Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cap1691 t1_ivohg2k wrote

Reply to comment by somedudevt in Why Phil Scott again? by rufustphish

First, I don't find her extreme at all. I'd rather have a feisty governor than a conservative play it safe governor. How are we ever going make and realize change if we just cling to the status quo? We need Brenda Siegels to shake things up and make us think. Also, don't you think that she might take a different approach from a sit-in on an issue of concern if she were governor? The position of governor would afford her a strong voice that might not need to resort to activism. On the other hand if, even with that stronger voice, she was still not being heard and she took an activist approach, I would applaud that. We need change in this country and we need our representatives to be willing to stand up, speak out, and take action.

3

somedudevt t1_ivok22t wrote

I am left of Bernie on most issues. But our party is out of touch with the middle of the road. The result is that when we talk about safe injection sites (good science and would save lives generally a good idea) we lose people. The same goes for trans rights (the science says that people have better outcomes when they are treated early and given options) but again society isn’t there yet, so it can’t be a major campaign issue, it has to be an evolve in office issue like gay marriage for Obama. Gun control is another one that we lose on with the middle in Vermont. So while her policies are not terribly radical, people want to see checks and balances on Montpelier and we send the most liberal people to legislate, we elect a governor who is slightly less liberal to hold them accountable. It’s worked for us for years. So I just don’t think anyone beats Scott but Scott…

4

Twombls t1_ivoklbq wrote

Vermont is never going to elect a fiesty governor

3

Cap1691 t1_ivoy1qd wrote

In your opinion. Stranger things have happened...

−1