The following is not based on inside sources or secret documents; it’s just me, interpreting current events and connecting a bunch of dots that appear to be related. Take it for what it’s worth.

As lawmakers reconvene in Montpelier, our political media fill themselves with coverage of Governor Shumlin’s Very Big Day and the opening rounds of legislative action. Meanwhile, the real important stuff has been happening elsewhere, without any bright lights, cameras or microphones. What might that be?

The Governor (and other top Dems) carrying out a grand strategy to permanently co-opt the political center, thus marginalizing the Republican Party on the right, and the Progs and liberal Dems on the left. Whether or not there’s an actual deal or just an unspoken accord, it looks like this: Business interests and mainstream conservatives allow Shumlin to pursue single-payer health care, and in return, he steers a centrist course on other issues — keeping a lid on the (small-P) progressive aspirations of the left.

I have a bunch of items to get to, but I’ll start with the unspoken but very obvious dance between Shumlin and our buddy Bruce Lisman. Three unmistakable signs:

1. Shumlin’s apparent 180-degree spinaroonie on ethics reform. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld’s initial report for VPR included the following passage:

Gov. Peter Shumlin voluntarily disclosed the kind of information being sought by Lisman and Gilbert during his first two gubernatorial campaigns. He says he supports the move to make the disclosures mandatory.

“It’s just important for the public to know, when you’re going to be the chief executive of the state or frankly be involved in making laws for a state what assets you have and what conflicts you might have,” the governor said.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think Hirschfeld realized it, but he got something of a scoop there. Until now, Shumlin’s been an opponent of ethics reform, especially in the case of state legislators. (In case the highlighted quote above wasn’t clear enough, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz now reports that Shumlin would require financial disclosure for “all elected officials serving in Montpelier.” Now, let’s spin the clock back to November 2012:

Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, who frequently talks about his commitment to transparency, says the voluntary disclosure system works well for statewide candidates, and it wouldn’t be “fair” to require lawmakers to disclose financial information.

Well maybe that will happen if a retired Wall Streeter and Vermont resident who spoke to the annual meeting of the famously conservative Associated Industries of Vermont has his way. Bruce Lisman maintains that Irene recovery costs must side-track other state policy initiatives. The Irene recovery an “all in” bet (as he calls it) is so big it should preclude what he considers two other “all in” bets, specifically single-payer and investment in renewable energy. Lisman told the AIV …

“…But maybe this is not the moment to introduce two all-in bets [single payer, renewable energy investment] that would freeze, well, people like you [manufacturers, financiers and entrepreneurs], who might make decisions about expanding a business or adding people or thinking about new capacity or new markets. Maybe not this moment.”

Not surprisingly he doesn’t entertain the possibility of even a modest upper income tax increase.

Practically a living mirror opposite of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Lisman sits on the board of National Life Group, is retired chief of JPMorgan’s Global Equity Division and served as Senior Managing Director of the defunct investment bank Bear Stearns, and plans to launch the Campaign for Vermont.

His campaign will champion what he claims are “centrist, down-the-middle, common-sense” policies and focus on prosperity. While no specific policy initiatives were offered it was made clear according to the vtdigger.com article that scrapping both single payer and renewable energy investment are paramount features of the campaign. He brands both efforts “large, profound” and “maybe intrusive in a fashion”.

A recent poll shows a plurality of Vermonters supporting the new health care law. So maybe it isn’t a surprise  his argument found less than enthusiastic support even among business types.

Said one business leader when asked if he agreed with Lisman that Irene’s recovery cost should make it necessary to scrap healthcare reform and stop investment in renewable energy: “Let’s focus on Irene, get ourselves set, but the other issues are critical and important to the state and I don’t think we can ignore them.”

Another attendee took exception to the “all-in bet” can’t-walk-and-chew characterization of the problem: “I don’t know that I agree with that. I think there’s room for small bets in more than one area.”

Looks like Lisman’s Irene-based campaign to scrap healthcare and renewable energy investment aka Campaign for Vermont hasn’t found the moment and is more than half a bubble off-center.