Cross posted from Rational Resistance. http://rationalresistance.blog…

It wasn’t possible in 2008, but it appears that the Republicans are trying to steal Florida again.

 It’s mainly being reported at the Huffington Post: hundreds of people waiting on line for early voting, spending hours before they can get in, and in one case even having their cars towed away.

 The chaos is the direct result of new laws enacted by the Republican legislature to curtail early voting, and when the crowds that appeared were too large to be accommodated, did Medicare defrauder Rick Scott extend the hours? Just the opposite:

Miami-Dade attempted to deal with the problem on Sunday by allowing voters to cast absentee ballots in person between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. However, after just two hours, the Miami-Dade elections department shut down the location after too many people showed up. People outside the locked doors were reportedly screaming, “We want to vote!”

 There is no mistake here. What is happening is, once again, a deliberate effort to suppress the Democratic vote and give Florida’s electoral votes to Romney.

 Which makes Frank Bruni’s column in Sunday’s Times particularly ironic. Bruni calls for amity following the election, a hope that bipartisanship will reign.

There’s an opportunity here, as we hit the reset button, for Obama to begin a second term by lavishing his attention on areas of general bipartisan agreement or for Romney to begin a first term with a focus on that same territory.

Then, predictably, Bruni descends into the MSM’s favorite rhetorical construct: the false equivalence.

The Obama and Romney campaigns have already signaled that they’ll be sending lawyers, thousands of them, to polling places on Tuesday to gather information for possible legal challenges to the results, should the campaigns feel that there’s some justification for challenges and – perhaps just as important – some way to sway the outcome. They’re poised, in other words, to reject the integrity of the tally.

 What’s happening in Florida is proof that we need to send lawyers to challenged states, and to bring in international monitors, not to file challenges after the election is over, but to bring lawsuits while the election is going on, and before the Republicans have the chance to steal it.

 I surely hope for a legitimate Presidency, but the Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent it.

We’re almost at the end of a long campaign season that’s been extensively covered by Vermont’s political media. You wouldn’t think that there would be a major story that’s never been explored anywhere… but there was, until today. If you’re not a Times Argus or Rutland Herald subscriber, you probably missed it. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing; if you didn’t get a Sunday paper and don’t have online access, try your local library. And in the meantime, I’ll provide some highlights.  

The story, by Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau, examines the Democratic and Republican grass-roots efforts: the field organizing and research, the nuts-and-bolts party-building that goes into a successful Election Day drive.

The conclusion: Vermont Democrats are thoroughly, fanatically prepared, while Vermont Republicans are basically in tatters.

The Vermont Democratic Party… has taken in slightly more than $1 million, and spent nearly $900,000 of it, according to federal disclosures.

Democrats now have 17 paid staffers, 11 of whom are devoted full time to field organizing. They have 90 phones in nine field offices across the state, where staff and volunteers had made 300,000 call attempts to Vermont voters, 30,000 of which resulted in contact, according to party officials.

….The Vermont GOP’s federal committee has raised $221,000 – less than a quarter what Democrats collected. It has zero paid staffers and has deployed 24 phones to five field offices.



“We’re outgunned, no question about it,” says Bradford Broyles, campaign manager for Wilton.

Ouch. Maybe this explains Wilton’s decision to skip the VTGOP’s election-night party in Montpelier, and spend the evening in Rutland instead.  

So it’s not bad enough that the Republicans trail badly in most statewide races, and have no resources of their own. And they are “outgunned” for the stretch drive. Beth Pearce’s campaign manager Ryan Emerson told Hirschfeld that a top-shelf field organization can sway the vote by five to ten percent.

As for the VTGOP… let the rationalizations begin!

“We’re a volunteer organization. We’re not like our sister organization that likes to pay people,” says Jack Lindley, chairman of the Vermont GOP. “If you don’t have energized volunteers, then you have to pay people. And we have energized volunteers.”

“No, I didn’t bring a gun to this duel. But I believe my opponent will be lulled into a state of false confidence by his superior firepower, and that will allow me to win.” Uh-huh.

Times like this, I feel a little sorry for Angry Jack. He sat himself down at the table and (for those familiar with Texas Hold ‘Em) drew a deuce-seven offsuit. No money, no candidates, a ramshackle organization, and no paid staff. I give him credit for trying to put lipstick on this pig, but I’m not convinced. If Republicans had any money, they’d be very happy to spend it.

Hirschfeld’s article also includes a thorough narrative of all the hard work over the last several years — literally — that built the Democratic organization we have today. Countless hours, much of it unpaid, by people you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re a real hard-core political junkie: Jesse Bragg, Ryan McLaren, Nick Charyk, among others.

It’s a great story, thoroughly reported, and heretofore untold. And not only tells a lot about what will happen on Election Day, but also how the Democratic Party has become such a formidable operation so quickly in the post-Douglas era.

Of course, all that hard work is for naught if we don’t all GET OUT AND VOTE.  

Oh, look: Randy Brock’s trying to convince folks that the race for Governor isn’t a lost cause. He commissioned a poll from an Ohio-based Teabagger/religious right “opinion researcher” named Fritz Wenzel. Seven Days’ Paul Heintz has all the details, so I won’t delve into this too deeply except to note that even a completely biased pollster, paid by the Brock campaign, couldn’t do any better than to give Governor Shumlin a measly five-point lead.

And of course, Brock didn’t release the entire survey; just the results that look good for him.

The topline: According to Wenzel, likely voters favor Shumlin 46-41 over Brock, with eight percent for “other candidates” (which would be pretty extraordinary itself) and five percent undecided. Wenzel did not release the questions asked, which is pretty damn important in assessing the reliability of a survey.

Other red flags: It was an automated poll, conducted entirely in one night. (Polls usually take a few days to complete, because the pollster picks a sample and then makes multiple tries to reach the voters in the sample. To wrap up the survey in one night, Wenzel must have deviated quite a bit from his planned sample.)

And, as Heintz reports, Wenzel’s other polls usually skew Republican. Which only befits a guy who’s worked for candidates like Ohio nutball Jean Schmidt, Kentucky nutball Rand Paul, the ultra-right conspiracy-theory peddler World Net Daily, and the very conservative Family Research Council.

Nice choice of colleagues there, Randy.  

One of the VTGOP’s most frequently-employed tactics in this year’s campaign has been the raising of questions. They throw out allegations of misconduct or corruption and, when asked for evidence, they claim that they’re just asking questions, just stating concerns.

A few examples: After the August primary, VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley was all fired up over the messy outcome of the Progressive primary, and said “The process… may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.”

Then, in mid-October, Wendy Wilton asked for an investigation of overtime pay in Treasurer Beth Pearce’s office. She called it a simple request for information, but threw around evidence-free charges of “an overtime scandal” and “gross mismanagement.”

Last week, of course, brought the edifying spectacle of Wilton accusing the Vermont Municipal Bank Board of conspiring with the Pearce campaign to put the city of Rutland on the VMBB’s “watch list.” Plus Randy Brock’s fishing expedition for signs of misconduct in state settlements with terminated employees.

And this week brought AG candidate Jack McMullen seeking a probe into possible collusion between incumbent Bill Sorrell and a Super PAC that supported his re-election bid. All of these top Republicans making serious accusations, even as they admitted that they didn’t have the slightest shred of proof.

This used to annoy me. But lately, I’ve come to see the brilliance — and immense personal satisfaction — of the maneuver. It’s fun! Therefore, I now present a series of questions — just asking, mind you, I’m not accusing anyone of anything. But I think it’s important for the people of Vermont to be given clarity on these issues.

Questions… after the jump.

Is the Vermont Republican Party a complete disgrace, for fielding a ticket laden with hopeless cases and shackling them to a platform with no appeal to the majority of state voters?

In his private moments, is Phil Scott deeply embarrassed to be publicly associated with these clowns?

Does Randy Brock wake up in the night wondering what in God’s name he got for his $300,000 “loan” to his own campaign?

Is Darcie Johnston the biggest waste of salary in Vermont since Bill Boettcher?

Is Wendy Wilton’s entire campaign based on a Big Lie — that she’s a nonpartisan technocrat, when in fact she’s a far-right ideologue?

If Vince Illuzzi is elected, will he conduct a vendetta against the lawyers and judges who tried to disbar him for ethical violations?

Is Jack McMullen’s mustache real, or did a small critter die on his upper lip?

If you showed pictures of John MacGovern and Mark Donka to every voter in Vermont, would any of them be able to tell which is which?

Will Annette Smith do significant damage to her anti-wind cause when her write-in campaign for Governor gets a mere handful of votes, thus belying the conventional wisdom that there’s “growing controversy” about utility-scale wind power?

If you could prescribe one — and only one — medication for Angry Jack Lindley, would you choose a hypertension drug or a mood stabilizer?

Is Rob Roper the most talentless hack in Vermont broadcasting?

Are Roper and El Jefe General John McClaughry complete hypocrites for using a nonprofit organization to fund their careers promoting the wonders of the free market?

Remember, folks: I’m not sayin’, I’m just askin’. No proof, no evidence, only questions.  

I tell ya, the state’s editorial boards were bound and determined to go for Vince Illuzzi in this year’s race for Auditor. In the process, they’ve ignored the two candidates’ qualifications and history, and some papers have even ignored their own past positions.

Previously we’ve chronicled the Freeploid and Herald/Times Argus, which reversed their positions of two years ago (hearty and detailed endorsements of Doug Hoffer) to plump for Illuzzi this year while offering dubious arguments on Vince’s behalf. We also documented the St. Albans Messenger’s ass-backwards depiction of Hoffer as the more political of the two men — when, in fact, Vince Illuzzi is one of the most thoroughly political characters in Vermont.

And we’ve recounted Illuzzi’s past ethical troubles, including multiple suspensions of his law license and a very close brush with disbarment. (Illuzzi has claimed to have matured since then; but hell, he was in his FORTIES when a lot of that stuff happened.)

Now comes the Addison Independent, which can’t bring itself to endorse either candidate (Profiles in Courage there, Angelo), while tarring Hoffer with the completely absurd accusation of partisanship.

First, the Indy dismisses Vince.

Republican Vince Illuzzi has garnered much support from a lot of politicos throughout the state, which may tell you something. Throughout his 32 years in the Legislature he has made a lot of friends and has played the game of politics well. But while Vermont is largely free from the political partisanship that plagues other states, Illuzzi does understand political power and has wielded that power, at times, for partisan purposes over the years. That’s an attribute that doesn’t work well in the state auditor’s office.

As we have said, Illuzzi is an insider, a dealmaker with a lot of friends in high places and a squicky ethical record. So the Indy can’t bring itself to back Illuzzi. What about Hoffer?  

Democrat Doug Hoffer, on the other hand, is not someone you’d call a team player. He is, by his own admission, “a number’s guy,” (sic) and that can work for or against either side of the political aisle. That’s a good attribute as an auditor. Hoffer, however, is hamstrung by his ideological outlook. He’s a devout progressive and comes as close to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ political leanings as any other statewide candidate on the ballot. That’s not a great attribute when asked to run the numbers on potential programs that inevitably have a political bent – and numbers, as we all know, can be used and abused at will.

Sure, Doug is on the left side of the political spectrum. But he has never, ever subverted his professional work for partisan purposes.  The Independent offers no evidence for its defamatory statement; it can’t, because there is none. In nearly 20 years doing exactly the kind of work an Auditor should do, Doug has gained a reputation across the board for integrity and objectivity. The Independent, in other words, is makin’ shit up. And unfairly smearing a good man in the process.

Vince Illuzzi, to his credit, has run a pretty clean race. None of the hyper-partisan attack politics of his ticketmates. The Independent just said worse things about Doug Hoffer than Vince Illuzzi ever has.

What’s even stranger about the Indy’s lies is that the paper used to have a much higher opinion of Hoffer. This is from its endorsement of Hoffer in the 2010 Democratic primary:

Hoffer… would bring a sharp and probing intellect to the position while pledging to keep his personal politics off the table. The auditor’s job, he says, is to provide the Legislature with the facts and reports it needs to ensure the legislation as proposed is based on good data and the programs passed are working as cost-effectively as they were intended.

Gee, exactly the opposite of the Indy’s 2012 view. A hearty endorsement, in fact, of Doug’s professionalism and objectivity — the very traits it now finds lacking.

As you may know, the Indy is owned by one Angelo Lynn, brother of Emerson Lynn, owner of the St. Albans Messenger. Angelo wrote the Indy’s endorsement editorial — and its endorsement of Hoffer in 2010. This year, each paper slapped Hoffer with the same evidence-free accusation of political bias. The guys obviously had some kind of conversation about the Auditor’s race, perhaps trying to gin up some basis for avoiding a Hoffer endorsement.

All in all, the Great Men of Vermont Journalism have not exactly covered themselves in glory with their illogical and, in some cases, actively mendacious endorsements in this year’s Auditor’s race.  

You may have caught my diary last week about John MacGovern, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate who is so anti-choice that he even favors forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term.

Obviously he has no chance against Bernie Sanders, which is a good thing, but I just learned something very troubling.

It turns out that MacGovern's campaign manager, Paul Dame, is running against Democrats Tim Jerman and Linda Waite-Simpson for the House seat for the Chittenden 8-2 (Essex Junction).

Does Dame share the extreme anti-choice position that his Senate candidate is pushing? 

There's a candidates' forum this afternoon at 3:30 at the Brownell Public Library. If you're going it might be a good idea to ask Mr. Dame if he supports the extreme views of Mr. MacGovern, and if he doesn't, why he's trying to get him elected to the U.S. Senate. 

Well, at least some of the important numbers are already in for this election cycle.

The Sunlight Foundation has found that $213 million in “dark money” has been spent in the General Election alone. Of that figure, 81% was spent on behalf of Republican candidates.

Put another way, Republican contributions of “dark money” totalled $173 million, while Democratic contributions of the same kind came in at a measley $40. million.  

By “dark money” we mean groups that do not disclose their donors and only are required to disclose their congressional race spending within 60 days of House and Senate elections and their presidential race spending following the national party conventions.

So Lenore Broughton has plenty of company in the GOP shadows.

Okay; so now bring on the attempts at false equivalency with regard to campaign finance.

Last week, Randy Brock tried a desperation heave in his failing candidacy for Governor. On October 25, he requested a boatload of documents from the Shumlin Administration. He claimed that someone had told him there were problems with how the state had settled claims of misconduct by state employees, and he wanted immediate release of relevant documents so he could hunt for evidence.

The timing was so late that it seemed as though the Administration couldn’t possibly deliver — thus allowing Brock to raise questions about a cover-up without any actual evidence. Instead, reports VTDigger:

The state’s Department of Human Resources responded ahead of schedule to a public records request, today [Friday] releasing a raft of settlement documents for gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock that detail state employee settlements last year.

Oh snap. Shumlin defuses the “cover-up” complaint by releasing the documents “ahead of schedule,” and gives Brock the onerous task of wading through all that stuff in a mere couple of days. Even if he were to find something, there’s hardly enough time left to exploit it.

Brock, of course, reacted with all the grace and good will characteristic of Republicans in 2012.

“I’m pleased that they responded, yes. But I can’t speak to the quality of the response until I’ve had a chance to go through it.”

“I certainly hope that it’s complete.”

Nice.

And what’s more…

Brock also wouldn’t commit to spending the weekend reading the documents, saying he’d have to balance heavy campaigning with some reading on the road.

I’m sure he’s got a heavy schedule. But doesn’t he have staff? Aides? Extremely well-paid campaign consultant Darcie Johnston? Volunteers with a legal background who could wade through the documents and summarize them? Brock’s disinclination is more evidence that he never actually wanted the documents; he just wanted to be able to “raise questions” without a shred of proof.

I tell ya, we may have escaped the worst of Superstorm Sandy, but the Republican flop sweat is getting close to flood stage.  

If you got all your election news from WCAX-TV, you wouldn’t know that Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First was super-funding the candidacy of Wendy Wilton. You’d know little or nothing about the Super PAC she has lavishly funded — to the tune of at least $800,000 so far. You’d know virtually nothing about Broughton, and you probably wouldn’t have heard the name “Tayt Brooks” (International Man of Mystery) at all.

That’s because the state’s most watched TV news service has almost completely ignored the subject. The only event that focused substantial airtime on Broughton or Vermonter First was a small protest outside her Burlington home. A protest which has been faithfully recounted whenever WCAX mentions Broughton — which is almost never.

Let’s take you back to October 11, the day of that protest. The lead-in to the WCAX story read as follows:

Vermont has seen the rise of local Super PACs during this election season, pushing political messages with radio and TV ads. But one big Super PAC donor got a message at her home today, from dozens of protesters. Gina Bullard was there.

Pardon me. “Dozens”? Other media estimates of the “crowd” ranged from 15 to 20. WCAX’s own footage shows the group posing on Henry Street in front of Broughton’s home; I counted 17 in the shot.

“Dozens”?

After the jump: WCAX ignores the political surprise of the year, and airs a completely pointless report on petition signatures.

The rest of the story shows the protesters ambling down Henry Street and standing around, chatting amiably. Protest organizer Peter Sterling is seen walking onto Broughton’s porch and delivering a note — the only time anyone visibly set foot onto Broughton’s property. The focus of the entire piece is about the protest’s Henry Street location, not the substance of its message.

That is the only time, as far as can be determined from the WCAX website, that the station has done a story of any length connected with Broughton or her Super PAC. The only other archived stories that mention Broughton or her Super PAC are brief text-only pieces about the mid-September and mid-October campaign finance reports. (Mid-September was when VF made its first public splash, reporting total donations of $100,000, plus “in-kind” donations of $34,000, all from Broughton. Mid-October was when we found out that Broughton’s generosity had reached the breathtaking level of $680,000.)

And the mid-October story is a real piece of work. Although the news is about Broughton’s $680,000, the story actually spends as much time rehashing the days-old Henry Street protest as it does on the actual NEWS. Here is the entire text:

A Burlington woman targeted by a campaign protest last week has continued to give generously to a Vermont super PAC — with contributions now topping 680-thousand dollars.



Protesters marched to Lenore Broughton’s home on Henry Street to voice their support for single-payer health care. Broughton is the primary benefactor of a super PAC called Vermonters First that has spent money on ads opposing a single-payer system. Vermonters First has also run ads in support of Republican candidates.
 


According to a campaign finance report released Monday, Vermonters First has raised $684,861 since forming, and Broughton has donated all but 23-hundred dollars of that amount.

That was October 16, and it was (again, as far as I can tell from WCAX’s website) the last time Broughton was named in a WCAX newscast. There has never been any mention of the link between Broughton, VF, and the richly-endowed candidacy of Wendy Wilton. Which maybe shouldn’t be too surprising, since a lot of Broughton’s money has gone into the coffers of WCAX to pay for endless ads for Wilton. And as often as not, if you watch a news video on WCAX.com, it’s preceded by a VF ad for Wilton.

I don’t think WCAX is corrupt. I do believe this is yet another sign of its ideological tilt to the right. And it reflects fundamentally flawed news judgment. Lenore Broughton has been the surprise story of the campaign, seemingly coming out of nowhere to break all pertinent records for money in Vermont politics. If that isn’t worth a story or two, then I don’t know what is.

And apparently WCAX also doesn’t know what is. Having completely failed to report on Broughton’s activities or those of her Super PAC, WCAX managed to produce and air one of the most worthless, meaningless pieces of alleged journalism it has ever been my misfortune to witness. On Thursday November 1, WCAX spent two and a half minutes (standard length for its “long” pieces) on a completely asinine exploration of something that apparently struck some news editor as questionable or scandalous: the fact that people (including prominent politicians) routinely sign a candidate’s petition when they have no intention of supporting that candidate.

I guess somebody thought this required exploration, when in fact it’s standard practice everywhere I’ve ever lived. Over the years, I’ve been asked to sign candidacy petitions by numerous people, and I’ve always signed. It’s not a promise to support a candidate; it’s just helping them get on the ballot. I’m generally in favor of broad ballot access, so I sign. Might make an exception for the LaRouchies, but anyone else is okay by me.

The story began with VT Dem chair Jake Perkinson being quizzed about the fact that he signed candidacy petitions for the two major candidates for Auditor: Dem/Prog Doug Hoffer and Republican Vince Illuzzi. WCAX had examined both candidates’ petition sheets and determined that yes, indeed, Perkinson had signed both. Somebody call the Pulitzer committee!

Here’s the crucial portion of Steimle’s interview with Perkinson, who remarkably managed to keep a straight face:

Reporter Susie Steimle: Did you sign Doug Hoffer’s petition?



Jake Perkinson: I don’t remember.



He did however sign Republican Vince Illuzzi’s petition for auditor — something he said he doesn’t regret. 



Reporter Susie Steimle: If you could go back to that day and sign the petition again would you? 



Jake Perkinson: Yes.

Good God. Steimle then reported the result of her investigation: “Signing a candidate’s petition doesn’t necessarily mean you support that candidate.” Wow.

But wait! There’s more!

Steimle also wasted a few minutes of Secretary of State Jim Condos’ time, asking him if it was surprising that some people might sign multiple petitions. As with Perkinson, Condos gets full marks for keeping a straight face when confronted with this ignorance of election law; he simply told Steimle that it was completely normal. In fact, he added, his own petitions included the signatures of top Republicans.

You see, Susie (and whatever idiot assigned this story), candidate petitions are a mere formality. And almost everyone is agreeable to sign, including a candidate’s political opponents. Indeed, considering that all those folks spend a lot of time together around the Statehouse, I imagine there’s a whole lot of mutually agreeable petition-signing.

This is how WCAX chose to spend its resources and airtime.

Lenore Broughton? Ehh, not so much.

p.s. If anyone at WCAX can point me to more coverage of Broughton or Vermonter(s) First, please do so in the Comments below. If I’m wrong, I’ll be glad to say so. I will also advise you to upgrade the “Search” function on your website.