If we were judging candidates for governor based solely on their policy positions, former Wall Streeter Bruce Lisman would best his opponent Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. If we were judging these same two candidates based on their accomplishments and business acumen, Lisman’s credentials again rise to the top.
But governing also encompasses the ability to play well with others, to create a sense of common unity and collective purpose, and to be a leader all Vermonters can respect and follow. On that score, Lisman falls far behind Mr. Scott. Furthermore, Lisman’s outlandish attacks on Scott, his exaggerations to make his opponent’s record look worse than it is, and Lisman’s hollow campaign promises that rely more on personal bluster than reality do not reflect the attributes Vermonters seek in a candidate running for governor.
What’s odd is that Lisman’s campaign persona is not what one sees in a one-on-one exchange. Lisman can be charming, straightforward, intelligent, thoughtful and reflective. He studies the issues and knows them well, and he has proposed policies that have a reasonable chance of accomplishing the goals Lisman believes are in the state’s best interest.
His campaign’s attacks on Scott, however, show a different side of the man — or of his decision not to reign in his campaign advisers. That’s a disappointment. We know Lisman as a man who genuinely cares for the welfare of the state and who has good policy ideas in many areas, but he has taken the wrong path to express those objectives and has given the higher ground to Scott, who deserves the party’s nomination.
Angelo S. Lynn