The Burlington Free Press successfully buried the lead when its article about Chittenden County candidates casually noted (in the second paragraph) that Burlington City Councilor Tim Ashe would be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for state Senate. But perhaps the BFP missed the story because it didn’t even realize it had one. The article never mentions that Mr. Ashe was elected to the City Council as a Progressive!

Apparently Third Place Tony isn’t the only Prog jumping ship. But Mr. Ashe didn’t just leave the Progs, we joined the Dems, or so it seems.

Until David Zuckerman fills us in – we know he reads this blog, after all – I’ll go ahead and speculate about the inspiration for the move:

1. Tim Ashe wants to win. He knows the Democratic Party label is more powerful county-wide, and he is making a pragmatic maneuver. Sure, it’s entirely self-serving and transparently opportunistic, but it just might work.

2. Tim Ashe wants to help build the Progressive Party in the State Senate. He doubts he’ll be successful in a county-wide primary, but he knows it will give him some additional name recognition. He’ll also mount a write-in campaign on the Prog ballot, so he is assured of their nomination. If he loses the Dem primary, he will at least have had his name in front of the Chittenden County voters once before November. If he secures one of the six Democratic nominations, he can run as a Progressive/Democrat, which would boost his general election chances significantly (but of course, if he won, he would caucus and vote with the Progressives exclusively, and probably not seek the Democratic Party nomination two years later). This tactic would look decidedly less opportunistic to the casual observer, but would of course generate a lot of resentment among people who caught on.

3. Tim Ashe feels that he has more in common with the Democratic Party and the issues it promotes, and so has made a genuine conversion.

4. Typo by the Secretary of State’s office. But if this were the case, I’d have expected it to be fixed by now.

Given Mr. Ashe’s behavior on the City Council (such as voting for ultra-conservative Republican Kurt Wright for Council President over Democrat Russ Ellis, just like the other “Progs”), it seems unlikely he’s really interested in a mutually beneficial relationship with the Democratic Party. And since there hasn’t been a story about him leaving the Progressive Party at the city level, this smacks of a blatant attempt to abuse the primary system. If so, the only question left is whether Tim Ashe is working to promote Tim Ashe or the Progressive Party; but in either case, it would be one of the more cynically motivated political plays we’ve seen at this level.

Sometimes it isn't what she says, but who she allows to say it. Terri Hallenbeck's May 7th article about the so-called “pocket-veto” was strikingly unbalanced. I've reorganized all portions of the article where Hallenbeck is either quoting or paraphrasing the message from Symington or Douglas. Just look (you don't even need to read it) at the difference in the amount of print space she gives to the Douglas message versus the Symington message. (And no, she apparently didn't bother to ask why Gibbs, a state employee whose salary is paid with our tax dollars, was clearly engaged in campaign activity… not that you suspected that level of journalistic curiosity from her.)

Douglas message:

Spokesman Jason Gibbs accused legislators of shirking their duties by leaving without a veto session and contended they did it to allow Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington to start raising money from lobbyists for her expected campaign against Republican Douglas in the fall election.

“Their decision to forgo their responsibility on establishing a veto session has created a situation where any legislation the governor was intending not to sign would not become law because Gaye Symington wants to raise money from special interests,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs said the governor should be able to take advantage of the option of letting a bill become law without his signature for bills he doesn't particularly like but where there is widespread legislative support and no harm would come from allowing it to become law.

He cited an industrial hemp bill the Legislature passed last week as an example. Gibbs said Douglas will still not sign such bills, but the onus will be on the Legislature when the bills die.

Gibbs said the pocket-veto provision will not change how the governor handles a bill regarding the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund. Douglas will act on that bill today, and Gibbs indicated he will veto it. “The governor's been very clear he does not support legislation that will result in (utility) rate increases for the people of Vermont,” Gibbs said.

Though Gibbs accused Symington of wanting the extra time to solicit campaign donations from “special interests,” he conceded that Douglas accepts donations from those who lobby in the state. “He certainly accepts contributions from organizations and individuals that represent them but this is a tactical move by the Speaker to put fundraising ahead of policy she supports,” Gibbs said.

Douglas has said he thinks party contributions in that bill would force campaign spending into the hands of outside “special interest” groups.

Symington message:

Symington… objected to the accusation on several fronts. “The governor's been calling for us to have an orderly adjournment,” she said. “Now they're somehow wanting us to extend the session?”

Symington said it shouldn't be a problem for the governor to decide whether he supports a bill or not. “Legislators only get to say yes or no. He wants to say maybe,” she said. “I think that's a cop-out of leadership.”

Symington said if Douglas is concerned about campaign donations, he should not have vetoed the Legislature's campaign finance bill that would have limited contributions

(I was gonna write something today, but between this diary and SPS’s thoughtful one below, I think I’ll just promote the work of others and kick back… – promoted by odum)

Congratulations are in order for the 22 Vermont State Senators who decided it makes sense for a nuclear power company to have enough money to properly shut down its power plant when it is finally decommissioned (as opposed to, say, letting it gather dust on the Connecticut River bank while Entergy counts its money).

As was typical on an issue that is strikingly simple, yet runs contrary to his political ideology, Governor Jim Douglas avoided telling Vermonters the truth: that he opposes such a common sense measure… it is an election year, after all.

But this diary isn’t about Douglas' inability to move the state in any meaningful direction, or his preference for inaction and homeostatis in our fast-moving times. It is rather about the all-too-often unheralded work of our PART-TIME state legislators who stood up to some of the most powerful professional lobbyists in the state and did what is right for present and future generations of Vermonters.

Bipartisan props to the following senators for their support of S. 373:

Ayer, Bartlett, Campbell, Carris, Collins, Condos, Cummings, Flanagan, Giard, Hartwell, Illuzzi, Kitchel, Kittell, Lyons, MacDonald, McCormack, Nitka, Racine, Sears, Shumlin, Snelling, White.

These Senators recognized that SOMEONE is going to have to pay for the decommissioning of the plant:

“Now we're talking about this plant belonging to another unknown and perhaps less financially secure company,” said Ann Cummings, D-Washington and chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee, which drafted the bill.  She said she did not want to see ratepayers or taxpayers “left holding the bag” for possibly hundreds of millions in decommissioning costs.

It is easy (and I'll point the finger at myself first) to use this blog as a medium for complaints, but sometimes the situation calls for congratulations, even if this is only a small step down a journey we would prefer to see concluded sooner rather than later.

Rep. Zuckerman’s rush to the defense of Anthony Pollina’s failure to answer Rep. Weston’s tough but essential question reads like the type of political spin we’ve all grown accustomed to – which is exactly what makes it so inadequate. It is a shame Rep. Zuckerman chose to change the subject rather than address Ms. Weston's important question.

The question (paraphrased by Odum):

If Pollina wants Dems to look past Party labels and support him based solely on the issues for the good of the greater community, is he willing to do the same? Specifically – if a Prog chooses to run against a Dem who is progressive on all the issues (and who may even support him, perhaps?) is he willing to offer his own support to that Dem even if there's a Prog candidate, given that he's asking that level of commitment for himself?

The answer, in Zuckerman’s own words (truncated by the diarist):

My first question is, can any reader name a single case where Progressives ran against a progressive-leaning democrat incumbent? Name one race and we'll start having a very different discussion.Next question, does it make any difference to learn that Rep. Weston has been active recruiting a Democrat to run against myself and Rep. Chris Pearson? (while we have not been doing the same) When Rep. Weston presented her question to Anthony, his response was to say that Progressives work very hard to avoid challenges of this nature. And it's true. … If Weston wants there to be cross support, she could start by opening the discussions before encouraging someone to run against two of the strongest labor/enviro/housing/equal rights/ votes in the House.

(Odum impressively obliged Rep. Zuckerman with a list of Progressives who have run against Democrats.)

Rep. Zuckerman’s “next question” is exactly the type of political misdirection one would expect from a seasoned politician like Zuckerman, but it does little to address the underlying issue. 

The fact of the matter is that Rep. Weston, while I suspect she would prefer not to have a Progressive opponent in the fall, is not waging a campaign to convince the Progressive Party apparatus to support her candidacy with its energy and resources. Anthony Pollina, on the other hand, is trying to do just that vis-à-vis the Vermont Democratic Party.

Thus, Mr. Pollina is attempting to convince people like Rep. Weston that he can be trusted with their support in his run for governor. But trust must be earned. And reciprocated.

Rep. Weston doesn’t owe David Zuckerman anything, nor does she owe Anthony Pollina anything. Anthony Pollina doesn’t owe Rep. Weston anything either. But he’ll have to be willing to owe something to every Democrat if he expects their support.

Rep. Zuckerman’s suggestion that Rep. Weston should throw her support behind Anthony Pollina without so much as a pledge that Mr. Pollina will support her – let alone other Democrats across the state – is absurd.

Perhaps Mr. Zuckerman thinks Rep. Weston’s youth will blind her to the ridiculous double standard he is promoting.

(“Stunning?” Not so much, assuming the question labelled Galbraith as a Democrat. Thanks for posting this, homespun. – promoted by odum)

A recently released (and stunning) WCAX poll reveals that Peter Galbraith out-polls Anthony Pollina in the gubernatorial race, despite the fact that Mr. Galbraith has yet to officially enter the race. 

53 percent say they support Douglas– 22 percent would vote for Democrat Peter Galbraith– and 15 percent for Progressive Anthony Pollina. 10 percent are still unsure.

These numbers clearly refute Mr. Pollina’s suggestion that he is best positioned to challenge Governor Douglas this fall. The fact that Peter Galbraith leads Anthony Pollina, despite having yet to declare his candidacy (as Pollina has done), raise money (as Pollina has done), hold press conferences (as Pollina has done), place newspaper ads (as Pollina has done), or park an ugly vehicle promoting his campaign in parking reserved for state legislators (as Pollina has done), suggests that if the Vermont left is going to rally around a consensus candidate in an effort to unseat Jim Douglas, it had better not be Anthony Pollina.

( – promoted by odum)

Speaker Symington is often criticized in the diaries of this blog and among those of us who support the Democratic legislature for her lack of political savvy – especially when contrasted to her considerable strength in the public policy arena.

So it is only fair to acknowledge her efforts when she unveils a proposal that simultaneously represents good public policy AND exposes Jim Douglas’ hyperpolitical doublespeak. The Speaker’s recent press release accomplishes both feats.

The Speaker accepts the Governor’s proposal to close the capital gains loophole in Vermont’s income tax; but rather than turn around and give this money back disproportionately to those who earn the most in Vermont, she proposes using the money to fund state transportation and school construction obligations – a plan that would mean less pressure to raise fuel or property taxes to meet these needs.

Paradoxically, Jim Douglas is now calling his own proposal to close the capital gains loophole a tax increase. Does anyone have their stopwatch handy? That had to be one of the fastest flip-flops in state history.

Kudos are also due to the Vermont Democratic Party for their “Weekly Digest” on the issue that pulled together clips from the Brattleboro Reformer and Rutland Herald which called attention to the Governor’s twofaced approach. Sure, the digest can be a bit hit or miss, and sometimes the tone is a bit too strident for my taste, but they hit this one out of the park.

A couple week ago, Terri Hallenbeck ran a blog post about the Legislature’s House Ways & Means Committee’s first hearing on Governor Douglas’ proposal to lease the state lottery.  In her post, Ms. Hallenbeck attacked the committee for what she portrayed as a bias against the proposal that was so profound, the committee was refusing to listen to the administration.  

The tenor of her post was derisive and failed to mention the legitimate concerns the Committee expressed about the proposal (concerns no doubt shared by other state legislators across the country who have faced similar proposals – sometimes from Democratic governors – and have yet to accept one).

Yet within the last week, the House Ways & Means committee heard from the Douglas administration about the proposal, as did two Senate committees (Appropriations & Institutions).  While Nancy Remson may have been responsible for covering the House hearing, Terri Hallenbeck was seen at the Senate hearing.  

It will surprise few to learn that Ms. Hallenbeck failed to issue a blog post about that hearing.  After all, she had recently criticized legislators, writing: “Legislators, particularly those in the Democratic majority but Republicans too, fairly strongly oppose this proposal and are eager to discredit it. One doesn’t need testimony from supporters of the proposal to accomplish that.”  (Clearly insinuating that the legislators were not even going to bother listening to the administration’s idea.)

This is a perfect example of how reporters can exhibit bias subtly – sometimes it is not what they write, but what they don’t write.  Terri Hallenbeck publicly criticized legislators for not taking a specific action, and then ignores them when they do exactly what she said they should be doing.  It’s difficult for her readers (ie voters) to get an accurate picture of the work the legislators are going when she will only report on what they are not doing.

I’ve written about Terri Hallenbeck’s biased reporting in the past, and I will continue to do so.  I hope others will join me in chronicling the bias exhibited by her and other Vermont reporters.  Blogs have given us a chance to reach many of the same readers that Terri Hallenbeck continues to mislead.  Without our vigilance, there will be no voice to counter her biased and misleading narrative.

(view her post at: http://www.burlingtonfreepress… where did the hyperlink button go?

Let’s face it, Democrats have three possible gubernatorial candidates: Sen. John Campbell, (former) Sen. Matt Dunne, and (former) Ambassador Peter Galbraith.

Sen. Dunne has some statewide name recognition after last cycle’s run for Lt. Governor.  But rather than jump to the next level, he should challenge Dubie again.  Dunne closed well in that race last cycle, and without a primary (hopefully), Dunne will give Dubie all he can handle.  Furthermore, by not jumping into the governor’s race, Dunne will avoid the only consistent criticism levied against him – that he’s too ambitious. (By the way, when did having ambition become a negative?  When someone has the ambition to serve his community and improve the quality of life for current and future state residents, how is that not a positive?)

Sen. Campbell’s potential candidacy seems a better reflection of his lack of upward mobility in the Senate than his statewide prospects.  Sure, the Democrats would support him, but he wouldn’t excite the activist.  He doesn’t have any statewide name recognition (although state senators never seem to accept this reality), and probably couldn’t raise the type of money necessary to unseat an incumbent.  Plus, he’s a member of the state legislature (though he would doubtlessly resign as majority leader if he ran) coming off a disappointing session.  Granted, Vermonters seem to like the job the Dems are doing at the State House more than the governor would have us believe, but with the press’ habit of mistaking Jason Gibbs’ press releases for the Gospel, Sen. Campbell would have a hard time pointing to a record of recent accomplishments.

Of course, there’s the theoretical possibility of a unity campaign behind Anthony Pollina – but that’s not going to happen.  He’s burned a lot of bridges among Democrats, and his statewide track record won’t inspire any confidence.  That said, he deserves credit for laying the ground work to allow the Progs to line up behind the Democratic nominee.

I save Peter Galbraith for last, but not to suggest he should be the nominee by process of elimination.  Galbraith may not have the statewide name recognition of Matt Dunne (although his name will probably “ring a bell” with a lot of people), but after that, there is much to like about his potential candidacy.  For starters, he is incredible intelligent, well spoken, and (from all reports) a genuinely nice guy.  His knowledge of state issues would probably have to be improved, but there’s no reason to think this acclaimed author would have any trouble getting up to speed.  He has political experience as ambassador to Croatia, but can’t be characterized as a career politician.  He’s recently book on the war in Iraq will endear him to the many Vermonters who believe the war was a mistake (incidentally, while the governor may not have much to do about Iraq policy, who wouldn’t relish the contrast between Galbraith’s crystal clear stance on Iraq and Douglas’ political dodges?).  And perhaps most importantly (sadly), Galbraith is well-connected enough to raise the kind of money (and hire the quality staff) that will be necessary to really challenge Douglas. 

Peter Galbraith would be an out-of-the-box nominee, which is exactly what the party needs to shake up the race.  No matter who runs against Douglas, it will be an uphill battle; but unlike the other contenders, Galbraith could change the dynamic of the race.

( – promoted by odum)

Yesterday, Sue Allen at the Times Argus reported on the Douglas “Set The Agenda” tour.  If there was ever any doubt that this “tour” is nothing more than another Douglas publicity stunt, it was confirmed by the fact that the only two attendees were GOP state representatives.  This was the focus of the headline and the early part of the article, and Freyne also made chiding reference to it.

What Freyne, and perhaps even Allen missed, however, was Douglas contradicting himself on property taxes in that very article. 

First, in defending his tour, Douglas “…said certain issues raised by attendees are specific to their areas…” but that “[o]ther topics, particularly the burden of property taxes, are raised at virtually every stop…” (my emphasis).  But Allen then reports on an exchange between Douglas and a patron he approached and questioned:

Admitting that she was putting on her Berlin select board hat, McDonald asked the governor about potential increases to the PILOT program (payment in lieu of taxes) to communities that host a number of tax-exempt state buildings. The answer was negative.

“You want to be fair, but there's got to be some economic benefit to hosting a state facility,” Douglas said, adding that years ago when he served on the House Appropriations Committee, the state only gave PILOT assistance to Montpelier. Now, he said, more communities are seeking financial assistance.

What Allen fails to report, and Douglas neglects to mention, is that an increase in PILOT payments to a municipality actually reduce property taxes in that town.  By failing to support increased PILOT payments, Douglas is supporting higher property taxes in towns that receive these payments.

Furthermore, Gov Douglas' FY 2008 budget level funded the PILOT program (which, in real dollars is of course a cut).  The legislature increased PILOT payments in passing its own FY08 appropriations bill, thus granting many Vermonters a property tax cut over and above that proposed by the Governor.  It isn't surprising (although it is disappointing) that we didn't hear Gov. Douglas thank them for this small but important effort to reduce property taxes.  But it is both surprising and disappointing that the Vermont press, after unfailingly reiterating the Douglas attack lines, failed to give credit to the legislature where it was due.

  Terri Hallenbeck must go – from the blogosphere at least.

For starters, someone who is at least nominally a “reporter” of the “straight news” (my terms) shouldn't be simultaneously editorializing.  Furthermore, Hallenbeck's post exhibit a clear anti-Welch bias, and she should be called on it (maybe it is even an anti-Dem bias).

Her recent post on the BFP blog site (“Making Bacon”) is merely the most recent example.  From the start, Hallenbeck seems determined not to report the news, but to ensure we readers will view the events though her own particular lens.

“Here is the challenge, if you are a member of Congress (which very few of you are, I realize). You spend all that time in Washington and when you come home you need to show people what you've done. You want to see and be seen by the players in your district. You realize that you can reach all the more people if you do this seeing and been seen in front of the media.”

Hallenbeck has already decided that the description of events which follows ought to be viewed through a pure “political self interest” prism.  She devotes exactly one sentence to the substance of the news conference:

“So it was Monday that Welch convened a news conference at the Community Health Center in Burlington to highlight the work the House has done toward expanding federal health coverage of children and seniors.”

But she follows it up with: “I can't say that I blame Welch for doing what every member of Congress does…”  The oh-so-benevolent Terri Hallenbeck has generously decided not to BLAME Peter Welch for, what was it, oh yeah, “expanding federal health coverage of children and seniors.” 

Hallenbeck saves her best “reporting” for last: “It just seemed that “Congressman praises own efforts” or even “Congressman amasses others to praise his efforts while media watch” was not a viable story. Can't blame him for trying…”  (Note, again with the “blame” thing, so while she goes out of her way to not blame Peter Welch , she suggests that he does deserve blame.)  So, dear readers, in case we mistook the expansion of health benefits to those in our population who are most vulnerable for some kind of reasonable public policy, and in case we mistook a self-congratulatory backslapping session for an opportunity to explain the program to the constituents who will be served, here is Terri Hallenbeck to remind us how to think.  

This type of cynicism is journalist trash.  Terri Hallenbeck should be thrown out with the rest of it.

I said to start that Hallenbeck should be removed from the blog – and I was wrong.  She should stay on the blog.  She should be removed from “news” writing and transferred to the editorial pages.