Poor Mitt. Poor, poor, poor Mitt. He dragged himself all over the Deep South, pretended to like NASCAR and (American) football. He said “Y’all,” choked down some Cheesy Grits, and imperiled his Ferragamos by stomping a cockroach. He said all the ridiculous things his overpaid gaggle of advisers told him to say.

And this is the thanks he gets? Those yokels stick a Whoopie cushion in his club chair?

Do they not know their place?

Do they not realize how fortunate they are that this giant of a man, this financial Colossus, would deign to descend from on high and accept the mantle of Their Leader?

Apparently not.

After the jump: Abrams Tank v. Clown Car. Guess who wins?

Remember me? I’m the guy who wrote, back on January 10, that it was in the bag, it was all over, Mitt was gonna win the nomination. And while he remains the favorite, despite his third-place showings in West and East Yayhoo, it’s looking more and more like the prize won’t be worth winning. And it certainly won’t be worth the price he’s paid — in his own wealth, his dignity and self-respect*, and in the quiet snickering he’ll hear at the country club.

*Yes, I think he’s got those things. He’s just put them in a blind trust for the duration of the campaign.

Well, I’m here to explain why Mitt hasn’t sewn up the nomination. And might actually lose it. In which case, they won’t be snickering down at the club, they’ll be laughing out loud. And come September he’ll open the safe deposit box where he stashed away his dignity, self-respect, and soul, and discover that it’s empty.

I still think I was right on January 10:

The primary race is about to kick into ridiculously high gear. …Which means that Mitt’s big advantages — in money and organization — are about to become decisive.

None of his challengers can come close to equaling Mitt’s machine. They’re each just hoping to slow down the Mittmentum enough to give voters another chance to change their minds. Won’t happen.

I was right, that is, under any reasonable permutation of the process. What I didn’t see was exactly how bad, how awful, how execrable, a candidate Mitt Romney would prove to be. He combines the physical grace of Al Gore, the easy bonhomie of John Kerry, the natural charm of Bob Dole, and the forthright honesty of Richard M. Nixon. His overwhelming political advantages have gone pfffft in a cloud of Thurston Howell gaffes, transparent posturing, and doomed attempts to connect with Real People that stink of blatant condescension.

“You might be shaking the president’s hand,” Mr. Romney told a man in Mobile…

On the other hand, you might be shaking the hand of the biggest schmuck in These United States.

Let’s look at Mitt’s Road to the White House. Or to political ignominy, whichever comes first. He’s been running for President since at least 2006, in spite of his ludicrous denials. He used his own millions to buy a seat in the center of the 2008 race. And while he lost to John McCain, he did cement himself as the Guy Whose Turn It Would Be in 2012.

He continued to spend and fundraise, building a campaign infrastructure that nobody else could match. He used his contacts in the world of the One Percent to build himself a war chest that didn’t rely on his own money. He sailed into 2011 as the clear front-runner.

Then everything broke his way. The two guys who might have contended for the title of “conservative enough to win the nomination but plausibly moderate enough to appeal to the center,” Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, never got out of the starting gate. Others with potential appeal, like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels — there’s a sad commentary on the state of the Grand Old Party, that those mooks qualified as Great White Hopes — stayed out of the fray. Which left Mitt (and his Abrams tank of a campaign) to simply fend off a rotating Clown Car o’ Candidates unworthy of the seediest downmarket sideshow.

Really. Did ever a major-party candidate face such a pathetic field of contenders? Look at the Democrats in 2008, by contrast: not only did you have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but also Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Any of them would have been far more qualified for the presidency than anyone in the GOP Clown Car. Dennis Kucinich was no more ridiculous than Ron Paul, John Edwards no more narcissistic than Newt Gingrich, and Mike Gravel much smarter than Rick Perry.

And Mitt can’t put these guys away. It’s like an all-star baseball team playing the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, and having the series go seven games.

William of Ockham would have something to say about this. And it wouldn’t be flattering to Willard “Mitt” Romney.  

Oh no! The apocalypse is upon us!

Property tax rate likely headed up another penny

My blood pressure cranked as I read those words from the Vermont Press Bureau. Cue the outrage on Common Sense Radio! The spittle-flecked postings on Vermont Tiger! The doom-fueled bleatings of El Jefe General John McClaughry! Fire up Jack Lindley’s mimeograph machine! Those perfidious Democrats, forcing our tax rates ever higher in spite of the broad-based anti-tax fervor of the Green Mountain populace!

Wait, what’s that?

The House last month approved a 1-cent increase in the statewide rate, bringing the figure from 87 cents to 88 cents. But that was before Vermonters headed to town meeting. And the school budgets approved last Tuesday, lawmakers learned today, included much higher increases than legislators had projected.

Oh, so the outraged voters did it to themselves.  

Because state school aid is partly based on local taxation, the voters’ generosity will mean greater demands on the state education fund, and the state property tax will go to 89 cents in order to maintain an acceptable balance in the fund.

How generous were the voters?

Of the 226 [school] budget votes, only seven went down. Districts collectively will spend about 2.9 percent more next year than they did this year. Twenty-two towns have yet to vote on their school budgets, though those districts aren’t large enough to impact the overall spending trajectory.

Very generous indeed. More generous, in fact, than our big-spending Democrat Governor.

Gov. Peter Shumlin had urged districts to hold the line on school spending. Doing so, he said, would allow the state to likewise hold the line on statewide property taxes.

Well, Jeezum Crow. There go two big conservative talking points: the notion that Vermonters are “taxed to death” and are ready to re-form the Green Mountain Boys and wipe out our librul overlords… and the notion that everyone’s sick and tired of our terrible, horrible very bad public schools.

Truth is, most Vermonters are willing to pay taxes for good public services. And, at least in terms of public education, they still think they’re getting a good deal.  

Dick Cheney, one of the brave men who started the Iraq war and helped make the world safe for water-boarding has canceled a speaking engagement in Toronto Canada due to security fears. The April engagement was promoted by a company named Spectre Live Corp.

“He felt that in Canada the risk of violent protest was simply too high,” said Ryan Ruppert, president of promotions company Spectre Live Corp., which had booked Mr. Cheney for an April 24 appearance at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.  

In September, Mr. Cheney was speaking at a private club in Vancouver when protesters massed outside the front door harassing ticket holders and in one instance, choking a security guard. The former vice-president was reportedly held inside the building for more than seven hours as Vancouver Police in riot gear dispersed the demonstrators.  

“God forbid there was ever an emergency,” said Ruppert, noting Cheney’s history of heart problems.

Cheney has said he has no regrets about his embrace of water-boarding and “harsh” interrogation techniques. And after leaving office he said "I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk."



However Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says

“He’s developed angst and almost a protective cover, and now he fears being tried as a war criminal.”

Bigtime.

 If you drive down State St. in Montpelier, in the vicinity of the State House, you will drive by Governor Davis Avenue and then, very shortly, Governor Aiken Avenue. Together they take you toward the entrances at the two ends of the State House.

 What you will not see, either on the maps of our state or on any public building, is a recognition of Governor Phil Hoff.

 The authors of a recent biography of Phil Hoff teach us that “No individual deserves more credit (or in the view of political rivals more blame) for the transformation of Vermont than Philip Hoff.” Nevertheless, they also tell us that Governor Hoff's memory has been neglected, and where other prominent politicians are honored by parks, state buildings, and roads, there is no building or other monument to Hoff's accomplishments.

 Half a century has passed since Phil Hoff was first elected governor, yet we have no physical monument to remind us of his years of service. While on the national stage we have too often been subject to premature idolization, as in the nationwide urge to name things after John Kennedy after his assassination or Ronald Reagan after his death, but Phil Hoff's achievements as governor have stood the test of time.

 It is long overdue to recognize Phil Hoff in the buildings or roads of Vermont.

my fourth fuckin’ tour

well I know how to get

the hell outta here

the guys are gonna say:

shit, why didn’t we

think of that?

well lock and load guys

I’ll leave plenty of civilians

left to go around

Obama’s gonna have to

apologize again

fuck him

he increased the goddamned

tours–what the hell

did he expect?

I’m going home

they gave Rusty Calley

3 years under house arrest

I can do that

too bad people have to die

but war is hell

it’s a sonofabitch

and I wish folks back home

would fuckin’ do something

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Hmmmm. Interesting little development on that vtBuzz posting I mentioned in my previous diary. So far, one comment has been posted beneath it:

Didn’t he get his license suspended years ago?

The author of the comment: Tayt Brooks.

There aren’t too many guys named “Tayt” around these parts, so I’m going to assume that this is the Tayt Brooks who ran Kurt Wright’s campaign for Mayor of Burlington. Who before that was Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party. Who before that held a Cabinet position in the Douglas Administration. Who before that was an undersecretary in Douglas’ cabinet. Who before that was chief lobbyist for the Home Builders’ Association.  

In short: tried and true Republican, well-connected insider.

At a time when Republicans are supposedly urging Illuzzi to run for AG, why is this guy calling attention — albeit with studied innocence — to Illuzzi’s checkered past?

My suspicion, and that’s all it is, no evidence whatsoever: The Republicans would like to see him run for AG so they can be rid of an unreliable Senator with loads of seniority, hoping to replace him with a doctrinaire conservative. My question: Is the Republican Party putting Illuzzi in a lifeboat and trying to convince him it’s a yacht?  

We have a winner! WDEV talk show host Mark Johnson has finally broken the Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash!

Brief recap: Longtime State Senator Vince Illuzzi is considering a run for Attorney General. He has a long and dismal record on legal ethics, having been repeatedly brought to task by the Bar and the Judiciary. His law license was suspended for over four years in the mid-90s, and was very nearly revoked. (See my previous diary for some of the details.)

Illuzzi was a guest on the Mark Johnson Show this morning, and Mark held his feet to the fire pretty thoroughly on his past ethical problems. If you missed it, Mark puts his shows in a podcast archive — usually within 24 hours or so.  

Highlights… after the jump.  

First, Illuzzi confirmed that he’s 75% sure that he’ll run, that he won’t make a final decision until after the Legislative session is over because he doesn’t want his Senate activities perceived as political blah blah blah*, and that he’s pondering whether he’d run as a Republican or Independent.  

*I hate that excuse. It’s flimsy as hell. You can tell when somebody’s planning to run for something; Illuzzi has pursued quite a few high-profile issues of late, that are clearly aimed at raising his profile as a fair-minded independent kind of guy. And our campaign finance laws let these guys get away with it; the initial reporting deadline isn’t until July 1st. In this day and age, that’s laughable. But I digress.

Also note that, although Illuzzi stuck to his 75% estimate, the conversation quickly adopts the future definite tense — “I will,” rather than “I would.” So that 75 is probably a teensy bit low.

After asking about the job Bill Sorrell has done and getting the requisite non-answer (“It’s not about his record, it’s about what I would bring to the position”), Mark launched directly into Illuzzi’s past ethical troubles.

Mark: Is it reasonable to run for AG with all the troubles you had in the 90s? A slew of ethical charges, and having your law license suspended?

Illuzzi: It’s a fair question. The issues placed me in a position — one was we had — The courts had been trying to close the Essex County Courthouse. We passed a law mandating that Essex County cases be tried there. This judge didn’t want to drive up there, so he moved the cases. I pursued the matter; the judiciary disagreed with me, and turned around and filed charges against me. I acknowledge that, from their perspective, I was wrong.

Stop right there. Illuzzi’s history is backwards in a completely self-serving way. As the Supreme Court record clearly states, the ethical case against Illuzzi was filed, and THEN he started pursuing the judge — David Suntag, whose wife Wendy Collins was handling the State Bar’s ethical case against Illuzzi. The Court record states that Illuzzi pursued Suntag because he was mad at Collins.

Mark: There were other problems, too. You directly contacted an insurance company instead of going through its counsel.

Illuzzi: That was an interesting time in the law. A number of attorneys including myself would contact insurance companies, which were not directly parties to the litigation. This was hotly contested, and the Supreme Court ruled against me. I made a mistake and moved on.

Mark: Don’t you think your opponent would raise these questions?

Illuzzi: They will and I’ll answer them. If that’s the focus of the campaign, I’ll lose. But you can’t wash away my 32 years of service in the Legislature. It’s a balance. If people are looking for a reason to vote against me, you’ve given it to them. If they look at my record and experience, they’ll vote for me.

Mark: But can you overcome those ethical questions?

Illuzzi: I have in other aspects of my life. I’ve been the Essex County Attorney since 1998, I’ve had a successful law practice. If folks think all of that is secondary, then I’ll lose. My constituents saw all of this up close —

Mark: But that’s different. You were running for Senate. Now you’re running for the state’s top legal job.

Illuzzi: Well, that’s all I can offer.

Mark: Why would you roll the dice and give up 32 years of seniority? You can’t run for both, can you?

Illuzzi: I could, but I wouldn’t. After 32 years, it’s reasonable to consider using my experience in a different way. My life is a bit overwhelming right now; I have three jobs, and a demanding schedule. As i get older, it’s harder to keep up. I’ve been thinking about cutting back. It makes sense to refocus on one thing.

Interesting bit of news there. So he’s likely giving up his Senate seat because he’s tired of chasing three part-time jobs all over creation. Can’t say I blame him, and it’s a decent explanation for why he’s willing to risk 32 years of seniority on what he himself acknowledges is a real gamble.

There you go. Mark didn’t tackle every aspect of Illuzzi’s ethical record, but I thought he did a very good job of directly confronting the guy. I hope this opens the gates for all Vermont media to directly tackle Vince Illuzzi’s record, and explore whether or not he is fit to occupy the position of the state’s top legal officer.  

Here comes vtBuzz, the Burlington Free Press’ politics blog, to (rightfully) claim credit for first reporting the Illuzzi-for-AG rumor back on 2/27. And advancing the story by accumulating all the recent rumors elsewhere.

And, again, not mentioning Illuzzi’s ethical troubles. Like, for instance, getting his law license suspended and almost losing it permanently.

Since vtBuzz didn’t mention Illuzzi’s past in its 2/27 post either (I hadn’t started my count yet, and forgot to include it when I did), they get two points in our ongoing Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash count. As with the other four mentions of a possible Illuzzi candidacy in Vermont media, the vtBuzz postings were brief. However, you’d think that “almost losing his law license” might be among the first things mentioned if you were reporting on a potential candidate for Attorney General.

After the jump: some ugly facts from the official record.  

Here’s one juicy tidbit from Illuzzi’s decidedly checkered legal career: A reading from Vermont Supreme Court Docket 95-346, in re Vincent Illuzzi.

Respondent and bar counsel stipulated to the following facts and conclusions.  Respondent was admitted to practice law in Vermont in 1979. He is a state senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In 1993, respondent was the subject of professional conduct proceedings that resulted in his suspension from the practice of law.  Respondent has been under suspension since September 1, 1993.  

Okay, got that? It’s 1995, and Illuzzi has been under suspension since 1993.

Until February 1993, respondent had never filed a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.  He then filed three complaints on Senate letterhead against Judge Suntag, during the professional conduct proceedings that resulted in the current suspension. Those proceedings were prosecuted by Judge Suntag’s wife, Wendy Collins, who was bar counsel at that time.  Respondent filed the three complaints with reckless disregard of obvious facts and basic legal principles because he was angry with Attorney Collins and dislikes Judge Suntag.

In case the legalese needs untangling: Attorney Wendy Collins was counsel for the State Bar Association in the probe of Illuzzi’s unethical doings. Her husband was Judge David Suntag. In the midst of Collins’ probe, Illuzzi filed baseless complaints against Suntag because he was mad at Collins. These complaints carried no legal weight, but they certainly carried political weight, coming from an influential State Senator who already had 15 years’ seniority at the time.

Based on the three complaints, respondent stipulated to violations of DR 8-101(A)(2) (lawyer who holds public office shall not use position to influence tribunal to act in favor of himself or client); DR 1-102(A)(5) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); and DR 1-102(A)(7) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law).  The parties jointly recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of eighteen months, effective October 13, 1994.  The Board accepted the stipulation to facts and ethical violations but rejected the recommended sanction.  It recommends that respondent be disbarred.

“Respondent stipulated” is legalese for “Illuzzi admitted his guilt on the record.” Three counts: using his public office to influence court proceedings, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice, and conduct displaying a lack of fitness to practice law.

The State Bar’s Professional Conduct Board recommended that Illuzzi be permanently stripped of his law license. The Supreme Court decided to reduce the penalty to a continued suspension. Illuzzi’s license was reinstated in 1998.

This is the most serious episode in Illuzzi’s legal career, but there are others. Publicly available information can easily be found by a moderately enterprising reporter. (I found this Supreme Court docket in a couple minutes on Google.) These official proceedings reveal Illuzzi as a man with a propensity for ignoring ethical standards and for seeking vengeance on his foes.

I’m not necessarily saying that Vince Illuzzi is unfit to be Attorney General. (Although speaking purely for myself, there’s no way in hell I’d vote for the guy.) What I’m saying — and will keep saying until Vermont media start paying attention — is that there are serious, real, unavoidable questions about Illuzzi’s fitness for the position. These questions must be fully addressed, the sooner the better. They should certainly be fully and publicly explored long before Vince Illuzzi is handed a major-party nomination for Attorney General.  

GMDers are a besieged lot, constantly dealing as we are with injury, heroic medical intervention, financial cataclysm, violent assaults and unpronounceable debilitating illness (you know who you are…). As such, when it’s time to turn over the keys, it depends a lot on who’s conscious and lucid at the moment.

It’s appropriate, then, that the new Publisher is a publishing team made up of my two co-founders (Jack McCullough and kestrel9000) and mataliandy, who is very nearly a co-founder, being that she started participating from a very early moment. This is the crew that will keep the lights on, as well as handle all the stalkers (nah, who am I kidding… they’ll still come after me). It’s a team with expertise in politics, technology, law, online media in two states, radio, and includes current or former Democratic County Chairs from two Vermont counties.

It’s a great team, and added with the other front pagers and contributing editors, they could very well take over the state. Better stay on their good side.

Thanks for the memories, folks. I’m off to renew some dog licenses and take some minutes. No doubt I’ll pop in for snotty comments or Star Trek quotes from time to time.

(I attended this gathering and asked azvox to blog about it, as I knew his knowledge of the campaign was greater than my own.This commonsense approach asks our legislators, in this time of great poverty, to prioritize human needs, focusing on raising revenue to cover those needs rather than slashing budgets. Note May 1 Rally details in “Comments” section. – promoted by Sue Prent)

I joined Senator Sara Kittell and red-shirted members of the Vermont Workers’ Center’s “Put People First” campaign and some of their allies for a chat at Cosmic Bakery in St. Albans on Thursday. The group of about fifteen included advocates on issues like healthcare reform, early educators’ right to collectively bargain with the state, and poverty.

Building on the successful and on-going advocacy of the Workers’ Center on healthcare reform, VWC organizer Matt McGrath laid out the beginnings of a plan for a campaign around a “People’s Budget” for the state of Vermont. While some of the participants voiced concerns over the definition of terms like “equitable” and “just” in the draft documents that were presented, there seemed to be consensus that it would be interesting to talk about a state budget that started with concrete goals about the needs of Vermonters, then built programs and funding sources to fulfill those needs.

In Montpelier it often seems as though we look at last year’s budget every year and then make a small cut here or add a program there in a reactionary way. The idea of a People’s Budget hasn’t coalesced into an actionable set of priorities yet, but it is a shift in paradigm.

“We all know that Vermont spends billions of dollars a year on things like incarcerating people, and paying insurance companies to make big profits,” said one of the activists. “What if we start from the beginning and really look at what we need from the State and then build our budget around that?”

This is a conversation that I hope more of our legislators will join. Senator Kittell, a supporter of early educators right to organize and a long-time advocate for healthcare reform, was supportive of the idea of a People’s Budget. She pointed out that some of the frustration of making a budget in Montpelier has to do with the lack of clear priorities.

If the People’s Budget is to become a reality it will have to set priorities and articulate a set of principles that many people across Vermont can agree on. A budget that genuinely reflects the principles of universality, equality and justice and can win the support of Vermonters beyond activists with red shirts will be a healthy and encouraging example for other states to follow.

Crafting a People’s Budget is a lofty goal, but over a cup of coffee this week a much larger discussion has begun to brew.