The news has been unavoidable: former Governor Jim Douglas is publishing an autobiography. In it, he promises reflections on past and current issues, as well as “candid, but not libelous” observations about noteworthy political personalities. This tempting hint has sent the political press into a mini-tizzy of anticipation. Vermont Press Bureau: “Douglas to offer insights in new book.” “Douglas will deliver the inside dope on his eight years in the state’s top elected office.”

Ehhhh, I’ll believe it when I see it. Has any politician, ever, written a memoir that was worth the paper it was printed on? I can’t recall any. And somehow I doubt that Jim Douglas, a man known for maintaining a moderate image (stressing image) in all things, will be the one to snap that streak and write a truly memorable political memoir. Nope, can’t see it.

And I anticipate with a shudder the Queen Elizabeth Book Tour to come, complete with fawning interviews and friendly press coverage. I expect plenty of sage bemoaning of today’s harsh partisanship and the drawbacks of one-party dominance in Vermont (especially when it’s not his party doing the dominating). It’s gonna be like a five-mile slog through a chest-deep sea of Malt-O-Meal.

Funny how the timing worked out: the book will appear, and Douglas will run his victory lap, just as the 2012 campaign is heating up. Amazing coincidence, no?

I have no plans to buy or read Jim Douglas’ Malt-O-Memoir, but I might be convinced otherwise if I knew that he’d actually been candid and frank about certain things.

(Things  which, I’m sure, will be ignored or glossed over in the actual book.)

So here’s what I’d like to see, and I invite your suggestions in the Comments. Maybe we can entice Smilin’ Jim to make some last-minute additions.  

1. Why did you leave the Republican Party a smoking wreck? You are typically portrayed as a savvy politico who managed to consistently win as a Republican in a blue state. But, aside from keeping your own ass in the big chair, what did you actually accomplish? During your tenure, the VTGOP lost ground in the Legislature. It failed to produce a new generation of leaders (with the possible exception of Phil Scott, for whom you deserve no credit at all). When you decided to step down, the Democrats had five first-class gubernatorial candidates, while the Republicans had nobody but Mr. Excitement, Brian Dubie.

And in a historically great year for the Republicans nationwide, your party got absolutely smoked in Vermont. Brilliant.

One year after you left office, your party was so short of money that it couldn’t pay its Executive Director. So he quit. And in 2012 it’s had to rely on recycled “talent” like Jack Lindley, Randy Brock, and possibly even (oh, the infamy) Jack McMullen, while scrambling to field a ticket with any credibility whatsoever. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Don Turner is merely hoping not to lose any more ground in the Legislative elections.

So Jim, if you’re such a brilliant politician, why did you completely fail to build a strong Republican Party or an influential conservative movement capable of appealing to the voters? Why did Vermont become the bluest state in the nation under your watch?

2. Why did you inflict Jim Barnett on our state? Barnett, for those who don’t recall, was Jim Douglas’ attack dog. A man who professes to admire Karl Rove and seeks to emulate him in political tactics and strategy.

As it happens, a succinct review of Barnett’s career came out this week on the Huffington Post, and it makes appalling reading. (HuffPo’s interest was sparked by Barnett’s current gig, running Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown’s re-election campaign.)

You, Jim Douglas, brought this shitweasel out of the Bush White House to run your campaigns and head the VTGOP. Barnett quickly made a bunch of enemies with his over-the-top, no-holds-barred style.  The HuffPo piece notes that…

Barnett coarsened the political dialogue in Vermont with his persistent and vitriolic attacks. “This is a tone we haven’t seen from Republicans until Jim Barnett got here,” said Vermont State Senator Jim Condos, when Barnett orchestrated malicious attacks on Democratic state senate candidates.

Barnett earned himself a variety of telling nicknames: “mad dog,” “Republican attack dog,” one of “the Nasty Boys,” a “sharp-toothed political snapper,” the “the ferocious political attack pooch,” “the evil twin,” “Barnett the Bad Cop,” “the Pit Bull” who “is always in attack mode,” a “White House protégé,” and a “Karl Rove character.” Eventually, Barnett built such a terrible reputation for himself that he had to flee the state.

(The embedded links are to the work of the late great Peter Freyne, which is well worth revisiting.)

You, Jim Douglas, introduced this guy and his political viciousness to our fair state, and turned him loose while you sailed blandly above the fray, basking in your nice-guy reputation. And now, in puffing your forthcoming memoir, you dare to criticize “the polarization we see today,” and tell the Vermont Press Bureau that “there has to be a return to collegiality, to compromise, to centrism.”

Here’s a promise. You explain why the VTGOP went on the critical list as soon as you left office, give a thorough explanation for hiring Jim Barnett and letting him do your dirty work, and even take responsibility for your significant role in polarizing our politics, and I’ll buy your goddamn book.

So there’s what I’d like to see — and won’t — in Jim Douglas’ Ode To Self. Now it’s your turn in the Comments: what do you want Jim Douglas to explain?