I realize there’s a “Day” for just about everything, just as the Catholics have a stunning collection of patron saints. But fact-checking? Now there’s a party. For those wishing to celebrate IFCD, it’s on April 2. You’ve got plenty of time for venue-shopping and caterer-hiring.

Anyway, in my post about the filing deadline, I offhandedly remarked on the difficulty of moving from President Pro Tem or Speaker to the governor’s office. Lately, every single House or Senate leader has been included on everyone’s short list for governor but none of ’em have gotten a sniff of the corner office. The soon-to-be-dearly-departed Phil Baruth and Jill Krowinski were once widely seen as chief executive timber; not now, and probably not ever again.

I stand by my comments about the political difficulties of leading a legislative majority: You’re responsible for herding the cats and engaging in The Art of the Possible, not establishing a strong personal image or agenda. Every Pro Tem and Speaker acquires baggage, often at a rapid clip. That’s why the longest-serving leader in Vermont history, Ralph Wright, managed “only” 10 years in the job. (In his memoir, he acknowledges that his power was pretty much gone by his final term.) Most leaders hit their sell-by dates after two or three terms. Many (including Wright himself) get 86’ed by their home voters, presumably for seeming too removed from their district’s interests.

Just to be clear, I’m talking about Speakers and Pro Tems advancing directly to the governorship. It rarely happens despite the high profile those offices confer. (House or Senate majority leaders, occupying the #2 post in each chamber, have been more successful, perhaps because they enjoy the advantages of networking and favor-trading without the burdens of being the leader.) But I’ve gotten some pushback from diligent readers who cited exceptions, so it seemed worthwhile to take a closer look at the question.