Oh, looky here: amidst all the excitement around the unveiling of a half-billion-dollar development project in the Northeast Kingdom, a press release from Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont got lost in the shuffle.

Perhaps unsurprising; it was CFV’s first press release since May 1. Indeed, after a supercharged launch of what appeared to be Lisman’s bid for a hostile takeover of Vermont politics through the sheer power of his money, CFV has been largely invisible since the official campaign season began. No new radio ads since April, and only a smattering of public appearances by CFV founder and ex-Wall Street one-percenter Bruce Lisman.

But oh, its press release is a real piece of work, in its single-minded focus on the efforts of lead developer Bill Stenger to create something out of nothing through the muscular application of entrepreneurial drive. Almost entirely absent from CFV’s version of events is any acknowledgment of the public sector’s decisive role in the development. First paragraph:

The Campaign for Vermont Prosperity congratulates Bill Stenger for continuing to convert federal EB-5 immigrant investor program into good construction, aviation and travel and tourism jobs in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the first, last, and only mention of the government’s role in the project. When, in fact, EB-5 is generating 95% of the investment capital for the project. But CFV spins a tale of a brave businessman prevailing in spite of — not because of, but in spite of — the public sector’s single-minded efforts to thwart the workings of the free market.

Think I’m exaggerating?  

Entrepreneurs like Bill are working day and night, and against many forces, to move their communities, and our state, in the right direction. His effort reminds us that clear vision and a focused effort achieves real results.

While it is important to celebrate this exciting new project, it is equally important to acknowledge that there is much more work that must be done, and many reforms that must be made in state policy, to put all of Vermont–and all of Vermont’s families–on a prosperous path.

And more…

Though the effort is substantial, and the results real, we can’t fix these problems through the hard work of people like Bill Stenger alone.

Jesus Christ on a cracker. Even Bill Stenger himself wouldn’t claim that this project was realized “through the hard work of…Bill Stenger alone.” Quite the opposite, in fact; Stenger gave the credit to Senator Patrick Leahy, who worked hard for an extension of EB-5.

Stenger praised Leahy’s efforts in Congress. “It’s his work that has opened this window,” the ski area mogul said. “If it were not for him, this window would not exist.”

The gold-plated balls of Campaign for Vermont, putting out this piece of one-sided garbage in response to a real triumph of cooperation between public and private sectors.

If this is emblematic of Bruce Lisman’s contribution to our political discourse, I would welcome his move to a nice secure tax haven — say, in Florida or the Cayman Islands — where his free-market dogmatism would be a better fit.  

(It’s like an “enthusiasm gap,” only bigger.)

The good folks at Gannett’s Washington bureau (assuming they still qualify for the plural) have gifted us with a little analysis of Vermont’s political contributions to Presidential candidates, drawn from Federal Election Commission reports, and published in the Freeploid on Friday. And the numbers are quite striking.

Vermonters are giving heavily, and the overwhelming share of the money is going to President Obama.

According to the FEC, Vermonters gave $1.6 million in itemized contributions – those amounting to at least $200 – to the Obama campaign. That accounted for 86.1 percent of the $1.9 million that state residents gave to all presidential candidates.

I know this is a notoriously liberal state, but even so, that’s incredibly one-sided.

It’s even more so than in 2008. At the same point in the 2008 campaign, total donations to Obama from Vermont were almost $300,000 less than this year. And Mitt Romney is doing substantially worse in Vermont than John McCain did four years ago. (Romney $153K, McCain $179K.) Given four years of inflation, that’s not good news for Vermont Republicans; they certainly aren’t doing much to enhance their stature on the national stage. Which won’t help them attract the big out-of-state donors they’d need to be financially competitive in state races.

After the jump: our Pundit Laureate weighs in.

  To interpret the numbers, Gannett’s Washington correspondent called on — guess who — Vermont’s Pundit Laureate Eric Davis. He said that a lot of liberal money in Vermont is going to Obama because Vermont “lacks competitive elections this year” while “I think (state residents) see it’s a close presidential race and they know (Obama) needs help from Vermont.”

Funny thing about that: Peter Shumlin’s raising truckloads of cash, which pokes a hole in the Pundit Laureate’s theory. Also, if he was quoted accurately, it’s too bad he overlooked the races for Auditor and Treasurer, which appear to be very competitive. (We really don’t know, because there hasn’t been any recent polling.)  

Y’know, for this entire campaign cycle, conventional wisdom has told us that Republicans would be far more motivated and enthusiastic than Democrats, and that Obama would have trouble getting his base to give money and show up at the polls. In Vermont, at least, he’s got absolutely nothing to worry about. And remember, all these numbers were tabulated before Mitt’s infamous “47%” video came out. That’s when the bottom fell out from under Willard’s campaign.  

George Plumb’s curious choice to attack the VNRC on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary celebration for not protecting the environment enough leaves me completely dumbfounded.

In a letter that has been reproduced on Digger, in the Messenger and who knows where else, Mr. Plumb quotes piecemeal, and takes exception to a sentence from a BFP interview with Elizabeth Courtney, former executive director of the VNRC,

“It is commendable that we’ve found a way to grow our economy while maintaining the health of our environment.”

He somehow manages to interpret this  as a “claim” by the VNRC rather than a positive outlook on Vermont’s better record of environmental stewardship, on balance with growth pressures, than that of any other state.

What he neglects to include is the grave proviso that tempered Ms. Courtney’s statements.

Earlier in the same interview, she plainly states:

“I am no Pollyanna; I do believe we are in big trouble,”

and goes on to express her agreement with Bill McKibben’s characterization of the state of our environment:

“Our almost but not quite finally hopeless predicament.”

Mr. Plumb, who is associated with Vermonters for a Sustainable Population seems to have some sort of personal grudge against the VNRC (or, perhaps Ms. Courtney?)

The remainder of his diatribe focusses on how good Vermont  used to be, rather than providing a practical vision for the future.  Apparently he is angry that the VNRC in its fifty-year history has been unable to stop all unfavorable growth and sprawl in the state rather than curb and redirect some of its momentum.

That would be a tall order, Mr. Plumb; especially for an organization that must depend upon the generosity of like-minded donors to fund all of its efforts.

I write from some experience as a member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth who, for an extended period of nearly twenty years, has relied upon the help of the VNRC to combat a single imposing threat of big box sprawl from the largest Walmart siting in the state.

The VNRC fought this same project twice, all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court; successfully the first time.  Against all reason, they were forced to fight it a second time and finally lost in the Supreme Court.  I can promise you that no effort was spared.

And the St. Albans Walmart struggle represents just a small piece of the overarching work of the VNRC, which tackles land use and water issues all over the state, all the while advocating for effective legislation to enable positive environmental initiatives.

Exactly how many similar battles does Mr. Plumb expect the VNRC to be able to tackle with its extremely limited resources?

To  paraphrase a popular truism, Mr. Plumb:

If you can’t say anything nice about an organization that is doing precisely the work for which you seem to be advocating, you are part of the problem.

When a political campaign is one-sided, there’s a tendency among political journalists to try to make it seem closer than it is. For one thing, it looks unsporting to dump on an obvious loser, and the loser’s party is very likely to accuse you of bias. For another, it can hurt your audience’s interest in your product if the race is, for all practical purposes, over.

So I can understand the impulses that led Paul Heintz, intrepid Seven Days political reporter, to shade things the Republicans’ way in his Friday appearance on VPR’s Vermont Edition. This sort of thing happens a lot.

It’s still not right, but it happens.

And it certainly didn’t do Paul any favors that the interview questions were carefully curated to avoid any appearance of bias — even at the cost of accurately reporting the state of the campaign. Paul was interviewed, if that’s the word for it, by VPR’s Bob Kinzel, who always sounds like he’s reading copy rather than having a conversation. A bit stilted, his delivery is.

The topics were the campaigns for Governor and Treasurer. And if you entered the interview with no previous knowledge, you’d come out of it thinking that Randy Brock can still make a comeback and upset Governor Shumlin, and that Wendy Wilton is a serious threat to unseat Beth Pearce. And you would be lacking some crucial information about Campaign 2012.

After the jump: a somewhat obsessive deconstruction of the interview in question.

A discussion of the most recent gubernatorial debate (on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show) segued into an exchange on the health care issue. There, Heintz fell back on a journalist’s favorite crutch: the false equivalency: “Both candidates are appealing to fear,” he said.

Well, yeah, but Shumlih has “appealed to fear” on one single issue — community rating — while Brock’s health care campaign has been nonstop fearmongering from day one. So I suppose you can say that both sides are doing it, but it’s kind of like having one guy take a penny from a convenience store’s penny dish and a second guy robbing the cashier and saying they both took money from the store.

There followed a series of questions in which Kinzel brought up issues that Brock might use against Shumlin. The unstated truth behind these queries: Brock is trailing badly and needs something — anything — to put a dent in Shumlin’s armor. And then Kinzel asked Heintz:

Let’s say you’re Brock’s campaign manager. Looking at the race right now, what does Randy Brock have to do in the net 5 1/2 weeks to make this a closer race?

Again, the unstated assumption is that Brock’s campaign has been a failure so far. They can assume it, but they’re sure as hell afraid to say it. Heintz’ response:

I think maybe two things. First, I think that he’s really got to put a lot of money into television advertising.

Uh, problem. Brock’s fundraising has been so dismal that he cannot possibly “put a lot of money into television advertising.” He has very little money, especially compared to Shumlin’s massive warchest. This is the single biggest reason why the gubernatorial campaign is effectively over; Brock lacks the resources to stage the kind of ad blitz he needs. That fact goes conveniently unmentioned.

Heintz’ second point:

What he also needs is a more clear message. He seems to be vacillating between a couple of them. One is the philosophical idea that the Shumlin Administration thinks they know better than we do, and he tries to apply this to the utility merger, to wind, to health care, to many things like that. But it’s not an argument you can get into in a sound bite. He’s also worked on an economic message, saying that things just aren’t so good in Vermont right now. It’s a bad place to do business, a bad place to retire, our kids are moving out. And I’m not sure that that message is really resonating either. It provides an opportunity for Shumlin to turn around and be a real optimist.

Sort of true, but missing the real point. Brock has tried a variety of issues — remember the tie-dyed bear? — and none of them has worked. He’s been throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks. But the problem isn’t the lack of clarity; it’s the utter lack of effectiveness. The latter is the cause of the former.

It would also have been nice to note that late September is way too late to be reinventing a campaign or testing out a new theme. But then, we can’t possibly say out loud that Randy Brock is a dead man walking.  

Then it was on to the Treasurer’s race which, according to Kinzel, “seems to be very competitive.” He didn’t offer any evidence for that assertion. Heintz’ take:

This is an interesting one…. The incumbent is actually less politically experienced than the challenger. Wendy Wilton has run for office a number of times, and she is more comfortable with retail politicking than Beth Pierce is.

Ah, The Pol and The Wonk, a storyline borrowed from the Auditor’s race. I would point out that while Wilton has, in fact, run for office a number of times, she has a mixed track record. She served one term in the State Senate and got bounced in her bid for re-election. She then settled into the elective but very low-profile Treasurer’s office in Rutland. Not exactly a sterling resume. And Pearce, although a rookie pol, has certainly held her own in organizing and fundraising. More Heintz:

My feeling about this race is that the Democratic Party thought that this was not going to be a really tough race.  I think their strategy was to keep a low profile throughout the campaign season and expect that if President Obama and Governor Shumlin end up doing quite well in November, that Beth Pearce will benefit from their coattails.

A couple of points. First, I disagree with the assertion that the Dems thought they could sleepwalk through this race. Pearce and the Democratic Party certainly kicked into high gear on fundraising; she’s second only to Governor Shumlin in campaign fundraising among candidates for state office.

Second, this is Heintz’ one and only mention of the coattail effect, and it’s woefully incomplete. The Dems will also benefit from the presence of Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch on the ballot, facing little-known and underfunded Republican challengers. The coattail effect will certainly be strong; it may, in fact, be the dominant factor in the outcome of the election. Back to Heintz:

I think that dynamic has changed in recent weeks, and the reason for that is that this conservative superPAC called Vermonters First has invested heavily in supporting Wendy Wilton’s campaign. And in so doing, I think that they’re tipping the scale a little bit in a race in which most voters don’t really know either candidate.

He certainly has a point there — although, again, he cites no evidence for his impression. But it’s a funny thing; in the Treasurer’s race, he makes a very big deal about the influx of superPAC money changing the dynamic, whereas in the gubernatorial race, the influence of Shumlin’s 4:1 cash advantage goes unmentioned amid a flurry of talk about tactics and issues. So the question: Does money play a big role (Treasurer) or a minimal one (Governor)?

*Also unmentioned: the implications of Vermonters First’s failure to put one single dime behind Brock. Which I can only interpret as a tacit acknowledgment that Randy Brock is beyond help. Otherwise, wouldn’t they rather influence the race for Governor rather than Treasurer?

All in all, it was an inoffensive way to fill ten minutes of airtime. But if the purpose was to inform listeners, it was pretty much a dull failure. Blandness, inoffensiveness, false equivalency, and ignoring the elephant (ahem) in the room: the fact that the VTGOP is  poised for an epic FAIL.

But I guess objective journalists can’t say so, even if it’s the truth.  

Here at GMD, we tend to focus on the bad stuff — poor decisions, controversies, the missteps and foibles of the high and mighty. But it’s also good to take note when things go well. Those of the liberal persuasion believe that government can be effective in solving problems and providing a countermeasure to the jagged edges and wretched excesses of the free-market system. When government actually does those things, it does more for the cause than a year’s worth of GMD snark.  

And this week, we have two prime examples: a crisis averted at the Vermont Veterans Home, and a huge development project that could lift the Northeast Kingdom out of its seemingly-endless doldrums.

First, and the lesser of the two: addressing troubles at the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington, thus ensuring Medicare and Medicaid funding. The Home had faced a September 28 deadline — hey, that’s today! — for cutoff of federal funding. Which would have blown a huge hole in the Home’s budget.

And it would have been a big political black eye for the Shumlin team, right in the middle of a campaign.  

But things got busy behind the scenes, and the Home passed a last-minute inspection. Through the combined efforts of the Home’s staff and administration, the state government, and our Congressional delegation, the crisis was averted two days before the deadline. Make that crises: the governmental, and the political. Board of Trustees President Joseph Crawczyk Jr.:

“I mean, you talk about jubilation. The patients are going crazy. They were our biggest cheerleaders during this whole thing, our resident veterans. They didn’t understand what was going on, why it was going on. They didn’t believe what they heard. I’ll tell you, this is there family and they know it.”

Good government, good politics.

The second, and bigger, is the massive development project in the Northeast Kingdom.  Say what you will about massive developments, but the NEK needs this desperately. A half-billion-dollar investment, a top end of 10,000 new jobs? Seems like a miracle. What it is, is the creative use of government power. VTDigger:

Ninety-five percent of the money will come from the EB-5 Visa program, which enables foreign nationals to invest $500,000 in “targeted employments areas” in exchange for a two-year green card. Each investment must result in 10 jobs.

There’s a slightly greasy feel to the EB-5 program, which allows wealthy foreigners to jump the queue for green cards. But in this case, it’s hard to argue with the results: a massive infusion of growth into our most downtrodden region. Since 95% of the investment capital is coming through EB-5, it seems safe to say that this project would not have happened without the federal program. Lead developer Bill Stenger heaped praise on Sen. Patrick Leahy, who worked hard to win an extension of EB-5.

It’s a wonderful example of the power of government creating opportunity where the free market had failed to deliver. And it’s exactly the kind of thing that can convince working-class conservative voters that, yeah, maybe government can make a positive difference in their lives.

I’ll close with an odd little passage from yesterday’s announcement of the project. The only cautionary note was sounded by the guy you’d think would be the biggest cheerleader: the “King of the Kingdom,” Vince Illuzzi. Freeploid:

He said he had an inkling of what would be said, but had no idea of the scale. Illuzzi admitted to some trepidation.

“Having served in this area for 32 years, we’ve always tried to attract investment income, but I have to admit it’s a bit scary to have $500 million flowing into two counties, and all this construction,” he said. “It almost feels a little overwhelming. Can the area absorb that much change?”

Weird. He ought to be doing cartwheels. Well, maybe I’m just cynical, but do you know what I think? I think two things: First, he was a bit put off because he wasn’t let in on the project beforehand*. And second, Vince has been a big frog in a small pond for a long time, and he doesn’t really want to see the pond get bigger. Might attract more frogs, y’know?

*Political kudos to announcement organizers for not giving a Republican candidate for statewide office a turn in the spotlight. Must have been some interesting backstage moments before the big unveil. I can almost picture Vince banging on a locked door, begging to be let in.

VTDigger had a similar Vince quote with a really strange ending:

State Sen. Vince Illuzzi, R/D-Essex-Orleans, said he found the prospect of the developments “almost overwhelming and a bit scary to have all of this happening essentially at the same time, but it’s a window of opportunity, not only because of EB-5 but because the world economy has all but collapsed.” More investors, he said, are seeking a safe haven in North America.

Huh. i must have missed the total collapse of the world economy. Where does this guy get his financial news? And is this the kind of insight and deep thinking we want in our Auditor?

Illuzzi weirdness aside, yesterday was the best day the NEK has had in a long, longn time. And it was a government program that made it happen. And as I said at the top, effective government is the strongest evidence for the liberal cause.  

Most political candidates put out news releases that can safely be ignored. It’s the usual partisan push/pull, distortions of the opponent’s record and inflations of one’s own.

Doug Hoffer’s are different. There’s usually some substance, some real information, some lessons to be learned. So it’s disappointing when one of his releases is ignored by most of the Vermont political media. This morning, VTDigger finally gave it some coverage*, but nothing from the Freeploid, Vermont Press Bureau, Seven Days**, or VPR.

*But relegated it to the “News Briefs” section, while giving home-page treatment to Wendy Wilton’s baseless bleat about overtime in the Treasurer’s office.

** Well, Paul Heintz sorta-kinda covered it in his politics blog, but in a minimal and rather weird way. More below.

So we’ll shine our little flashlight on it here.

On Tuesday, he put out a bulletin saying that under Tom Salmon, the cost of performance audits has skyrocketed, averaging $158,000 per audit over the last three fiscal years. The methodology was simple enough: Salmon’s office spent $2.4 million for performance auditing, and released 15 performance reports. Divide $2.4 million by 15, you get $158K per. Hoffer’s comment:

Having read the reports and produced similar work on my own in the past, these costs are excessive and raise questions about the management of the Auditor’s budget and staff resources. Vermonters can be assured that as Auditor, I will make certain that we get the most for every dollar of taxpayer money. … The cost of reviewing state programs seems to have gone off the rails.

After the jump: Petulance from Salmon, irrelevance from Illuzzi.

When contacted by VTDigger, Salmon got all pissy. He called it a “classic, not fully informed, Hoffer cheap shot.” He called Hoffer’s figure “not factually correct,” and blasted Hoffer’s “negative” and “sensationalist” campaign tactics. And he said it was “misleading” to calculate an average cost because each audit is a different animal.

Gee, here I thought Doug Hoffer was a dry, dispassionate “numbers guy” who, if anything, is too wonky to be a politician. In other words, Salmon’s rant couldn’t be farther off the mark. And if he really had any political smarts, he’d know that this kind of attack just isn’t going to stick to Doug. In order for an attack to work, it has to align with a person’s perceived shortcomings — like calling Mitt Romney out of touch and uncaring.

And although Salmon claims to be a “numbers guy” himself, VTDigger noted that “Salmon… couldn’t, however, provide concrete figures to back up his assertions.” Furthermore, VTDigger reported,

Salmon estimated that his office had prevented over $6 million in wrongful payments through their performance audits, though they didn’t track the individual savings per audit.

Whaaaa??? Why the hell not? If you don’t track the results, how do you know whether the audit had any lasting impact?

In an e-mail to GMD, Hoffer noted that he asked the Auditor’s office for cost figures on each individual audit, but that Salmon failed to provide that information. GIven the puny results of Salmon’s most recent audit, he might be reluctant to reveal precise figures because they’d be too embarrassing.

Digger contacted Republican candidate Vince Illuzzi for comment:

You can’t sit back and criticize the professional staff at the auditor’s office until you know the size and scope of the performance audit, and what findings came from it.

Ah. Exactly the information that Hoffer sought and that Salmon failed to provide.

Illuzzi also added some soothing words from his own vast experience:

Based on his view from the Senate’s appropriations committee, which oversees the auditor’s office, said Illuzzi, Salmon had admirably managed his office’s performance audits over the last few years.

Hoffer’s response, e-mailed to GMD: :

My intent was not to annoy Mr. Salmon but to demonstrate (again) that I’m willing and able to ask the tough questions about state government including the office I hope to run. In contrast, my opponent assumed everything is fine instead of digging into the facts. He just blindly supported Tom without bothering to even consider the information I presented.

In other words, Illuzzi’s reaction encapsulates the weaknesses he would bring to the job: a lifelong insider’s go-along-to-get-along attitude that everything’s hunky-dory and we’ve always done it this way and please don’t look at the lumps under the rug. Exactly what you DON’T want in an Auditor.

Finally, a rare note of criticism for Paul Heintz. In “Off Message,” the 7D politics blog, he dumped a whole bunch of miscellaneous stuff into a single post. Y’know, clearing out the old inbox. In one paragraph, Heintz took note of Hoffer’s news release, and then concluded with “Alas, nobody picked up the story.” (That was before the VTDigger article was posted.)

Well, geez, Paul. Where do you get off saying that? After all, you yourself are one of the “nobodies” who failed tp pick up the story. Don’t go all Captain Renault on us.  

It’s worth noting when a family we know expands its level of service to the people of Vermont. Cary Brown has just been hired as the new director of the Vermont Women’s Commission.

The Vermont Women’s Commission is a non-partisan state agency dedicated to  countering discrimination against and encouraging opportunities for women and girls.

For those of you who don’t know, Cary Brown is married to our illustrious founder John Odum, who ran and was elected as Montpelier’s City Clerk. Upon his ascension to that exalted post, he turned over the blog to the rest of us, with the addition of jvwalt.  

From the agency’s web page:

“As a second term Commissioner, and as an Advisor to the Commission for many years before that, I know firsthand the powerful work the commission does and the real impact it has had on shaping conversations around women’s and girls’ experiences in the state.  I’m both honored and excited to have been selected for this position,” said Ms. Brown.  “Vermont is rich in individuals and organizations that are making a huge difference in the lives of women and girls, and I look forward to opportunities for new and strengthened partnerships.”

Wow. Congrats to Cary on her new position and to the Brown-Odum family on their service to Montpelier and to Vermont.

As anyone who still subscribes to the Free Press has observed, in its new tabloid format, familiar features have been shifted to accommodate the USA Today brand of journalism-lite.  Bits  of news and opinion appear bundled together under headings like “Innovate”…which is where I found two articles that would have formerly been carried as “Opinion,” now represented in the “Innovate” section as “Creative Corner” and “How We’re Doing.”

Annoying.

The first piece (“Creative Corner”?) asks “Is Vermont politically risky as an emerging market?”  It was written by one Allison Kingsley, an assistant professor of Management at the University of Vermont School of Business.

More about Ms. Allison’s effort later, but first a few words about the only other piece on that page (“How We’re Doing”) penned by a familiar name from the now defunct Vermont Tiger, Assoc. Prof of Economics (also at UVM) Art Woolf.

As usual Mr. Woolf attempts to extrapolate from whatever data happens to be convenient, that Vermont is in a terrible economic state when compared with the rest of the nation.  Except that…it isn’t.

In this particular instance, Mr. Woolf employs a familiar modelling error in order to make his point.  The headline is alarming:

“VT. government employment outpaces other states.”

Accompanied by one of those suspicious bar graphs that attempt to make small differences between quantities look much larger by dramatically increasing the slope per increment,  Mr. Woolf argues (as he has so many times in the past) that  Vermont has too many “government employees”  serving its population, in relation to other states.

As per usual, Mr. Woolf fails to account for both the better outcomes in Vermont than in other states; and for the fact that our small but highly dispersed population immediately requires more teachers to serve that population, and more government service interfaces  for the same reason.

Ms. Kingsley, in her article, keeps insisting that she is “new here” and seems to concede that maybe she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  I agree with her on that score alone, and wonder why the Free Press would represent Ms. Kingsley’s piece as anything other than “Opinion.”

in tandem with Mr. Woolf, Ms. Kingsley seems to make the case that Vermont is bad for business because the public is too invested in their government and regulatory system.  To wit:

Groups with ideological agendas have strongly felt preferences, tend to leverage public pressure effectively, and typically focus on politically salient or “hot” issues. In Vermont, anecdotal evidence suggests that businesses largely confront interest groups distrustful of the private sector and hostile to business interests. Environmentalist and anti-growth groups opposed the Circ-Williston highway proposal that IBM advocated. Walmart battled VNRC and buy-local groups for 18 years in St. Albans. Employee unions fought Fletcher Allen. VPIRG and NEC confronted Vermont Yankee and Entergy.

She suggests that the “problem” with Vermont is the fact that “one party” (may we assume she means the Democrats?) dominates in the statehouse and in the administration…by virtue of the fact that they were elected to do so!  So, perhaps DC-style gridlock would be preferable?

Once again, Ms. Kingsley’s arguments are defied by the facts.

Vermont’s regulatory brakes are generally acknowledged to have spared the state from the worst effects of the collapsing real estate bubble; and current economic indicators suggest that not only is Vermont an attractive place to do business, but incomes are actually rising here at a faster rate than almost anywhere else in the country.

Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin observed about his Republican opponent, Randy Brock in Wednesday’s WDEV radio debate, that he seems not to want to embrace the positive indicators for the state.

Shumlin criticized Brock for ignoring the state’s assets and the many positive signs about the economy. He quipped that Brock seemed to be running to become “pessimist in chief.”

The same could be said for Mr. Woolf and Ms. Kingsley, both of whom seem determined to find fault with an environment which, on the whole, seems to be working rather well.

Looks like Senate President Pro Tem John “H.A.” Campbell is at it again, establishing a purity test for Senatorial candidates and giving David Zuckerman a failing grade.  Deep down in Paul Heintz’ Fair Game column:

Fair Game has learned that the political action committee run by Senate Democrats will support the five other nominated Dems competing for six seats in the state’s most populous Senate district – but not Zuckerman.

Though he wouldn’t specifically address how the PAC would spend its resources, Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell said Zuckerman’s choice to run as a “Progressive/Democrat” – not the other way around – makes him ineligible for financial support.

Oh, good grief. Zuckerman’s grievous offense was that he failed to put “Democrat” first? If he simply reversed the order, he’d qualify for your money pot? Yeah, that’s not at all petty, small-minded, or spiteful. Zuckerman was one of the winners of the DEMOCRATIC primary. Democrats in Chittenden County saw fit to choose him from a crowded field in spite of his  stated intent to run as a P/D, not a D/P.

But H.A. has another rationale for his move:  

…because incumbent Republican Sen. Diane Snelling would likely hold on to one of the county’s six seats, supporting Zuckerman “would be to the detriment” of the five full-fledged Dems in the race.

Now, there’s a real stalwart for you, presuming that one of his party’s nominees is fated to lose. Nice.

Considering how much trouble Campbell seemed to have with the last biennium’s rookie class, I suspect that his real interest is in protecting veteran Senators. Even if they’re Republicans. The last thing he needs is another bomb-tosser like Phil Baruth gumming up the works. Or perhaps even — gasp! — agitating for a change in Senate leadership.

Zuckerman’s response to Heintz was nicely balanced: diplomatic, while still making his point:

“I earned the support of 7200 Democratic primary voters having been clear I was going to run as a Progressive/Democrat,” he says. “I think voters, in general, are tired of the little bickering and were supporting me because I was willing to run with both parties and get down there to work on serious issues.”

Count me as one of those voters tired of the little bickering.  

Hey, look what I got in the mail today! It’s a piece of junk mail from Vermonters First, the conservative superPAC bankrolled by Lenore “Miss Daisy” Broughton, and fronted by Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery.

It starts by reminding me of the freedom-threatening fact of Democratic dominance in state government:

As you know, Democrats currently control the Governor’s office, Treasurer’s office, Attorney General’s office, Secretary of State’s office and hold veto-proof majorities in BOTH chambers of the Legislature*. It’s no wonder they aren’t listening to the needs of average Vermonters. With so much power in the hands of one party, they are free to advance their agenda of more government control and higher taxes without regard for the devastating impact on working Vermonters.

*Addendum: Received a note from Shap Smith, pointing out that the Dems do not, in fact, have a veto-proof majority in the House. The Dems have 94 seats, six short of veto-proof.

Oh, noes! Who shall save us from this plague of big-governmentalism? And, I can’t help but add, who let these dastardly Dems get such a stranglehold on power in the first place? Oh yeah, that would be the feckless VTGOP of the post-Douglas era, a.k.a. The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight, Or Find Any Good Candidates, Or Craft a Platform that Actually Appeals to Voters.

But never mind. The VTGOP remains feckless, not to mention just about flat broke, but our hero the International Man of Mystery is coming to the rescue!  

And, mirabile dictu, this is one piece of political mail that doesn’t include a fundraising pitch. That’s because “Vermonters First” is entirely underwritten by Miss Daisy, and her manservant doesn’t need any of your dirty money. Instead of a pitch,

Enclosed is an absentee ballot request form to make voting easy and convenient. When we stand together and vote for commonsense (sic) in Montpelier, we can pushback (sic) on the policies that hurt families and businesses and start making progress again.

And yes indeed, behind the cover letter is an absentee ballot request form, with my name, address, and town of residence already typed in. I feel just a little tiny bit creeped out by that, but never mind. Moving on, here’s where Vermonters First ties to manufacture its own equivalent of hot-button hellholes like Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago:

The super-majority in Montpelier has a plan that involves a government take-over of your healthcare. That’s right, Montpelier has selected five bureaucratic strangers to decide what coverage you and your family will receive and how you will receive it.

Ah, Montpelier, the fount of all evil. This is, by the way, the same usage employed by Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont; he doesn’t want to identify the Democrats as the bad guys because he’s positioning himself as a nonpartisan, so he uses “Montpelier” as a synonym for Big Bad Government. And here is Tayt Brooks, aping the Lisman nomenclature. Hmm.

As for those “bureaucratic strangers,” I, for one, would prefer them to the private-sector “bureaucratic strangers” who currently control our health care system and decide what coverage I and my family will receive and how I will receive it.

And the program will cost a staggering $5 BILLION paid for in the form of new taxes on all of us. Even though this new program will result in the largest tax increase in Vermont history, NO ONE will tell us how this will be paid for until after the election.

Okay, so he repeats Wendy Wilton’s $5 billion lie. $5 billion is the total cost of all health care in Vermont. The Republicans make it seem like this is a brand-new additional $5 billion on top of everything else, which is demagoguery of the rankest order.

And then, first they assert that this mythical $5 billion will be paid for by new taxes, and then they say that no one knows how it will be paid for. Bit of a contradiction?

Now, we get to the action pitch. Italicized and underlined, just in case your reading comprehension is a little lacking.

That is why we are asking you to return the enclosed absentee ballot request to your Town Clerk today so that together we can stand up to these job-killing, anti-freedom policies and get some commonsense back in Montpelier.

Well, Tayt, I might well take advantage of the absentee ballot request, but I don’t think you’re gonna like how I’ll vote. Methinks your mailing list could use some tightening.

But tell me Tayt, how should I fill out my ballot? You know, to block the job-killing, anti-freedom stuff and restore balance to Montpelier and free candy for everyone?

That’s why I am encouraging you to vote for:

Buddy Barnett for State Senator

Huh? That’s it? One little vote for “Buddy” is going to break the dictatorial rule of “Montpelier” and prevent me from getting a $5 billion tax increase? That Buddy must be quite a guy.

The I.M.O.M. closes the letter with a final exhortation to “bring balance back to the healthcare debate,” followed by Tayt’s alleged signature. Looks more like “Tze Brunch” to me, but what do I know.

And finally, a P.S., just in case the message about one-party rule was just too damn subtle.

P.S. Democrats in Vermont currently control the Governor’s office, Attorney General’s office, Secretary of State’s office and hold veto-proof majorities in BOTH chambers of the Legislature*.

Yeah, I think you said that already.

*And again I point out that the Dems do not have a veto-proof majority in the House. They have 94 seats. It takes 100 to be veto-proof.

They are free to advance their agenda without regard for the devastating impact on working Vermonters. Please return the enclosed absentee ballot request to your Town Clerk today so that together we can stand up to these job-killing, anti-freedom policies and get some commonsense (sic0 back in Montpelier.

Yeah, you already said that too. Y’know, for an organization that wants to bring “balance” back to Vermont politics, its message is remarkably free of the least little hint of what its own viewpoint is, or what policies it would promote. So we’re supposed to restore balance without knowing who wants to be given a seat on the other side of the teeter-totter and what their intentions are?