A catastrophic outbreak of Bunched Knicker Syndrome is underway in and about Washington, D.C. Its sufferers can be identified by the plaintive cry, “We’re all happy that Bowe Bergdahl is on his way home, BUT…”

The Republicans are making a tawdry spectacle of themselves, yammering about the potential mayhem that might be done by the released Taliban figures, the worthiness of Bergdahl to be rescued at all, and even Bob Bergdahl’s beard, fer crissakes. (“Looks like Taliban,” cry the Fox News idioterati. Yeah, and as Jon Stewart pointed out, equally looks like Duck Dynasty.)

We are accustomed to sudden epidemics of BKS among Republicans, but quite a few Democrats are joining the ranks of the afflicted. Like, for example, our own Senator Patrick Leahy. His “BUT” involves the alleged lack of consultation with the wise leaders of Congress (i.e. himself) before the swap was conducted. Via VPR:

“The right decision was made any time to get an American service person back. I think that it would have been a lot better if the President had done more consulting with the appropriate members of Congress,” said Leahy.

… “Had [President Obama] done more consulting with Congress I would think he probably would have realized that there were some strong concerns that would be raised,” said Leahy.

I have two very large problems with this.

First of all, there’s a time to raise process issues and a time to shut the hell up and stand behind your President. This, St. Patrick, is an example of the latter. The President is getting hammered by every conservative voice in the country right now; he needs his folks at his back. If you do have procedural objections, this is a good time to raise them quietly with the White House rather than running to the nearest microphone.

Second, the notion that Obama would have avoided controversy if only he’d been smart enough to ask Pat Leahy is either downright laughable or completely insane. This prisoner swap has been in the works for more than two years. It’s been discussed publicly by, among many other people, Senators John McCain and Dianne Feinstein. (McCain even endorsed the idea in principle — that was, of course, before Obama had the temerity to implement the idea himself. Now, McCain is retroactively aghast.) And, according to the Washington Post, discussions about the swap between the White House and top House Republicans go back to November 2011.  

So the outlines — even the very specific details — were common currency in Washington. The timing may have been kept quiet, but Leahy had plenty of opportunities to offer his Wise Counsel™

to the White House.

After the jump: A Modest Proposal.

So, while the Republican hive mind is giving the President a full-on blanket party, Our Pat is standing off to the side saying, “Well, I’d help, but you didn’t consult me first.”

This isn’t the first time St. Patrick has been more concerned with proper procedure than with good politics. There’s also the continuing imbroglio over his adherence to the “blue slip” tradition and the bad judicial deal it forced Obama to make with Georgia’s nutball Senators.

Leahy’s been in the Senate for almost 40 years now. Perhaps he has come to identify more closely with the World’s Greatest, and Richest, and Whitest, and Oldest Deliberative Body than with his party or his constituents.

Perhaps, dare I say it, he should consider retiring at the end of his current term.  

The state Senate, in my unhumble opinion, could be vastly improved by the elimination of the Old Farts’ Brigade, an assemblage of Way Too Senior Solons (way too many of them Democrats) who are way too enamored of their own individual brilliance.

Er, they believe their shit don’t stink.

Well, the OFB has been reduced by one. The Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck reports that Bob Hartwell, the kinda-sorta climate change denying chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, has decided not to run for re-election.

My first thought was, Whoopee!!!

My second thought was a musical one: that warm, sensitive ballad “Fuck You” by the redoubtable Cee-Lo Green. This one’s for you, Bob.

Yeah, didn’t much care for the man. But the best I thought I could hope for was his entirely justified removal from the SNRC. And that seemed to be a very slim hope, given the hidebound nature of the Senate’s Committee on Committees, which doles out the committee assignments. (Phil Scott, plus venerable Old Farts John H.A. Campbell and Dick Mazza.)

So am I happy to see Hartwell go? You bet your sweet bippy I am.  

The news did not come directly from Hartwell; the source was his fellow Bennington Democrat (and Old Fart) Dick Sears, who offered this rationale:

Sears said Hartwell wants to spend more time on Cape Cod. Sears said growing strain between Hartwell and environmentalists likely also took its toll. “I suspect that that’s part of it,” Sears said.

Sears did not say, but I will, the “entirely justified (and entirely Hartwell’s fault) growing strain.” For the last two years, Hartwell and his committee — loaded with single-issue wind-energy haters — spent virtually all its time seeking, by any means at its disposal, to make it harder for Vermont to beef up its renewable energy resources. Hartwell’s climate-change skepticism, expressed in an April interview with Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, was just the maraschino cherry on top of the shit sundae. As a reminder of Hartwell’s apostasy:

“I think what I don’t like about the extremists on the climate issue … is that somehow this is all being caused by human behavior. There is a significant natural phenomenon that is also going on, in my view,” Hartwell told Seven Days.

… “To suggest that mankind is causing the whole climate to shift, that’s a big reach,” he added. “I don’t think anybody’s ever proved that.”

As Heintz helpfully pointed out, Hartwell’s comments came less than two weeks after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had released its report, making an extremely strong case that human influence “has been the dominant cause” of climate change. Hartwell quickly tried to deny that he’d said what he’d said, but the damage was done.

And if his willfully ignorant statements helped lead to his departure from the Senate, well, at least something good came of them.

His withdrawal comes only one week ahead of the filing deadline. The timing is clearly aimed at greasing the skids for his chosen replacement, State Rep. Brian Campion; it’s way too late for anyone else to gear up. Sears says he and Campion will campaign as a team.

I don’t know beans about Brian Campion, so I won’t condemn the man solely on the basis of his choice of allies. According to Project Vote Smart, he has a pretty solid voting record: 100% ratings from the League of Conservation Voters and Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, and a suitably low 13% from the Vermont National Federation for Independent Business. His 44% rating from the Ethan Allen Institute is a bit worrying, but far from probative.

According to the always-reliable Wikipedia, Campion is very active in the civic life of Bennington: he’s a trustee of the Bennington Museum, a commissioner of the Bennington Housing Authority, and he’s a director of the Bennington Chamber of Commerce. His day job is with Bennington College’s office of external relations. I can only assume his favorite restaurant is the great Blue Benn Diner.

Oh, and he’s gay.

I wish him well. And I hope he’s an improvement on Bob Hartwell, who can go to Cape Cod and watch the sea level rise for some mysterious unknown reason.  

I thought I found a way to enter,

it was just a reflector.

I thought I found the connector,

it was just a reflector. Just a reflector. Just a reflector.

— Arcade Fire, Reflektor

So, last November the Vermont Republican Party turned the page. Under the leadership of Everybody’s Buddy, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, the VTGOP “chose to follow a moderate path.” VPR’s John Dillon said so; it must be true.

Yeah, well. As I wrote back then, the moderation of the new party leadership was a dubious proposition at best. Vice Chair Brady Toensing and Treasurer Mark Snelling were holdovers from the “Angry Jack” Lindley administration; Secretary Jackie Barnett had the backing of both factions; and At-Large officers Wendy Wilton and Randy Brock were Lindleyites through and through.

As for the “moderate” choice for party chair, David Sunderland, he’s a pretty darn conservative fellow himself. The whole thing left me skeptical about the party’s new direction.

And things like this don’t help: A couple days ago, Sunderland put out one of those “obligatory party chair press releases”… and it’s completely indistinguishable from the most partisan rants ever penned by Angry Jack. Which leaves me asking: what new direction?

Sunderland wrote a predictable attack piece, blaming “Governor Shumlin and the Democrat supermajority” for a factory closure in Bennington that will cost 36 jobs. And yeah, he used the innacurate, pejorative, provocative “Democrat” in place of “Democratic,” which, as he damn well knows, is the party’s real name.

I tell ya what, Dave. You stop using “Democrat” as a hacky little elbow-jab, and I won’t start referring to your party as Repugnant. (Although, given GOP reactions to the freeing of Bowe Bergdahl, “Repugnant” certainly fits the bill.)  

The substance of Sunderland’s release, such as it is, blames “Democrat” policies for any and all job losses, without any actual evidence that Shummy et al. had anything to do with it.

Yes, he rolls out “Democrat” again in reference to “the unbalanced Democrat supermajority.” This is another feat of rhetorical contortionism: he wheels smoothly from those darn anti-business Democrats to the Repugnants’ favorite motto of recent years: “Restore Balance in Montpelier.” This is still the legend on the VTGOP homepage, and it obviously remains a top talking point — despite the fact that, through years of repetition, it’s completely failed to convince any voters. “Restore Balance” is, in fact, yet another holdover from the sad, bad Lindley years.

And then Sunderland pirouettes to an attack on Shumlin’s out-of-state travel and fundraising success. He references the Governor’s absence last week on “a two-day junket in Connecticut.” (Yeah, that’s everybody’s idea of a great vacation getaway.) Shumlin was there as chair of the Democratic Governors Association, doing exactly the same thing that Chris Christie did last December when he made a fundraising trip to Vermont as chair of the Republican Governors Association. Excuse me, “Repugnant.” I don’t recall any outrage from Sunderland or his colleagues about Christie’s abandonment of his home state for a bit of political money-grubbing.

After returning from his bonne soiree in the Nutmeg State, Shumlin had the sheer audacity to host a fundraiser for his own campaign — something I’m sure Repugnants never do. They are too pure in heart for any of that. I’ll bet Jim Douglas never took his eye off the gubernatorial ball for a single moment while he was in office. I’ll bet he never sullied his gubernatorial fingers by grabbing campaign cash from eager donors. I’ll bet he never “put politics first,” as Sunderland accuses Shumlin of doing.  

Sunderland’s final paragraph hails his party’s “fresh ideas and new energy,” which is a goddamn hoot after four paragraphs of recycled, warmed-over rhetoric that was already old when Jack Lindley used to say it.

Which brings me back to Arcade Fire. The Republicans keep thinking they’ve found a way to enter the minds of voters. They think they’ve found a way to connect. But it’s just a reflector of their own beliefs, an endless repetition of their tired old tropes. They’re still caught in their Hall of Mirrors, and the only faces they see are their own, reflected back at them. It is, as WIn Butler sings, “A reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection.”

And to switch rock lyrics in midstream, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  

Congratulations to “Mr. Microphone,” VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld, for taking home the About Damn Time Award for Journalistic Creativity, given whenever I feel like it by… er… me.

The award is bestowed for Hirschfeld’s amazing accomplishment of doing a story on health care reform WITHOUT resorting to tireless quote machine Darcie “Hack” Johnston. Instead, he used HCR skeptic and Chamber of Commerce head Betsy Bishop, and HCR opponent and House Minority Leader Don Turner, both of whom are far more central to Vermont’s policy debate than the Hack, whose sole qualifications are (a) heading an underfunded, one-person anti-reform policy shop, and (b) being instantly available for any reporter at any time.

As it says in the title of the award, it’s About Damn Time.  

This is the kind of story that leaves you wondering whether to laugh or cry.

The Vermont Republican Party has beefed up its election-year staffing, with the hire of a “Victory Campaign Director.” Sounds noble, right? The power of positive thinking in action, portending the dawn of a new, dynamic VTGOP? Also, this new leader refers to himself on his Facebook page as “Fresh. Focused Energy. Forward-Thinking Leadership.”

Nope. Because the party’s Victory Campaign Director, according to a Tweet by the ever-vigilant Paul Heintz, is one Jeff Bartley, chair of the Chittenden County Republicans and veteran of numerous losing campaigns. Yes, one of those Republican operatives who keeps on failing upward.

Talk about recycling. Well, more like composting, really; turning garbage into fertilizer.  “Fresh,” indeed.

We last saw Jeffy in November 2013 as a candidate for state party chair. Somehow, he managed to lose the “battle” for the conservative wing’s support to John MacGovern, who blew a gasket and hit the wall in his 2012 campaign against Bernie Sanders.

Let that sink in for a moment. Jeff Bartley lost to John MacGovern. And now he’s the Republicans’ Victory Director.

Well, Bartley sure knows victory. Particularly, how to avoid it.

His political resume also includes a 2012 stint as political director for the Vermont House Republican Caucus. Yes, the group that somehow managed to lose seats even though it had previously achieved super-minority status.  

After the jump: Jeffy’s role in two of the most disastrous Senate campaigns in recent memory. And other failures.

Another example of Bartley’s “forward-thinking leadership” was his intra-party lawsuit against former U.S. Senate candidate Len Britton for unpaid salary and expenses. The whole schemozzle was embarrassing for both men, although moreso for Britton. But still, Bartley — then, as now, a Republican Party official — taking a fellow Republican to court? Not exactly 11th Commandment material.

Presumably, Britton was attracted to Bartley because of his previous experience in a disastrous Senate campaign: at age 20, Bartley was hired by the ill-fated Rich Tarrant for Senate campaign. Apparently he’s got a thing for hopeless causes — and for making sure they stay that way.

Bartley’s most notable contribution to the Tarrant effort was his embarrassing attempt to pull the wool over Vermonters’ eyes with a bogus political blog called “Vermont Senate Race,” which was ostensibly a straight news site, but was meant to be a conduit for Tarrant agitprop. Unfortunately, the late great Peter Freyne blew the whistle on Jeffy’s dirty trick, by exposing him as the owner of the site. Plus, as Freyne pointed out, the founding of the VSR website corresponded almost exactly with the Tarrant campaign’s hiring of Bartley.

That is, as far as I can tell, Jeff Bartley’s entire political resume: just one damn failure after another. And this qualifies him to be the VTGOP’s Victory Director.

Every time I think they can’t possibly go even lower, they surprise me. When exactly does the Vermont Republican Party hit bottom?

Ah, the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s independent voice for free-market dogma. Named for that brave and resourceful hero of early America, Ethan Allen — patriot, war hero, exemplar of the Vermont Way.

Ehh, not so much. On both counts. EAI ain’t so independent, and its policy prescriptions aren’t so Vermont-centric. And, as a new book reveals, the original Ethan Allen was far from an unblemished hero.

First, the institute. From its own website:

Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Oh. Ah. Well, “State Policy Network” sounds innocuous enough. Surely our Brave Boys at EAI aren’t in bed with some national right-wing conspiracy, right?

Sourcewatch:

The State Policy Network (SPN) has franchised, funded, and fostered a growing number of “mini Heritage Foundations” at the state level since the early 1990s. SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.

Huh. “Early 1990s,” you say. As in, for instance, EAI’s founding in 1993? Wouldn’t it be a stitch if our own right-wing policy shop was nothing more than an offshoot of a national effort?

Although SPN’s member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy’s in-depth investigation, “EXPOSED: The State Policy Network — The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government,” reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.

After the jump: the real Ethan Allen, self-interested, inexperienced, truth-challenged.

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer reported that SPN head Tracie Sharp compares the Network to IKEA, in which SPN provides the materials and services, and local affiliates pick and choose from the SPN menu. And the affiliates don’t necessarily have much wiggle room:

Sharp “also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. ‘The grants are driven by donor intent,’ she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, ‘the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'”

And thanks to weak-ass disclosure rules, we really have no idea how dependent EAI might be on those out-of-state donors and their political agendas.

Now, Ethan Allen was his own man. But, according to a new biography, he and his namesake Institute share quite a few character traits — not all of them positive.

Inventing Ethan Allen by John Duffy and H. Nicholas Muller, tries to strip away the many layers of myth surrounding our state’s first hero and present a much more complicated reality. They also explore the myth-making process of 19th Century American history, originator of “I cannot tell a lie” and other legends useful in nation-building. They find, per the publisher’s blurb, an Allen who was a notable figure who did many good things, but who was also “a self-interested land speculator, rebellious mob leader, inexperienced militia officer, and truth-challenged man who would steer Vermont into the British Empire.”

I haven’t read the book (yet), but there was a fascinating write-up in last Friday’s Burlington Free Press that made me realize how truly appropriate Ethan Allen is, as an inspiration for the Ethan Allen Institute.

The Allen we think we know, the historians conclude, was a 19th Century “confection” that turned a complex and flawed human being into an icon. Allen “was not a central figure” in post-Revolutionary histories of Vermont. But then, as many Vermonters migrated to the newly-opened Midwest, hard times befell our state, and Vermont’s elites felt the need to counteract the state’s “moral and economic decay” by building up “a pantheon of heroes” from our alleged Golden Age.

(Yep, even in the 1830s, we were bemoaning the lost Vermont of the Good Old Days. Some things never change.)

Admiring biographies ignored inconvenient truths, and emphasized — or even created out of whole cloth — the man’s heroic acts. Like, for instance, Allen’s military “exploits”:

Yes, he took Fort Ticonderoga, but his band outnumbered the somnolent British 4 to 1 and they faced little resistance. He later made a bungled attempt to seize a sloop at St. John, and then staged a foolhardy attack on Montreal. He sat out much of the Revolutionary War, and Vermont’s constitutional founding, in British captivity.

And, “In his military career, he came under fire just once.”

Hm. Sounds more like John Wayne than George Washington.

Cowboy with no cattle,

Warrior with no war,

They don’t make impostors

Like John Wayne anymore.

— T Bone Burnett, “Fear Country”

The historians cast doubts upon Allen’s very patriotism. In the early 1780s, Ethan and Ira Allen opened secret negotiations with the British with an aim toward rejoining the motherland. Allen enthusiasts insist he was trying to trick the Brits; but others believe he’d abandoned political principle to protect his substantial property holdings.

Paper tiger. Tin soldier. Incompetent strategist. Truth-challenged. A man who, when push came to shove, put financial interest above principle. And who “came under fire only once.” Sounds like a great match for the sideline warriors of the Ethan Allen Institute, more so than John McClaughry or Rob Roper would ever want to admit.  

Lenore Broughton’s pointlessly expensive superPAC, Vermonters First, isn’t known for putting out press releases. Its activities were ultra-top-secret in its own self-aggrandizing view of the world. Broughton is notorious for dodging photographers, and I gave her right-hand man the nickname “Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery” for his refusal to speak with reporters. And outfitted his photo with an impenetrable disguise.

The Tayter managed to spend more than a million dollars of Broughton’s inheritance while doing absolutely nothing to move the needle of the 2012 campaign. Still, he seemed to be in her good graces.

But last week’s “Fair Game” column by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz brought some fresh news. Heintz referred to Brooks’ tenure with VF in the past tense, and reported that since January, Brooks has been the Vermont executive director of American Majority, a national conservative astroturf group with shadowy connections to the Koch Brothers empire.

Yeah, American Majority’s not big on press releases either. The only sign of Brooks on the organization’s website is a pair of brief posts about current events; no hint of his organizational role.

For those just joining us, AM is a tea party-connected group that focuses on raising “a national farm team of conservative leaders.” Last month, it held a seminar in Rutland for aspiring conservative candidates, as documented on GMD here.  And, as noted by colleague Jack McCullough, Brooks has claimed credit for the electoral success of Burlington School Board candidate Scot Shumski — a fact that apparently caught Shumski by surprise.

Anyhoo, nice to know that the Tayter has found himself a comfy landing spot.  

As I’ve said, repeatedly, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the conservative movement’s ability to keep on employing the same ol’ same ol’ hacks, no matter how many times they lose, is both inspiring and befuddling. The movement certainly doesn’t operate on free-market principles; otherwise, they’d ditch these no-account losers.

As, apparently, Lenore Broughton finally did with the I.M.O.M. It’ll be interesting to see if Vermonters First tries again Under New Management, or if (as I suspect) Broughton has had her fill of writing big checks and getting nothing in return.

One curious thing, though: the undistinguished men of Vermont conservatism — Brooks, Rob Roper, John McClaughry, Jim Barnett, Corry Bliss, et al. — have no trouble getting gigs no matter how many times they crap out. It’s different for Darcie Johnston, the only woman in the Green Mountain Tea Party Brigade; she’s too aggressive, too scorched-earth. And she’s having a hard time finding work.

Could it be that the treehouse of Vermont conservatism is basically a little boys’ club, more welcoming to those endowed with external genitalia? It would seem so.  

Lately in these virtual pages, I have wondered at the ability of Darcie “Hack” Johnston to repeatedly stick her nose into Vermont politics when she is supposedly managing a gubernatorial campaign in Arizona, for goodness’ sakes.

Well, I think I know the answer. And it actually makes me feel a little bit sorry for the Hackster.

Her candidate is Frank Riggs, a former California Congressman now living in Arizona. He’s one of seven Republicans battling for the chance to succeed outgoing Governor Jan Brewer.

And… er… in a recent poll, Riggs was tied for last place. With a whopping 1% of the Republican primary vote.

One. Percent.

Leading the pack were AZ Secretary of State Ken Bennett, with 20%. Then Christine Jones, a former top executive at GoDaddy.com, with 16%; Scott Smith, mayor of Mesa, with 12%; there are two others in the mid-single digits before you get to the Bottom Three, all with one stinkin’ percent.

With a campaign like that, it’s no wonder Johnston has a lot of free time here in Vermont. Even she has to recognize that much of a lost cause. Not to mention, I have to think Riggsy is smart enough to cut back on his campaign operation and stop throwing good money after bad.

His dismal showing comes in spite of the fact that he gained the much-prized endorsement of Rick “Santorum” Santorum, he of “man on dog” fame. (It’s amazing how much time social conservatives spend thinking about bestiality and anal sex and gays shoving things down their throats and stuff like that. Seems to be a real preoccupation with them.)

Riggs’ campaign strategery, perhaps informed by the Hack, has basically been to try to out-extreme all the other Republican hopefuls. That’s saying something, in Joe Arpaio’s home turf.  

Riggs has ranted about the dangers of Muslim infiltration via sharia law; he’s warned about the Obamanization* of Arizona through the Affordable Care Act and the Common Core education standards; and, of course, securing the borders against the rising tide of brown people. His campaign has been kneecapped by his own intermittent relationship with the truth (he loudly claimed to be the only candidate with a pro-life voting record, which turned out to be a lie) and his concentration on national issues rather than the real challenges facing Arizona (his latest rant was about the Veterans Administration foofaraw).

*See what he did there? Unsubtle reference to “abomination.” Clever dick.

And as befits someone stuck at 1% in the polls, he’s received precious little attention in the media except when he trips over his own tongue.  

So this is what Darcie Johnston has been reduced to, in her effort to make a living as a campaign operator: repping a joke of a candidate two thousand miles away from her home turf. Sad, and unsurprising; according to Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz’s Johnston profile published last October, Johnston had burned some bridges with the Jim Douglas crowd and established a losing record in her home state:

As her Vermont business dried up, Johnston steadily expanded her reach into Rhode Island, Maine and elsewhere in New England, but few of those races ended in victory.

Her one recent Vermont gig was with Randy Brock’s campaign in 2012. That little disaster did nothing to improve her reputation in these parts. She’s hung on to her gig at Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, but (as Heintz reported) that group’s been much less visible lately. Even last fall, when Obamacare and Shummycare were on the brink of disaster, Johnston seemed marginalized. She was, and still is, the quickest source for an anti-reform quote, but she’s not a serious player in public policy circles.

The Vermont and Arizona gubernatorial primaries are on the same day, August 26. If Brock runs for Governor and wins the primary, you might think that Johnston would cash her last Riggs check and slide into a top job with Brock. From what I’ve heard, that’s not the case. Apparently, even Brock has realized that Johnston is expensive political poison.

So I do feel a little sorry for her. She loves politics, and her employment options are drying up like a puddle in the desert sun.

But I don’t feel too sorry. She’s had chance after chance after chance. Republicans do this all the time: recycling the same failed operatives over and over again, with no regard for their treasured free-market principles. In the marketplace of ideas, Darcie Johnston is a failure. She’s got no one to blame but herself if she’s forced to find a job in the “real world.”

The only injustice is that there are so many other failures who keep on getting more chances to fail.  

Central Vermont’s best-known travel agent, and maybe-gubernatorial candidate, Scott Milne makes regular appearances on WDEV touting his travel business. He made one such appearance Thursday, near the end of the Morning Show. WDEV’s Mark Johnson, getting ready to open his own daily talk show, seized on the opportunity to grab a few minutes with Milne to inquire about his potential race for Governor. (Click on the link to hear the entire interview.)

And Milne said something very interesting… something I don’t think I’ve ever heard before.

To paraphrase, he’s ready to run for Governor if another high-profile Republican gets in the race. If not, then he’s likely to stay out.

That’s right: Milne wants a primary challenge, and apparently won’t run unless he gets one. (Not counting Emily Peyton, who, well, doesn’t count.) From my own transcription:

If I don’t see at least a narrow path to victory. I’m not doing it to be a placeholder for the Republican Party.

…if we can have an issue-orientated, positive Republican primary, I would very much like to be part of that. I think that narrow path to victory that we spoke about, Mark, is best begotten with a Republican primary. Otherwise we’ve got one of the smoothest, talented politicians running for Governor on the Democratic side in Vermont that we’ve seen for many years, and he’s not gonna talk about issues until September, and in September we’ve got 60 days to get an awful lot of detail, confusion, and direction straightened out, and I just don’t see it being part of a winning strategy.

And really, I think he’s right. If there’s a competitive Republican primary, then the race gets a whole summer’s worth of free media attention, and Republican issues get a full airing.

Milne adds that he’s “hoping that… Randy Brock would step up.” And Milne acknowledges that “I would be an underdog in the primary, and I don’t mind that.”

He’s right there, too: Brock’s been a loyal VTGOP soldier for a long time, and he appeals to the party’s conservative base.

Sounds to me like Milne has his head screwed on straight, in a way uncommon for politicians.

He’s actually willing to put the interests of his party, and the interests of the electorate, ahead of his own. It’s certainly a completely different attitude from that of Brock backer Darcie “Hack” Johnston, who told Paul Heintz that “I’m absolutely saying Scott Milne should not run” because a primary contest would doom Brock’s chances in November.

Oh she of little faith.

Milne says he won’t make a public decision until the filing deadline of June 12, which makes sense if his candidacy depends on another Republican entering the race.

Also refreshing for a political figure: Milne’s sober estimate of his chances at beating Shumlin.

I think there’s about 500 statewide or Congressional races in the country this year. Vermont is essentially a Congressional district in terms of population. … Of the 500 races across the country, I would bet you a cup of coffee there’s at least five people who are longer shots than I, that are gonna win. So, out of the gate, I’ve got a 1% chance, and a 1% chance is a very good starting point.

Please note that Milne isn’t straight-up saying he’s only got a 1% chance; he’s just making a statistical point. But still, it beats the usual happy talk you get from a political longshot.

Milne’s stance sets up a fascinating game of chicken. He won’t run unless Brock does; while Brock’s top supporter doesn’t want a primary. If Brock feels the same way, what happens? A standoff? Milne at the Secretary of State’s office at 4:59 pm on June 12 with a handful of petitions, waiting to see if Brock shows up?

Peyton for Governor?

There wasn’t much talk of issues or positions in the interview; Johnson only had a few minutes of Milne’s time, and his top priority was exploring Milne’s decision-making process. Still, it was an interesting peek into an unconventional political mind. Myself, I kinda hope he runs. If he does, we’d miss out on the sheer mayhem of Emily Peyton leading the Republican ticket; but Scott Milne could make this an interesting campaign, if he accomplishes nothing else.  

I see from reading the fine print of a recent story by the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck that there’s a new Republican hopeful for State Senate from Chittenden County. The candidate’s name rang a faint bell in my mind: Joy Limoge.

(Late add: VTDigger first mentioned Limoge’s candidacy a few days ago, in a lengthy list of declared hopefuls for the House and Senate.)

So I did a little searching, and found one of my own GMD diaries from June 2013. Limoge was the real-estate attorney who teamed up with VTGOP Vice Chair Brady Toensing to represent, pro bono, Jeremy Dodge in his land dispute with Governor Shumlin. At the time, I wondered if the partisan pair would try to stretch out the case as long as possible, to maximize the damage to Shumlin. But as it turned out, the case was settled quietly and reasonably. So, no blame accrues to Limoge for that little escapade.  

What I can blame her for is a truly amateurish campaign website. The homepage features a swoopy representation of the American flag’s red-and-white stripes with bright spangly stars strewn about. Her visage floats in the blue space above the stripes and stars. And below is the simple motto, “WE NEED JOY!”

As a general principle I agree, but I mean the state of being, not the Republican lawyer.

But the real disgrace is in the opening paragraph of her candidate’s statement.

I do not undertake this effort lightly but with an increasing lack of a unified state government and my  deepening involvement with our community, it has pushed me to become the “change I desire” and run for office.

I kid you not.

To put it charitably, perhaps this is a sign that Limoge is progressive on immigration issues, since English is apparently not her first language. I mean, no matter how many times I read that, I don’t know what the fuck she’s talking about.  

The verbal overgrowth continues with “As an attorney, I am involved in transactional dealings on a daily basis.” Nice to know.  

Below that are some relatively coherent paragraphs in which she presents herself as “a moderate, pragmatic problem solver,” which is the only kind of Republican who can hope to win in Chittenden County. She then bravely asserts that “I care for the people of Chittenden County and Vermont,” which beats hell out of being a sociopath. And finally, a bit more Spanglish (or whatever her native dialect might be):

I am a listener and I will continue to listen to all of the people of Chittenden County making their voices heard in Montpelier.

Y’know, the national GOP has held workshops in How Not To Piss Off Women. Maybe the state GOP needs a refresher course on High School English Composition.

Oh, one other piece of flotsam that turned up in my Google search. Last November, VTDigger posted a story about possible changes in property tax exemptions. The Comments section was filled with the usual angry complaints about taxation… plus this odd little item from Ms. Limoge:

And the students are allowed to vote! Why in the world would you allow students to vote on these issues when many of them will not remain in this State to see the destruction their votes have caused!

Not that her candidacy is likely to go anywhere in the state’s most liberal county, but if she should become a credible candidate, perhaps some enterprising journalist can ask her if she really wants to take the franchise away from students.