Tag Archives: Bruce Lisman

How NOT to win friends and influence voters.

local/regional, ,

Does this sound familiar to you? You’re quietly reading news articles and blogposts when suddenly, very loudly, an ad blares from your computer. You look all over the screen to try and find the sneaky link that you have inadvertently triggered, but fail to see one.

So you sit there fuming for the duration…not listening, just fuming. At the close of the seemingly endless interruption, you hear “…Paid for by Bruce Lisman for Governor, blah, blah, blah…”

That’s right: like the ubiquitous “Kilroy” in WWII, Lisman was here.

Bad idea, Mr. Lisman. No one likes those annoying pop-ups, and fewer than no one can tolerate their audio counterpart.

Whoever sold you this bill of goods must be working for the other side.

Whatever it said (and I honestly didn’t hear a word as I furiously looked for the ‘off’ button), the message it unmistakably carried was that Mr. Lisman has more dollars than sense, as my dad used to say.

Why would anyone support a man for governor who can’t respect their online privacy?

Early Lisman speech praised the 1927 Commission on Rural Life

local/regional, National, , , ,

Back when he just getting his Campaign for Vermont underway (and still pretending to be a centrist) Bruce Lisman delivered a speech titled Prosperity is at the heart of the Campaign for Vermont.

cforVIn one of his first speeches made upon entering the Vermont political scene he cited the landmark 1930’s report by the Vermont Commission on Country Life [sometimes called Commission on Rural Life] as a positive example for Vermont leadership to follow.

In November 2011 when Lisman gave the speech to the Associated Industries of Vermont, the state was still recovering from the 2008 recession and in the midst of rebuilding after hurricane-turned-tropical-storm Irene. His address is part-attack on the Shumlin administration and part-branding himself as a white knight returning, to save his home state – with the Campaign for Vermont.

And he wrapped it all around this theme :

If we are exceptional, it isn’t just because it’s so damn cold and dark. It’s because in all that we have ever done we work hard, we work smart, we adapt quickly, we solve problems, and we know how to strike a deal to get things done.

We marry our kindness and caring gene to the gene that demands practicality and frugality.

Consider this: After the flood of 1927, our State launched Vermont’s Commission on Rural Life, a three-year project to re-imagine Vermont.

From that study, our leaders recognized the challenges we face, as individuals and as a state, are sometimes bigger than we can handle alone.

We were a bit humbled, but also enlivened by the opportunities for renewal presented by accepting a bit more dependence on Federal resources.

Irene offers a parallel opportunity to re-imagine Vermont in a world that is changing; an opportunity to examine the resources available and re-imagine.

Our challenges of today call for new imagination.

The Commission was the brainchild of Zoology Prof. H. F. Perkins of the University of Vermont – who also organized the 1925 Vermont Eugenics Survey. The Rural Life Commission’s final report took three years to complete and was the work of over a dozen committees and sub-committees.

One historian, writing in 1999, summed up the report like this: Beneath the surface of its 1931 final report, Rural Vermont: A Program for the Future, however, lay Perkins’s eugenic concern for protecting and nourishing Vermont’s “old stock.”

Over the years the eugenics component may have faded historically; to some readers, the report may generally be regarded (when regarded at all) as simply a multi-faceted government report from many years ago. Sections of the final report were working plans for rural rejuvenation and development. One chapter suggests the state should develop itself as the destination for tourists and summer residents – perhaps the birth of the modern tourist industry.

The report has all that – but with a little minor research the darker side emerges quickly. Not much about tourism surfaces when you Google it and the top search results center exclusively on Vermont Eugenics. And eugenics , according to the report authors’ intro, was the intended essence of it. As they explained in the introduction to The People of Vermont section: Thus, the center of interest from the beginning was in the people. The interest in land utilization, agriculture, forestry, and summer residence was in the background.

Governor-wannabe Bruce Lisman grew up in Burlington, graduated from UVM, and in recent years served on its Board of Trustees. It is possible he wasn’t familiar with the darker eugenics aspect of the study, or perhaps simply discounted it in favor of the convenient 1927 Vermont flood parallel to the ongoing Irene recovery for his talk.

And no one even batted an eye back in 2011 during Lisman’s speech favorably citing the Rural Life Commission’s report that, in part, promoted eugenics.

Now, five years later, Donald J. Trump wants to “build a wall” and without shame expresses openly anti- immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments in the Republican presidential primary. I wonder what kind of headline Lisman would get today, if he praised the eugenics-tainted Vermont Commission on Country Life’s 1931 project to re-imagine Vermont.

Is there such a difference between demonizing adherents of Islam or dehumanizing Mexicans (Trump) on the one hand, and making sure that “undesirables” don’t pass along their genes (Perkins, with recent praise from Lisman)? Is this the kind of thinking – or at best, thoughtlessness – we want running Vermont?

If that’s the way the country and our state decide to go, maybe the Canadians really ought to consider building their own wall.

Bruce Lisman pitches his southern strategies

Business, local/regional, , , ,

Republican Bruce Lisman once again looks to a state down south to find one of his bright ideas for “fixing” Vermont. LISMAN_CHUNK_OUTLINES.indd

Lisman, who is campaigning in the Republican gubernatorial primary, wants to cap Vermont’s budget growth and to that end he casts his budget cutting gaze due South, this time to North Carolina.

In asserting that he could find real savings in Medicaid, Lisman pointed to North Carolina, where auditors found potential for $180 million in savings over a biennium. He said his Medicaid reforms would not unfairly strip benefits from those in need.

Lisman’s suggested southern strategy, according to reports, involves changes that are roiling North Carolina’s Medicaid program. And it is neither fast nor painless, and it is all very controversial:

Hardest hit will be the family practitioners and pediatricians who are supposed to take the lead in providing better medical care for about 1.7 million low-income children and adults in North Carolina. […] In fact, a 3 percent cut in North Carolina’s Medicaid rates, originally slated to start in 2014, took effect Jan. 1 – and doctors may have to go back through last year’s billing and pay that money back.

“This would wreak havoc with the finances of any business,” a statement from the N.C. Medical Society says.

The last time Lisman looked south for inspiration, he found a statewide jobs program from Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana. In this instance, while on one of his Vermont “good Ideas” listening tours, the crowd listened to Bruce praise a D+ rated program from Louisiana.

And it’s as if Bruce didn’t bother or care to do much homework on this one either. A non-partisan research group gave the program a D+ rating. The state-subsidized private-sector jobs created at an annual cost of $1.1 billion had few performance standards, no wage requirements, and according to the state’s own evaluation, subsidized workers unable to afford their own health insurance may fall onto the rolls of Medicaid, negating any positive economic benefits. 

Soooo…Bruce, let’s see how would that work?  Your “good idea”  jobs program is likely to fill up Medicaid rolls at the same time you slash away at Medicaid benefits. Looks like your “new direction” for Vermont might be circular.

So go for it Bruce. A little havoc — kind of like your era on Wall Street circa 2008. No worries for a one-percenter as long he keeps his state’s budget capped at 2% growth?

Phil Scott swims with the GOP

local/regional, National, Uncategorized, , ,

Last November Phil Scott was reported to support the growing call for stopping planned Syrian refugee immigration. Shortly thereafter he had to clarify his position to say that he had meant “pause.” Scott’s awkward swing at the anti-immigration issue didn’t look too good for a first-time gubernatorial candidate.

Not that he was the only state executive to weigh in. In the panic and unease following the early-winter terrorist attack in Paris, amid reports and rumors of a connection to the Syrian conflict, the Republican governors of Maine and Massachusetts and others said they would halt efforts to relocate Syrian refugees to their states.

Phil Scott and Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman both expressed a similar desire to hold off allowing Syrian resettlement in Vermont. Both were rebuked by supporters of allowing vetted war refugee immigrants to come to Vermont. Among the critics was Governor Shumlin, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Sue Minter and Matt Dunne, who said Scott and Lisman were “playing to our worst fears.”

Scott responded, saying in part “[…] I probably should have gone a little further to explain that I don’t understand the situation and I certainly don’t feel like we can pause or stop the refugee program in its entirety,” and from there proceeded to backtrack.

In very short order, Scott also suggested his position had been “misinterpreted” (VPR published the transcript of the interview), and found himself clarifying that he didn’t understand the refugee vetting process, was worried about security and wanted a “pause” not a “ stop.” He even helpfully added that “pause” meant “to stop, take a breath, explain the process and then resume.”

Belatedly he arranged for Vermont Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn to “get a couple of people together to explain it [security vetting process] to me.”

I say he backtracked, but looking back to last November it appears more like he just squiggled around awkwardly after sticking his neck out a bit and luckily for him finessed the issue –down the memory hole — away in a few news cycles.

So what might cause the normally cautious Lt. Governor to uncharacteristically speak out against I mean, come out in favor of a “pause” on war refugee immigration to Vermont? In this particular bit of clumsy international-state policy pronouncement, he may have spent down a little of the Phil-Scott-is-a-great-guy credit he accumulated with Democratic crossover voters.

It should now be obvious that while Phil Scott and Donald J. Trump are very different politicians, they both belong to the same Republican Party.

And since national polls show Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to say that some religions’ teachings promote violence, there is broad support in the party for these views.

In a survey conducted in January, Pew found that 65 percent of Republicans or those who lean Republican want to hear blunt talk about Islam, even if it includes blanket statements about the faith, while 29 percent prefer that politicians be careful not to criticize the faith as a whole.

Only 22 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democratic want politicians to use sweeping statements to criticize Islam, while 70 percent prefer more nuanced approaches.

So Donald J. can go around the country yowling “I think Islam hates us.” and find himself soaring in the polls. Vermonter Phil Scott hasn’t done that, but given Trump’s primary victory here, you can make the case that even in Vermont Scott is now swimming in the same fetid pool of GOP voters. And to win the governorship he must appeal to those Trump voters.

Multiple choice: Snyder, Lisman or Scott

Business, local/regional, ,

Okay time for a pop quiz:

Who said the following?“It is time for a new model.  It is time for customer service government.  The role of government is to treat you, the citizen, as the customer and look at life through your eyes and say ‘How can we help you succeed and how can we get out of your way.’”

A.) Bruce Lisman (R, Wall Street)  wsi 1

B.) Rollo Tamasi

C.) Gov. Rick Snyder (R, MN)

D.) Lt. Gov. Phil Scott (R, VT)

E.) none of the above

Answer:  C.)

It is Snyder’s governing philosophy as he explained when he first became Michigan governor. He also issued assurances that  radical streamlining of regulations aka ‘getting government out of the way’ wouldn’t be detrimental to the health and safety of the public or to the environment.

The city of Flint Michigan’s lead tainted drinking water, caused in part by Snyder’s administration, probably was in the back of many people’s mind when reports surfaced that we are having a toxic water crisis right here in Vermont. It is much smaller scale but just as bad for those affected.

We are already seeing how our state agencies and government officials will cope with the short term issues-supplying drinking water, testing wells, etc. In the long run an examination of how the contamination was allowed to happen and future regulatory policy corrections will likely be explored by the next governor we elect.

It is probably worth noting that both Vermont Republican primary candidates for governor are expressing strategies for governing eerily similar  to Snyder’s.

In fact Lisman’s recent editorial about what he calls the “valued customer citizen” could have been cribbed directly from the Michigan Governor’s remarks. “First, I’d ask you to re-imagine our state’s government – one that treats its constituents as valued customers and sees employers as strategic partners,” said Lisman.

And  like Lisman, Lt. Governor Scott has a vivid imagination. “Imagine if we had a governor’s office that treated every sector in the same way,” he says. But all sectors are not the same.

Financial sector regulations are designed to guard against poisoning the economic wellbeing of the state. However, in a different sector, say the chemical industry, unique rules must prevent poisoning people, water, and the economy. There was plenty of bailing out done but there was no need to distribute bottled water during the credit default swap crisis.

And speaking of the chemical industry: Lt. Gov. Scott had a chance to practice the industry-friendly philosophy he preaches when he cast a rare tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That 2015 vote probably pleased the chemical industry. His “Yes” vote killed a bill that would have strengthened recently enacted regulations (Act 188) controlling toxic chemicals used in children’s toys.

Scott opposed the changes, so as not to ‘create uncertainty’ for the industry, and suggested the existing weaker regulations should be “given a chance” so we could “see what happens.” It is worth stressing his choice was between strengthening the existing rules governing “chemicals of high concern to children” in toys or keep the law in its present form, which is considered weaker.

Hard to know exactly what form governor Lisman or governor Scott’s re-imagined government might take, but a quick glimpse at the havoc wrought from Snyder’s Flint-style customer service gives a frightening preview of the experiment.

Re-imagine that.

Finding a Governor in the VPR Tea Leaves

local/regional, , , ,

2016: the year of surprises. Donald Trump sweeping to victory in Nevada and South Carolina this week has every pundit in the game eating crow. Bernie’s huge win in New Hampshire was unthinkable a few months back. That said, we’re going to have to wait a while longer to be surprised when it comes to the Vermont governor’s race.

The VPR poll didn’t say anything shocking on the subject of who will occupy Vermont’s top office next year. First of all- Vermonters aren’t paying attention yet, and that’s good news for the Democrats. Fully 2/3 of Vermonters are either not following the race closely or not following it at all.

It’s no surprise that Lt. Governor Phil Scott polls well. He is the only candidate in the race who occupies statewide office. He has the best name recognition. The casual reader might say that it looks like he has a huge lead. Only one-third of respondents said they could tell whom they favored in the Governor’s race so far. So, you can throw out the question that tries to stack all of the four candidates against each other. Democrats and Independents aren’t yet ready to say which candidate they support.

Republicans are clear about their choice for Governor. Phil Scott is the solid favorite on the Republican side. Bruce Lisman couldn’t hit double digits no matter how the question was asked. After all of the time, effort and (of course) money that Bruce Lisman put into Campaign for Vermont and his race the VPR poll must be a big disappointment.

Matt Dunne has a solid lead against Sue Minter across regions and demographics. Still, those who are not sure who to vote for make up the majority of Democrats, so it’s still anyone’s game. A friend reminded me today that Brian Dubie had a 20 point lead all summer long in 2010 as the Democrats were battling it out. Dubie’s poll numbers dropped quickly once the race was head-to-head.

My money says that Scott’s numbers will dive like Brian Dubie’s if one of the Democrats surges and becomes the presumptive nominee, and will definitely do so once the primary happens. August is a long way away at this point though, and a lot can happen in six months.

If Donald Trump or another wild candidate like Senator Ted Cruz wins the Republican nomination it won’t help Lt. Governor Scott’s chances of winning in November. While the conventional wisdom says Scott will be our next Governor, I think 2016 is the year of the unconventional.

Matt Dunne must be looking at this poll and seeing the opportunity. He has the early advantage among Democrats and if he can introduce himself to the 2/3 of Vermonters who aren’t paying much attention yet he may be able to do the unbelievable and beat Phil Scott in November.

Bruce Lisman’s Vermont: Re-imagine valued customers…

local/regional, ,

In his latest opinion piece in VtDigger.com, Bruce Lisman the multi-millionaire candidate running in the Republican gubernatorial primary says: “It’s time to dare to be great!”

His top priority if elected would be: “First, I’d ask you to re-imagine our state’s government – one that treats its constituents as valued customers and sees employers as strategic partners.”

Well yes sir, Bruce! Re-imagine – Constituents as valued customers ! Whoa, that’s a  catch phrase for voters to rally round.

The problem with this suggestion is the role of constituents (citizens) and customers are different. On a government service level citizens experience interactions that are similar but not the same as those a customer might experience. Briefly a customer in the market place has the opportunity to choose what, where and when to buy. And a citizen using government services can’t exactly shop around for the best price on something. You can’t shop around for the best deal on your truck registration. The state of Vermont has a total monopoly on that one. And unlike a customer/seller relationship ,citizenship comes with collective obligations for the common good.

The retired Wall Street banker might just be listening to the call of his own imagined greatness propelling him forward.

Perhaps he hears echoes of Abraham Lincoln’s moving 1862 address to Congress “Fellow customers, we cannot escape history… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

Aristotlecustomer 1

However Bruce Lisman might give consideration to the ancient philosopher Aristotle’s words of caution : “It is not always the same thing to be a good customer and a good citizen.”

Ducking Donald but Phil Scott might like a little Cruz

Uncategorized, , , ,

Yesterday many Republicans expressed shock — shock! — at Donald Trump’s call for a total and “[…] complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” With this latest outrage  some prominent Republicans repudiated the remarks, among them candidate Jeb Bush went so far as to call Trump “unhinged.”

Such repudiations are long overdue but perhaps a bit odd given Bush’s own near unhinged call, made after the Paris attacks, to screen out all Mideast refugees coming to the US who are not Christians.

But a Republican strategist recommends candidates stake out  Trump turf. In September a Republican memo on how to deal with Trump and his supporters suggested the following strategy “Trump will continue to advance those messages, but you don’t have to go along with his more extreme positioning,” [NRSC head Ward] Baker writes. “Instead, you should stake out turf in the same issue zone and offer your own ideas.”

CruztrumpTed Cruz has his own idea in that issue zone and it may please Vermont’s own Phil Scott. Earlier, along with Scott, Bruce Lisman suggested a ban on allowing Syrian refugees into Vermont and both expressed worries about the thoroughness of the Federal vetting process for immigrants fleeing war zones. A gaggle of Republican governors expressed similar fear, all using almost identical language. Phil Scott was briefed by security officials and he claimed to be reassured for now.

But Ted Cruz‘s Trump-light legislation seems designed with these exaggerated fears in mind. Cruz wants to allow governors to refuse to participate in resettlement programs if they, “[…] conclude that the federal government has not done a sufficient job ensuring that the safety and security of the citizens of the state will be protected.” Cruz’s position might please Scott if he once again questions security.

For now Scott firmly twittered his criticism of Trump’s latest remark but he seems basically aligned with Cruz’s legislation. This is the Trump/Cruz issue zone, a dark-alley, Constituion-free twilight zone that Scott and Lisman have already peeked into. Would Phil Scott want the Cruz legislation to use as governor?

And more tellingly, would Scott admit it if he did, or just ride Cruz’s coattails on legislation that recalls some of the worst excesses of right wing fanatics?

Syrian Refugees and Scar(e)city

International, local/regional, , , , ,

I’ve had occasion to spend some time driving around the state for work and I’ve been listening to reports on VPR about Syrian refugees- and our politicians responding to the situation. It’s been a divisive issue, with a few leaders stepping up to welcome refugees- like Governor Shumlin and President Obama– and a few leaders fanning the flames of fear- like Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Bobby Jindhal, and our own Vermont Republican gubernatorial candidates.

The UN estimates there are over 4 million refugees from the civil war in Syria. Most of them are in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. In recent months tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have left crowded camps in the region and struck out for Europe- often paying smugglers to guide them on dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean. Many have died just trying to make the trip.

So what is our response? Many politicians have engaged in disgusting pandering and fear-mongering- including gubernatorial candidates Bruce Lisman and Lt. Governor Phil Scott. I applaud Gov. Shumlin for his leadership on this issue, and I was glad to see Matt Dunne making a strong statement of support for Vermont hosting Syrian refugees.

“I would have hoped that Phil [Scott] would be someone who would not just fall in line with the right-wing Republicans in Congress.”- Matt Dunne

President Obama has been making the case for welcoming Syrian refugees to the United States, but he was defied by 47 Democrats in the House who sided with Republicans in an effort to halt refugee resettlement in the wake of the attacks in Paris last week. It turns out the “Syrian” in the group of attackers probably wasn’t Syrian at all and was in the possession of a forged passport.

Over the last few weeks in my church, our pastor has been talking about moving out of an attitude of Scar(e)city into an attitude of Abundance. Is it good for us to protect what we have at the expense of our neighbors? Are we really willing to reject our obligations to other human beings when we have been blessed with so much? I can’t imagine that our free society, with all of its diversity, could be diminished by including a few thousand people who are fleeing a war-ravaged land. With all of the abundance in the United States of America, and here in Vermont, can we really turn away these refugees with a clear conscience?

My answer is emphatically no. We’ll all benefit from having open doors and open hearts in a world that has seen so much violence. If we turn our backs on Syrian refugees, like we did so many Jewish refugees fleeing the rise of the Third Reich in the late 1930s, we sacrifice all of the moral high ground and good will that we so often claim in the world.

I hope compassion wins out, and that we do take in a good number of Syrians who want safety and freedom and have had to wait, fight and sometimes die to have a chance to get it. We have so much to be thankful for in America, and in Vermont. How dare we pretend to live in a world of scarcity when our freedom, compassion and opportunities are so abundant?

Interlude

local/regional, ,

We interrupt this brief sabbatical to say a word or two about today’s announcement that perennial GMD amusement, Bruce Lisman will enter the governor’s race as a…(drum-roll please)…REPUBLICAN!

Yes, Mr. Non-Partisan has finally traded his dog-whistle for a bright red soapbox; surprising no one.

We all knew what his tepid speechifying was leading to; ‘when’ was the only question.

Phil Scott’s presumed lock on the Republican nomination not withstanding, 2016 is really the best opportunity that Mr. Lisman will have to enter the arena, in the foreseeable future.

And what about that lock by the Lieutenant Governor? Could Lisman sense that Franklin County bad-boy Senator Norm McAllister’s refusal to go gracefully has party regulars up for a bruising in 2016?

As a political newcomer, Lisman can present himself as the clean-slate Republicans should flock to in the wake of Phil Scott’s demonstrated lack of leadership over the McAllister affair.  (No pun intended.)

In a year when Trump-fueled crazy has taken a decidedly anti-Wall Street turn in the Republican Party, it would not seem beneficial to have as one’s primary credentials, executive service at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Global Equities; but I never could understand how the Republican denial factory works, anyway.

Republicans should have an interesting 2016, as Lisman squares off with Scott and the Franklin County GOP is forced to face their own inaction with regard to McAllister and all of the social hypocrisy that is involved.

Make no mistake about it, even though the citizen-led effort to unseat McAllister has so far been deliberately non-partisan in tone; come campaign time, the gloves are off!

Republicans have had ample time since the end of April to put their house in order.