(Er… Bunched Knicker Syndrome)

Crossover Week has come and gone at the State House, but supporters of a bill that would allow child-care workers to unionize are still pushing their case. And still pushing a bit too hard for the tender sensibilities of John Campbell, President Pro Tem of the State Senate. He’s been blocking the bill throughout the current session because he thinks its backers are overly aggressive.

The latest, according to Terri Hallenbeck on the Freeps’ politics blog, vtBuzz:

Union activists are still pressuring Campbell for a vote on a bill that would allow child-care workers to unionize and be a player in negotiating child-care subsidies that parents receive from the state.

Andrew Tripp, executive director of the Vermont American Federation of Teachers, was quoted Saturday in the Times Argus linking Campbell to Scott Walker, the anti-union governor of Wisconsin.
”That’s an attitude that puts him more in line with what we have in Wisconsin with the Scott Walker administration,” Tripp said.

Ruh-roh.  

Well, that little remark put another twist in Campbell’s shorts.

Campbell fired back Tuesday: “Andy Tripp should do more research before he says things like that and realize that strong-arm tactics, intimidation and misrepresentation is not acceptable in Vermont,” he said. Campbell noted that he was the sponsor of a resolution supporting workers in Wisconsin in their fight against Walker.

Oh, that’s impressive. A resolution! Puts one in mind of Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling:

Interviewer: How long ago did you start this venture?

ASG: Tricky to say. Certainly within living memory. It was shortly after World War Two. Do you remember that? Absolutely ghastly business. I was against the whole thing!

Interviewer: I think we all were.

ASG: Yes, well, I wrote a letter.

As has been said before in these pages, the unions have been more aggressive in their lobbying than they perhaps should have been — at least by Vermont’s prickly standards. But for Campbell to get so bothered that he derails a good bill… well, that’s poor politics and poor leadership. And lest you think I’m exaggerating about Campbell’s reasoning, he said so himself to Vermont Digger in early February:

“The reason why I believe this bill does not have the right to go forward is the tactics used to intimidate myself and this body are so against what good clean government is about, I think it would be rewarding bad behavior,” Campbell said.

The “tactics used to intimidate myself and this body” (note who comes first on that list) consisted of a union chief showing Campbell a list of union donations to Democratic Senators and implying it was time for a quid pro quo. And his idea of “strong-arm tactics” is an easily misconstrued quote from another union official. Heaven forbid he should ever be subject to actual intimidation or strong-arming; that’d be a rude shock for someone who’s apparently well insulated from the rougher edges of life.  

You know what I think? If the Senate fails to take action on this bill, then they are rewarding John Campbell’s bad behavior.

The University of Vermont has heard and rejected protests from two faculty groups over the broadcast of UVM sports on WVMT-AM, the Burlington home of Rush Limbaugh. The Faculty Senate and Faculty Women’s Caucus had asked Interim President John Bramley to break UVM’s contract with the station and seek another broadcast outlet. In his response, Bramley made a fundamentally spurious argument.

“We are a university and believe that the protection of free speech, however controversial or offensive, is important,” Bramley wrote.

“Indeed free speech and the right to express controversial ideas is the very basis of the tenure enjoyed by many of the faculty who are making the proposal,” Bramley wrote.

Free speech is a foundational principle of our society and of academia. But free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Rush Limbaugh has a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but he has no right to be broadcast on WVMT in Burlington. Nor does he have a right to be associated with University of Vermont sports.

No more than Ben Stein had a constitutional right to be UVM’s commencement speaker.  

After the jump: One simple step John Bramley could take RIGHT NOW.

Bramley’s argument is wrong. UVM is not supporting the free speech rights of Limbaugh or anyone else. The UVM deal takes money away from WVMT, which arguably weakens Limbaugh’s platform. The only way UVM is fostering Limbaugh’s freedom to be a misogynist is by associating itself with Limbaugh’s broadcast outlet, thus lending him a bit of second-hand credibility.

There are better arguments Bramley could have made. “We can’t break the contract” is an old stand-by, tough to argue with. “Lack of suitable alternatives” would carry quite a bit of weight; WVMT is the primary talk station in the Burlington market. Many popular stations wouldn’t want to disrupt their schedules to carry sports broadcasts that probably don’t draw much of an audience. Any stations willing to carry UVM sports might have marginal signals, or might not be willing to match WVMT’s price.

But those are practical arguments, not high-minded academic ones. The appeal to free speech sounds more Presidential. It just happens to be false.

If Bramley is unwilling to end the association with Limbaugh’s enabler, he should definitely ask WVMT to avoid airing promos for UVM sports during Limbaugh’s program. This is a simple thing to ask. And it would at least remove any direct, obvious tie between UVM and Limbaugh. Here in central Vermont, WSNO has been carrying delightfully few paid advertisements during Limbaugh, and filling the time with station promos — for other programs, and for WSNO sportscasts.

If the same thing is happening on WVMT, they may be airing a lot of UVM promos during Limbaugh. That would be bad for UVM’s image, and Bramley should take steps to prevent it.

One other thing he should do: get himself one of those pocket Constitutions, and read the frickin’ First Amendment.  

Recent events on GMD have lead us to believe that it’s time once again to remind all users of our terms of use, which are laid out in detail under “The GMD Team.”  After clicking on the tab, follow the link at the bottom of the list of admins to the bio page. The rules appear at the end of that page.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, everybody back in the pool!

As the Messenger doesn’t share its “Letters” online, suffice it to say this was my response not only to a letter from Mr. January that appeared in the March 19 paper, but also to the full page ad that Entergy ran in the Messenger last week and Emerson Lynn’s editorial on the subject that is referenced by Mr. January.

Richard January, who blames the state for its efforts to close Vermont Yankee when the original 40-year operating license expires Thursday, failed to disclose in his Letter to the Editor, that he is the Senior Lead Engineer at the facility.

Unlike Mr. January, I have no professional ties either to the industry or to the legislature; so I am free to visit the “elephant in the room” which the State is not even allowed to acknowledge.  I refer, of course, to the fact that continued  operation of Vermont Yankee is simply unsafe.

The facility operates precisely the same reactor design as that of Fukushima 1;  but rather than reserve judgment about Vermont Yankee’s safety until after some of the questions raised by the Fukushima failures could be answered, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission went ahead and rubber-stamped Vermont Yankee’s permit to operate within two days after the Japanese disaster.  They didn’t even bother to inspect Vermont Yankee before issuing a new operating license.

I’m not going to waste a lot of time and space here explaining all the design flaws that figured into the chain of accident at Fukushima.  That information is readily available at a growing number of reputable sites on the internet.  It is only necessary to say that most of those design flaws were known both to TEPCO and the NRC for over thirty years, which is why GE BWR Mark 1 reactors have been eliminated as a design option for new reactors since then.

Completely apart from the flawed designs, there is the fact of Entergy’s lack of transparency and mismanagement of countless condition issues at the geriatric facility, which would not have been tolerated in a properly functioning regulatory environment.

In light of all this, Senator Sanders and others are now challenging the NRC to justify its decision to ignore common sense following Fukushima, when it blithely issued the new license without any review or reassessment.

It’s high-time that the agency, so long engaged in promoting rather than effectively regulating the industry, is challenged on its exclusive purview over reactor safety.  It’s time to fire the fox who’s been guarding the henhouse. But that doesn’t help Vermont, which is facing an uncertain future in the shadow of a dangerous relic at Vermont Yankee.

All the economic arguments for continued operation of Vermont Yankee fail on close examination, and the frequently repeated myth that it represents 600 Vermont jobs is simply untrue.  More than half that number are not even resident in Vermont; and the state is already proving that it does not need to buy power from VY in order to enjoy one of the better economic recoveries in the nation.

It seems, in a world increasingly opposed to the heavily subsidized, environmentally unsustainable role of nuclear energy,  it is a spectacularly poor public relations decision on the part of Entergy to continue to operate Vermont Yankee in defiance of the duly elected state legislature, the governor; and now, the Public Service Board.  To do so is to operate in defiance of the people of Vermont, and risks turning half-a-million former rate-payers into a giant anti-nuclear lobby and an embarrassment to the industry as a whole.

It is the last desperate gesture of a company headed for ruin and indifferent to how many lives it puts in jeopardy as it extracts the last bit of profit from a dying facility before abandoning it and its accompanying waste pile as a toxic legacy to our children’s children, into the vanishing point of distant time.

Sue Prent

Awwww. Sad tidings from the Vermont Press Bureau:

We told you last week about a former Douglas staffer considering a run for statewide office. Kevin Dorn now tells us he’s opted against a candidacy of any kind this year.

Dorn had been bruited as a potential Republican challenger to Bernie Sanders. To which we responded with our usual tasteful sarcasm. Hope we didn’t deter Mr. Dorn.

Well, we greeted the news of his possible candidacy with a pheromonal blast of Bonnie Tyler. We mourn his departure with the downbeat echoes of the Flaming Lips:

Tell everyone waiting for Superman

That they should hold on as best they can

He hasn’t dropped them, forgot them, or anything

It’s just too heavy for Superman to lift

Hot on the heels of Monday’s announcement that Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan will challenge incumbent Attorney General Bill Sorrell in the Democratic primary, comes the first open rumbling from another rumored challenger: House Speaker Shap Smith. Both VTDigger and the Burlington Free Press have received the same e-mail from Smith:

“A number of people have encouraged me to run for Attorney General,” Smith wrote in an email Monday evening. “I’m giving it careful consideration, and I will be making a decision soon.”

The Freeps also has Sorrell talking up child pornography as a key issue. This may well be a big problem, but I wonder if (a) it’s really the biggest unmet legal challenge in Vermont, and (b) it isn’t a stereotypical tough-talking chest-pounding sort of issue for an AG candidate.

(Could also lead to interesting debates, since Sorrell differs with the State’s Attorneys on how to tackle the problem. They want more computer experts, he wants more regular staff. Even though he acknowledges a huge backlog of computer forensic work in child-porn investigations.)

And hey, the frequently ethically challenged Vince Illuzzi is still out there, too. Still hasn’t made up his mind.

“I’m still leaning toward running,” Illuzzi said Monday in an interview with the Burlington Free Press. “A number of people have asked me to consider running as an independent.”

I trust that it’s not the same “number of people” talking to both Shap and Vince. That’d be awkward.

From the Brattleboro Reformer’s Facebook Feed:

…A federal judge issued an order late Monday prohibiting Vermont from shutting down Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on March 22, when its state-issued certificate of public good expires.

[…]

On Monday, Murtha issued a follow-up order saying the state can’t try to enforce a closure of the plant over the waste issue until appeals are heard and ruled on by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Maybe if Vermont were to become a corporation, we’d get more respect?

(#1 is, of course, TJ Donovan’s candidacy for Attorney General. See kestrel9000’s diary below.)

State Senator Randy Brock, presumptive Republican nominee for Governor, has announced some key members of his campaign team. They include some well-connected Vermont Republicans, as well as a couple of national political strategists who’ve worked on election victories for some notoriously conservative candidates.

The locals: to no one’s surprise, Darcie Johnston is on the team, leading Brock’s fundraising effort. Johnston is a longtime consultant to Brock; until recently, she headed the anti-health care reform group Vermonters for Health Care Freedom. Oh, and one other nugget: She was the one who goaded the Douglas Administration to try to shut down Karl Hammer’s Vermont Compost operation in 2008:

Vermont Compost’s latest troubles started on March 12, when one of Hammer’s neighbors – Darcie Johnston – complained to Douglas about health hazards she believed were associated with the farm…

An expert from the DEC was dispatched to the scene; her report found no health hazards. But even so, the Administration pursued the case with great vigor. More vigor than it had shown for just about any other environmental issue in the state.  

Other locals on the Brockwagon: Mark Snelling, campaign treasurer. President of Greenleaf Metals, onetime candidate for Lieutenant Governor (didn’t clear the primary), holder of various volunteer posts and a famous name. And Paul Gillies, Montpelier-based attorney, will be the campaign’s legal counsel.

And now I’ll spend some time on the two outsiders. After the jump…  

Brock’s general consultant, lead strategist and pollster is Bob Wickers, California resident and principal in the political consulting firm Dresner Wickers Barber Sanders. The Brock press release touts Wickers’ Vermont ties:

Since 1988, Bob Wickers guided all three of Jim Jeffords’ campaigns for U.S. Senate, Randy Brock’s 2004 race for State Auditor and Mark Snelling’s 2010 campaign for Lt. Governor.

Funny, those names aren’t spotlighted on Wickers’ website. He prefers to trumpet a bunch of hard-right worthies such as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 run for President, Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, and Arizona’s Trent Franks, one of the most conservative members of Congress.

Wickers also helped get Scott Pruitt elected Attorney General of Oklahoma. Pruitt was the only AG who refused to sign onto the government’s settlement with the nation’s five biggest banks over their mortgage lending activities, thus forgoing millions of dollars for Oklahoma mortgage holders simply to make an empty political point. Pruitt is one of the most enthusiastic red-state AGs in the legal battle to overturn President Obama’s health care reform. Thanks, Bob.

The last entry in our rogues’ gallery is media consultant Nick Everhart, Ohio resident and partner in “Strategy Group for Media,” a conservative campaign firm specializing in, yep, media strategy. Its client list include Ohio Governor John Kasich, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Congressmen Todd Akin and Joe Barton, plus Americans for Prosperity, the Family Research Council, and Michele Bachmann’s PAC.

What this says to me is that Brock will eschew whatever is left of the party’s tradition of centrist moderation in favor of a Fox News/Tea Party-style of hard-right conservatism and attack politics. We’ll see how that plays in Vermont.

Unanswered question: Last week, Brock said that his campaign would “rely more on specialists… from outside firms while trying to be lighter on paid staff.” So how much time will these high-powered national consultants actually give to the Brock campaign? Will they be present on the ground in Vermont, or will they be Skype-ing it in?  

Brock promises further additions to his campaign team in the near future, including a campaign coordinator. Which would seem to be the most important position in an effort comprised of pay-for-play consultants. And would seem to be a difficult (if not thankless) job, refereeing arguments between the local and national geniuses and trying to leverage as much time as possible from people who have other commitments.

On the other hand, this crew couldn’t do much worse than, say, Corry Bliss. Or could they?

In Vermont we’re having an early spring and maybe the GOP is working on their own early fall. Even as Romney racks up the delegates he can’t quite dispatch his closest rivals. Chances are slim even less than slim according to pundits but there is talk, lots of talk of a brokered Republican Convention. When asked about this  Fox News' Sarah Palin said

“I wouldn’t be afraid of that” [perhaps seeing it more in terms of her own celebrity career she added] it was “continuation of a process… that would perhaps be very good,”

Onetime RNC chairman Governor Haley Barbour admits that the long undecided primary could “leave scars” but good ol’ Haley knows how to make a little lemonade:

“If it is a convention where we get there with nobody having the vote, [that is] not necessarily all bad.”

Beyond the jump:An energizing train wreck

The Hill.com found some insiders that think it would not be as Mike Huckabee fears “nothing less than a train wreck” but actually energize the party. Some of the speculation is coming from those unaligned with a specific candidate but opposed to Romney. The drama and intrigue of a brokered convention and accompanying battles would energize and mesmerize the broader public they claim. It certainly wouldn’t hurt TV news ratings either.

“Conventions are just hideously boring these days and have become more so, gradually, over the course of my lifetime,” Republican strategist Curt Anderson told The Hill.  A brokered convention, he added, “could make for an actual event that would interest people.”

Keith Appell also held out the possibility that a new candidate could come forward at the convention, presenting themselves as a ‘unity’ choice, capable of bringing together supporters of both Romney and Santorum. Names like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and even Palin herself have been mentioned.

Romney has a good stock of delegates and will gather more this Tuesday but what Democrat isn’t energized at the thought of a brokered Republican convention? It has been a long time since the Republican’s last brokered convention in 1976. Back when Ronald the Reagan battled and lost the nomination to President Gerald “Whip Inflation Now” Ford. Some Republicans may remember President Ford went on to lead his energized party to defeat.  

The good news: Hollywood’s making a movie about our homegrown hero, Captain Richard Phillips (of Somali pirate fame). And what could be a better testament to Phillips, than to have Tom Hanks play him in the movie?

(Okay, maybe George Clooney.)

The bad news: the movie’s “hometown” scenes will be filmed in Sudbury, Massachusetts.

“They thought this area of Sudbury looked a lot like the area in Vermont they’re trying to show,” said town manager Maureen Valente.

And now… for the sordid truth behind this Hollywood perfidy.

While the town may not be an exact replica, locales in the Bay State tend to be cheaper than places like Vermont, said Mary McCormack in the Board of Selectmen’s office.

“It’s much better tax-wise for these companies,” she said.

Quick, to the Ethan Allen Signal! Alert El Jefe General!! Vermont’s Tax Burden Chases Tom Hanks to Taxachusetts!!!!! Dang, if it wasn’t for Governor Shumlin and those tax-happy Democrats, we’d be rubbin’ shoulders with Tom Hanks.  

I can see the bumpersticker now: “Vote Brock! He’ll Bring Matt Damon to Vermont!”