Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.
Before he could do anything else, said the late and legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, a politician had to learn how to count.
Brilliant political strategist though he was, Hizzoner may have missed something. Even before learning how to count, a politician should learn how to talk.
Preferably in English. Using standard pronunciation and at least somewhat grammatically correct. In sentences, those things that have both a subject and a verb and convey meaning and/or information comprehensible to the average listener.
Applying these rigorous standards, only one of the four candidates for governor of Vermont demonstrated the ability to talk during Tuesday evening’s debate on Vermont Public Radio. Only one demonstrated that as governor he would not threaten to embarrass Vermonters every time he approached a microphone.
That one was the fellow who now has the job, Democrat Peter Shumlin, who will keep the job for another two years unless one of those other guys learns how to talk in the next six weeks.
An unlikely prospect.
It isn’t so much that Shumlin won the debate, or that he was articulate, impressive, and in command. Oh, he did win it, and he was all that. But what was most remarkable about the 90-minute forum was not how good he was, but how bad were at least two of the other three, especially his leading opponent, Republican Scott Milne.
The runner-up in the debate, the candidate who could talk at least some of the time, was the Libertarian Party’s Dan Feliciano, who was so much better than Milne that it seems reasonable to wonder whether Feliciano could also be the runner-up on Election Day.
Shumlin seems to be one of those so wondering. The first time he got to ask a question of one of the other candidates, he threw Feliciano a nice, fat, pitch right over the plate, asking him why he had mounted a write-in campaign in the Republican primary.
“I’m a small government guy,” said Feliciano, outlining the four basic planks of his platform: stopping Shumlin’s “single-payer” health care plan; reducing state spending; school choice; protection of the Second Amendment.
As long as he could stick to his talking points – when he was asked questions he was prepared to answer – Feliciano handled himself well. But he mangled some words (“diabety” for “diabetes,”) and he tended to wander off into anecdotes – one about a company needing an environmental permit when it wanted to expand a sound stage, for instance – that he never quite finished.
Besides, if there is a state where voters will react positively to a candidate who wants to convert public education into a voucher system and who thinks climate change “is not that big of an issue,” Vermont is not it. Feliciano appeared to sense that; he toned down his climate position, from denying global warming during an earlier debate in Tunbridge, to merely doubting its importance now. But that’s probably not enough.
Also, saying “we’re lucky we have people who want to live here,” isn’t good politics. Voters want their governor to promote their state, not trash it.
But as blunders go, Feliciano’s paled beside some of Milne’s.
His first question went to Shumlin, asking him about “some sort of an emergency sort of last-minute meeting (after the Tunbridge debate) with Democratic leaders in Windsor County that you attended … I guess to help you sort of regroup after that debate.”
A puzzled Shumlin said there had been no such meeting.
“OK, my bad,” Milne said. “Thank you.”
The political incompetence boggles the mind.
Milne had said he’d heard about the meeting from four different people. So he brought it up in public without checking it out?
Or he did check it out and is convinced that the meeting really did take place but declined to stand up to Shumlin?
What is going on here?
One thing that seems to be going on is that Milne effectively has no staff. His campaign manager recently quit, and Milne said he would not replace him. He has a small staff, including at least one of his grown children, none of whom apparently knows how to check out a rumor, or perhaps none of whom has the gumption to warn the candidate against making a fool of himself.
Later, in answer to a question by Shumlin, Milne criticized the new law requiring food made from genetically modified seeds be labeled as such.
“I think the GMO labeling bill is a good example of a radical, progressive management of a bill by your administration,” Milne said.
“So … you would repeal GMO labeling?” Shumlin shot back
“I didn’t say I’d repeal it,” Milne said. “I’m not even positive I would’ve vetoed the bill if I was in your shoes.”
This candidate is not ready for prime time. And with not much more than six weeks until the election, this is prime time. In theory, there may be time for Milne to improve his debate skills, learn to speak in complete sentences, and sharpen his attacks on Shumlin’s vulnerable spots. The governor does have vulnerable spots, though a listener to Tuesday’s debate would hardly have guessed.
Oh, the fourth candidate, Peter Diamondstone of the Liberty Union Party?
To be gentle, there is in this country an intellectually impressive left-of-left-of center (left, indeed, of Sen. Bernie Sanders) political faction. (Check the online journal “Jacobin”). Peter Diamondstone is not part of it. His presence at the debate merely revives the question of why Vermont’s standard for qualifying as a “major party” is so generous that Liberty Union qualifies.
Meanwhile, Peter Shumlin bestrides Vermont politics like a Colossus. Less because his is colossus – though he is a formidable candidate – than because his opponents are puny by comparison.
