UPDATE: THE VOTES ARE IN

Just learned from Tracey Harrington on Facebook that the County Committee is sending three names to the Governor: Michael Sirotkin, Deb Ingram, and Dawn Ellis. Ellis, a media consultant who may have been overlooked by some, was one of Vermont’s delegates to the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

You remember that exciting six-person race to fill the late Sally Fox’s seat in the state Senate?

Well, a seventh hat is now in the ring, and the other six are being hastily pulled out.

The new person, who is almost certainly Your Next Senator from Chittenden County, is Michael Sirotkin, who’d been married to Fox for 36 years. As reported by Seven Days’ Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz:

Sirotkin is no stranger to the Statehouse. The South Burlington attorney has worked as a lobbyist for more than three decades and is a partner in one of Montpelier’s most influential lobby shops, Sirotkin & Necrason.

While the contest to replace Fox includes a number of heavy hitters, Sirotkin’s late entrance will undoubtedly alter its dynamics. No favorite has yet emerged, and no candidate can make the case more persuasively than Sirotkin that he or she would carry on Fox’s legacy in the Senate.

Three of the original six candidates have already withdrawn: Jake Perkinson, Crea Lintilhac, and Kesha Ram. Perkinson and Ram have both urged Chittenden County Democrats to unanimously back Sirotkin. The County Dems meet tonight (Wednesday 1/22) to nominate up to three candidates; Governor Shumlin would choose the new Senator, who would fill out the remaining year on Fox’s term.  

I’d say I never underestimate the power of Vermont’s largest daily newspaper to disappoint us… except that every time I lower my expectations, the Freeploid goes even lower. Two examples Ripped From The Headlines:

1. They’re not nearly done celebrating their new, scenic, smaller and cheaper headquarters. A couple days ago I chronicled the total wankfest that was the Sunday Freeploid, with eight solid pages devoted to intense self-pleasuring. In response, GMD commenter “minotaur” contributed the following:

As someone who uses Twitter as their primary news feed, the last 24 hours was basically me scrolling past spam. The local reporters I follow to find out what’s going on in VT (especially when I’m traveling out of state) decided (I assume based on editor/publisher directive) to stop reporting actual news, and instead tweet views of Lake Champlain from their new offices.

Brilliant. The ‘Loid didn’t do enough to rub it into our faces in the Sunday paper with seven color photographs of their new office’s viewscape; they had their staff spend their Monday Tweeting more pictures. Good God almighty.

2. Today’s prime example of civic journalism on the Freeploid’s homepage: the reader poll. Perhaps the thin atmosphere in their new seventh-story digs is getting to their brains, because if you judge by the poll question, somebody up there thinks it’s 1963:

Now, if that isn’t hate-trolling at its finest, I don’t know what is. Given the typical caliber of newspaper comment sections, the last thing the Freeploid needs is to Awaken The Trolls. BurlingtonFreePress.com is already well-infested, thank you very much.  

And its online readership — or at least the portion thereof that wastes its time answering online polls — doesn’t disappoint. As of this writing, 58% believe that King Day should not be a public holiday.

Good old progressive Vermont.

Well, to be fair, some of those 58% are probably less concerned with pissing on Dr. King’s grave than with shitting on public-sector workers. The question is phrased in a way that lends itself to the popular pastime of government-worker-bashing. Note, for instance, that the question curiously omits banks from its list of MLK Day Moochers.

But the very act of running this as a poll… what exactly is the point? What could this poll question possibly do to advance civic discourse?

I know, I know: the Freeploid doesn’t give a damn about any of that. It’s all about the clicky-clicks.

Honestly, maybe now the Masters of the Seventh Floor could dispense with the wankfest and turn their attention to producing a quality product that reflects a dedication to the public good.

For a change.  

Well, not really. But it’s safe to call it for Our Eternal General, after Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovah announced he will not challenge Bill Sorrell in this year’s Democratic primary. Donovan nearly knocked off Sorrell in the 2012 primary; only a late infusion of out-of-state money for Sorrell prevented Donovan from notching an upset for the ages.

But he won’t try it again this year, perhaps because he’s lost the element of surprise. Unlike in 2012, Sorrell is actually going out of his way to fundraise this time around. It’s safe to say he’d be harder to beat, now that he’s got his eyes open. (He’s already raised over $20,000 and will hold a fundraiser in Florida this week at the annual convention of the Democratic AG’s Association, which bankrolled his last-ditch push in 2012.)

Before we go on with the speculative analysis, let me pause to consider journalistic ethics. This story was broken by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz; he got the word from Donovan on Monday and posted it at 8:00 am Tuesday. Since then, the Associated Press and Vermont Press Bureau have picked it up, and the Freeploid has posted the AP story. Both the AP and VPB quote Donovan as revealing his decision “Tuesday,” i.e. today.

I’m sure the standard journalistic explanation is “Well, we contacted Donovan ourselves and got the story from him.” That’s technically true, but still, Heintz deserves credit for the scoop, and he didn’t get it. (His story also has a whole lot more detail than the other two.) Personal foul, unsportsmanlike conduct on the AP and VPB, 15-yard penalty and loss of down.

Now, back to the Donovan/Sorrell saga. Maybe it’s just my overactive blogger’s imagination at work, fueled by a possible CO buildup in our Mom’s Basement headquarters, but all the signs point to a nice friendly backroom deal: Sorrell gets a victory lap in 2014 and retires in two years. Donovan bides his time and gets the nomination in 2016. All neat and tidy; put a bow on it and set it under the tree.  

Aside from all this highly convenient collegiality, which sets the stage for a stress-free Democratic primary season for all concerned, I’d also point to Sen. Dick Sears’ introduction of a bill to make the AG’s position a gubernatorial appointment starting in 2016. If that wasn’t a warning shot across Sorrell’s bow, delivered by “the powerful chair of the Judiciary Committee” and “a close friend of Gov. Peter Shumlin,” I don’t know what is.

Not that anyone will admit to it:

Both men denied they’d struck a deal to avoid another match-up.

“No, whatever he’s going to do, he’s going to do,” Donovan said when asked whether Sorrell had pledged to retire after serving one more term.

And Sorrell dismissed any talk of 2016, saying it would be “presumptuous” to assume his re-election in 2014. Heintz does not indicate whether Sorrell kept a straight face.

In withdrawing from the race, Donovan delivered a pretty clear slap to Sorrell, which I take as a sign that a future challenge is not out of the question:

As to whether he’ll endorse Sorrell’s reelection bid, Donovan said “I have no idea,” adding, “I will say I think Bill’s been a lot more active in the last couple of years, and that’s a good thing for Vermont.”

In other words, “Sorrell was sleeping his way through the job and I woke him up.” And “I’ll do it again if I have to.”

Nah, I’m sure this is all a product of my imagination. We’re all friends here, aren’t we? And we all love our Eternal General, don’t we?

Note: Credit where credit’s due. “Eternal General” was crafted by the late great Hugh McDiarmid, longtime political columnist for the Detroit Free Press, and the closest thing Michigan has ever had to a Peter Freyne. McDiarmid used the term to describe Frank Kelley, who served 37 years as Michigan’s elected AG. (He was both the youngest and the oldest person to hold the office.) Hmm, by that standard, Sorrell’s a rookie.  

Here’s a question for you.

Let’s say you’re a reporter, and you’ve discovered a nice juicy story. One that sheds unexpected light on its subject, and touches on broader social themes. It’s a great story; it’s a lot of work to research and write, but the end product is personally and professionally rewarding.

All that being said, the story might also have unintended consequences for the person or people involved. What do you do?

We have two case studies, one in big capital letters and another in smaller type. One national, one local. In the former, we already know the repercussions; in the latter, they remain to be seen.

Story #1: “Dr. V’s Magical Putter” by Caleb Hannan, posted on Grantland.com. It begins as a sports story about a new type of putter (yes, the golf club) that’s attracted a lot of favorable attention, and about its reclusive inventor, Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt.

She initially consented to the story on the understanding that it focus on the putter, not on her own story. But while conducting research, Hannan discovers an entirely unexpected life story — including the fact that Dr. V is transgendered. He decides he can’t write the article without including her story. When he informs her of that, she reacts angrily.

And then kills herself.

It’s a damn good story, very well written, and received widespread initial praise from the sports journalism community. And then came the backlash: some journalists and many activists lambasted Hannan for telling a very personal story against the subject’s will.

That’s the big national story and I think the answer is clear, at least in retrospect: Even though you’re a journalist who’s done your job, you don’t always have a “right” to tell a story, and your readers don’t have “a right to know,” if the consequences are so immense.

Now for Story #2. On Sunday January 12, the Burlington Free Press published an article by Mike Donoghue about a woman who claims to have been hospitalized against her will in the psychiatric unit at Fletcher Allen Health Care.

That, in itself, would not attract the Freeploid’s attention. But the patient is Christina Schumacher, whose teenage son Gunnar was killed in a murder-suicide committed by her ex-husband, Ludwig “Sonny” Schumacher Jr. That makes her story, and her hospitalization, a matter of interest to the Freeploid and its readers.

Donoghue assiduously reports her side of the story, and recounts his repeated efforts to get the hospital and other officials to respond.

Which they can’t. The law prevents them from releasing information about patients, the circumstances of a hospitalization, and the reasoning behind their actions. Donoghue damn well knows this, but he doesn’t do a lot to make it clear in his story: he depicts a stonewall of “no comment” from official sources.

The problem is, there are very good reasons for this legal restraint. And there are very good reasons to wonder whether Donoghue’s story will have unintended consequences for Schumacher in the future. Very personal details of her hospitalization and her life have been published in the state’s largest newspaper and posted online for any and all to read.

Schumacher voluntarily spoke to Donoghue. But hell, she’s in a hospital for psychiatric problems. Is she capable of granting consent, of deciding whether to speak with a reporter? Will she ever regret Donoghue’s story in the future? It’s obviously too soon to tell, but I think there’s a very good chance she will. Let’s say she enjoys a full recovery, moves to another state, and tries to resume her career. When prospective employers Google her, they will certainly find Donoghue’s article. What then?

In terms of black and white, Donoghue was absolutely within his rights to interview someone who wants to talk with him and to write her story, and the Freeploid was within its rights to publish. In this case, unlike Caleb Hannan’s, the subject gave her consent.

But there’s a substantial gray area surrounding this story. Should he have considered the quality of Schumacher’s consent? Should he have considered the reasons why patients are accorded broad privacy protections? Should he have considered the possible future impact on Schumacher, to have her publicly identified as a psychiatric patient with the full details of her case, so shortly after her family was destroyed?

Regarding Caleb Hannan’s article, Jeff Chu, a reporter for Fast Company, had this to say:

Sometimes the right thing for us to do as journalists is to honor a life by not telling a story. It’s not always ours to tell.

I wish Mike Donoghue and his editors had pondered that idea before publishing Christina Schumacher’s story. As for me personally, I wish they’d made a different decision. Journalism — even first-rate journalism — ought to be tempered by humanity.  

If you were so unfortunate as to spend your money on a copy of the Sunday Freeploid, sorry about that: you wasted your hard-earned cash on a prolonged orgy of self-congratulation. Must have been plenty of dislocated shoulders around Freeploid HQ after all that furious back-patting.

Yep, the Freeploid seized on its move to much smaller and much cheaper digs as a pretext to fill its meager news hole with page after page of news… about itself. And lots and lots of space-eating pictures, too!

How did they wank? Let me count the ways…

The front page, of course, with a photo of a guy washing windows at the new FreePressMedia space overlooking Your Fair City from seven stories up. And if you liked that picture, just wait till you turn to Section B. You’ll get lots more. Lots and lots more.

Section B is dedicated to Vermont news. Well, it usually is; today, it’s mostly dedicated to Freeploid wankery. It starts on page B4 with the egregiously egotistical headline: A CHANGE FOR THE AGES.

The ages. Really, now.

Reminds me of when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, and President Nixon called it “the greatest event since creation.” Which, as I said at the time, certainly put Jesus in his place.

The narcissistic headline tops a lengthy meander down Memory Lane by Freeploid stalwart Sam Hemingway, which includes no less than eight reproductions of past Free Press front pages. Hemingway’s article, with all the front pages and other photos, takes up an entire four pages.

And then you get to the hard-core wankery: A tour of the new Freeploid offices on Bank Street.  

Reporter Dan D’Ambrosio somehow wangled an interview with Publisher Jim Fogler, in which he waxed ecstatic about the move and how it sets the stage for a brighter, more prosperous future. The two-page story is larded with photos of the new space, most of them featuring its very nice views over downtown Burlington and Lake Champlain. The message, apparently, is: “Your daily paper may suck, but look — we’ve got scenic vistas out our office windows! Thank you for supporting your local paper!”

As if anyone gives a hot damn what the Freeploid’s offices look like.

Add it all up, and you’ve got seven pages of precious newspaper space given over to an unpaid advertisement for the past and present glories of the Burlington Free Press, as seen by itself. Well, seven pages of “content” plus a full-page ad paid for by some of the contractors who worked on the new offices. As Barney the Purple Dinosaur might say, “I wank you, you wank me, we’re a wanking family…”

Really, the Freeploid’s overweening self-regard is sickening. After all, what they’re celebrating is a failure, a retreat: the move came about because the paper’s staff has shrunk so much that it needs a lot less space. And because its corporate masters at Gannett are eager to cash in its real estate holdings. I’m sure the $2.8 million sale price will help boost quarterly earnings for shareholders. I’m even more sure it won’t be plowed back into the quality of the local product.  

It certainly didn’t do anything for the quality of the January 19, 2014 edition.  

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz has been working the phones to impressive effect. He’s come up with a list of people who’d like to succeed the late Sally Fox in the State Senate… and the list, cumulatively, is kind of a wow.

I read Heintz’ piece the way I usually read online listicles: scrolling slowly down the page so the names are revealed one at a time. And every time I saw a name, I thought, “Now there’s a strong candidate. The other ones don’t stand a chance.”

Every time. It’s a real testament to the strength of the Democrats’ talent pool. At a time when the VTGOP is scrambling for warm bodies to occupy ballot slots, the Dems have a lot of really good people just hoping for a chance.

The list (arranged alphabetically) starts with Debbie Ingram, head of Vermont Interfaith Action. She ran a strong race in 2012 and finished seventh in an election for six Senate seats after emerging from a strong primary field. Okay, I thought; that’s hard to beat.

Then you get to Tim Jerman, a state representative since 2004 and vice chair of the state party. Hmm, I thought, hard to beat a veteran lawmaker with connections. But he’s followed by…  

Crea Lintilhac, president of the Lintilhac Foundation and the highest-profile liberal benefactor in Vermont. She also sits on a brace of nonprofit boards, so she’s got a substantial web of connections and loyalties to call on.

Good grief, I thought, this is getting ridiculous. And then it got a lot ridiculouser, because the next name is…

Jake Perkinson, chair of the Verment Democratic Party from 2011-13. He oversaw a period where the party cemented its electoral dominance; but even more important, he built a strong back-office machine and a fearsome (by Vermont standards) fundraising operation.

Yikes!

The fifth hopeful is no slouch either: Kesha Ram, a rising star in the Legislature and in state politics. First elected at age 22, still in her mid-20s and serving on the powerful Ways & Means Committee. On any other list, she’d be a standout; given her age and a crowded field, I suspect she’ll have to wait her “turn.”

All in all, that’s just an absurdly powerful list, and yet another indication of how strong the Vermont Democratic Party is. While the Republicans keep recycling losers on the ballot (Jack McMullen, John MacGovern, Randy Brock) and in the office (Jeff Bartley, Darcie “Hack” Johnston), the Democrats have an amazing array of talent. (The Dems’ strength also makes it that much tougher for the Progressives to grow, especially in Chittenden County, the Progs’ home turf.)

Any one of these five people would make a fine Senator, and the Dems are lucky to have such a tough choice on their hands.  

Methinks Jon Margolis nailed this one:

For weeks, the chatter around state government had been about how much would have to be cut…

The answer is: less than nothing. Instead of cuts, Shumlin proposed increases for higher education, rent subsidies, transportation, child care centers, mental health services for the poor, land conservation, and cleaning up polluted lakes.

… In addition to appearing capable, Shumlin’s budget proposals displayed another – more blatantly political – attribute, one he probably wanted to project even if he may not want attention called to it. The only word to describe his program is “liberal.”

I have to agree. There’s a necessary caveat about the devil being in the details, but Shumlin’s budget address was, to me, heartening, especially compared to some of the ill-considered and ill-fated stuff in last year’s version. He managed to close a substantial budget gap and identify funding for some good new programs while kinda-sorta maintaining his no-tax pledge.

(Shumlin has a highly convenient definition of “broad-based taxes.” Indeed, sometime last spring he stopped even trying to devise a definition of the term. And this year he’s proposing an increase in what Margolis calls “a tax with a broad base”: an “assessment” on health care claims.)

(Late add: Today on the Mark Johnson Show, Human Services chief Doug Racine was explaining the Shumlin budget — which must’ve been a lot more pleasant task for Racine than it was last year. But in reference to Shumlin’s tax policy, he made a sly(?) reference to “the taxes he [Shumlin] doesn’t want to raise.” Which, coming from a top Administration official, is amazingly close to my own cynical formulation. Has Shumlin’s limited anti-tax stance become a running joke in Montpelier?)

The Governor’s budget isn’t everything I’d like to see, of course; but it’s a hell of a lot closer than I expected. I’d stlll like to see the wealthy paying their share of taxes; the 2013 House plan for trimming top-bracket deductions and lowering middle-class taxes a bit is a sound policy idea. But, as Margolis noted, there’s a lot for liberals to like. Shumlin and his Administration showed a mastery of the process in crafting this budget. After the rocky rollout of Vermont Health Connect, it’s good to see another outburst of managerial competence from the corner office.

I seem to be tempering my praise quite a bit; perhaps because I expect some blowback in the Comments. But compared to my cynical predictions, Shumlin’s budget address was a welcome surprise.  

The Republican response, OTOH, was utterly predictable. House Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Grumpy) complained about increased spending and dependence on one-time and federal funds — as if every Governor, regardless of party, doesn’t pull every trick in the book when budget time comes around. And he tried to blame the increase in the state property tax on Shumlin, when he knows damn well that the tax is based on local school spending. And local voters, by and large, are appreciative of and generous toward their local schools. The system needs a fix, but it’s not Shumlin’s fault.

Lt. Gov. Phil Scott laid in with some typical smiley-face dogma, sheathing his shades-of-Jim-Douglas rhetoric in a thin veneer of bipartisanship. But his main message was concern about Vermont’s economic competitiveness — the Republicans’ (and especially Douglas’) code word for “cut taxes, spending, and regulation.” Nothing new there, except that Scott continues to sharpen his partisan profile as a mainstream (not moderate) Republican.  

New party chair David Sunderland issued a predictable yammer about our “crisis of affordability” and “staggering…property tax rates” and warning of the “lurking” menace of single-payer health care. And referring to Shumlin’s party with the disparaging monicker “Democrat Party.” That’s no way to broaden your party’s appeal, Dave. Drop the nasty rhetoric. Or at least tone it down.

(The VTGOP’s webpage, by the by, is still headlined “HELP RESTORE BALANCE IN MONTPELIER.” In other words, they’re asking for electoral affirmative action: “Elect us because… well… we ought to have more seats.” That didn’t work in 2012, and it won’t work now.)

The liberals are cautiously optimistic. Haven’t seen formal comment from the Progs yet (they should feel free to chime in below), but Jack Hoffman of the Public Assets Institute (while cautioning that “deeper analysis” is called for) praised the Governor for striking “a better chord…than he did last year,” and said Shumlin “deserves credit for trying to include all Vermonters in his address.”

And that’s where I’m at today. It was a good speech; it looks like a good budget with good priorities. (Especially if you grade it on the Shumlin Curve.) Now let’s see the details. And let’s see Shumlin push the sometimes-jittery Legislature to enact a small-P progressive budget.  

Last week, Governor Shumlin confined his State of the State address to a single issue: the growing problem of opioid (DAMN, that’s hard to spell) abuse in Vermont. Some critics, like House Minority Leader Don Turner, groused that it wasn’t a “real” SotS:

“My question is…what is the “state of the state?”” said House Minority Leader Rep. Don Turner (R-Chittenden). “…what about the rest of the issues that we deal with?

Yeah, yeah. As if Turner would have accepted Shumlin’s assessment at face value. No, I don’t particularly care about the SotS “tradition.” The speech is a marker for the opening of the new Legislative session, but it doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the flow of debate. Neither do I see a whole lot of value in deviating from the tradition; Shumlin could just have easily done a regular SotS and a separate address on drugs. That would have done just as much to cement the issue at the top of his agenda.

So, on the process question, I profess ambivalence. Now, on to the substance.

The problem of opioid addiction has been a significant one in Vermont for quite a long time. And if Shumlin’s rather appalling statistics are on the mark (I have no reason to doubt him), it’s gotten a whole lot worse in the last dozen or so years.

(Hmmmm… and who was Governor for most of that time? I do believe it was the Patron Saint of Vermont Republicanism, Jim Douglas. Living down to Peter Freyne’s monicker of “Doesless,” eh Jim?)

So I applaud Governor Shumlin for putting the issue in the spotlight and vowing to tackle it with something more than the umpty-billionth “crackdown” that does nothing more than overcrowd our prisons. Although, as Seven Days was maybe the only news outlet to notice, Shumlin’s plan does have a “tough on crime” element as well as a new emphasis on treatment and prevention. But overall, it’s a welcome development.

But it’s only the first step. We’ve seen gubernatorial flagships run aground on the rocky shoals of legislative reality before. Indeed, we saw it last year, when Shumlin’s energy efficiency and welfare reform plans hit the ol’ iceberg and sank.

So moving opioid addiction to the front burner in his SotS is only the first step. Many obstacles remain. Here they are, in rough chronological order:  

— The Governor’s budget address. Last year’s high-profile initiatives came a cropper when Shumlin yoked them to wacky (break-open ticket tax) or unacceptable (slashing the Earned Income Tax Credit) funding schemes. In a year when the state already faces a big budget gap and Shumlin has vowed to hold the line on broad-based tax increases*, I fear that he’ll go back to that Well of Bad Ideas and either propose a Rube Goldberg scheme that’ll fall on deaf ears under the Dome, or take money away from needed programs to fund new initiatives. In the inverted words of the old saying, he’ll rob Paul to pay for Peter. Which leads to the second iceberg in the path of S.S. Opioid Treatment And Prevention…

*Meaning, as always, tax increases he doesn’t like.

— The Legislature.  The State of the State address generates a lot of media coverage, but it doesn’t really move the dial in the People’s House. Lawmakers need a lot of convincing. And even though the Governor has a supermajority in the Legislature, his priorities are often given the cold shoulder. If he really wants his drug plan to go through, he’ll have to do a lot of convincing. In the past, he’s fallen short on the follow-through. Which leads to the third iceberg…

— The Governor’s short attention span. This may be spectacularly unfair, but: my impression is that Shumlin is red-hot on launching new policy ventures, but isn’t as focused on the hard work of convincing other people. This is a little bit odd from someone who rose through the legislative ranks; you’d think he, of all people, ought to be comfortable with the glad-handing and arm-twisting needed to get lawmakers on his side.

The Governor has frequently acknowledged his dyslexia. Looking from the outside, this amateur psychiatrist would say that he also has a touch of ADD/ADHD. Whether or not that’s true, he pretty clearly has more energy than patience. If he truly wants his drug plan to take effect, he’ll have to get in the trenches in February and March.

As for the fourth iceberg…

— Money. Based on past experience and his stated budget priorities, I suspect the Governor will come up with a funding plan that won’t please the Legislature. Last year, he refused to budge when his fellow Democrats devised their own funding schemes; indeed, he preferred to let his proposals sink rather than accept their funding plan. We’re certainly set up for the same thing to happen this year. Hopefully the Governor learned a lesson from last time: Don’t blindside your fellow Democrats with iffy funding plans and expect them to follow happily along. Hopefully he has either worked with legislative leaders to develop a funding plan, or he’s at least kept them in the loop this time around.

And now, the fourth and a half – and biggest – iceberg…

— Will we end up with a shadow of an effective plan? Without digging into the details of the opioid issue, I wonder whether the dollars Shumlin proposes are sufficient. The single biggest problem re: opioids is the lack of treatment opportunities. Well, if we’ve already got lengthy waiting lists, what happens when we start aggressively diverting offenders into treatment? I wonder.

And I wonder even more about the outcome in the Legislature. If the Governor and lawmakers get into a tussle over funding, then the easiest way out is to hack and slash. I doubt that there’s any fat on Shumlin’s proposal; if we wind up with some fraction of his plan, then it won’t be enough.

The worst possible outcome may well be the most likely: Lawmakers will conclude that attacking drug abuse is a good idea, but we simply can’t afford it right now. (How often have we heard that one?) They’ll kill most or all of the treatment side and approve the politically-safe “tough on crime” aspect. We’ll wind up with stiffer penalties for out-of-state drug dealers and for those who commit crimes with guns, but not much else.

If so, the State of the State Address will have been a wasted opportunity. And opioids will continue to be a scourge in Vermont communities large and small.  

A few days ago, I spotlighted Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s reaction to Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address (Opioid Crisis Edition), which seemed rather staunchly conservative considering its source. And I wondered if Scott was feeling the pressure to move towards — or at least pander to — the right wing of his party.

Well, if he is, he’s not doing enough of it to satisfy said wing. From Jon “Watchpup” Street at the “I Can’t Believe It’s Journalism” site Vermont Watchdog:

Pressure mounts for Vermont lieutenant governor to take single-payer position

Prominent members of his own party wonder why, after more than 2 1/2 years, Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott refuses to take a position on the state’s single-payer health-care law.

Scott has adopted a skeptical but “wait and see” attitude toward single-payer, saying he can’t take a position until Governor Shumlin actually unveils the single payer plan including its funding scheme.

Which isn’t good enough for “prominent members of his own party.” And who, pray tell, are these “prominent members”?

The very folks who ran the VTGOP off the rails and into the chasm of an historic 2012 defeat: gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock and his extremely well-paid campaign manager Darcie “Hack” Johnston. Those are the only two “prominent members” identified by Street as criticizing Scott.  

First, the ex-candidate:

Brock… said ample information is available to judge that a single-payer system would be bad for Vermont.

Single-payer will jeopardize jobs … It would encourage medical professionals to leave the state, discourage medical innovation … prohibit Vermonters from choosing their own health plans and rely on a state agency he says has already proven itself incapable of implementation.

And the “mastermind” of Brock’s defeat:

“I think Lt. Gov. Scott is very confused on the Republican principles with regard to government-run, socialized health care, “Johnston said.

Yes, the architects of Brock’s woefully underfunded and completely ineffectual campaign are taking potshots at the only Republican who actually won a statewide race in 2012. (Just to remind you of the numbers, Brock  earned less than 38% of the vote and lost to Shumlin by over 20 percentage points, while Scott pulled in 57% of the vote. The only other statewide Republican candidate to win more than 41% was the other centrist on the ticket, Vince Illuzzi.)

Not that these embarrassing results have given any pause to Brock or the Hack; they’re demanding that Scott prove his conservative purity by moving farther out of Vermont’s mainstream. Man, I don’t envy the high-wire act Scott will have to perform: maintaining his centrist credentials (even as Shumlin actively co-opts the center) while trying to mollify the Loser & Nutjob Wing of the party.  

If I were him, I think I’d just let the VTGOP roam in the wilderness and bask in the popularity and job security of being Lieutenant Governor, a job that plays to his skills and lets him go on being Everybody’s Buddy. Why try to save the political bacon of ingrates like Johnston and Brock?

I have some thoughts regarding Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address, Opioid Edition. But before I get to that, I wanted to point out the most interesting response to the speech. It came from Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, putative moderate. And it sounded… well… extremely Republican.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Governor that drug abuse – and prevention, enforcement, treatment and recovery – is a critical issue in our state that we must address.  

Nothing wrong so far. Standard boilerplate response. But then:

The Governor also mentioned that creating jobs and opportunity is the best prevention. I completely agree, but I’m concerned that there was no mention of a plan or strategy on that front. Since being elected to public office, I’ve been talking about the need to grow the economy, creating an environment that is conducive to growth, and making it easier for people to do business in Vermont. I’m concerned that we have created a lot of uncertainty on a number of issues – health care, property tax increases, employer mandates and other government regulations – some of which are making it harder, not easier, to do business in Vermont. I want to once again challenge every legislator and the Governor to think about their decisions on each and every piece of legislation this session through this lens: How will it impact business and economic growth in Vermont?

Well now. That sounds like something you’d hear from Randy Brock or Angry Jack Lindley, not from the guy who’s supposedly moving his party toward the center. In fact, it’s beginning to look like Phil Scott is moving away from the center and toward the anti-tax, anti-government wing of the VTGOP.

More than that, it’s the kind of rhetoric that comes from the national GOP: the answer to every social issue is lowering taxes and lightening regulation. Is this the same Phil Scott who argues that the national party’s extreme positions have no place in Vermont politics?

I can see why Scott, having assumed a measure of leadership responsibility, may feel obligated to more strongly represent his party’s position. But it’s certainly at odds with the vision of Everybody’s Buddy creating a kinder, gentler VTGOP. If anything, the influence is going the other way.