There’s apparently been another injection of cash into the coffers of Vermonters First, the superPAC headed by former Douglas Administration functionary Tayt Brooks. Presumably, although he ain’t saying, from VF sugar momma Lenore Broughton.

The news, courtesy of busy bee Paul Heintz, is that VF has dumped at least $80K or so into the bulging wallets of Vermont’s broadcasters — particularly WCAX, the station dubbed WGOP by the late great Peter Freyne. Don’t know if it’s a ratings thing, a tribute to Freyne bête noire Marselis Parsons, or a nod to the stewardship of former Douglas Administration functionary Anson Tebbetts, but VF is spending more on Channel 3 than on Channels 5, 22, and 44 combined.

This new buy comes shortly after the end of the mid-September campaign finance reporting deadline; VF’s report showed that it had received $100K from Broughton, and had pretty much spent it all. So now it’s got more money, but we won’t find out how much until mid-October.

And the International Man of Mystery sure as hell isn’t going to spill any beans before then. If his conversion with Heintz is anything to go by, ol’ Tayt seems to enjoy playing secret agent with his superPAC, treating every bit of its business like it’s Top Secret Eyes Only Ultra-Classified Burn After Reading.

(Then again, maybe the I.M.O.M. is just extra testy with Heintz, who is, after all, the man who trapped Brooksie in a blatant lie in the “My Dinner With Randy” affair.)  

Here’s what Heintz gleaned in his most recent chat with I.M.O.M.  

Brooks “would not confirm the total cost of his next two-week [ad] campaign.”  He wouldn’t identify the quantity of new money received, nor would he identify the donor/s. He refused to say whether VF would simply air more of its first three ads: pro-Wooz — er, Wendy Wilton, pro-Vince Illuzzi, and anti-Shummycare — or if it has fresh material up its sleeve.

He also refused to verify the authenticity of a junk-mail solicitation sent under the VF banner this week. Nor would he say if there are other mailings in the works, or how much VF had spent with the Post Office (which truly appreciates the cash).

That’s a hell of a lot of mystery over a little month-old homegrown superPAC. Of course, Our I.M.O.M. must be feeling a bit full of himself these days; after all, he did manage to mine the deep pockets of a wealthy ultraconservative to lift himself out of the political hinterlands and into the heart of the 2012 campaign.

The VF logo, by the way — assuming that the mailing obtained by Heintz is authentic — features a red maple leaf, presumably symbolizing the decline and death of the Green Mountain State under the oppressive Shumlin regime, and the tagline “Restoring Balance.” Which refers to I.M.O.M.’s persistent bleat about liberal dominance of Vermont’s political scene.

I would remind him, as I have done before, that the current “imbalance” is a result of one thing, and one thing only: the Democrats putting forth a more appealing platform and better candidates than the Republicans. Only two years after the seemingly endless Douglas Era, the VTGOP is nearly bankrupt, it has a far-right agenda that’s out of step with Vermont, it’s put forth a spectacularly underwhelming statewide ticket, and it fielded a sadly incomplete roster of hopefuls for the State House and Senate.

If you seek an explanation for the Republican Party’s dire straits, Mr. Brooks, I suggest that you and your colleagues stop whining, remove your blinkers, and take a long hard look in the mirror.  

Look out, kids, Mom’s blowing a gasket.

Ann Romney says fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband need to “stop it” and realize “how lucky” the party is to have Mitt Romney as its nominee.

Hoo boy. During a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday, Ann Romney allowed s to how she’s getting just a little tired of all the carping and whining from the Great Unwashed. Don’t we realize what a blessing it is, that one of the uber-elite has deigned to endow us with his leadership?

She’s particularly teed off at the complaints within conservative ranks.

“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,” she said. “This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.”

Awwww. This is hard! And while some of THEM may be used to long days of manual labor for a pittance, this is not the Romney way.

After the jump: more troubles of the rich and famous.

And the “little people”? They’re no better.

“We call the rope line now the advice line,” she said, laughing,

No gratitude at all. These pig farmers don’t know their place. And finally, a pearl of wisdom from Ann Romney’s lips to God’s ears.

“The real measure of a person is not how much money we make, but how we live our lives,” she said.

Mmm-hmm. A fortune built by plundering other companies and killing jobs. Cayman Islands tax shelters. Mansions galore. “A couple of Cadillacs.” $374,000 is “not a lot” of money. Mansions everywhere. Oversized garage with a car elevator. Seamus on the roof. No tax returns for you!

That’s how the Romneys live their lives. And, so Ann Romney tells us, that’s how they should be measured.  

Okay, I sort of promised I would do this, and I got the guy to send me his pleadings and everything, so here it is.

Brooke, if you're reading, here's the true analysis of your case. And, readers, feel free to just skip it if your head starts to hurt. 

The case name is H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, et al., and it's pending in Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, Docket No. 611-8-12 Wncv. Two of the defendants, the State of Vermont and Jim Condos, have been served. President Obama has still not been served.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

This case is what could be called second-order birtherism. It is based not on the disproven claim that President Obama was not born in the United States, but that he is not a natural born citizen because there is some additional requirement to establish natural born citizenship for purposes of eligibility to be President.

As you know, the Constitution provides that in order to be eligible to be President you must be a “natural born citizen”. This is the only office for which that is a requirement, and “natural born citizen” is nowhere defined in the Constitution.

The claim that Paige makes is that when the Constitution uses the term “natural born citizen” it means “a child born in the country to `citizen' parents”. This is because the term and meaning was invented by Emer de Vattel in his book The Law of Nations, which Paige tells us was in the possession of a number of the members of the Constitutional Convention when they adopted the Constitution.

That's pretty much it. That's the basic claim.

HOLES IN THE THEORY

As you might guess, there are a few holes in this theory.

First off, if the Constitutional Convention had wanted to say what Paige claims, why didn't they just say it, or define “natural born citizen”?  No answer has been given to this fundamental question.

Second, as GMD regular ntoddpax points out in his own blog, Vattel doesn't say what Paige claims he says. Rather, Vattel's definition of natural born citizen is a citizen born in a country whose father is also a citizen of the country.  The citizenship of the mother doesn't enter into it. Thus, not only is this argument inherently bogus, but he even has to make stuff up to make this argument fit. 

Third, as originally written the Constitution contained no definition or criteria for citizenship, vesting in Congress the power to establish “an uniform rule of naturalization”. It was not until after the Civil War, in the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Constitution was amended to provide that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

At least since that time all credible and objective commentators have reasoned that every person born in the United States, having been citizens from birth, are natural born citizens.

Paige's response is that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't change the definition of natural born citizen, and that no statutory or constitutional amendments adopted after the adoption of the Constitution change the original meaning of natural born citizen.

This in itself creates an internal contradiction, because Paige also says in his complaint that subsequent legislation, such as the Naturalization Act of 1790, establish the definition of natural born citizen. (Query: How can a statute establish or create the meaning of a provision of the Constitution?)

Funnily enough, the only use of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the 1790 Act is here:  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens“. The pertinent language, which I have highlighted, is instructive: this language doesn't say anything about persons born in the United States, it just says that someone born outside of the United States to citizen parents is entitled to be considered a natural born citizen. Since it would be absurd to argue that the only persons entitled to be considered natural born citizens are those born outside of the country to citizen parents, the only logical reading of this sentence is that it is a means of conveying natural born citizen status to these people in addition to those who already have it, those born in the United States.

Many cases have applied the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the famous Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Ark. Birthers are fond of arguing that none of these cases, including Wong Kim Ark, establish the definition of “natural born citizen” because none of them had to do with eligibility for President, which is the only application for that status. The problem with this argument is that it is entirely negative: even if it did prove that Wong Kim Ark did not establish the definition of “natural born citizen”, it still provides no evidence that their pet definition is correct.

Fourth (I think that's what I'm up to), not a single court that has reviewed a challenge to President Obama's eligibility, and I think we're up in the neighborhood of 150 cases now,, has ruled in favor of the claim that Paige is making here. Is it possible that all those state and federal judges are wrong and Brooke Paige is right? I suppose anything is possible, but  the odds are pretty heavily stacked against it.

Fifth, President Obama is the seventh President born to at least one non-citizen parent. If he's ineligible then so were  Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Vermont's own Chester Alan Arthur, among others. Granted, maybe we would have been better off without James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover, but wishing won't make it so.

In short, there is no basis in law for the claim that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to serve as president. No court has ever ruled otherwise, and no court ever will. The chance that a Vermont trial court judge, or the Vermont Supreme Court, will rule that he is ineligible is precisely zero. 

 A FEW BIZARRE TIDBITS 

I know this has gone on for some time (you were warned), but I thought I'd just throw out a couple of other things you might have missed.

First, Paige's buddy, consultant, drafter, or whatever you want to call him in this case is notorious New Jersey birther attorney Mario Apuzzo. You can see some of his antics caught on video here.

Second, following Paige/Apuzzo's kitchen sink approach, the complaint sets forth a number of other areas that they think will incline the court in their favor, including a statement that their definition of “natural born citizen” “was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).” Disregarding the misspelling of Justice Daniel's name (no s), it is most striking that anyone would try to bolster his argument by citing one of the most notorious  decisions in Supreme Court history.

I think I've found the language in Daniel's concurrence that Paige is talking about:

From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.

But it has been insisted in argument that the emancipation of a slave, effected either by the direct act and assent of the master or by causes operating in contravention of his will, produces a change in the status or capacities of the slave such as will transform him from a mere subject of property into a being possessing a social, civil, and political equality with a citizen. In other words, will make him a citizen of the State within which he was, previously to his emancipation, a slave.

It is difficult to conceive by what magic the mere surcease or renunciation of an interest in a subject of property, by an individual possessing that interest, can alter the essential character of that property with respect to persons or communities unconnected with such renunciation. Can it be pretended that an individual in any State, by his single act, though voluntarily or designedly performed, yet without the co-operation or warrant of the Government, perhaps in opposition to its policy or its guaranties, can create a citizen of that State? Much more emphatically may it be asked how such a result could be accomplished by means wholly extraneous and entirely foreign to the Government of the State? The argument thus urged must lead to these extraordinary conclusions. It is regarded at once as wholly untenable, and as unsustained by the direct authority or by the analogies of history.

. . .

 That, in the establishment of the several communities now the States of this Union, and in the formation of the Federal Government, the African was not deemed politically a person. He was regarded and owned in every State in the Union as property merely, and as such was not and could not be a party or an actor, much less a peer in any compact or form of government established by the States or the United States. That if, since the adoption of the State Governments, he has been or could have been elevated to the possession of political rights or powers, this result could have been effected by no authority less potent than that of the sovereignty — the State — exerted [p482] to that end, either in the form of legislation or in some other mode of operation. It could certainly never have been accomplished by the will of an individual operating independently of the sovereign power, and even contravening and controlling that power. That, so far as rights and immunities appertaining to citizens have been defined and secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the African race is not and never was recognised either by the language or purposes of the former, and it has been expressly excluded by every act of Congress providing for the creation of citizens by naturalization, these laws, as has already been remarked, being restricted to free white aliens exclusively.

  Finally, birtherism does not seem to be the fringiest of Paige's fringe positions. Other equally wacky, if not more so, positions of his include:  

Tax Reform based on the elimination of Federal Taxation of Wages, the Restoration of the Constitutional Authority of the U.S. Treasury (by devolving the illegal Federal Reserve System back under government control), repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment as the best way to resolve the issue of term limits and the current voilation of the voting rights act of 1963 by our continued selection of U.S. Senators by popular vote – I could continue but you get the point. 

I won't spend much time arguing the point, but the evidence for President Obama's eligibility is so clear, and the support for the claims against him are so clearly spurious, requiring heroic efforts to sustain, that the only reasonable explanation is that birthers are motivated by a view that President Obama embodies a unique and unresolvable otherness that renders him unfit to ever serve as President of this great nation. That otherness, of course, is his race. 

In the middle of each month I, like a migratory bird, find myself drawn the Secretary of State’s office to pick up the latest round of campaign finance reports. And every time, I can’t help but notice that one of the lowest fundraising totals belongs to one Doug Hoffer, Dem/Prog candidate for Auditor. And I ask myself, a little louder each time, why? Especially when I see impressive totals for almost every other Dem.

He’s supremely qualified for the job.  He’s done his duty for the party (parties) by assuming the thankless task of opposing an incumbent last time around. That sort of party service usually counts for a lot. Why are so few folks cutting checks to Hoffer for Auditor?

On deadline day this week, I briefly compared and contrasted Doug with Beth Pearce, appointed incumbent Treasurer. Both are very wonky folks, extremely well qualified. Both have much more experience in their fields of expertise than in politics. Doug, in fact, has a significant leg up on Beth in that department, since he ran a statewide campaign in 2010. Indeed, the big unknown about Beth’s candidacy was whether she’d be able to campaign effectively, since she’d never done it before.

But while Doug’s fundraising has lagged behind almost everyone, Beth has been taking in a truly impressive haul for a first-timer. In fact, she’s raised more money than any non-gubernatorial, non-Congressional candidate of either party — and that includes Bill Sorrell, who had to wage a desperate primary campaign while Beth’s been sailing along with a sizable edge over her Republican challenger Woozy Winks. Er, Wendy Wilton.

So, why are liberal wallets open to Beth, and closed to Doug? Particularly mainstream Democratic wallets, since that’s where most of the liberal money is?

I have a few ideas, and none of them are very flattering to the Democratic establishment.  

— Gold ol’ Vince. Vince Illuzzi’s been around a long time, he’s done some good stuff, so let’s give him a sinecure. This is one of my least favorite things about Vermont: our tendency to value familiarity over talent or qualifications. It’s also a specific weakness of the labor movement; its worst moments have been characterized by cronyism. (And I’m a huge supporter of organized labor, and believe that its decline is one of the root causes of our society’s economic imbalance.)

Vince makes a rather weak argument as to why he’s more qualified than Doug: basically, he’s been around state government for a long time and knows his way around. Well, Doug’s been around too, and he’s done a hell of a lot of fiduciary oversight of state government. Which is precisely what the Auditor is supposed to do. Also, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have an outsider in this particular job than the consummate insider.

Maybe Vince should get a nice plaque or a gold watch, but should we really treat the Auditor’s office as a reward for being a good guy?

— The Progressive taint*. This is a tiresome meme in Vermont Democratic politics. There are some Dems who just can’t stand to support someone who is, or ever was, a Progressive. This year and in 2010, Doug is running as a fusion candidate, but his background is in the Progressive Party; this makes some Dems cool to him, if not overtly hostile. If there’s any truth to this notion, my message is: cut it out. Grow up, get over yourself, and support your party’s candidate.

*No, not “Tayt” — “taint.” Although the confusion would be understandable.

— Doug’s not “nice” enough. With his tough talk and clear vision of fiscal propriety, Doug has rubbed some people the wrong way. To quote Seven Days’ excellent cover story on the Auditor’s race, “Over the years, lawmakers and journalists alike have felt Hoffer’s wrath, especially when they flub the facts.” And while Vince can be a USDA-prime asshole, his outbursts are brief and transitory, while Doug has raised questions about efficiency, propriety, and the job performance of some powerful people.

Which, again, is exactly what I’d like to see in an Auditor. Well, that plus a solidly liberal worldview, which Doug also possesses. Us liberals should be all for making government as efficient as possible, in order to reinforce our political stance that government is capable of doing lots of good things and making a positive difference. An effective and liberal Auditor could be a key player in ensuring that Vermont’s Democratic administration delivers on its political message.

Which brings us to my conspiracy-theory idea…

— Doug would be too good at the job. Or, as UVM political science professor Garrison Nelson told Seven Days: “He could prove to be a real headache to Shumlin.” Especially when the state’s Joint Fiscal Office is now projecting a budget gap of $50-70 million in fiscal year 2014. Recent budgets have been squeezed pretty tight, and finding another big chunk of savings is going to be very difficult. The temptation will be there to cut some corners and fudge some stuff. (Not implying any particular perfidy on Shumlin’s part; when times are tough, many executives rely on some budgetary tricks to get by. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger: his entire tenure as California Governor consisted of a series of financial shell games.)

At a time like that, it might be inconvenient to have a hard-core green-eyeshade guy in the politically independent post of Auditor. So, would the Governor and the Democratic Party just as soon not have to deal with a top-quality numbers guy who’s no respecter of persons? Would they prefer Vince, the political insider who can either be co-opted or dismissed as a Republican crank if he raises a fuss?

I find all of these notions troubling, and I hope they are not true. I would love to hear a better, and more flattering, explanation for Doug’s fundraising troubles. Any Democrats care to offer one?

The city of Burlington is being sued by a group of pro-life demonstrators who believe that the city’s “buffer zone” ordinance is unconstitutional. So reports Seven Days. And the lead attorney who brought the case is one Michael DePrimo of Connecticut.

So who is Michael DePrimo, and why is he bothering with a case in Vermont?

A quick Google search reveals that DePrimo is a staunch far-right Christian, a Special Assistant to Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, one of the most notorious of the extremely political, extremely conservative Christian pressure groups. He used to be the AFA’s chief legal bulldog, until the AFA dissolved its legal team due to lack of funds. In that role, he worked “to use legal means to oppose pornography, obscenity, abortion, and gay marriage.” Since then, he’s pursued the same agenda with funding from other far-right Christian groups and “ministries.”

In case you couldn’t guess, he got his law degree from Pat Robertson’s Regent University.

(For your reading pleasure, try a 2009 op-ed entitled “How gay activists hijacked marriage,” in which, among other things, he yearns for the halcyon days when “homosexual conduct was a felony in all 50 states.” Them was good times.)

(Or maybe this 2004 beaut, “Abortion, Perversion, Apathy: Beginning of America’s End?” which puts us in line for the fate accorded Sodom and Gomorrah.)  

He’s argued legal challenges to buffer-zone laws and ordinances in other states across the country. According to a 2008 piece in the Connecticut Law Tribune, he basically spends his days trolling the online news, searching for potential clients who will give him standing to press his far-right, fundamentalist Christian view of the law and the Constitution. So now he comes to Vermont, bringing his specious legal reasoning to the belly of the Blue State beast.  

( – promoted by BP)

Vermont Public Radio has reported that yet another state trooper has shot – but this time did not kill – an unarmed man suspected of stealing a car, breaking into a building and a school bus, and threatening suicide after announcing he had a bomb and a gun.

“[Suspect William J.] Mahoney then made several overt movements toward the holster, and began to advance on the trooper,” Colonel Tom L’Esperance told reporters at a press conference. “Believing that Mahoney was reaching for a gun inside the holster, the trooper discharged his service weapon five times, striking the male subject once.” […]

Police say the holster turned out to be empty but that Mahoney was carrying CO2 cartridges and they also found a BB handgun in the car that Mahoney allegedly abandoned.

In their defense, the police point to Mahoney’s “extensive criminal record” and say the state Parole Board had been seeking Mahoney’s whereabouts earlier in the day.

Six thoughts: One: Is it safer or more dangerous  for us common folk who might cross paths with the police as unarmed suspects or innocent bystanders that they are such bad shots? I mean, less than the length of a schoolbus?

Two: Is it bravery or stupidity to go inside the otherwise empty schoolbus after a suspect who claims to have an explosive device? Was any thought given to letting the suspect chill out, using negotiation to avoid unnecessary risk of deadly harm to either the trooper or Mahoney? If not, who made that decision?

Three: CO2 cartridges and a BB gun?

CO2 cartridges are used to make carbonated beverages, cool and preserve food, inflate tires, and automate or propel machinery.

Not to mention whipping cream.

Oh yeah, also in deadly paintball, pellet, and BB ‘guns’.

Four: Is this progress, that Mahoney was not killed outright? Were the witnesses (two other troopers, who, btw, rendered first aid and called an ambulance) a factor in that outcome?

Five: So much for the promise by the state police to call a mental health professional in situations where a suspect appears or is known to have mental health issues – which should include any suspect who threatens suicide. According to Col. L’Esperance, “mental health professionals were not summoned  because the situation was dangerous.” Right. Isn’t that the point? To save lives in situations that turn dangerous when mental health issues are affecting behaviors? To slow down the process from “shoot first, get the A.G.’s blessing later” to “ask questions now, let everyone have a chance to come out alive, no shooting necessary”?

Six: When did the State Police get to be such rootin’-tootin’ sidearm-shootin’ cowboys? Were there ever days when they could be proud of entire careers when they never had to fire their weapons except in target practice on paper targets? When did shooting unarmed suspects become the first resort and not the last?

PS: Mr. Kestrel – this is not about guns being good or bad or regulated or not. It’s about how and why state police decide to use their legitimate guns on unarmed ‘suspects.’

I’ve rarely felt so prophetic. And rarely have I felt so disappointed to be proven so prescient.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when I predicted that the journalistic narrative in the State Auditor’s race would be boiled down to “The Pol and the Wonk”? Grizzled political vet Vince Illuzzi versus the ivory-towered numbers guy Doug Hoffer?

Well, take it away, VTDigger.

State auditor’s race: Policy wonk vs. politician

Dead on. The bulk of the article consists of a lengthy exposition of the stereotype. Illuzzi’s out pressing the flesh, Hoffer is uncomfortable in public and hasn’t spent much time on the hustings. You can almost imagine him reaching for a bottle of Purell after every handshake.

Then, in paragraph 19, the story FINALLY mentions Hoffer’s very lengthy list of public campaign appearances all over the state. Which nicely undercuts the entire thrust of the article. And which can be seen here.

And in the next paragraph, Dem chair Jake Perkinson explains that Hoffer’s perceived lack of visibility might have more to do with his very low campaign budget rather than any aversion to contact with the Great Unwashed.

(And Jake, since you’ve noticed that Doug’s a little short on funds, why not do something about it? Throw a few of Governor Shumlin’s million bucks his way? Or talk to a few donors, tell them Shummy’s got all the money he needs, and urge them to write a check to Hoffer for Auditor?)

Finally, in paragraph 22, Perkinson raises the issue that perhaps Hoffer’s skills are more relevant to the position than are Illuzzi’s. Of course, most readers never make it that deep into an article. So congrats, VTDigger, for doing your bit to cement a stereotype! Now, can I sue you for headline plagiarism?

When last we saw “Angry Jack” Lindley, the VTGOP chair was getting all hysterical over the destruction of a single “Brock for Governor” yard sign, laying the blame on Governor Shumlin’s culture of arrogance or something like that. You know, the Guv snaps his fingers and one of those Vermonters mired in his Culture of Dependency runs out and rips up a yard sign. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Anyway, turns out Jack isn’t just about Teh Crazy; he’s also making a real effort to reach out and make new friends. 14,000 new friends.

(Hat tip to the Vermont Press Bureau for this item, which ran in the Sunday Times Argus, and is not available anywhere online as far as I can tell. For the benefit of those who aren’t print subscribers, I wanted to make sure this item got some exposure.)

Last Spring, AARP launched a petition drive over the GMP/CVPS merger — specifically, its plan to plow $21 million into a weatherization fund rather than returning the money to ratepayers, as had been promised ten years ago when CVPS got a $21 million bailout. AARP asked its members to send postcards to the Public Service Board, urging rejection of the plan. A total of 14,000 postcards were sent.

And now for the unintended consequences.

GOP Chairman Jack Lindley issued a public records request earlier this year seeking access to the more than 14,000 postcards…

… Lindley was granted access to the postcards, and he believes the names and addresses on them will chart a path to GOP victories this fall.

… A team of GOP volunteers has been scanning the postcards with a gadget that renders the relevant information into a digital database.

“Once we have that information, it’s just a matter of reaching out to those voters, letting them know we’re here, and we need them in November,” he said.

There you go. If you sent one of those PSB postcards, congratulations — you’re on the VTGOP’s mailing list!

At first glance, it struck me as a nice little tactical maneuver on Angry Jack’s part. On second thought, I’m not so sure. How many of those 14,000 are going to be happy to get Republican agitprop in their mailboxes, or robocalls on their home phones, or e-mails in their inboxes? And how many of those 14,000 are going to be convinced that the VTGOP is pro-Everyman and anti-corporation? Their overall record doesn’t exactly put them in the Occupy camp, and their opposition to the $21 million proposal was a transparent case of political opportunism rather than adherence to principle; you know that if the same deal was proposed under a Republican administration, the Governor wouldn’t hesitate to sign off on it..The Republicans only pounced on the issue after AARP’s campaign attracted so much attention.

There’s also an ethical question, IMO. When citizens have made an attempt to contact their government on an issue of concern, should they be forced to effectively volunteer themselves for political harvesting? Lindley is technically correct: communications with the PSB are public records. But do we want this to become standard practice?  

I can’t help getting in another plug for the VNRC’s 50th Anniversary Celebration this Saturday, September 22, at Shelburne Farms.  

These are the good people who brought out the environmental activist in my pot-luck and sensible-shoes self.  I owe them; we all owe them.  For doggedly fighting the good fight to protect our precious natural resources and local economies, all Vermonters owe them.

Buy a ticket and feel good about being a contributor. Then, enjoy local food, beverages and music in the beauty of Shelburne Farms.  Come to hear the words of Van Jones, Maude Barlow, Bill McKibben and others.  Come to immerse yourself in the company of like-minded folks who see a positive, prosperous future for Vermont; one that springs from its respect for the natural environment and sustainable communities rather than the path of short returns.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance:

Part of our regular radio diet is On the Media, a public radio program produced by WNYC that examines various aspects of the mass media. It's valuable for people who are interested in the news, how the news gets to them, and what forces are at work influencing the content we hear.

Last week's program examined the relentless right-wing claims that National Public Radio has a liberal bias. I don't think it does, and I think the evidence shows that I'm right, but you can certainly listen to the podcast and make your own decision.

I thought it was ironic when I was listening to All Things Considered just yesterday, the day after hearing “On the Media” report on claims of NPR liberal bias, and I heard what struck me as a clear illustration of the opposite of liberal bias.

 The story was about President Obama announcing at a campaign stop in Ohio that his administration had filed another unfair trade complaint against China. It was a dialogue between Audie Cornish in the studio and Scott Horsley on the road with the campaign, and at about 2:00 into the story the following exchange occurs:

CORNISH: Now, Mitt Romney has dismissed the president's latest enforcement action as too little, too late. And, I mean, are these the first enforcement actions the White House has taken against China?

HORSLEY: No. The White House boasted it has actually filed trade cases against China at more than twice the rate of the Bush administration.

The question asked by Cornish was a factual question of how many trade complaints have been filed by the Obama administration. The true answer appears to be that the Obama administration has filed complaints at twice the rate of the Bush administration, and after providing a one-word factual answer Horsley replies with a comment of “boasts” by the Obama campaign.

Nothing would have been lost in the report if Horsley's answer had been, “No, the Obama administration has actually filed trade cases against China at more than twice the rate of the Bush administration.” That would have been a factual and complete answer to a factual question.

By adding the phrase, “the White House boasted . . .” to his answer, Scott Horsley implicitly indicated that the answer was one of opinion or political posturing, rather than one of fact. By doing this, and by characterizing the statement as a boast, Horsley's answer undermined the credibility of the Obama administration's statement and gave President Obama's opponents reason to reject the answer, since it was not a factual statement but merely a campaign boast.

There are many situations in which the facts are more favorable to one side of a debate or the other, but the media, especially NPR and other media aiming for credibility and impartiality, still have the obligation to report the facts.