates across the country. Ballotpedia keeps a running tab of his endorsements — defined as “official statements, appearances at campaign rallies, and direct participation in campaign ads and materials.” It’s a very long list. In 2026 alone, Sanders has acted in support of 83 candidates across the country. That’s roughly one candidate every three days.
Amanda Janoo does not appear on the list. Nor do I recall Sanders issuing a statement about Janoo or appearing at one of her campaign events or, most valuable currency of all, sending an email to his vaunted contact list seeking donations for Janoo’s cash-starved campaign.
Janoo is a candidate straight out of Bernie Central Casting. She’s a creative, original thinker with a strong progressive streak. Her platform is a close match for Bernie’s. So why no love for the hometown candidate?
Update! Apparently the governor’s office did issue a statement slamming the tariffs. How Digger ignored it, I have no idea.
Update to the update! I got the timing wrong on the Digger story’s publication and Scott issuing a statement. Details below.
Following Donald Trump’s precipitous announcement of 50% tariffs on a variety of Canadian goods, VTDigger reporter Theo Wells-Spackman was tasked with chronicling the potential economic harm to our state, which is heavily dependent on cross-border trade and tourism. In the process, he gathered reactions from various Vermont officials. He did a decent job of it, but there was one notable and unexplained absence from the piece.
I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.
The officials who made appearances in the story included, in this order, state economist Tom Kavet (who called Trump’s move “pure stupidity”), Treasurer Mike Pieciak, Amy Magnus of Vermont-based customs broker A.N. Deringer (the tariffs are “downright shocking”), and U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (Trump’s policy has “caused undeniable harm” and “economic chaos”).
A nice list. But who’s not there? Who’s conspicuous by their absence?
Why, our fearless, resolute Governor Phil Scott, that’s who. He was not quoted, nor was anyone from his administration. Wells-Spackman did not reveal whether he sought reaction from Scott or his minions. If he didn’t, well, that’s reportorial and editorial malpractice. The state’s top official should be heard from. If Wells-Spackman sought reaction and didn’t get any, that should have been reported in his article.
Either way, Phil Scott is conspicuous by his absence. And Digger might have let him off the hook for it.
Update. Apologies to the governor, and brickbats to VTDigger. Scott issued a full-throated statement yesterday afternoon at 1:00 slamming the Trump tariffs as “a bad idea” in bold font. This is all on Wells-Spackman, his editors, and Digger entire. His story was published at 6:21 p.m., more than five hours after the governor’s statement came out. Did they fail to notice? Did they somehow decide that the governor’s views weren’t relevant an article about “Vermont officials” reacting to the tariff announcement? It’s literally incredible.
The governor’s statement in full:
“My feelings on punitive tariffs imposed on Canada have not changed over the last two years and are simply a bad idea that will lead to increased costs on Vermonters. As I’ve said before, this added burden would create real challenges for our residents and businesses who are already facing economic headwinds. Canadians are our friendly neighbors and long‑time allies, and we should be working together to find solutions that strengthen the region, not further divide us. As I prepare to host the Premiers of Eastern Canadian Provinces in Vermont next month, my message is clear: we are good friends and partners, and I’m committed to strengthening our economic and cultural ties to benefit both sides of the border.”
Update to the update, and the updates are now longer than the original story. I got it wrong. The governor’s statement was issued the day after Digger published Wells-Spackman’s piece, not the same day. Careless error on my part, and I apologize. The story was published on 7/21, and Scott’s statrement came out midday on 7/22.
Which leaves me wondering about two things. First, did Wells-Spackman reach out to Scott’s office for comment? If not, why not? If so, why not include it in the story? And second, did Scott’s comms team cobble together a statement after Digger published? That’s a bit embarrassing.
And I hope this is the last time I have to revisit this cluster.
The calculus may have changed given the Democratic sweep of Tuesday’s elections, but according to a story published Monday by The Hill, a group of “at least eight moderate Senate Democrats” has been meeting to discuss surrendering to Trump, oops, sorry, my mistake, “finding a deal to end the monthlong government shutdown.”
And one of the eight is our very own Sen. Peter Welch.
Feeling proud? I know you are. I can hardly wait for the Vermont Democratic Party convention on November 15, where I’m sure Welch will deliver a stem-winder of a speech about resisting Trump’s authoritarianism. He’s good at those.
Who knows, if enough Vermont Democrats learn of his complicity in this surrender attempt, maybe some will greet Welch with boos instead of cheers. A man can dream.
Like many disheartened liberals, I almost completely withdrew from following national politics after the November election. I just didn’t have the capacity to deal with a flood tide of bad news about what Donald Trump was going to do.
I still spend less time consuming national news than I used to. But I can no longer enjoy the luxury of abstinence. Things are just too bad and too consequential.
The above passage is from Chapter 24 of the Book of Proverbs. I came upon it while tracking down the famous quotation, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” It’s usually and wrongly attributed to Edmund Burke; as with many famous quotations, its actual origin is murky at best.
The last straw was the Friday, April 11 edition of the Rachel Maddow Show, in which she went deep on the crisis in the Social Security Administration the damage Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is doing at the Department of Health and Human Services.
So. I decided to do something.
Not just one thing. I decided to do one thing every day. Indefinitely.
Going to abandon my usual policy of sticking to Vermont politics. Perhaps I can be permitted an exception for one of the most consequential events in our nation’s history — the decision of President Joe Biden to abandon his bid for re-election.
When Sen. Peter Welch came out in favor of Biden’s withdrawal on July 10, I wrote that he had better know what he’s doing. In the wake of Biden’s decision, that sentiment now applies to everyone in Democratic Party circles, up to and including the President himself. They’d damn well better know what they’re doing. And they’d damn well better not screw this up, which seems to be the default setting for the Democrats going all the way back (at least) to 1968, when I was a teenager staring down the barrel of the Vietnam War and the party tore itself apart. And still nearly won the election. (Probably should have, if not for Richard Nixon making back-door deals with South Vietnamese leadership. As reported in Garrett Graff’s Watergate.)
1968 was the last time a sitting Democratic President voluntarily relinquished the position. I’m not drawing comparisons beyond that, because the circumstances were wildly different. They were, in fact, much more fraught, much direr, than the current situation. And yes, the Democrats nearly won that election.
I am saying that the process of choosing Biden’s replacement has got to be cleaner than the trainwreck that happened after LBJ’s withdrawal, or the Dems risk handing control of the country to Donald Trump.
I haven’t written about the Joe Biden debate aftermath because (1) this is a blog about Vermont politics and (2) I have no earthly idea what’s really going on, and neither do you.
But U.S. Sen. Peter Welch has now weighed in, taking to the opinion pages of the Washington Post to become the first Democratic senator to call for Biden to withdraw from the presidential campaign. So (1) the story is fair game for a #vtpoli blog and (2) I have thoughts.
First of which is, it’s absolutely uncharacteristic for Welch to be the first soldier over the parapet and into No Man’s Land. Welch is a cautious consensus-builder, best known in the House for being a loyal member of Nancy Pelosi’s team and for his diligent efforts to find common ground with rural Republicans. I don’t remember a single time when Welch was out in front of any issue, let alone the political hot potato of the season.
And that makes me think he has solid grounds for this decision. Welch is never, ever one to go off half cocked.
Gerald Malloy, fresh off his razor-thin defeat at the hands of Peter Welch in 2022, is ready for another go. Having lost to Welch by a mere [checks notes] FORTY PERCENTAGE POINTS, Malloy thinks he can do far better against [checks notes again] the most popular Vermont politician of our century, Bernie Sanders.
Yep, Scary Bird Man is running for Senate. Again. Optimistic or deluded? You make the call.
I hope you’re ready for a return of the most bizarre yard signs in Vermont history: an eagle staring you directly in the eye, accompanied by the cryptic legend “Deploy Malloy.” You know, the signs described by VTDigger as “simple yet arguably menacing”? Now available in a wide variety of merch, including some high-test nightmare fuel for the kiddies.
Sen. Bernie Sanders went on CBS’ “Face the Nation” yesterday, and triggered another feeding frenzy on peace-activist Twitter by refusing, once again, to call for a permanent cease-fire in the Gaza conflict.
Which is not to say he sided with the Israeli government, not at all. He was sharply critical of its aggressive tactics and its seeming acceptance of high civilian casualties and widespread destruction. He even supports a temporary cease-fire. He opposed the United State’s veto of a United Nations resolution calling for a temporary suspension of hostilities. But he’s not on board with a permanent one. Because how can you achieve peace when faced with an enemy bent on your destruction?
In terms of a permanent cease-fire, I don’t know how you could have a permanent cease-fire with Hamas, who have said before October 7 and after October 7 that they want to destroy Israel, they want a permanent war. I don’t know how you have a permanent cease-fire with an attitude like that.
Sanders also deserves credit for sticking to his principles. He has no direct say in the matter, so it’d be easy for him to change his position as Sen. Peter Welch and U.S. Rep. Becca Balint have done. But he hasn’t, and I’d be very surprised if he does.
It’s Gerald Malloy, our very own Republican candidate for Senate, yukkin’ it up with insurrectionist fraudster Steve Bannon!
This is an image from Malloy’s October 17 appearance on Bannon’s “War Room” show, during which Bannon called on his legions of followers to volunteer for, or donate to, Malloy’s campaign.
Hmm… October 17… that date rings a bell… right, right. That was the day federal prosecutors called for Bannon to be locked up for six months for defying a Congressional subpoena.
Well, as old Aesop once said, “A man is known by the company he keeps.”
Speaking of which, do you remember the Mark Coester hullaballoo? The archconservative Senate candidate ‘s logging truck was in Colchester’s Fourth of July Parade, festooned with fascist and alt-right banners.
And Malloy for Senate campaign materials.
“…the company he keeps.”
Malloy has been the Republican nominee for more than two months. For the most part, the media coverage of him has been awfully polite and incurious. (One exception: Kevin McCallum’s deep dive in Seven Days.) This is probably because no one thinks he’s going to win, so why bother going beneath the surface? But still, he is a major party candidate for high office. He ought to get as much scrutiny as any other candidate.
We’re in for a lot of this, aren’t we? The higher reaches of our ballot feature grossly one-sided contests between able, experienced Democrats and unknown, untested Republicans whose long residencies in the Fox News bubble are plain for all to see.
Last night’s Welch/Malloy debate was… a bit of a letdown. Gerald Malloy was the boring kind of ultraconservative, not the entertaining kind. He was Mike Lee, not Paul Gosar. Instead of a guy verbally stepping on rakes á la Sideshow Bob, we got a flavorless plate of boiled meat with a side of willful ignorance.
It wasn’t as much fun as I hoped. I think we’ll get better results next week, when Libertarian-of-convenience Ericka Redic brings her unique brand of acerbic egotism to a debate with Becca Balint and mock Republican Liam Madden. If Malloy was stepping on rakes, Redic will march blissfully through a minefield.
Peter Welch was, well, Peter Welch. Always on top of his rhetorical game and incredibly energetic for a mid-septuagenerian*. Impressive, in short. Well, not to the 35% of the electorate that will see Malloy as a military hero answering the call of duty to clean up Washington, D.C. But they don’t matter. He did nothing last night that could push his share of the vote past the mid-30s.
*Seriously. I’ve written that he might be one-and-done in the Senate but the way he looks and speaks, he might keep going for three or four terms.
