In a way, it wasn't even fair. The future of the entire state of Vermont rested on the shoulders of one 14-yr-old boy.
That's a lotta pressure for a little kid.
Ethan Sonneborn, the Vermont gubernatorial candidate who isn't yet old enough to drive, might be a progressive Democrat, sure, but he was still leaps and bounds ahead of his opponents on the morality chart.
Yesterday's Democrat primary for the Vermont governor candidacy had a short list of laughable candidates:
- A Bernie Sanders staffer (Brenda Siegel)
- A greenie-weenie (James Ehlers)
- A transgender (Christine Hallquist, born a man, now a woman)
- And 14-year-old Ethan (my horse in the race).
Brenda Siegel, the Bernie staffer, is nothing more than your run-of-the-mill Big Government advocate. She supports a $15 an hour minimum wage, "free" everything (college, healthcare, whatever) and she's a huge fan of mass transit (she wants you to stop driving your Ford F150 and start taking the bus, you gas guzzling Nazi).
Meanwhile, James Ehlers, the environmentalist wacko, isn't much different from Brenda, but with more of a focus on over-regulating the fossil fuel industry. Sure, wind, solar and ethanol have proven to be unaffected alternatives to fossil fuels (ethanol is actually bad for the environment) but who cares about the cost of fuel when you can just make the government pay for everything, right?
Next there was Christine Hallquist, the biological man who identifies as a woman. Spoiler alert: Christine won. Congratulations, I guess. The funniest thing about Christine winning isn’t the fact that most people who voted for her probably only did so because of her gender identity (although I’m sure that’s the case for most of the voters). No, the fact that she’s a transgender is trumped by the fact that she was previously an executive with an energy company that uses gas & coal to generate power. Gosh, that sounds like the kinda thing that should have prevented her from winning in a very blue state. Does this mean that being pro-transgender is more important to Vermont Democrats than being anti-fossil fuel? Maybe, or perhaps it just means they didn’t research their candidate thoroughly before voting.
Finally came little Ethan Sonneborn. Strangely, his biggest problem wasn't the fact that he's 14, but instead that he's not radical enough for Vermont Democrats.
Ethan told voters at a candidate forum, "I think Vermonters should take me seriously because I have practical progressive ideas, and I happen to be 14, not the other way around."
Practical ideas? Ethan, you live in Vermont, where the word "practical" is synonymous with "right wing extremism". Vermont progressives aren't interested in reasonable ideas - they want farfetched pipe dreams. They don't just want free college and healthcare, they demand free gender reassignment surgery and unicorn farts that fuel your Prius.
Sure, Ethan might not be old enough to buy a beer (or get a learner's permit), but the Vermont Constitution has no age requirement for political candidates, so he ran on the same ticket as all the other socialists he competed with. I'm not sure if it was intended as an attack on Ethan, but last January Vermont lawmakers tried to pass a bill that would require candidates be registered voters. The bill didn't pass, fortunately for Ethan. Anyway, it doesn't matter because Ethan lost. Like I said, it wasn't a fair competition. He had to compete with a transgender and two socialists, each of which basically amounts to a Vermont voter's wet dream come true.
Sure, Ethan might be a 14-yr-old progressive who knows more about pop culture than he does about state government, but when placed side-by-side with his opponents, Ethan actually kind of seemed like the more reasonable (and "practical") option among his opponents.
Progressives have farfetched ridiculous ideas, but Ethan is 14 - an age group where having farfetched ridiculous ideas doesn't make you a nutjob, he just means you're inexperienced.
As he grew older, he'd probably realize that socialism is theft, and it doesn't work. Or maybe not. Either way, Vermont stood a better chance with a 14-yr-old governor than they did with the other candidates, who are too old and wacky to realize how reckless their policy positions look when written out on paper and presented to "practical" people.
And here's the kicker: the Republican opponent in November is Governor Phil Scott, a centrist, gun-control advocate who also loves the idea of growing government to Brontosaurus-like sizes.
He'll probably win - he's very popular because he's a Republican who acts like a Democrat.
Maybe I'm just being selfish: the idea of the most progressive state in America having a 14-yr-old governor would have made me laugh myself to sleep for the next 2 years (because the term length of the Vermont governor is surprisingly short, which is maybe the only thing I like about that state).
So while my dream of laughing at Vermont's adolescent governor from the comfort of my home here in Texas has faded, it probably won't matter anyway: because whether Vermont voters choose the transgender, the socialist, the greenie-weenie, the little kid, or the gun-control Republican, the outcome will still be the same: a control freak statist candidate who hates liberty.
I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter who the winner is because they're all losers.
God bless Texas.