Tag Archives: WDEV

Dan, the man whose outer shell of principle conceals a melty nougat center

Leave a reply

My man Mark Johnson hosted Dan Feliciano, Libertarian candidate for Governor, on his eponymous radio show Monday morning. And I have to say, it was a puzzling and underwhelming performance.

Feliciano proclaims himself as the candidate of principles. Those rock-solid beliefs include pulling the plug on single-payer health care, cutting state spending, and opening the public school system to competition and choice. Feliciano articulated those points clearly.

…………. But then, when it came down to details, Dan Feliciano revealed himself to be almost as soft and squishy as Scott Milne. On issue after issue, Feliciano punted on specifics. The details would be worked out later on, or he’d have to consult with these people or those people, or a new policy would be crafted through a collaborative process. It seemed to me that Feliciano was trying to preserve ties to his Libertarian/conservative base without closing the door to any centrist or independent voters.

A prime example: His two-faced response to a listener question about marijuana legalization. Feliciano began by saying “If a bill came across my desk, I would sign it.” But then he raised public-safety questions, claiming that there was no “appropriate test” for driving under the influence of marijuana.

So, he’d acquiesce to a bill that he sees as a threat to public safety. Hmm. How principled.

The question of legalizing heroin came up. This is a Libertarian principle, decriminalizing any “victimless crime.” Feliciano dodged, lamely offering that such a bill “wouldn’t pass the Legislature” and there are many other things higher on the priority list.

I am shocked, shocked, to hear such weasel words coming from a Libertarian.

Feliciano’s approach to health care reform didn’t stand up under scrutiny either. He wants to ease state regulations to entice more insurers to enter the marketplace, with the ensuing competition working its usual magic. But he’s surprisingly vague on how he’d attack the regulatory burden. He doesn’t call for the dismantling of the Green Mountain Care Board; he just wants it to be  “more of an overseer, less of a policymaker,” and that it needs to be “more accountable to the people.”

Including, perhaps, the popular election of its members.

That goes beyond lame, all the way to harebrained.

Feliciano was boxed into a corner on what regulations to cut, because he’s already been burned by questioning the community-rating system, which bars insurers from charging inflated prices to the old, sick, and high-risk. It’s a bete noire of the far right, but it’d be political poison to call for its repeal. So instead, he offers only the vague “our regulatory environment is too restrictive” and says he will “talk to insurance companies about what makes Vermont so onerous.”

Now, that’s right out of the Scott Milne playbook.

Johnson then reminded Feliciano that community rating was the single factor in driving many insurers out of Vermont. Feliciano’s response: if Vermonters want community rating we’ll keep it, but “I think there’s still opportunity — there must be something else that drove the companies out of the state.”

Oh, Dan, Dan. I thought you were a man of principle.

Later on, when the subject of health care returned, Feliciano tossed out a weak appeal to price advertising for medical services. He actually mentioned laser eye surgery as an example.

Do I have to enumerate the problems with that example? Perhaps I do. Well, laser eye surgery is a very specific and highly automated process. Unlike most medical procedures, your choice of practitioner doesn’t markedly change the odds of success.

When you get into the trenches of medical work, it’s not a matter of specific identifiable procedures; it’s a course of treatment, it’s an educated response to complications. It’s seeing the patient through to recovery. For many patients, it’s a multidisciplinary effort to combat a variety of different conditions in a single body. You can’t post that stuff on a billboard.

And Feliciano ought to know this. He’s got a special-needs daughter, and during the interview he talked about his family’s struggles to get her the best possible treatment. He praised his high-quality insurance coverage that allowed, among other things, a course of care at Johns Hopkins.

But when it comes to health care reform, he wants up-front pricing. And if you don’t want to settle for the cheapest provider, then he says, “If you want to pay a little more, you’ll have to pay something.” If I interpret that correctly, he means “you’ll pay for everything extra.”

Which doesn’t fit my definition of universal coverage, but I guess I’m just an old radical progressive softy. And to ask a hard-hearted question, if Feliciano had been seeking specialized care for his daughter under a Dan Feliciano health care system, would he have been willing to pay the extra freight? Including her treatment, fully covered by his insurance, at Johns Hopkins? That’d cost him a pretty penny under FelicianoCare.

There was also a dismal exchange on cutting the state budget. Johnson asked Feliciano for two or three examples of specific cuts.

Feliciano didn’t come up with any. He began by noting that the lion’s share of general fund spending is on Human Services and Education,  so that’s where he’d look for the biggest savings. But no specifics; just a call for a refocusing on “our core services.” As opposed to the Truffles ‘N Premium Cable Package we currently offer our welfare recipients.

And then he fell back on a truism from his days as a business turnaround specialist: “In my experience, in the private and public sectors, we can cut five to ten percent easily.”

Oh, really? He can’t offer a single line item, but it’d be easy to cut ten percent. Wow.

Things also got weird on school reform. Feliciano trotted out the school choice/voucher idea, in which “class sizes will get larger and outcomes will get bigger.” I think he meant “better,” but… how do larger class sizes, by themselves, lead to better outcomes?

But the real topper was when he said he’d “get everybody together to design a system, and if it didn’t work, we’d need an exit strategy.”

“If it didn’t work”?? You’re going to upend the entire public education system and you don’t know if it’s going to work? Good God.

In his closing response, Feliciano made a belated return to Libertarian dogma. Johnson asked him why the Democrats are so dominant in Vermont. After an unsettling series of nervous chuckles, he credited the Dems for “framing issues in terms of social problems, not individual responsibility,” and relying on “scare tactics” to induce a sense of “learned helplessness” in the hearts of We, The Sheeple.

Well, I, for one, am insulted. Am I a liberal because I’ve been brainwashed by the Democrats?  Have I abdicated my personal responsibility for some false promise of social equality?

Sorry, but no way, Jose. I am a liberal because I see the inequities and shortcomings of the free market system. And I see in government, as imperfect as it is, the only real counterweight to the raw power of capitalism. I don’t want to end capitalism, I just want to rein in its excesses. And there are lots of those.

So no, Dan, I am not a sheep. I am a person who, out of my own experience and knowledge, has freely chosen to believe in a robust role for government in our society. I’ll thank you to stop insulting me and all the other Vermonters who share my beliefs.

But I digress. Let’s just say that Dan Feliciano does best in small doses. When he has to talk at greater length, the many holes in his game become obvious. And the biggest one of all is that, when push comes to shove, he’s got the same basic ideas as Scott Milne: Elect me, and we’ll figure out the policies later.

Mahatma’s meltdown

2 Replies

Scott Milne, the man who famously called himself “Gandhi-like,” is finding that it’s awfully hard being a pacifist when the bullets are flying. He made an unplanned call to WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show on Friday morning and… well… spent about 20 minutes ranting about the media’s unfair treatment of the Milne campaign. And specifically impugning the good name of Our State Pundit Laureate, Eric Davis. That will never do, Mr. Milne.

Davis had been a guest during the first hour of the program. He and Johnson discussed the gubernatorial race. The consensus was that Governor Shumlin had left himself vulnerable because of various scandals and issues. And that it’s too bad the Republicans didn’t have a better candidate, because Scott Milne had made a mess of things.

Apparently it was enough to make even a Gandhi-like person’s blood boil. A little while later in the show, Milne called in to rebut Davis’ analysis. Or to slap it around, anyway. At great length and in pretty extreme terms: at one point, he accused Davis of “laughing at me.” Sorry, Mahatma, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Eric Davis laugh at anyone. If he’s anything, he’s a straight arrow, cautious to a fault.

Here’s a sample of Mahatma’s Meltdown:

When you’re bringing people on the air that influence people with, ah, you know, tenured professorships from elite institutions, you need to ask the tough questions and bring out the contradictions in what they said. If you look back on Mr. Davis’ track record of picking things in Vermont over the last few elections, it’s not stellar. And I think it’s a form of, uh, you know, uh, you know, journalistic malpractice. You just let him get away with saying some of those things.

I’m sure the folks at Middlebury College are happy to be considered an “elite institution,” but otherwise, good God. Eric Davis’ track record hasn’t been perfect, but it’s been awfully good. That’s why he’s the go-to political analyst for Vermont media. He knows his stuff, he’s conscientious, he doesn’t take chances, and he certainly doesn’t engage in gratuitous attacks. He has earned the respect he is given by the media and by news consumers.

Milne railed against the notion that his campaign lacks ideas. Which isn’t accurate; what we say is that he lacks policy positions and proposals. Milne’s definition of “idea” includes such things as “Peter Shumlin spends too much time out of state” and “the economy isn’t growing quickly enough.” What Milne is criticized for is his real, true, honest-to-God lack of proposals. He tries to make this a virtue by saying, on issue after issue, that he’s going to get all parties together and work out the best solution.

That’s awfully thin gruel. And besides, his current definition of ideas is at odds with what he was saying earlier on: that he would spend August attacking Shumlin, and start rolling out his own proposals in September. He hasn’t delivered on Part 2. “Give me 30 days,” he said on July 25. It’s been 50 days since then.

Milne also repeated one of the more extraordinary statements he’s made during the campaign:

I am uncomfortable about calling people and asking them for money to support a public policy campaign, and feeling 100% like I don’t owe them something afterwards.

I guess you could say that has a certain freakish nobility. But it’s a fantasy: Politicians have to raise money. Yes, there’s too much money in politics. But Milne has raised a laughably small amount — and virtually all of it from his family, friends, and his own back pocket.

Now we know why. He doesn’t want to ask for money, and he doesn’t want to be obligated.

Somebody should. tell Phil Scott about this. He’s been raising money right and left from contractors and gas companies and rich Vermonters and his vast network of cronies, and insisting that it doesn’t make any difference in his politics. Scott Milne would beg to differ.

Somebody should also tell the Scott Milne of midsummer about this. At the time, he said he planned to raise and spend about $200,000, which would be enough to wage an “unconventional campaign.” As of early September, he’d raised about 20% of that total. And since then, his full-time professional campaign manager has resigned. And we haven’t seen any TV ads or mailings or yard signs or any other tangible measures of an adequately resourced organization.

Milne was upset Eric Davis’ characterization of his campaign as “running on fumes.” He said, “If [Davis] hasn’t talked to my bank, he has no way of saying that.” And he pointed to his paid staff of five people as evidence he had money.

And then he contradicted himself.

We’ve got a strategy. Granted, it’s not perfect. I’m going to make mistakes. But I think our strategy is, you know, we’re running an insurgent campaign. We’re going to use our lack of money as best we can as an asset.

“Our lack of money.” Yep, he said it.

And about this “insurgent campaign” stuff. Yes, Milne is running an unconventional campaign. And yes, Eric Davis and Mark Johnson and me and all the rest of the punditocracy are basing our judgments on political convention: you have to take time to build name recognition, you have to generate news coverage, you have to have a robust infrastructure from the central office to the grassroots, you have to have a decent amount of money to run advertisements and do mailings and staff phone banks and print signs and all that other stuff of retail politics. You have to have ideas and positions that give people positive reasons to vote for you. You need a certain capacity for public speaking and pressing the flesh and handling the media.

And, preferably, you need a track record of accomplishment in the public sector.

Scott Milne has none of that. And he’s made a bunch of obvious blunders.

And so, when measured against every available standard for judging a campaign, Milne comes up short.

Now, if his “insurgent campaign” taps into a vast unseen reservoir of support, then all us conventional thinkers will get our asses kicked on November 4.

And I, for one, will be more than willing to admit I was wrong.

But I am extremely confident that I’m not wrong.

Of course, if Milne loses it’ll be Eric Davis’ fault.

What I need are people who want change and balance in Montpelier, to be naive enough to believe that they can make a difference by voting. And having people like Eric Davis that don’t think that, there’s a  lot of that, but somebody like you giving him a microphone week after week, when he’s got a track record he has of saying things that are factually inaccurate, I believe he purports an awful lot of opinions like they’re facts and you let him get away with it, and I don’t think that’s fair.

He went off the rails in mid-sentence there, but his point was that Eric Davis’ negativity was going to keep him from building momentum, and cause him to lose the election.

Sigh.

Like I’ve said before, pundits and reporters and even little old partisan bloggers like me simply don’t have that kind of influence. The vast majority of voters have already made up their minds. And the rest of ’em won’t spend the next seven weeks poring over media coverage of the campaign. The crowd of political junkies who pay a lot of attention to this stuff is a very small crowd indeed.

No, Mahatma, Eric Davis won’t kill your insurgency by the power of his punditry. Peter Shumlin will kill it with his superior organization, warchest, and advantages of incumbency. The Vermont Republican Party will kill it with its nonexistent grassroots organization, lack of resources, and internal divisions. The voters will kill it because a solid majority of them are liberal or progressive, and the Democrats have a built-in advantage.

And Scott Milne will kill it with his lack of political experience and smarts, and his poor performance on the public stage.

By all conventional measures, Scott Milne has run a terrible campaign. And I’m a guy who, when Milne first came on the scene, had some hope that he’d turn out to be a solid representative of moderate Republicanism. If he were doing a good job, I’d be reporting as such. But he’s not.

Shorter Feliciano: Money is Bad, when it’s not mine

4 Replies

One of the lesser pieces of flotsam to hit the beach after Governor Shumlin’s first campaign commercial went on the air was a written statement from Libertarian candidate Dan Feliciano. (I guess Scott Milne was too busy doing… something… to issue a stattement, so Feliciano seized the token-response space.)

And here it is, in all its hypocritical glory:

The reality is Governor Shumlin’s failed leadership is what is hurting Vermonters, but Peter Shumlin will reach into his million dollar war chest and run endless ads spinning a false narrative and trying to convince hard working Vermonters that his big Government programs are the solutions to their problems.

Oh, that’s rich. Dan Feliciano thinks that the Governor will use his big honkin’ bankroll to pull the wool over Vermonters’ eyes.

This, from a guy who believes that money is speech, and there should be no limits on campaign contributions. Stop it, Dan: you’re embarrassing yourself and undermining your own principles.

Your own narrative of the political process should lead you to congratulate the Governor for going out, working hard, and convincing people to give money to his campaign. It’s the American Dream, right?

Reminds me of a time a few years back when I was listening to professional Liberty Puppet Rob Roper flappin’ his gums on WDEV Radio. He was complaining about the imbalance in Vermont’s nonprofit community — that those on the left were far stronger and deeper-pocketed than those on the right. The Robster, at the time, was fronting his own struggling nonprofit, so you might say he had a conflict of interest. But I certainly never heard him complain about the vast Koch Brothers nonprofit network. Nor will he complain about the Kochs’ money underwriting his current gig at the Ethan Allen Institute.

But in the case of Vermont nonprofits, as with gubernatorial warchests, the shoe’s on the wrong foot for our doughty, independent Vermont conservatives. To put it another way, it’s not fair when liberals have the money.

Jim Douglas: It gets worse

Leave a reply

As I reported a couple days ago in this space, Jim Douglas’ new memoir includes a passage that accuses Governor Shumlin of public corruption — of giving a seat on the Vermont Supreme Court to Beth Robinson, a political ally, as a reward to her and to an important constituency. Here it is again:

“The Senate leader, who succeeded me in the governorship, was a strong proponent of gay marriage. Since he was nominated by a scant 200 votes in the Democratic primary, their support may well have provided the margin of victory. He later reciprocated by appointing one of the leading lobbyists of the movement to the Vermont Supreme Court.”

The key word there is “reciprocated.” Douglas is saying that there was a quid pro quo — one of the state’s highest offices was bartered away as a political reward.

Well, on September 11, Douglas was a guest on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show. When Johnson asked him about the passage, Douglas doubled down — claiming that Robinson is unqualified:

With all due respect to the Justice, I think it’s hard for most Vermonters to believe that she would have risen to the top of the pack but for her leadership on that issue.

“With all due respect,” my ass. Jim Douglas is saying that Beth Robinson had no business being chosen to the high court, and that this is so obviously true that “most Vermonters” would have a hard time believing she was nominated on merit.

Johnson, taken aback by this rather bold assertion, asked if Douglas really believed she was appointed because of her work on the marriage equality court case.

She obviously became well known because of that, and, um… [long pause] who knows?

A wonderful piece of passive-aggressive political attack. Johnson asked “What do you base that on?” Douglas offered no evidence; instead he quickly changed the subject.

His comments about Robinson were baseless and mean-spirited. They’re of a piece with his allegation that Shumlin made a corrupt deal to put her on the high court.

Which, I say again, should have been the top headline news out of Douglas’ memoir. I remain stunned that, with the exception of Mark Johnson, no one in the media has mentioned it at all.

 

Mr. Empty Suit steps to the mic

Leave a reply

“I’ve got plenty of great ideas.”

So said Republican Scott Milne during Saturday’s gubernatorial debate. His comment came after Governor Shumlin repeatedly slammed his failure to give “us one single plan” on a variety of issues.

And then Milne, predictably, failed to name any ideas.

Well, he did have one: a two-year cap on property taxes, which would put public school into a dire budget situation because many of their costs will continue to rise. It’d force spending cuts from the top down, the very opposite of his claim to be in favor of local decision-making. But hey, at least it was an idea.

Otherwise, nothing much. At another point he said “I’ve got two ideas.” The first was that the Governor had spent too much time out of state. Which is not an idea; it’s an attack.. The second was the property tax cap.

Sigh.

As I said in an earlier comment, Milne managed to exceed the minimal standard of competence, e.g. he didn’t poop his pants. Shows you how dismal his campaign has been, that keeping his shorts clean seems like an accomplishment.

As for actually putting forward an inspiring message, nope. Not at all. He hammered repeatedly on the same old attack lines he’s used since launching his campaign: Shumlin is “the most progressive, radical Governor” who insists on pursing single-payer health care. Milne’s idea for health care reform?

“I will be working very hard with people to get something figured out.”

That is, word for word, what Scott Milne actually said.

On trying to keep young people in Vermont, his only contribution was to assert that the Shumlin Administration “has not been business friendly,” and Vermont needs “a new tone” in its dealings with business. F-sharp, perhaps?

When asked about problems at the Agency for Human Services, he pivoted back to his attack on the troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect, and cited it as an example of poor management. When he actually addressed AHS, he said we need an agency that “puts the family first.” How imaginative.

When asked about cutting state spending, he gave a halfhearted shoutout to the discredited Challenges for Change initiative, then said “I’m not into cutting,” and then said property taxes are too high.

Confused?

In his closing statement, Milne referenced his late mother Marion’s run for State House in 1994 when, as Milne tells it, a local politico gave her no chance to win. But she ran anyway and won. And so can Scott Milne, if people only believe. And he closed with a bombshell: “Vermont needs a different path. I believe it needs a more moderate path.”

Having, once again, failed to give any real hint of his preferred path for Vermont. It’s been defined almost entirely in the negative: He wouldn’t repeat the alleged mistakes of Governor Shumlin.

And, as I reported earlier, he’s postponed a meeting with VTDigger’s editorial board because his platform isn’t ready yet.

Scott MIlne’s campaign is very close to flat broke. Its campaign manager just resigned. The best you can say about Milne’s debate performance is that he didn’t flame out. But he did nothing to advance his campaign, to provide a substantive option to Shumlin. Or to Dan Feliciano, for that matter.

He did okay by his standards, but that’s not nearly good enough.

The Four-Ring Circus: First thoughts on the gubernatorial debate

Leave a reply

Still to come: longer takes on Scott Milne and Dan Feliciano. (As Milne would say, “Stay tuned!”) For now, overall grades plus miscellaneous notes:

The first gubernatorial debate of the campaign, broadcast live on WDEV Saturday at 11 a.m. (from the Tunbridge World’s Fair) was a spirited affair, kept lively by moderator Mark Johnson who, IMO, should be Vermont’s Moderator Laureate, the #1 option for all our debate needs. All four candidates — Governor Shumlin, Scott Milne, Dan Feliciano, and Emily Peyton — gave good representations of themselves. In the case of one candidate, that was a good thing.

(Audio of debate available via Mark Johnson’s podcast. Video courtesy of CCTV.

First off, overall grades.

Peter Shumlin: A. Did what he had to do. Spoke forcefully and clearly, presented his point of view, and defined the race to his advantage. Because of the four-candidate format, Shumlin wasn’t fully tested on responding to attacks, particularly over health care reform. I’m really hoping there’s at least one face-to-face debate between Shumlin and Milne. That would be a real service to Vermont voters, more so than paying lip service to “fairness.” Fairness is nice, but in truth, the vast majority of voters are only going to consider two of these folks, and they deserve to see how Milne and Shumlin measure up in a direct encounter.

Dan Feliciano: B-. He did give a solid accounting of his candidacy. He did present some actual ideas, unlike Mahatma over there. Strictly grading on quality of presentation, he came across as a credible candidate. The biggest problem: his views are not shared by the vast majority of voters. To the extent that they got a clear view of Feliciano, they almost certainly decided that he’s not their man. Credit to his advance team for planting some shills in the audience, though.

Scott Milne: C. The top headline from this debate, in truth, was “Scott Milne Doesn’t Poop Himself.” Sounded a lot more coherent than in previous interviews, such as his notorious Mark Johnson disaster. He was fully programmed with talking points, attacks on Shumlin, and even pre-planned “ad libs” meant to play to the crowd. However, there were three huge drawbacks:

— He was handicapped by the four-person format. He had a hard time engaging Shumlin directly, which is what he has to do.

— He often sounded pre-programmed. His delivery was rushed, even frantic at times, as though he was trying to get through his talking points before time ran out.

— He still hasn’t defined his campaign positively. He had to fall back on his standard “Stay Tuned” promise when asked for specifics. His lack of clarity allows Shumiln an easy, and accurate, attack line: Milne has no ideas.

Emily Peyton: No grade. Who cares. Go away.

Really, I mean it. Her presence added nothing to the debate. She could have provided a service by giving voice to the leftist critique of Shumlin on taxes, campaign finance, and human services, plus his endangerment of single-payer health care because of the inept rollout of Vermont Health Connect. But her views are too quirky for that. She’s a unique combination of progressive, libertarian, and classic Vermont weirdo. She has no business being allowed in the gubernatorial debates.

Bonus demerits for turning her closing statement into an infomercial for hemp. Shameless. And pointless.

During the debate, she complained over a perceived slight from Johnson, and asserted that she’d nearly been shut out of the debate. For which she blamed sexism. I certainly believe that we need more female candidates and officeholders, and one of the only knocks against the Democratic Party is its failure to promote women to top offices. But that doesn’t mean you let an unqualified nutjob onto the stage simply because she has the requisite gender characteristics. No more Peyton. Please.

Thank you for calling the Scott Milne campaign. Your call is important to us. Please hold for the next available operator.

Leave a reply

Note: Apologies for my absence the last couple of days. Real life intervened, as it is wont to do. More stuff on the gubernatorial debates coming shortly.  

Apparently, the Mahatma has yet to emerge from his mountaintop retreat, where he’s been seeking political clarity in silent meditation. At the first gubernatorial debate on Saturday, Scott Milne’s 25% of the four-way colloquy was full of promises that actual positions would be coming soon. “Stay tuned,” he implored listeners, again and again.

But here’s something even more egregious. This morning, VTDigger taoiseach Anne Galloway was on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show to talk about the campaign and Saturday’s debate. And she revealed that VTDigger’s editorial staff was scheduled to meet with Milne this week — but he’d asked for a postponement until he can get his policy positions in order.

Whaaa? 

Hey, Mahatma. I realize that Time Is Nothingness to you and other Sages Of The East, but c’mon now. It’s September 15th, and you’re not ready yet?

Shameful. And fatally damaging to his already wafer-thin hopes of being competitive in this race. I bet Dan Feliciano holds at least a couple of news conferences this week, and I bet he once again steals the spotlight from the unprepared Republican candidate for Governor.

Scott v. Corren, round one: a spirited, informative debate

3 Replies

The two major-party candidates for Lieutenant Governor stood their ground and clearly articulated their positions in their first debate this morning. Incumbent Republican Phil Scott and Prog/Dem Dean Corren debated on WDEVs Mark Johnson Show, broadcasting from a windy, chilly Tunbridge World’s Fair.

(Johnson has posted the audio as a podcast for your listening pleasure. Also, the video is available here, thanks to CCTV.)

Scott and Corren provided the voters with a clear choice… although the Scott option involves his usual bobbing and weaving on the issues. But that’s Phil Scott, and he said as much in his closing statement: if you like the job I’ve been doing, I promise two more years of the same. Corren made a strong, understandable case for his progressive agenda, particularly single-payer health care.

Neither candidate made any notable stumbles. If you went in a Phil Scott fan, you almost certainly left as one. Ditto Dean Corren. Undecideds were given a lot to think about, and a clear choice between two contrasting styles and philosophies.

I also have to say a word on behalf of host/moderator Mark Johnson. He conducted the proceedings without a hard-and-fast format, which often results in a stilted faux-conversation; instead, Johnson was able to maintain a flow and pursue follow-up questions as he saw fit.

The first half of the debate was dominated by health care reform, and especially whether to

Dean & Pete: Best buds

Dean & Pete: Best buds

pursue single-payer. That was to Corren’s advantage; since he has a clear position.

He began with the fiscal case for single-payer. He argued that single-payer would be simpler than the former or current system, and far better for controlling health care costs. It will require new taxes, he acknowledged, but the current system is extremely burdensome; single-payer will reduce the overall burden. As Lieutenant Governor, he would be an advocate for single-payer, communicating its virtues and being a “watchdog” to ensure that the details are done correctly.

Cost control efforts have failed, Corren argued, because no one entity has full control over all the costs. If a reform cuts costs in one area, those costs are actually shifted to an unregulated area. Single-payer would allow for a unified effort to cut costs.

Phil & Pete: Best buds

Phil & Pete: Best buds

Scott remains “skeptical” — his favorite word, as he himself admitted. He wants to see the details before making a decision on single-payer, but he clearly prefers to stick with the current system instead. Which involved a bit of tortured logic: he said that the rollout of Vermont Health Connect has been “disastrous,” but that nonetheless, having a health care exchange “makes sense.”

He also said that reform may be difficult because Vermont is such a small state, and offered the idea of a tri-state insurance “coalition” involving Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  Not sure he articulated the advantage of such an approach, but there you go.

Personality and approach: Scott kinda tried to have it both ways — but hey, that’s the way he is. He played up the advantage of his “collaborative” approach but also claimed that “I stick to my guns.” When asked to cite an example of an issue he feels strongly about, he offered the environment and growing the economy. Not a convincing display of passion or principle; everybody is in favor of both. The devil is in the details.

Corren portrayed himself as a strong progressive voice on the issues. As such, he’d be a valuable part of Governor Shumlin’s team. But at the same time, he’d be independent enough to take stands when he sees fit. As such, he argued, he’d be a better “watchdog” over health care reform than Scott because he truly wants it to be successful: “We need a Lieutenant Governor who will work for reform, not be skeptical.”

Party problems: When asked about past differences between Progs and Dems, including his own criticism of the Dems, he said that was all behind him, and asserted that the Democratic Party and the electorate in general have moved to the left, making a better fit between D and P. “I feel very comfortable working with the Democrats,” he said. “I’m proud of what the Democratic majority has done.”

Scott was asked why the Republican Party struggled so much in Vermont. He blamed perceptions of the national party’s stands, especially on social issues. He said the “core of Vermont Republlicanism” was embodied by leaders like George Aiken, Bob Stafford, and Jim Jeffords, and said “We lost that, and we need to refocus.”

Property taxes and school funding: Scott said he was “disappointed in the Legislature” for failing to tackle the issue this year. He said “we need to do it,” but acknowledged that “it’s difficult.” He said that education costs need to be brought under control and acknowledged that might require some school consolidation. But he said it should be on a “case by case basis” instead of an overall mandate.

Corren said the school funding system has hurt the middle class more than anyone; the wealthy pay a smaller proportion on a per capita basis, and income sensitivity eases the burden on poor and working Vermonters. He advocated expanding income sensitivity to the entire populace — which would presumably shift some of the burden upward. He also pointed out that health care is perhaps the biggest driver of school cost increases, and again stumped for single-payer.

Energy. Corren is a strong proponent of developing renewables, including wind. He referred to the “imagined horrors” of living near wind farms, which won’t make him any friends in the Annette Smith camp. He did say that the state should have a clear plan that includes specific areas where wind should be developed and where it should not.

Scott is, to use his favorite word, a wind power “skeptic.” He declared himself a “big proponent of renewable energy,” but emphasized solar power over wind. He repeated his earlier support for a moratorium on new wind projects.

On the Vermont Gas pipeline, Scott tried to have it both ways, expressing his support for the project as a “bridge to the future,” but also supporting a second look at the project by the Public Service Board. Corren declared himself a “skeptic,” saying the economic and environmental benefits of the pipeline are “not proven.”

Children and DCF: Neither candidate had much to offer. Corren said that “problems persist” but acknowledged that he’s “not sure what to do.” Scott said that the Department of Children and Families is full of “good people doing good work,” and wondered if they needed more resources without committing to it. And he returned to his hobby-horse of economic development, arguing that the “affordability crisis” puts more “stress on families.”

Top priorities: As a closing question, Johnson asked each man what they would pledge to do in the next two years.

Corren: He would “work on the details of health care reform, and make sure we have a sustainable plan.” He also promised to work on jobs and development, particularly in the renewable energy sector. He sees that as a major growth opportunity for Vermont.

Scott promised “the same thing as in the past. A collaborative effort to bring people together as a team to move Vermont forward.”

And then, given the last word, he fired a shot at the Democrats. In the last legislative session, he said, there were hundreds of bills, but only about 20 of them had to do with growing the economy. And most of those, he added, failed to pass.

The truth of that assertion probably depends on your definition of bills that have to do with the economy. But Corren didn’t have the chance to respond.

With that, the debate was over. I have to say that, thanks to Johnson’s stellar work as moderator and two candidates who can articulate their positions well, it was one of the more informative debates I’ve ever heard. Too bad there will only be three more, thanks to Phil Scott’s reluctance.

Phil Scott, chicken

Leave a reply

Buck-buck-bacawwwww!

Our Lieutenant Governor, who isn’t afraid to steer a race car around a dirt track, is apparently ascairt of little ol’ Dean Corren, his P/D challenger. 

Corren had called for a series of ten debates. Scott’s answer? 

Four. 

Predictable but disappointing. Usually, a light schedule of debates would be okay in the race for Lieutenant Governor. But this year, when the gubernatorial race is effectively over and Scott is supposedly the spearhead of The New VTGOP, this particular campaign has taken on added importance. 

The Scott camp had some weasel words at the ready: 

Scott’s campaign manager, Rep. Patti Komline, R-Dorset, said the three-term incumbent lieutenant governor would rather travel the state listening to voters than champion his own views in exchanges with Corren.

Aww, fucknuts. The voters are being asked to elect Phil Scott to a high office. They don’t need him to tilt his head and nod sagely; they need to know where he, the actual candidate, stands on the issues. Of course he should be listening, as should any politico worth their salt. But the time for listening is the rest of the two-year cycle. Now, in the final eight weeks of campaign season, is the time when you define yourself so the voters can make an informed choice. 

You do want voters to make an informed choice, don’t you? Well, maybe not. 

Corren saw through the bullcrap: 

“It’s a tried-and-true method for the incumbent to avoid debates and attempt to skate in under the radar.”

Yup. And especially true for an incumbent whose entire stock-in-trade is foggy blandness. 

Another thing. Of the four scheduled debates, three are in the state’s northwest quadrant — two in Burlington, one tentatively in Johnson, and one at the Tunbridge Fair, this Friday at 9 on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show.  Nothing in the southern half of the state. Nothing in the Northeast Kingdom.

Phil Scott, Man Of The People, is hiding behind a faulty fig leaf of an excuse, and minimizing the chances that The People will actually learn where he stands on the issues. 

Phil Scott, chicken. 

Phil Scott, passive aggressive master of specificity avoidance

Leave a reply

VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld has produced a report on the race for Lieutenant Governor, which began with the existential question, If Dean Corren falls in the forest, would anybody hear? 

…does Corren think average Vermonters know who he is?

  “I don’t know,” Corren said Monday.

Gotta commend the honesty. Corren portrays himself as an issues candidate, while incumbent Phil Scott, the only Republican in statewide office, sees himself as both a facilitator and a roadblock: 

“There are a lot things in play right now that need to be addressed,” Scott said Monday. “And we need to be at the forefront in order to help move that forward, or stop them, one of the two.”

Phil Scott. Something for everyone. And no specifics for anyone. 

The meat of Hirschfeld’s report is about the looming Debate On Debates. Corren has called for at least ten debates. Scott isn’t committing to a number, but it’s not likely to hit double digits. 

“I certainly don’t believe that we need a dozen debates, but I do want to get enough opportunity for Vermonters to re-identify with me and show the differences between myself and my opponent,” Scott said.

Way to subtly exaggerate Corren’s position, you sly old shitweasel. 

We’ll soon find out whether Phil Scott has reason to fear the exposure of an active debate schedule. He and Corren will face off for the first time Friday morning at 9 on WDEV Radio’s Mark Johnson Show*. Should be a fun time. Corren can be a bit pedantic, but he’ll have the chance to put Scott’s feet to the fire, maybe force him to articulate an actual position or two, and test Scott’s ability to maintain an inoffensive image under direct assault.

*For those outside of WDEV’s impressive range, Mark’s show is live streamed on the station website. He also posts audio of selected shows in podcast form on his own website, and is virtually certain to post the debate.