So far, only one Democrat has stepped up to the challenge of facing Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, widely considered a strong favorite for re-election. And while the Party is open to more candidates, I thought it was worth getting to know the only Dem in the race, John Bauer, a little bit better. So, on a recent morning, I met him at the North Branch in Montpelier for a cup of tea and some political conversation.

Bauer knows he’s a longshot. He’s managed two statewide campaigns, but he’s never run for office himself beyond the town level. He is, again, facing a strong incumbent. On top of all that, Bauer is pursuing the public-financing route, which places strict limits on fundraising — and imposes a fast-approaching deadline. He has until June 12 to convince at least 750 Vermonters to contribute to his campaign. Each individual can give no more than $50, but any amount, no matter how small, adds one more name to his list. (As of today, his campaign is about 20% of the way there.)

The potential payoff: enough public funds to mount a competitive campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Not to mention a blow against big-money politics.

Bauer is definitely a member of what Howard Dean used to call “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Indeed, he refers to himself as a progressive Democrat. His focus is on growing an economy that provides a secure foundation for the working and middle classes and for small business owners. His role models: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Robert Reich, promoters of what Bauer calls “new economic theory,” which “has a lot to do with finding alternatives to Wall Street.”

Bauer supports Sen. Anthony Pollina’s proposal for a state bank — starting small, to see if the idea will work. And he sees a much larger, untapped pool of resources for bolstering Vermont’s economy:

There are a lot of retirement funds, a lot of long-term money invested. Currently, it’s very, very difficult to invest that in Vermont businesses. We have a lot of money in Vermont that goes to Wall Street. We need to find ways to put it on Main Street.

He’d also like to explore setting up a program where hourly workers could have a small amount deducted from every paycheck, “just like an IRA,” except the funds could be invested in Vermont businesses. The details remain to be worked out; mainly, Bauer wants to open the doors of government to new economic ideas. “There are so many directions we could take that would strengthen our economy, and it would cost the taxpayers nothing.”

Indeed, if he’s elected, he’d like to turn the Lieutenant Governor’s office into something of an idea lab:

I think of it as taking the desk out of the office and putting in a conference table. It’s a place where we can bring people together with different viewpoints that are not necessarily being considered by state government. Bringing people together to find ways to help working Vermonters.

Bauer is spending the month of May visiting every county in Vermont, meeting county party officials, spreading the word and soliciting small donors for his effort to gain public financing. He acknowledges the challenge: “It’s a very difficult conversation to have with people because it’s not politics as usual; it’s politics as unusual.” But, he says, the process is a key part of his message.

One of the core problems we have is money in politics. That being said, is it possible to run a campaign using public financing? Well, nobody’s tried it in ten years.  I think that once people understand what it means, that they could literally clean out their cabinets, turn in their bottles, and send in a check for $5.75 to my campaign, that that will help me qualify for enough financing to run a competitive campaign.

I’ve made a small donation myself. I see Bauer as an energetic bearer of an important message; and I’d like to see a candidate succeed through public financing, just to prove that there’s another way to do politics.

Bauer acknowledges he’s got an uphill fight:

I may lose because I have strong opinions. But that’s okay. It’s about pushing the conversation forward. And if someone wants to sit down with me and talk about how cutting taxes and regulation is good for the economy, I’m going to turn around and look at the last forty years and say, ‘Show me where that’s demonstrated to be true.’ Because we’re working harder, we’re more productive, and we’re making less money.

It’s no longer a trickle-down economy, you know; it’s a vacuum-up economy. You don’t have change in your pockets anymore because they’re suckin’ it out from between the cushions.

John Bauer is formally launching his campaign at the State House on Monday, May 19 at 11:00 am. He’s asking supporters to show up a little early “so we can arrange a group to stand behind me.”

For more information, or to add your two cents (or $5.75, or any amount of $50 or less), visit Bauer’s campaign website, www.bauervt.com.  

Two weeks ago, Art Woolf (Vermont’s Loudest Economist™) used his Burlington Freeploid column to mansplain to us all why Vermont’s low unemployment rate isn’t a good thing. Well, first off, he cast unmoored aspersions on the veracity of the number; and then he gave some half-hearted reasons why We Need More People Jobless. I compared him to a little boy who gets a pony for Christmas and starts looking around for the manure pile.

Well, Art’s back today to piss on another campfire. This week’s “effort” is entitled “Is high home ownership rate a good thing?”  

See, Vermont’s homeownership rate is 73%, the seventh highest in the nation and some 18 percentage points above the national average.

Must be good news, right? It could mean that we have a relatively stable population with the resources to invest in housing. It might be a sign that we have a strong real-estate sector, one of the cornerstones of a vibrant economy. I’d think it might reflect a better-resourced population of working poor, able to afford a home of their own. And it clearly reflects the fact that 2008’s recession hit the nation much harder than it hit Vermont; since 2008, home ownership has declined nationally, while Vermont’s rate shows a slight increase.

So, good news? Naaaah, sez Art. He’s lookin’ for the manure pile. And he’s ever-ready to shovel it out.  

First of all, he trots out the right-wing canard that the housing bubble was caused by “federal housing policies designed to increase the national homeownership rate.” Yeah, blame it all on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And please ignore the huge lump under the rug; it’s nothing but a mountain of subprime mortgage-backed securities churned out by the Wise Guys of Wall Street. Federal housing policies played a part in encouraging homeownership, to be sure — because homeownership is widely accepted as a social good. But far more impactful were the Countrywides of the world, who couldn’t write mortgages fast enough to churn out those lousy mortgage-backed securities.

An Art Woolf specialty: thinly-veiled conservative propaganda. But whatever the cause of the housing collapse, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Vermont’s homeownership rate is a bad thing. Unless, that is, Woolf is predicting a housing bubble in Vermont. Which he isn’t; he’s just manufacturing excuses to see the glass as half empty and leaking.

Next, he moves on to an uninsightful and irrelevant factoid: “High rates of homeownership are only weakly associated with high incomes.” Gee, what would we do without Art Woolf to illuminate the obvious? I wouldn’t expect a 1:1 relationship between wealth and homeownership. But I would expect a high rate of homeownership to reflect a relatively stable and non-impoverished citizenry.

Next, Woolf completes his Trifecta of Trivia by observing that…

Vermont’s homes have surprisingly few people living in each of them. The Census Bureau tells us that only 2.4 people live in the average Vermont home. (Since no house has four-tenths of a person living in it, it’s easier to think of this as 24 people living in every ten homes.)

Oh, geez, Art, thanks for clearing that up. Here I was imagining nightmare scenarios of Vermont homes populated by partial people. An epidemic of amputees? Hideous deformities? Preserved brains in jars?

This meander down Census Lane never quite reconnects with Woolf’s supposed thesis. In fact, his conclusion is that our homeownership, and relatively low occupancy, is “an indication of how wealthy we are today compared to the past…”

In other words, I guess, our homeownership rate is a good thing after all? I can’t say for sure, because Woolf offers no conclusion.

To sum up, Woolf casts cold water on the notion that homeownership is a good thing, he repeats an irrelevant bit of conservative dogma, he regurgitates some Census data, and his column just kinda peters out. No coherent case for his thesis; not even any attempt at building a case. And certainly no effort at presenting an informative view of what the chart actually signifies.

This marvel of intellectual ennui checks in at a laughable 398 words. To fill Woolf’s usual half-page spot, the Freeploid’s editors blew up the accompanying chart to almost the size of a billboard. It’s as if a student turned in an abbreviated essay, and the teacher helpfully reprinted it in a larger font so it achieved the expected page count. (The column, as it appeared in print, is reproduced here, just to show you the relative space occupied by column and chart.) I wonder how much they’re paying him for this drivel.  

US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, staunch defender of tradition at the World’s Most Moss-Ridden Deliberative Body, has taken a bold step that puts him at odds with our own Senator Patrick Leahy.  

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday said he opposes to the nomination of President Obama’s pick for the federal bench, Georgia state Judge Michael Boggs, pointing to his history of controversial positions on issues ranging from abortion to the confederate flag.

,,, “I’ve not talked to [Judiciary Chairman] Pat Leahy personally. I will do that,” Reid said in an interview with BuzzFeed. “Unless I have a better explanation. I can’t vote for him.”

For those just joining us, Boggs’ nomination was part of a deal with Georgia’s two Republican Senators: you give us Boggs, we’ll refrain from blocking some of Obama’s nominees. Firebrand political blogger Charlie Pierce characterized the deal as “a slightly rancid little bit of Beltway logrolling,” which seems reasonably accurate.

The deal was necessary because Leahy, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, has mandated adherence to the Senate’s “blue slip” tradition, which gives each Senator the power to block judicial nominees from his/her home state. Which means any nominee from any state with a Republican Senator faces an uphill battle for confirmation.

By all accounts, Boggs’ record as a state judge is relatively unobjectionable. But before that, when he was a state lawmaker, he had a decidedly conservative record: he voted to retain the Confederate banner as part of the state flag, he favored restrictions on abortion rights, and opposed same-sex marriage. At a Judiciary hearing this week, Boggs disavowed some of his past positions, including support for a measure that would have publicly identified all doctors who performed abortions.

But still, thers a sizable gap between the two Boggses, and how are we to know which will emerge once he’s securely installed into a lifetime judicial seat? His nomination has drawn the active opposition of numerous liberal and progressive groups. In some cases, they’ve trained their fire directly on Leahy, who could change the “blue slip” process with the stroke of a pen.  

Leahy did not attend the Boggs hearing, and he appears to be offering a backdoor exit for his colleagues:

[Leahy] said in a statement that the burden remains with each senator on his or her due diligence and that senators must decide for themselves if the nominees are worthy.

The idea, apparently, is that the Boggs deal guaranteed his nomination but not his confirmation. It remains to be seen how Georgia’s devoutly conservative Senators would react if Senate Democrats sink the nomination. It might be the end of the “blue slip” whether St. Patrick likes it or not.

Postscript. I continue to be astounded by the lack of coverage this story has received in the Vermont media. Our Congressional delegation in general, and Leahy in particular, get very generous coverage for their many good works. But when the halo slips from St. Patrick’s blessed forehead, not a peep is heard, not a word read. Except when they publish Leahy’s own response to the kerfuffle, of course.

As I’ve said before, 99% of the time I’m proud to be represented by Pat Leahy. But this time, his actions deserve scrutiny. He’s getting it inside the Beltway, but not in his home state.  

As the VTGOP surveys the wreckage of its sans-Scheuermann gubernatorial field, there’s a whole lotta lookin’ on the bright side goin’ on. I’d say it’s glass-half-full, except in this case it’s more like “glass-with-a-drop-of-water.”

This festival of happy talk comes via Neal Goswami at the Mitchell Family Organ (paywalled, sorry), in a piece entitled “Gov. Race Loses One Challenger; Others Are In the Wings.” Let’s review the desperate cheerfulness, shall we?

Let’s begin with travel mogul Scott Milne, who apparently plans to make a decision on the deadline day for filing. (Which would make petition-gathering into quite the magic trick.) Scheuermann reviews his qualifications for Vermont’s highest office:

“I’ve met him a couple of times. I don’t know him well, but I certainly think he’d be a strong candidate.”

Cough. A brilliant display of damning with faint praise, methinks.

Now, on to Randy Brock, who lost to Gov. Shumlin really, really badly in 2012:

[VTGOP Chair David Sunderland] said Brock has “a great background at running and winning statewide elections” and “would bring an interesting dynamic.”

Well, I suppose he’s got a better record at “winning statewide elections” than any other potential Republican candidate. But that record stands at a solid one win, two losses. Which includes a one-sided thumping in the race for Governor, and the rare feat of an incumbent managing to lose a race for a low-profile statewide office. That’s a very Charlie Sheen definition of “winning.”  

With that, we turn our attention to the gorilla in the room, Bruce Lisman, who (by his own words) isn’t seriously considering a run, but is seriously considering The People’s repeated requests that he run.

Sunderland said Lisman has “ideas and thoughts about the condition of our state and the condition of the economy … that are hopefully aligned with what the Republican Party believes.”

“Hopefully aligned”? They’re serving up some awfully thin gruel in the VTGOP Cafeteria, aren’t they?

No shrift is given to the only declared candidate in the race, Emily Peyton. Party officials have said they would disavow her if she managed to win the primary.

This is so sad, I almost begin to feel sorry for the VTGOP. I’ve heard that as recently as a few weeks ago, a Scheuermann bid was considered virtually a sure thing, which probably kept party officials from beating the bushes for other alternatives. And now, following Scheuermann’s encounter with the reality of late-starting a challenge to Shumlin, they’re up Shit Creek with a depressing variety of untested, misfit, and/or broken paddles.

Signs of the Apocalypse, Vermont Politics Edition: I agree with John McClaughry!

The biennial legislative session has just concluded, and it was a banner year for Vermont’s version of advanced liberalism.

Exactly! There were some twists and turns along the way, and some last-minute unpleasantness in the Sausage Factory*, but hey everybody, let’s have a big cheer it for Advanced Liberalism!

*Dick Sears, take a bow! On second thought, sit down and shut up.

The agreement ends there, of course. To El Jefe General, a liberal biennium is a catastrophe along the lines of Tropical Storm Irene. To me, it’s a heartening affirmation of my support for liberal politicians.

I realize I’m putting my License To Blog at risk by actually praising the Legislature, but look at this partial list of accomplishments (in no particular order):

— A significant increase in the minimum wage.

— An innovative program that should result in drug offenders getting treatment instead of punitive prison sentences. VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, speaking Monday on the Mark Johnson Show (double plugola!), referred to this bill as the most impactful of the entire session. And if it works, maybe we can end our soul-killing contract with the Corrections Corporation of America.

— A good step towards addressing the college affordability gap, with the Vermont Strong Scholars Program.

— Establishment of organizing rights for day-care workers.

— Establishment of universal pre-K in public schools.

After the jump: the list continues.

— A reasonable bill to protect shorelands. The final product was a compromise, but it was a lot more than I thought we’d get, after 2013’s debacle.

— The adoption of State Treasurer Beth Pearce’s plan to boost funding of health benefits for retired teachers.

— The GMO lebeling bill. I’m less excited about this than many because I’m lukewarm on the issue, and I doubt the law will survive a court challenge. But it was a legislative victory for liberal politics, which is always nice.

— A meaningful reduction in the projected seven-cent increase in the state property tax, which should blunt the effectiveness of Republican attacks on the issue.

— A mandatory police training program in Taser use, which hopefully will reduce the chances of potentially fatal discharges in the future.

— The use of handheld cellphones while driving will be made illegal. A common-sense measure, passed over the objections of Dick Sears and Governor Shumlin. (Extra Bonus Points: Shumlin actually changed his mind on something!)

That’s a pretty substantial list, and I could go on from there.

Not everything got through, of course. Lawmakers failed to agree on an approach to school district consolidation; but in my opinion, that issue warrants further discussion anyway. It emerged as a priority because of widespread dismay over the seven-cent property tax increase; but I believe the issues of organization and cost should be considered separately. A reorganization may or may not address the cost issue.

Other disappointments: the collapse in support for mandatory sick leave, the last-minute decision (Diane Snelling, take a bow!) to make food-stamp beneficiaries responsible for overpayments caused by state errors, and yet another failure to improve the Current Use law (which leaves it open to opportunistic attacks from the right). And I’m not entirely happy with some of the newly-enacted bills. But all in all, a solid performance by lawmakers, in which they positively addressed a wide range of issues.  

Signs of the Apocalypse, Vermont Politics Edition: I agree with John McClaughry!

The biennial legislative session has just concluded, and it was a banner year for Vermont’s version of advanced liberalism.

Exactly! There were some twists and turns along the way, and some last-minute unpleasantness in the Sausage Factory*, but hey everybody, let’s have a big cheer it for Advanced Liberalism!

*Dick Sears, take a bow! On second thought, sit down and shut up.

The agreement ends there, of course. To El Jefe General, a liberal biennium is a catastrophe along the lines of Tropical Storm Irene. To me, it’s a heartening affirmation of my support for liberal politicians.

I realize I’m putting my License To Blog at risk by actually praising the Legislature, but look at this partial list of accomplishments (in no particular order):

— A significant increase in the minimum wage.

— An innovative program that should result in drug offenders getting treatment instead of punitive prison sentences. VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, speaking Monday on the Mark Johnson Show (double plugola!), referred to this bill as the most impactful of the entire session. And if it works, maybe we can end our soul-killing contract with the Corrections Corporation of America.

— A good step towards addressing the college affordability gap, with the Vermont Strong Scholars Program.

— Establishment of organizing rights for day-care workers.

— Establishment of universal pre-K in public schools.

After the jump: the list continues.

— A reasonable bill to protect shorelands. The final product was a compromise, but it was a lot more than I thought we’d get, after 2013’s debacle.

— The adoption of State Treasurer Beth Pearce’s plan to boost funding of health benefits for retired teachers.

— The GMO lebeling bill. I’m less excited about this than many because I’m lukewarm on the issue, and I doubt the law will survive a court challenge. But it was a legislative victory for liberal politics, which is always nice.

— A meaningful reduction in the projected seven-cent increase in the state property tax, which should blunt the effectiveness of Republican attacks on the issue.

— A mandatory police training program in Taser use, which hopefully will reduce the chances of potentially fatal discharges in the future.

— The use of handheld cellphones while driving will be made illegal. A common-sense measure, passed over the objections of Dick Sears and Governor Shumlin. (Extra Bonus Points: Shumlin actually changed his mind on something!)

That’s a pretty substantial list, and I could go on from there.

Not everything got through, of course. Lawmakers failed to agree on an approach to school district consolidation; but in my opinion, that issue warrants further discussion anyway. It emerged as a priority because of widespread dismay over the seven-cent property tax increase; but I believe the issues of organization and cost should be considered separately. A reorganization may or may not address the cost issue.

Other disappointments: the collapse in support for mandatory sick leave, the last-minute decision (Diane Snelling, take a bow!) to make food-stamp beneficiaries responsible for overpayments caused by state errors, and yet another failure to improve the Current Use law (which leaves it open to opportunistic attacks from the right). And I’m not entirely happy with some of the newly-enacted bills. But all in all, a solid performance by lawmakers, in which they positively addressed a wide range of issues.  

This has to be the world record for throwing cold water on a hot idea.

Rep. Heidi Scheuermann will not run for governor.

Roughly 12 hours after I posited a best-case scenario for Vermont Republicans — an issues-based, convincingly moderate primary campaign between Scheuermann and businessman Scott Milne — it evaporated in the cold, cruel light of political reality.

The Republican from Stowe says she started her exploration of a gubernatorial bid too late, and she doesn’t have the time to build the kind of campaign she needs to run against Gov. Peter Shumlin, the two-term incumbent Democrat.

She’s right, of course. It’s awfully late to start a campaign from scratch, which is what she (or any Shumlin challenger other than, oh, Bruce Lisman) would have to do. Especially Scott Milne, who’s out of the country right now and told the Burlington Freeploid that he “would make no decision on running for a month.

A month???

Clock’s ticking, Scotty boy. In fact, a month from yesterday, when he made the comment, happens to be the filing deadline for gubernatorial candidates. “A month” is, literally, the last possible moment to launch a campaign.

And if Milne, or anyone else, was seriously going to mount a competitive race against the well-entrenched and very deep-pocketed Shumlin, the time for decisions passed at least six months ago.

I tell ya, for the sake of the VTGOP’s credibility, Milne had better say yes. Otherwise, the primary field consists of… er… Emily Peyton, perpetual fringe candidate. She of the hand-lettered trash-bag yard signs.  

12 hours ago, the VTGOP had an honest-to-goodness positive scenario in front of ’em. Now, things are looking bleak as usual. It’s either wait for Milne, desperately search for another candidate, or — worst-case — enter the primary season with only Peyton on the GOP ballot, and have to mount a monumentally embarrassing write-in campaign for Randy Brock or some other willing victim.

Too bad. Scheuermann would have faced huge obstacles: lack of name recognition outside of Stowe and Montpelier, no money, and a Republican machine that’s drastically underfunded and disorganized. But she would have brought interesting positives: moderate politics (by Republican standards), and a relatively young female as the new face of the Bitter Old White Men’s Party.

She might have been able to pry away some of the moderate business types who’ve been bankrolling Shumlin in the absence of a convincing Republican alternative. And, as a somewhat soft-spoken female, she could have exploited Shumlin’s tendency to be overly self-assured and even condescending. I could easily see him putting his foot in his mouth during a Shumlin/Scheuermann debate, by appearing dismissive of a female challenger.

It wouldn’t have been enough for Scheuermann to actually beat the Governor, but it would have been interesting, and it would have positioned the VTGOP for a brighter future.

Oh well. Scheuermann in 2016?  

Remember a couple months ago, when House Minority Leader Don Turner hinted that a prominent business figure was mulling a run for Governor? Yeah, my response was to put Skip Vallee in a sombrero and publicly hope that he was The Guy. Purely for entertainment value, natch.

Well, once again, reality fails to match fantasy. According to WCAX-TV, which should at least have good contacts within GOP circles, the mystery businessman is Scott Milne, majordomo of Milne Travel and scion of a moderate Republican family — including former State Rep. Marion Milne, who was one of the few, the brave Republicans to vote in favor of civil unions back in the day. A vote that ended her State House career.

Milne, sez WCAX, “considers himself a moderate independent and wants to focus on the economy in Vermont.” Yep, making the right noises for the brand-spankin’-new Phil Scott VTGOP. And Milne, compared to Vallee, owns a business that provides the same level of public visibility without all the political baggage of, say, a fossil fuel distributorship suspected of price-fixing in the Burlington market.

Milne certainly seems a reasonable candidate. As does State Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, who failed to make a promised announcement last week but is still pondering a run.

And if I were in charge of the VTGOP, I’d be actively encouraging both of ’em to run.  

Look, the odds are long on beating Governor Shumlin. Sure, his popularity is down; but he’s got a million bucks in his warchest without really trying, and the Dems are still a country mile ahead of the Repubs in terms of organization and resources. In these circumstances, a Milne/Scheuermann primary campaign would give the party a real jumpstart. The VTGOP would occupy the political spotlight for the rest of the spring and most of the summer. It could be a campaign of ideas, not recycled dogma or attacks. And those ideas would represent the new, moderate face of Republicanism that Phil Scott is trying to foster.

The primary would drain resources from the candidates, but the free publicity would be more than worth the sacrifice. Defeating Shumlin remains very unlikely in any event, but a Milne/Scheuermann contest would help put the VTGOP on the road back to electoral relevance. It’d beat the hell out of recycling Randy Brock or, ahem, Skip Vallee.

Now as for me, the liberal blogger, I’d rather see Bruce Lisman pull a Godzilla, bigfooting his way into the political spotlight without thought for the consequences. But after Peter “Scoop” Hirschfeld reported last Friday that Lisman was “seriously” considering a run, the retired Wall Street panjandrum kinda-sorta walked it back. Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz:

Reached Monday, the retired Bear Stearns exec claimed he told Hirschfeld nothing new – and that he’s no more “serious” now than he ever has been.

“I said, ‘People have been asking from the beginning [about a gubernatorial bid]. I take seriously what people ask me and tell me,'” Lisman clarified. “The word ‘seriously’ got moved around.”

That’s about the least impassioned version of the old “I was misquoted!” chestnut I’ve ever read. Lisman isn’t “seriously” considering a candidacy; he just “seriously” considers it when people tell him he ought to run.

Which, according to Lisman himself, people are doing all the time, and have been “from the beginning.” Uh-huh. Perhaps Bruce is unfamiliar with the concept of people kissing the asses of the rich and famous, telling them exactly what they want to hear.

It’s possible that Lisman is getting cold feet because the Democrats are apparently conducting some opposition research. I hear they’re trying to get reporters interested in Lisman’s infamous “Finding Skin” speech from 2010, chronicled by me in this space in the spring of 2012. That’s the speech where Lisman called the 2008 Wall Street meltdown “this thing that happened,” stated that economic growth should be the single priority of government, and effectively called for tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes on the working poor. (Because, see, the working poor don’t pay federal income tax, and thus they have “no skin in the game.”)

Speaking of opposition research, we should not forget Lisman’s membership in a secret Wall Street fraternity whose annual dinner apparently includes a whole lotta sexist and insensitive “entertainment.” Also, didja know that Lisman is a member of the Forbes Magazine Board of Directors? Has been for ten years. D’ya suppose he’s played a few rounds with Steve Forbes?

Ahem. I seem to have strayed from the theme of this diary. Bruce Lisman is one of those shiny objects that diverts my attention.

Anyway, Milne-Scheuermann: the rare primary contest that would do its party much more good than harm. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying I’d vote for either of them. But they’d bring a fresh profile to the VTGOP and diminish the clout of the dead-enders who led their party into the wilderness.  

Recent days have brought a series of journalistic head-scratchers to the pages of Vermont’s Largest Newspaper. As the Legislative session roars toward the finish line with several meaty issues unresolved, the Freeploid has been trolling the backwaters of Vermont politics.

Last week, we saw a very friendly profile of Darcie “Hack” Johnston, whose current engagement involves a Republican gubernatorial candidate on the other end of the continent. Yesterday came a front-page exploration of the question nobody is asking: “Is Emily Peyton the new face of Vermont’s GOP?”

Yes, perpetual fringe candidate Emily Peyton. For the time being, she is the only declared Republican candidate for Governor; but she has absolutely zero chance of becoming “the new face of Vermont’s GOP.”

And today we find a mercifully brief take on the Liberty Union Party, emphasizing the advancing age and frail health of the perpetual fringe organization that lucked into a guaranteed ballot spot this year thanks to the Republicans’ (and Progs’) failure to nominate a candidate for Secretary of State. (The LU’s Mary Alice Herbert garnered 13% of the vote as the only ballot-listed opponent to Jim Condos.)

Not to downgrade the honest efforts of Peyton, Diamondstone, et al., but they are basically irrelevant in any serious discussion of Vermont politics. I don’t mind paying them a token amount of attention… but why, oh why now? This is the kind of stuff you save for a slow day in midsummer, not during the final fortnight of the Legislature.

And even if the Freeploid’s editors think their readers are uninterested in the miniutiae of legislation, there is important stuff happening in our politics. Like the possible candidacy of Bruce Lisman for Governor. And the possible candidacy of Heidi Scheuermann; she has said she will announce her plans this week. And the drive by Democrat John Bauer to gain public financing for his campaign for Lieutenant Governor, which could actually make him competitive with Phil Scott.

I fear that the Freeploid’s wandering eye is a portent of an eventual downsizing of its political bureau, which already lost Candace Page to (a very active) retirement. If the ‘Loid’s leadership doesn’t believe they needs two reporters at the State House when the action is fast and furious, how much longer until they decide they don’t need two State House reporters at all?  

Last week, I had a cup of coffee with the new guy at Campaign for Vermont: former Howard Center program exec Cyrus Patten, now Executive Director of Bruce Lisman’s Playhouse.

Aw, heck, I shouldn’t be so cynical… just because the Wall Street millionaire founded the organization two and a half years ago, poured over a million bucks into it, and made himself the conspicuous front man for all things CFV. Well, he did until recently, when he stepped back from the microphone even as he started giving generous contributions to Republican causes and floated a trial balloon about a candidacy for Governor.

Ahem, well, I guess that’s a lot to be cynical about. But the 31-year-old Patten insists I’ve got it wrong. He paints Lisman as a native Vermonter who is “deeply concerned about the state.  …If you had millions of dollars, would you invest in Vermont in a way that would help? I think a lot of us would.”

Yes, if I had a big pile of money, I hope I’d invest some of it in positive change. I wouldn’t necessarily launch a public-policy organization and put my face and name all over it; I’d maybe think more along the lines of charity or education. But that’s just me.

Oh, there I go being cynical again. Patten struck me as an honest, articulate guy who cares about building the organization. With his close-cropped hair, crisp bowtie and handsome spring jacket with an embroidered CFV logo*, he comes across as a slightly preppier version of the endlessly energetic young folks who cycle through the VPIRG office. And I don’t envy him the task that lies ahead. In some ways, CFV is an established presence; but in many ways it’s a shell of a “grassroots” outfit, since no financial commitment is required for membership. Until now, it’s depended entirely on the image, connections, and bank account of Bruce Lisman. You could argue that CFV is starting from scratch; and Cyrus Patten doesn’t bring the same assets to the table as Lisman.

*Possible thank-you gift for future CFV donors, hmmm?

He describes CFV as a “centrist” organization, despite its largely conservative membership rolls and its consistently heavy criticism of the Democratic majority. “We can only demonstrate that we are nonpartisan, that we don’t subscribe to a particular party or side of the political spectrum. …We have to show that we are nonpartisan through our policies, through our communications and our actions, and I intend to do that.”

Beginning steps: black-hat lobbyist Shaun Shouldice no longer flacks for CFV. And (as you may have noticed) Tom Pelham has cut way back on his endless drumbeating for Challenges for Change, the failed Douglas Administration initiative. And to be fair, CFV’s big push for ethics reform is not at all a partisan issue.

After the jump: Disengaging from Lisman’s wallet.

Patten continued, “A lot of people are disenchanted with politics as usual, and they are coming to the centrist place where they are finding Campaign for Vermont.” The right-heavy membership, he says, is a natural consequence of the Democrats being in power: if the Republicans were in charge, CFV’s membership would tilt the other way.

As for CFV’s financial dependence on Lisman’s fortune, that’s still true — at least for now. “He has made a commitment to ensure that the organization is successful. That means bridging us until others step up and we can find other funding sources.”

Patten will soon launch a paid-membership model, although the option of unpaid membership will remain available. And CFV’s website now features a list of donors. It’s just a list of names, with no dollar figures, so it’s impossible to assess the relative weight of individual contributions. A suggestion: If CFV doesn’t want to list exact amounts, it could provide ranges, as many nonprofits do. Say, $1-100, 100-1000, and 1000+. That’d give us a sense of who’s giving the big bucks.

As of today, the list includes 44 names for 2014 so far, and only 13 for 2013. That’s a long way from its claimed membership of over 1,000. So we haven’t begun to answer the core question: Are those “members” dedicated enough to make a financial commitment to CFV?

Patten’s tough task would become even tougher if Lisman launches a candidacy for Governor, or otherwise injects himself into partisan politics. Say, by kickstarting a Heidi Scheuermann campaign with a big fat check. Patten has had numerous conversations with the man he comfortably refers to as “Bruce,” and he’s gotten no indication that Lisman plans such a move. “I can tell you that if he is inserting himself into partisan politics, he has not told me about it. That’s the honest truth.”

Although, he adds, the idea of a Lisman candidacy might not be such a bad thing. “I have to say, he’s in touch. I actually think he is connected to Vermonters on a number of issues and where they stand on those issues. So that wouldn’t be a horrible thing if he changed the conversation on the political stage in some way.”

But Patten acknowledges that it would make his job more challenging: “We would have to work harder to demonstrate that that’s not what this was about from the very beginning.”

His goal: Creating “a self-sustaining, viable grassroots organization by continuing to connect with mainstream Vermonters, tapping into their opinions on issues that affect them.”

Or as I would put it, turning the rhetoric of Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont into a real, honest, beholden-to-no-one nonpartisan public policy organization. Despite my cynicism, the new guy deserves the benefit of the doubt. I think the odds are against him, but he ain’t Bruce Lisman, and I’ll judge him by his own actions.