Tag Archives: Phil Scott

John Rodgers Has Money Now?, and Other Notes on Mass Media Filings

1 Reply

Well, well, well. Former Democratic state senator John Rodgers, now running for lieutenant governor as a Republican, seems to have searched for loose change in the sofa cushions and maybe the console of his (guessing here) pickup truck. Because after reporting no campaign activity whatsoever on July 1, he has now gone and spent a cool $10,400 on advertising with Radio Vermont, a.k.a. WDEV Radio.

We won’t know where the money came from until August 1, the next campaign finance deadline, but candidates are required to promptly report mass media expenditures of $500 or more when they occur close to an election. Rodgers filed his mass media report on July 11.

There are some other mass media filings of note, but let’s stick with Rodgers for the moment. I have to think — in a perverse way, I hope — he’s got some serious money behind him and that this big expenditure is part of a broader plan, because spending $10K on radio ads in central Vermont, by itself, is kind of a headscratcher. And I say that as a veteran radio guy whose brain still conjures up the radio version of the naked-in-public nightmare. (Which basically involves every possible interruption or technical problem sabotaging a live broadcast while I’m sitting at the microphone. Yep, radio in the blood.)

Continue reading →

So the VTGOP’s Big Plan Is… Try to Take Jane Kitchel’s Senate Seat? Is That It?

3 Replies

Previously we looked at the dire financial straits of Esther Charlestin’s candidacy for governor, where she barely cleared $12,000 in a race that calls for, by Howard Dean’s reckoning, at least 164 times that much money. Now it’s time to look at the Republican side of the ledger, where pretty much everybody can rightly cry poverty.

With one notable exception.

That would be state Rep. Scott Beck, running for the Northeast Kingdom Senate seat currently occupied by retiring Democrat Jane Kitchel. Beck has raised a rather stunning $35,565. (His likely Democratic opponent, Amanda Cochrane, has raised a respectable $7,165 and enjoys Kitchel’s active support.) Beck appears to be the only Republican candidate who has raised more than enough money to run a respectable race. Besides, of course, Gov. Phil Scott, The Exception To Every Republican Rule,

More to the point, Beck and the governor are about the only two Republicans who aren’t complete embarrassments when it comes to fundraising. Which shows you just how desperate the party’s situation is.

The VTGOP ought to be in a position for a nice little comeback in the Legislature, threatening to end the Dem/Prog supermajorities that imperil every single one of Scott’s many, many, many vetoes. And they’re not.

Instead, the wistful eyes of the donor class have largely turned to putative Democrat Stewart Ledbetter’s bid to wrest away a Senate seat from liberal Democrat Martine Gulick or Progressive firebrand Tanya Vyhovsky. Ledbetter has amassed the largest campaign kitty of any Statehouse candidate thanks primarily to Burlington-area business leaders. You know, the very people who would historically be bankrolling Republicans.

Continue reading →

It’s Not Quite George Aiken, But It’s Uncomfortably Close

Leave a reply
Screenshot

This election season is shaping up to be both boring as hell and one for the record books. Really, can you think of a comparable set of circumstances in Vermont or anywhere else? We have a Republican governor certain to win re-election. At the same time, no other Republican on the statewide ballot has a hope in Hades. And despite the governor’s efforts to whip up anti-tax frenzy against the Legislature, the Democrats stand a very good chance at retaining their supermajorities because, well, the VTGOP can barely tie its own shoes. At worst, the Dems will retain substantial enough majorities to frustrate the governor even if they can’t win veto overrides by the half-dozen anymore.

You see this becoming reality in the July 1 campaign finance reports, which feature an all-time dismal performance by the only Democratic candidate for governor. It’s not quite George Aiken level — the longtime Republican kingpin famously spent a mere $17.09 on his final Senate re-election bid — but it’s astonishingly bad.

Gubernatorial candidate Esther Charlestin reported total fundraising of $12,235 for her campaign.

For context, Charlestin is no better than the 12th most prolific fundraiser among Democratic candidates in 2024. She trails every fellow statewide Dem, many of whom are facing token opposition at best. She also lags behind five candidates for state Senate: Dems Stewart Ledbetter, Katherine Sims, Kesha Ram Hinsdale and Martine Gulick, and Republican Scott Beck.

Continue reading →

For VTGOP Chair, Abstention Was the Better Part of Valor

3 Replies

The Vermont Republican Party executive committee tried to keep the lowest possible profile in deciding to waive its rule against nominating convicted felons*. Understandable; even the most diehard Trumpers possess some capacity for embarrassment. Their meeting last Wednesday was a closed-door affair. If it was recorded, which I doubt, the audio or video have not been made public. The party did not disclose the vote total; its press release said only that the Trump exemption passed by “a narrow margin.” And don’t expect any details from the written record of the proceedings, which party chair Paul Dame characterized as “some kind of minutes” that “don’t capture the nature of the discussion necessarily.”

*As I predicted it would. Went way out on a limb there.

Yeah, well, sure.

But as it happens, I have received a breakdown of the vote from a highly reliable source (who is not a member of the committee, and that’s all I’ll say about them). And wouldn’t you know it, Dame could have blocked the exemption — but he chose not to cast a vote at all.

Brave man.

Continue reading →

Penny for Your Thoughts, Madam Secretary

2 Replies

I only have one question about two state senators filing a lawsuit over the appointment of Zoie Saunders as interim education secretary after her nomination for the permanent job was rejected by the Senate.

Why only two senators?

Well, I do have another question: What must Saunders be thinking? If I were to guess, it’d be something along the lines of “How did I get myself into this?”

She quit a job she’d barely started in an area that had been her home for years and moved her family a thousand miles north, just to be used as a political shield by the Scott administration and see her reputation dragged over the coals. And this legal challenge could prevent her from serving at all.

My sympathy is limited because she’s a grown-up who made her own choices and she freely accepted a job that she’s unqualified for, but there is a human being in the middle of this uncomfortable mess.

Now, back to the first question: Why did only two senators sign onto the lawsuit?

Continue reading →

Making Two Lists and Checking ‘Em Once

3 Replies

Now that the truly historic veto override session is over, it’s time to take stock of my fearless, or possibly feckless, predictions about what bills Gov. Phil Scott would veto and which vetoes would be overridden by the Legislature.

But first, let’s acknowledge a masterful performance by legislative leadership, a phrase that doesn’t often escape my virtual lips. Even with supermajorities, overriding a gubernatorial veto is a nettlesome task. You’ve got to make sure all your people are (a) present, not a small item when dealing with 180-odd individuals (some odder than others), and (b) absolutely unified on every vote, including some toughies.

The House and Senate held a total of 15 override votes in a single day, and they won 13 of ’em including a clean sweep in the House. Just scheduling 15 votes in two chambers on one day is fairly amazing, let alone winning 86.67% of ’em.

As for my performance…

Continue reading →

Phil Scott Presents: Stupid Map Tricks!

4 Replies

What you see above is a portion of Gov. Phil Scott’s latest masterstroke: A map of Vermont showing all the land that would get enhanced protections under H.687, the housing/Act 250 reform bill he vetoed last week. He thinks the map proves his point, that the bill goes way too far on conservation and not nearly far enough on encouraging development. Just look at all those yellow and brown areas! The Legislature is out of control!

However… I do not think his map means what he thinks it means.

This map reminds me of the Republican electoral maps showing who won each county. They show that the vast majority of the country’s physical space voted Republican, and help fuel stolen-election conspiracy theories. Truth is, Republicans win the big empty parts of the country while Democratic strength is mainly in population centers. And since our system involves one person, one vote — not one acre, one vote — well, the map is deeply misleading and proves nothing.

Same with Phil Scott’s H.687 map. It proves nothing.

Continue reading →

The Joys of Willful Ignorance

Leave a reply

Phil Scott’s veto pen must be hotter than ol’ No. 14’s engine block at the finish line of Thunder Road because he’s racked up a fresh batch of vetoes this week, bringing his lifetime total over the half-century mark. Yep, he’s now vetoed 52 bills (according to the State Archives’ list of veto messages) including eight this year alone. Reminder that the previous record-holder was Howard Dean with a measly 21. And Dean served 12 years as governor while Scott’s been in the corner office for a mere seven and a half.

(Gubernatorial Trivia Time: Dean first Wielded His Veto PenTM to strike down a bill that would have legalized the sale of sparklers. Yes, really. His letter is a marvel of fearmongering; Dean wrote that sparklers may “appear innocuous,” but are, in fact, “quite dangerous,” burning at temperatures of “between 1600 and 2000 degrees,” and they “caused more than 1,000 emergency room visits” in 1989 alone. Which sounds like a lot, but 300 times as many people go to the ER with dog bites, and I don’t see anyone trying to ban dogs.)

We eagerly await the Legislature’s override session on Monday, where seven bills could be on the table. (An override of the eighth, a ban on flavored tobacco and vapes, failed in the Senate in April.) I’ll give you my back-of-the-envelope rundown of likely overrides in a tick, but first I’d like to point out three vetoes where the governor happily displayed his ignorance of the subject matter and of the process that went into the bills.

Continue reading →

Even By Phil Scott Standards, This Is a Stupid Veto

1 Reply

Gov. Phil Scott’s dozens upon dozens of vetoes fall into three rough categories:

  • Principled, which involve an honest philosophical difference between Republican executive and Democratic/Progressive Legislature.
  • Easily avoidable, in which Scott proffers an objection that could have been easily cleared up with a little effort during the session.
  • Transparently phony, in which Scott gins up some excuse for a veto because if he came right out and disagreed with a bill’s premise it might damage his “moderate” image.

Today’s veto of H.645 is a combo platter of number 2 and number 3, a particularly toxic blend. The bill would ensure equitable access to restorative justice programs. In other words, kind of a squishy criminal justice reform that wouldn’t appeal to someone who wants to be tough on crime. For instance, Phil Scott.

But instead of addressing the issue directly and risk tarnishing his centrist cred, he claimed that he had to veto the bill because it lacked the necessary funding to put it into practice. (His veto message is very brief and includes no hint of any other rationale.)

Implementation of the measure would be handled by the Attorney General’s Office, and unfortunately for Scott’s chosen rationale, AG Charity Clark quickly replied that her office could handle it with no problem, at least for the next fiscal year, with its existing resources.

Yeah, kind of embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Whatever Happened to the Great Phil Scott Recruitment Drive of 2024?

1 Reply

When the leader of your party describes your candidate recruitment effort as “disappointing,” it’s a sign that things have gone off the rails. So said VTGOP Chair Paul Dame to Seven Days’ Kevin McCallum, and then added “It’s one of the smallest recruitment classes that we’ve had in the last 10 years.”

Can confirm. I spent a few hours poring over the Secretary of State’s list of candidates who have filed for major party primaries. There may be a few late adds; the deadline was last Thursday, and as of Monday morning the Elections Office was still checking petitions. But what we’ve got so far, by my count, is a total of 69 Republican candidates for House. Which sounds a little bit respectable considering they’ve only got 37 seats right now.

Except for this: At least 30 of those candidates have no shot at winning. There are a few Republican primaries where someone’s gotta lose, a few repeat candidates who have been uncompetitive in the past, and a lot of Republican candidates in deep-blue districts. In other words, the VTGOP has no better than the longest of longshot chances at eliminating the Democratic/Progressive supermajority in the House. They’d have to run the table in competitive districts and hold all their current seats.

On the Senate side the Republicans have 25 candidates, but I count 14 who are not competitive. The R’s do have a shot at ending the Senate supermajority thanks to some key Democratic departures, but that’s all it is: a shot.

So what happened to Gov. Phil Scott’s “pledge” (McCallum’s word) to recruit moderate Republican candidates? Either it was a failure, or it never happened at all.

Continue reading →