Tag Archives: Vermont Republican Party

About that Shumlin approval poll

Bit of a surprise came to us late last week, with news of a survey showing Governor Shumlin had suddenly enjoyed a surge in popularity.

The results were released by Morning Consult, a national polling agency that gave Shumlin a 55 percent approval rating after collecting data online between January and May. Shumlin jumped nearly 10 points from the last time Morning Consult polled Vermonters, in November, when 46 percent of respondents gave him a thumbs up.

"What should I do now, Scotty?" "Ya got me, boss." (Photo from VPR)

“What should I do now, Scotty?” “Ya got me, boss.” (Photo from VPR)

The results are also at odds with a February poll from the Castleton Polling Institute that put the Governor at 37 percent approval, and the previous two Castleton surveys: in September 2015, Shumlin was at 40 percent; in March 2015, it was 41 percent. That’s awfully darn consistent.

The Democratic Party was quick to promote the Morning Consult number. Understandable; it would be the best possible news for the party and its gubernatorial candidate. It would prove broad support for the Democratic agenda, and it would mean the candidate wouldn’t have to create distance between her- or himself and Shumlin.

As for me, well, color me skeptical. After all, what has happened since February — or November — to bolster Shumlin’s popularity? He didn’t score any high-profile victories in the Legislature. And he’s taken quite a hit from the EB-5 imbroglio, since he’d associated himself so prominently with the scandal-plagued developers.

Is there some other counterbalancing factor — some political “dark matter” exerting a positive gravitational pull on Shumlin’s numbers? Or is it just an outlier?

Continue reading


The mudwashing of the Sorrell case

Hey, I invented a new word: it’s the opposite of “whitewashing” — the deliberate fouling of something previously spotless.

The legal troubles of Our Eternal General Bill Sorrell have two progenitors. Well, three if you count Clueless Bill himself. But the two I’m thinking of are (1) journalistic and (2) legal/political.

The former is good ol’ Paul Heintz, Seven Days’ political editor and columnist. He made public records requests for Sorrell’s emails and other materials, and ferreted out the unseemly details of the AG’s campaign finance carelessness and his overly cozy relations with the designated AG-handlers at some big national law firms. He posted his first story on April 1, and a follow-up with fresh details on May 11.

Heintz’ reporting, it must be said, was met with a very curious silence from the rest of our political media.

The other progenitor is Brady Toensing, vice chair of the VTGOP, who used Heintz’ reporting as the basis of a formal complaint against Sorrell, filed on May 20. That complaint somehow transmuted Heintz’ previously ignored reporting into a story that other media finally felt obliged to pick up. Toensing’s complaint, in turn, led to the appointment of independent investigator Tom Little.

But the media have reported it as a matter between Toensing and Sorrell, removing Heintz (and the journalistic underpinnings) from their narratives. I’d expect this sort of convenient reasoning from Sorrell himself:

“I enjoy the work. I can’t say that I enjoyed the Toensing assaults on my personal integrity and that I would abuse the integrity of the office. I’m not a masochistic person and that is not fun, whatsoever.”

Oh good, I can stop trying to imagine Bill Sorrell in leather restraints and a ball gag.

[Purell break.]

Sorry. The point is, it’s clearly in Sorrell’s political interest to depict this whole mess as a partisan attack. But why should our distinguished political media carry that water for him?

Continue reading

A new nominee for the Most Dangerous Republican award

Last December, around the time of the fabled Chris Christie fundraiser for the Vermont Republican Party (projected take, a quarter mill or so; actual take, less than 50K as far as I can tell from the party’s financial filings), I posited that there was one figure in the downtrodden VTGOP who could pose a threat to the Democrats as a statewide candidate. It wasn’t Phil Scott; it was the closest thing we have to a Chris Christie — a short-tempered, get-things-done, “willing to work with both sides” kind of guy named Thom Lauzon, Republican Mayor of Barre. 

I still think he’s a solid potential statewide candidate, should he ever choose to climb the ladder. But another name has been suggested to me, and it’s an excellent choice. In fact, offhand I’d have to say he’s an even better Most Dangerous Republican than Lauzon.

I’ll give you the name, but first it’s Story Time, kids!

Starting in 2002, Craig Benson spent two disastrous years as Republican Governor of New Hampshire. While he was Governor, he appointed a little-known lawyer named Kelly Ayotte to the post of Attorney General. (In NH, the AG is an appointed position with a five-year term.) By the time her first term had come to an end,  John Lynch was Governor. He was a Democrat but he liked to play the bipartisan game, so he nominated her for a second term.

Before she served out that term, she resigned to run for U.S. Senate. And she won. And she’s now the only Republican member of NH’s four-member Congressional delegation.

The key moment in her ascendancy was her renomination by John Lynch. If he’d appointed a Democrat and sent her packing as a one-term Benson functionary, she would’ve had a much harder time continuing her political career. I firmly believe that there would never have been a Senator Kelly Ayotte if not for John Lynch being too clever for his own good.

Thus endeth the lesson. Back to Vermont, and the new nominee for Most Dangerous Republican.

Neale Lunderville.

At one time, he was the chief hothead on Jim Douglas’ team. He and Jim Barnett, who’s gone on to a very unsuccessful career as a balls-to-the-wall campaign manager, were dubbed “the Nasty Boys” by the late great Peter Freyne for their skilled knifework in Douglas’ campaigns.

Since then, little Neale has grown up — and gotten two great big helping hands from Democratic officeholders. Governor Shumlin chose him to be recovery czar after Tropical Storm Irene, and now Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger has engineered his hiring as interim head of the Burlington Electric Department.

In the process, the Nasty Boy has acquired a solid nonpartisan reputation as the go-to guy when trouble strikes. He’s been chosen by not one, but two, top Democrats to take on big administrative challenges.

Okay, here’s a hypothetical for you. In the next biennium, the Shumlin administration will unveil its plan for single-payer health care. It’ll be big, expensive, controversial, and a tough sell, even in a lopsided Democratic legislature. Win or lose, Shumlin will expend a lot of his political capital in the fight.

He also faces the whole issue of school funding and organization. Whatever he and the legislature do, more enemies will be made and more people will be alienated.

At best, Shumlin would enter 2016 having fought two extremely tough battles. Even if he wins on single-payer, he’ll be in that very dangerous period between passage and implementation, where everybody will be aware of the cost and the controversy but won’t have experienced any benefit from the new system. And if the implementation process for single payer OR school reform is difficult, contentious, or includes any stumbles, the Governor’s managerial reputation will take more hits.

And now comes, on a shiny white horse, Neale Lunderville.

Well, Lunderville 2.0, New and Improved with a track record for working under Democratic executives and managing the biggest challenges. In short, he’s Vermont’s Mr. Fix-It. The Governor won’t be able to depict Lunderville as a partisan ideologue because, after all, he chose the guy to manage the aftermath of Irene. At the same time, Lunderville will have solid Republican credentials from his tenure in the Douglas Administration. He’ll be more appealing to the conservative base than a Phil Scott will ever be.

The VTGOP won’t be in any shape to challenge the Democrats’ overall  dominance in 2016. But Lunderville could do what Scott Milne can’t do and Randy Brock couldn’t: topple Governor Shumlin.

Farfetched or believable? Just remember, if it happens, you can thank Peter Shumlin and Miro Weinberger for making Governor Lunderville a possibility.

Just what we need: another centrist bipartisan group in Vermont

Well, looky what’s cluttering up the ol’ inbox: a press release announcing a new organization, “Vision to Action Vermont,” or, for short, the catchy V2AVT. It’s the brainchild of Republican State Rep. Heidi Scheuermann of Stowe and Democratic State Rep. Paul Ralston of Middlebury.

Two of the more property-rich communities in Vermont, of course. But that may be simple coincidence.

V2AVT’s stated goal is to “put partisanship aside and advocate for balanced, common-sense public policy in Montpelier.” When I hear those words, I immediately think “center-rightists trying to court the moderate vote.” Indeed, it’s not far removed from the surface rhetoric of the Vermont Republican Party, seeking always to “restore balance” and re-establish “common-sense public policy.”

It’s also interesting that Scheuermann has been one of the leading lights of Vermont’s other notable centrist reform organization, Campaign for Vermont. Might also be simple coincidence that Scheuermann founds a new group with a similar mission, not long after she (a) considered a run for Governor until (b) CFV founder Bruce Lisman undercut her potential candidacy with open musings about his own.

On the other hand, the two groups could cooperate rather than competing. V2AVT is a political action committee “that will promote, support and elect strong candidates,” as opposed to CFV’s policy and lobbying focus. But otherwise this looks an awful lot like CFV; their preferred candidates are the kind…

“… who advocate for fiscal responsibility in state spending, and are committed to forming balanced, common-sense public policies that encourage economic prosperity, greater opportunities for Vermont families and businesses, and individual liberties and responsibility.”

Yeah, that sounds exactly like CFV’s right-leaning definition of “nonpartisanship.” That one sentence is full of code words and dog whistles from the lexicon of Republicans seeking moderate support. “Common-sense” in particular is an awfully damn tired phrase in these parts.

Ralston, who’s not running for re-election and thus has no bridges to burn with the Democrats, has been described to me as an outsider in the Democratic ranks. Think Cynthia Browning with a lower profile. And in V2AVT’s press release, he echoed the pseudo-Republican talking points, emphasizing economic growth above all else:

“Heidi and I have worked together for four years to implement policies that foster greater economic activity in Vermont…  We must be sure that those in elected positions address those issues thoughtfully and independently, and with an eye toward the benefits and consequences to our economy.”

Smells like Republican spirit.

So far, the V2AVT website includes only two items — the press release and an introductory statement. Plus some really cheesy masthead graphics. And a biography of “Heidi” (but none for “Paul”) strongly emphasizing her connections to the late Jim Jeffords. The same can be said, of course, for Darcie Johnston, so Scheuermann gets few points for a Jeffords connection that’s ten years in the past.

We shall see what becomes of this attempt at growing a “nonpartisan” movement. It’ll be interesting how much money they put behind Republican candidates as opposed to Dems or Progs. That’ll be a telling sign of their true devotion to nonpartisanship and balance.


Republican county committees: part of the solution, or part of the problem?

As we all know, the Vermont Republican Party has been chronically short of funds for quite a while. Right now, they’re either just above water or actually in the red — at a time when major parties ought to be flush with cash to spend on campaigning.

But as I was poring over Tuesday’s campaign finance report filings, I noticed something that struck me as a little odd. Or more than a little.

While the state party is desperately clipping coupons and searching the sofa cushions for spare change, some of the local and county party organizations seem to be going through quite a bit of cash. And what are they spending it on?

Well, a lot of it goes to food, drink, and entertainment for themselves. Very little seems to go toward party-building or candidate support. In fact, virtually no money has been given to candidates with one exception, listed below.

State Republican leaders have openly talked about their grassroots organizations being in terrible shape, and needing to rebuild at the town and county level in order to compete with the very well-organized Democrats. But some of the GOP’s local branches seem to have the resources; they’re just frittering the dollars away on keeping themselves fat and happy.

The term “circle jerk” comes to mind.

Let’s look at some figures. (All donation totals are for the campaign cycle, not just the most recent period.)

The Barre Town Republican Committee reported raising $7,841 and spending $3,443. Virtually all of that — $3143 — was spent on “meals” at the Elks Club.

The Caledonia County Republican Committee raised $3,675 and spent $3,545 — including $2,050 at the Elks Club.

The Washington County Republican Committee has raised $17,800 and spent $10,870. No sign of gifts to candidates; but they did blow about $2,500 at a single restaurant — an old-fashioned meat-and-potato joint called The Steak House.

The Windsor County Republican Committee raised $6,400 and spent $2,500, almost all of it on food and drink. Including $528 for a Super Bowl party at the Coolidge Hotel in White River Junction.

The Orange County Republican Committee raised $3,150. About $800 went to a spaghetti dinner and a golf tournament. However, they did spend a fair bit of their money on a booth at the Tunbridge Fair and materials to hand out there. That’s a tangible party-building activity — but one of only a few.

The Rutland County Republican Committee has raised $3,020 and spent $2,455, including $805 on a “campaign kickoff dinner.” Most of their other expenses seem reasonable: postage, signs and mailers, advertising.

I will admit, right here and now, that I’ve never been involved in a county or town party committee, and I don’t know what goes on there. Maybe at these gatherings, a lot of folks are writing checks directly to their local politicos or the state GOP. (If they were writing checks to the local organization, it’d show up in the finance reports.) But looking at it from the outside, quite a few of the local Republican committees seem to be burning through decent amounts of money for very little in return — aside from their own satiation.

Are these functioning political machines, or are they Old Boys’ Clubs? It seems an especially pertinent question when the state party is going begging for money and is at a profound disadvantage at the grassroots level.

I could find only one local or county Republican organization that’s carrying substantial weight for the VTGOP, and that’s the Rutland GOPAC. It’s raised nearly $18,000 and spent over $15,000, and the bulk of that spending was on direct support to area candidates for House and Senate. So, good on ya, Rutland GOPAC. Considering GOPAC’s spending and the relatively on-point activity of the Rutland Republican Committee, can it be a coincidence that Rutland is one of the few Republican strongholds in the state?

The rest of the guys maybe need a shakeup. I don’t know how you do that with such an entrenched and tradition-bound bunch of folks. (“Give up our Steak House dinners? Never!”) And again, there may be more to this picture than I’m seeing in black and white. But I think this is part of the VTGOP’s problem. It’ll be a challenge to fix.

Vermont Republicans quickly becoming incoherent

Looks like the Vermont Republican Party has decided a guns-a-blazin’, all-out hysterical attack on “the stagnant Shumlin economy” is their ticket to the meager legislative gains they’re hoping for in November.

And, naturally, they’re doubling down on the “F” grade supposedly given Vermont in a national survey of small business owners. Not only are they repeating their earlier claims, they’re getting the facts even wronger.

The VTGOP’s latest news release again refers to “a report by highly respected national magazine The Economist which ranked Vermont among 5 states receiving a grade of ‘F’ for their small business friendliness.”

Okay, where do we begin.

It’s not a “report,” it was a survey. An unscientific survey in which thousands of questionnaires were sent to business owners nationwide.

It wasn’t by “The Economist,” it was by Thumbtack.com.

The Economist isn’t a “national magazine.” It’s a global one, and its headquarters are in Great Britain.

And, once again, Vermont did not receive a grade — at all — in this year’s survey. The “F” came out of the 2012 survey. Thumbtack didn’t receive enough responses from Vermont businesspeople to include the state in this year’s grades.

This is like a game of telephone with only one player — who, even so, manages to thoroughly garble the message as it passes from mouth to ear and on to brain. Ironically, the VTGOP’s news release includes this line:

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing and accurately defining the problem itself.

Uh-huh. And by “accurately defining the problem,” the GOP apparently means “relying on two-year-old figures from an unscientific survey.” Not to mention “exaggerating the issue with overheated rhetoric.”

This whole schemozzle shows how desperate the Republicans are for messaging material, that they have to keep on hammering over and over again on a discredited talking point. It’s embarrassing.

The news release goes on to depict Vermont’s economy as in “crisis,” which it clearly is not. We have our troubles, but crisis? No — “crisis” is what George W. Bush left us with. And President Obama and Governor Shumlin have been trying to dig out from under the Bush rubble ever since.

The Republicans also assert that “Vermont Democrats denied there were any problems with Vermont’s… economy,” which is also patently untrue. I don’t think there’s a Democrat in the state who would argue that we don’t have our share of problems and issues, and the Shumlin Administration has been trying — in its own way, whether you agree with it or not — to make things better. When you consider how awful things were in 2008-09, plus the severe blow of Tropical Storm Irene in the summer of 2011, things in Vermont have gotten a whole lot better.

Republicans are already in danger of losing touch with reality, and losing credibility with undecided and centrist voters. Hysterical, over-the-top rhetoric won’t convince anyone that we’re on the cusp of apocalypse.

Speaking of doubling down, the news release concludes with a challenge for a debate on the economy between party chairs “Super Dave” Sunderland and Dottie Deans “in a neutral forum.” This bit of red-flag theatricality is completely meaningless. The Republicans hope that Deans ignores the challenge, so they can accuse her of ducking the issues.

In fact, the job of the party chair isn’t to take part in debates; that’s what candidates do. Party chairs are supposed to spend their time managing and organizing their parties. And that, in itself, is at least a job and a half.

At least it is for Deans, who leads an active, vibrant organization. Super Dave, on the other hand, has a paid staff of ONE to oversee, a sickly grassroots network, and a meager budget. Maybe he has time for pointless media events, but Deans has work to do.

Meet Windham County’s Favorite Republicrat

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.

When cold comfort is the only comfort you’ve got

Ah, the sweet stench of desperation is emanating from the Vermont conservative camp.

First, the political consultant who hasn’t won anything since unhitching her wagon from Jim Jeffords more than a decade ago, Darcie “Hack” Johnston has responded to my previous post about her Tweets supporting Dan Feliciano, the Libertarian candidate for Governor. He of the typo-riddled website.

Well, I Tweeted about the post, and the Hack replied:

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 3.31.05 PM

First of all, let me say I am humbled and honored that the Hackster has taken notice of my existence on this earth. Second, yuh-huh, sure, tons of Vermonters will be joining the Feliciano parade. About the time there’s a snowball fight in Hell. And third, if Feliciano’s campaign had the tiniest hint of hope about it, Johnston has officially given him the kiss of death.

Now let us turn to “Super Dave” Sunderland, occupier of the most thankless job in Vermont, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. With virtually no reason to think his party can unseat Governor Shumlin, he’s resorted to touting the results of a new “poll” indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the Guv:

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 3.30.19 PM

Mmmm, about that “poll.” First, it was an online survey, and we all know how useless those things are. And second, it was posted on the Vermont Business Journal website, and we all know which way the VBJ’s readership leans politically. Also, while the “poll” was in progress, Sunderland was touting it on Twitter, which further skewed the results. Actually, it’s surprising how many “A” grades the Governor got.

But hey, Vermont conservatives find themselves with nothing but a big basket of sow’s ears, so I can’t really blame them for trying to make a silk purse.

What Scott Milne should do

The New Candidate For A New Millennium, Scott “Mr. Bunny” Milne, is off to an inauspicious start. He doesn’t have a campaign website yet, so there’s no established way for supporters to, like, give him a campaign contribution. He has yet to hire a single staffer. And he acknowledges that he has yet to formulate positions on some key issues.

Plus, at last Saturday’s VTGOP confab, he was a tad underwhelming. The Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck:

He then launched into a story about raising rabbits as a kid and how his out-of-state relatives enjoyed watching them breed, prompted by the premise that he got his rabbit cages in Wolcott, the town where Berry lives. In the parking lot afterward, Milne wondered how well the rabbit story had gone over with his audience. He has three months before the primary to weed the rabbits out of his political speeches.

Aww, bunnies.

So the novice candidate is off to a bumpy start. Understandable, but time is a commodity in short supply chez Milne. So what should he do? How can this longshot candidate elevate his slim-to-none chance of upsetting Governor Shumlin, or at least help to promote a new, more inclusive type of Vermont Republican Party? I’ve got ideas, and as usual, I doubt he’ll take ’em.

First thing: attach himself at the hip to popular Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. Do joint campaign appearances as often as possible. Announce common initiatives and policy ideas. Scott usually likes to hoe his own row, but he should be amenable to a little partisanship this year, since Governor Shumlin done left him at the altar and endorsed Progressive Dean Corren.

He should spend a lot of time talking with key business leaders. But not the Usual Suspects, no sirree. I’m talking about Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. I’m talking about some of the relative centrist business types who’ve abandoned the VTGOP in favor of Shumlin. I’m talking about Bruce Lisman; for all his faults, he does have a solid good-government orientation. Heck, he even has a few good ideas. Milne ought to make an overt play for the Campaign for Vermont crowd, and point out where the Shumlin Administration has fallen short on their key issues.

In terms of policy, he’s done a good thing by proclaiming himself a single-payer skeptic instead of an outright opponent. He would do well to refine his message by taking a stand in favor of universal coverage as a goal in some form or other. He should talk more about that, and less about cost concerns.

There’s lots of room for criticism of Governor Shumlin on health care. But it should be put in terms of managerial competence, not the usual tax-and-spend bumpf. Milne can legitimately question Shumlin’s ability to deliver, based on past and current track record. He can position himself as a champion of responsible governance in the tradition of George Aiken. That’s the true heart of moderate Republicanism, and it’s a message that could appeal to centrists and independents.

On many issues, I’d argue that Milne doesn’t have to develop specific proposals. As a general principle, he can position himself as a competent manager willing to work with the almost certain Democratic majority to find solid, responsible solutions. This is different than the VTGOP’s constant call for “balance in Montpelier.” This is a call for a new, inclusive approach to government.

Milne could even slip to Shumlin’s left on taxation. The Governor is a resolute foe of raising taxes on the wealthy. Milne could outline a thorough tax-reform plan including the school funding mess and a rebalancing of the entire system. Some new revenues could be drawn by cutting loopholes and deductions for top earners. If those revenues are balanced by lower taxes elsewhere (a plan promoted by the Democratic legislature in 2013 but blocked by the Governor), Milne would probably offend some of the dead-enders, but he’d gain respect across the board.

And yes, as I’ve written before, the wealthy get off relatively cheaply in Vermont’s current tax structure. If you include all taxes on working-age Vermonters, the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than any other group — including the bottom 20%.

On some issues, Milne can articulate a more traditionally conservative view if he establishes himself as an independent thinker in other areas. For instance, he could posit a more balanced cost/environmental approach to renewable energy — but only if he acknowledges the truth of climate change and our responsibility to address it in tangible, concrete ways.

He can continue the good-management theme on a variety of smaller trouble spots, such as the current DCF mess (but please don’t talk about Challenges for Change) and the whistleblower brouhaha: part of being a good, sharp-eyed manager is to welcome the input of employees with valuable perspective.

Any of these suggestions can be modified or swapped out for better-fitting parts. But I think I’ve outlined a way for Scott Milne to establish himself as a credible alternative to Governor Shumlin, and as the harbinger of a new and more appealing VTGOP.


Me. on the radio (part 2)

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!