As Election Day looms, I seized a chance to sit down with D/P candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Cassandra Gekas to ask what final message she would like voters to take with them to the polls.

Cass has been an extremely “hands-on” candidate throughout the campaign, preferring to spend the extra minutes with individual voters to reach them with her policy concerns rather than hitting large numbers in broad strokes.  An advocate by nature, Cass never wastes a chance to make her case for healthcare reform and the kind of initiatives that will make Vermont a more affordable environment for families.

Coupled with modest fundraising returns and a working woman’s limited resources, this intensely personal approach to the campaign trail has made her journey to the Lieutenant Governor’s seat more challenging; but Cass believes the reward is more than worth that effort, as she sees an opportunity in the traditionally light-weight position to transform it into a dynamic platform from which to advocate for the working family.

As Cass very reasonably argues, one of the key differences between the current, very part-time, Lt. Governor, Phil Scott, and herself is her willingness to treat the office as a full-time position, commanding all of her attention and energy for the tenure of her service.  She points out that, while Mr. Scott is well known and appreciated for his other pursuits, including business and racing; he is, in fact, juggling three “jobs” at once and must divide his attentions proportionately. His initiative in office has therefore been negligible.

There is a fundamental difference in where each candidate sees economic opportunity for the state.  Phil Scott adopts the GOP position with regard to financial benefit “trickling down” from above, with emphasis on tax-breaks for the wealthy and large corporations.  While this may have been a plausible argument thirty years ago, it has since been well-tested and proved a spectacular failure.

Unlike the Republican meme that frames Vermont as a liability to unload on some reluctant corporate suitor, who can only be enticed through bribery,  Cass takes the position that people settle in the state willingly, because they are attracted to the  values and the quality of life here.  

That people who have a choice of where to live are choosing Vermont in significant numbers is evidenced by the fact that the mean income in Vermont is relatively higher than in other states.  Undeterred even by the weather, they are, on the whole, willing to contribute a little more to maintain the quality of life that has attracted them to the state.

According to Gekas, where we have the greatest opportunity to improve the economics of the state is by supporting working families, who are the backbone of a consumer economy and the engine that drives productivity.  If affordable healthcare, quality childcare and early education become the priorities with which the state is branded, the effect will be felt as an invitation to prosper here, attracting both big business investment and skilled labor.

If our families are strong, Vermont will be strong.

Using an example from her own experience working with Hunger Free Vermont to extend Food Stamp assistance, she illustrates how helping families helps the economy.

Every dollar that comes into the state in Food Stamps generates $1.84 in economic activity.

That is where she says the state should be focussing its energy.  A dollar in the pocket of someone who is earning minimum wage will do far more to stimulate the economy than one saved by a wealthy person in tax breaks.

Phil Scott and his GOP cohorts worry only about whether or not the numbers work to cultivate the loyalty of out-of-state CEO’s, making deals on tax breaks for the wealthy.  But, first of all, says Gekas, the numbers, have to work for the families who live here.

She says we should be more worried about cultivating the loyalty of the employees, who will want to stay here and build a prosperous future for the state.

She characterizes Phil Scott’s position as “reactive,” whereas she promises to be a “proactive” Lieutenant Governor.

This inclination to be proactive seems to have played a compelling roll in her personal story.

Driven from an early age by the desire to be a “vehicle for change” in the lives of working families, Cass Gekas matured into the tireless workhorse she is today.  

From her experience in the Statehouse as a policy advocate, she took away the lesson that, even when equipped with the most compelling arguments, you can’t win support on an issue without the numbers.  So she returned to school to add mastery of economics to her toolbox.  Echoing D/P candidate for auditor Doug Hoffer, Gekas says that she has become “a numbers person.”

When all is said and done, Cass Gekas says she is committed to a lifetime of public service in Vermont.  Expect to see a lot of initiative from this dynamic agent for change in the coming years.  

Guess our outgoing Auditor Tom Salmon (mmmm, so good to say that) has some time on his hands as he prepares to formally check out of the office he hasn’t really wanted since, oh, I’m guessing, the day after he first occupied it. (see: his repeated and empty threats to run for higher office)  

Well, he had time enough to pay a visit to Treasurer Beth Pearce’s Facebook page this week and post a snarky, partisan remark. I’ll reproduce the full image after the jump, but here’s the text:

With all due respect, Governor Dean gets Atty General Sorrell through the primary over TJ Donovan with Super PaC (sic) funded commercials, now he’s the super critic of PAC money? Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of (sic) her opponent. No one crying then. What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.

Typo and bad grammar aside, let’s take a closer look at what our distinguished Auditor is saying.

The first sentence, I can’t really argue with. After that, though, we are reminded why we’ll be happy to see Tom Salmon go off to one of those high-paying out-of-state gigs he’s supposedly been offered. The naked partisanship, the faulty reasoning, the shaky grasp of math and literacy.

After the jump: the Facebook screenshot, and Tom Salmon’s woeful grasp of the facts.

_____________________________________________________

“Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of her opponent.” I went back through the campaign finance reports for this season. The only time Beth Pearce had anything close to that money advantage was at the first filing of the year — back on July 15, when the official campaigning had only just begun. Pearce had raised $82,000 in cash contributions, while Wilton had amassed $16,000. That’s four and a half to one, not five to one. But maybe Tom rounded up.

“No one crying then.” Well, no, it was a very early report. If anyone was crying, I’d imagine it was Wendy Wilton and/or Angry Jack Lindley. After all, Wilton was their best hope for electing a hardcore conservative to statewide office. And here comes Beth Pearce, the supposed political neophyte, bagging the big bucks and showing herself to be a real contender.

But the main point is that it was way too early for anyone to be crying, or drawing conclusions. It just meant Wilton had some work to do. The money gap closed in later campaign finance reports, and it was completely reversed upon the entry of Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First into the fray, throwing gobs of cash into pro-Wilton advertisements in print, on the air and online.

“What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.” Uh, Tom, that’s a matter of public record. Not literally “today,” of course, but anyone with a computer can find out where the candidates stood on October 15 by visiting the Elections Division’s website. You ought to know that, considering you’ve run for office before.

To save you some trouble, the answer to your question is that as of October 15, Beth Pearce had raised $183,481 and spent #138,275. Wendy Wilton had raised $73,504 and spent $68,952. So Pearce has maintained a money advantage over Wilton, but nowhere near 5:1.

And Tom, good old free-marketeer, worshiper of the entrepreneurial spirit, why castigate Pearce for successful fundraising?

Besides, you’re missing the point and you know it. Wilton’s money disadvantage has been more than compensated for by Lenore Broughton’s checkbook. We don’t know exactly how much money Vermonter First has spent on Wilton’s behalf, but we do know that since October 8, it has spent nearly $200,000 for WIlton. We know it spent a lot on WIlton before that, but only Tayt Brooks (I.M.O.M.) knows the total.

So if you combine WIlton’s kitty with Broughton’s bucks, you get at least $261,000 spent for Wilton’s candidacy (and certainly far more than that) versus $166,000 spent by or on behalf of Pearce.

Okay, Tom. Put that in your calculator and add it up.  

We’ve spent a lot of time chronicling Lenore Broughton’s hyper-generous support for Wendy Wilton (by way of her tame Super PAC, Vermonter (sic) First). But we should not ignore Broughton’s activities in Legislative races, where VF has been funneling substantial money into mailers and newspaper ads for House and Senate candidates. Particularly, in this case, the House.

Usually, those races are low-profile affairs, more about handshakes and shoe leather than ad blitzes. In such a setting, a small amount of Super PAC money can have a decisive impact. And if it does, the door will be open for a fundamental transformation of our politics. Rich people and political operators may see Vermont as a state where a little money (relatively speaking) can make a huge difference.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, on a per-capita basis, Lenore Broughton has vastly outpaced the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove. If VF is successful this year, Broughton will be encouraged to spend more in the future, and wealthy outsiders may see Vermont as low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked.

t’s a concern shared by Nick Charyk of the VT Democratic House Campaign. “I don’t want to see it work,” he says of the Vermonters First money bomb. “It’s very unusual for a candidate to spend more than $10,000 on a House race. Often, it’s just door-to-door, talking to people. This is a referendum on whether people-powered campaigning can win against big money.”

After the jump: Shock and awe. And the potential stakes for single-payer.

One of the under-appreciated aspects of Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First is its “shock and awe” approach: the Super PAC didn’t officially organize until early September, and it didn’t open the financial floodgates until after the September 15 campaign finance report deadline — so we didn’t know how much money they planned to spend until the ensuing deadline in mid-October.

(On 9/15, VF reported $100,000 in donations, all from Broughton. On 10/15, VF reported raising almost $700,000 — all but $900 from Broughton. That report was a stunner for the political media, and presumably for the Dems and Progs.)

Smart tactics. In the home stretch of the campaign, the game had suddenly changed. “I have a fairly small budget,” Charyk told GMD. “I’d allocated all of it for specific candidates. I didn’t have anything for a broad-based effort. But it seemed to me that we had to push back.”

This week, the House Dems produced radio ads and mailers, some of them countering VF’s overall message and some in support of specific candidates who’ve been targeted by VF. Those key races include five seats in hotly-contested Rutland County, two House seats in Franklin County, home base of VF Treasurer Tayt Brooks (International Man of Mystery); and four in Windsor County. The latter includes a rematch of 2010’s closest race, in which Democrat Sarah Buxton ousted then-Republican incumbent David Ainsworth by a single vote.

Charyk admits it’s an uphill battle; his resources are a drop in the bucket compared to VF’s. But he is hopeful that Vermonters will reject the big-money blitzkrieg of Vermonter First and reward the candidates who’ve played by Vermont’s traditional rules.

Whatever happens on Tuesday, the Dems are certain to have a lopsided majority in the House. So what difference will it make if VF poaches a few seats?  “There wouldn’t be any short-term impact,” Charyk acknowledges. “But if they gain traction, it’s hard to fight against that. We saw what happened with President Obama’s health care reform: the Republicans got out in front and spent a lot of money, [and won the 2010 midterms].

“Health care reform will be a hard vote for some of our candidates. If right-wing messaging on health care gains traction, it could make it harder to pass single-payer health care.”  

If you live in a House district targeted by VF (you’d know because you will have received multiple mailings), please vote next Tuesday. And if you have any time to spare this weekend, contact your representative and see if there are ways you can help in the campaign’s closing days.  

Like the Free Press and Times Argus, The St. Albans Messenger gave its endorsement to Vince Illuzzi for Auditor.

While this comes as no special surprise, the rationale presented by Emerson Lynn in framing the endorsement certainly is.

Mr. Lynn maintains that Doug Hoffer is the more political of the two!  That’s right; that’s how it looks from where he stands.

…Doug Hoffer carries the banner for both the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.  His a self-described “numbers man,” something Mr. Illuzzi is not.  But the key difference between the two is that Mr. Hoffer’s political biases are already established and well known.

He makes two representations about Illuzzi vs. Hoffer that are particularly far off the mark, calling Vince Illuzzi “his own man” and suggesting that Mr. Hoffer might need a

“tutorial in terms of what the issues are and what needs auditing and what doesn’t.”

He concludes the endorsement  with a reference to Mr. Illuzzi’s sketchy ethics history:

…Mr. Illuzzi, a lawyer, has had his license suspended for ethical violations (in) 1993 and he did not have his license restored until 1998.  He’s also not shy to find the political spotlight and rush to its center.

Does this sound like a man who should be entrusted with the sober work of the auditor’s office?

I could not resist sending a letter in response:

Emerson Lynn’s rationale for supporting Vince Illuzzi over Doug Hoffer for Auditor makes no sense to me.

He seems to think that Senator Illuzzi, a career politician, is the a-political candidate; whereas it is Doug Hoffer who has never sought any other political office and is interested only in serving as Auditor.

Senator Illuzzi’s interest in the office is, in fact, so politically driven that he couldn’t even decide which political office he wanted to run for, AG or Auditor, until what amounted to the last minute. He was even rumored to have been considering running for Governor, which remains an option for the future.

And that is precisely my point.  Senator. Illuzzi’s run for the Auditor’s office is a a strategy to better position himself for a run for higher office.  This is a perfectly legitimate strategy and I am not writing to criticize Mr. Illuzzi or his motives.

I just think that, for the Auditor’s office to function as it was intended to, the office-holder should not be distracted from its legitimate focus by the need to think strategically about personal political ambitions.

Mr. Illuzzi has done a fine job of representing his district in the Senate; and his reputation for working across the aisle is a testament to his talent for negotiation and political strategy.  The Auditor’s office is not well-served by these talents.

Mr. Lynn seems to think that Mr. Hoffer’s candor about his views makes him somehow more “political.”  But I would say that it only makes him that much more transparent than is Senator Illuzzi, who comes away from the Statehouse as a master of the hidden agenda.

Anyone who is familiar with Doug Hoffer’s work over the years knows that he is a disciplined policy analyst who scrupulously adheres to the highest principles of honesty and fairness.  Absolutely no one could better serve Vermont as Auditor than Doug Hoffer.

Poor ol’ Six Teats. Not only is he a gigantic underdog to incumbent Attorney General Bill Sorrell, now the state’s court system is conspiring against him. Yesterday, he filed an emergency request for a court hearing on evidence-free allegations that Sorrell colluded with a national Super PAC during the Democratic primary campaign this summer.

Today, the court set a hearing date.

On Thursday, November 8.

Jack, of course, reacted with all the taste and discretion characteristic of your 2012 VTGOP.  

“It’s conveniently two days after the election,” McMullen said. “I can’t help but wonder if that’s a coincidence or not.”

Yeah, Jack. Jeb Spaulding slipped a couple Benjamins to the court clerk, and the docket mysteriously and suddenly “filled up” for the next four days.

McMullen joins the august company of VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley and Republican candidate for Treasurer Wendy Wilton in the Republican tinfoil hat brigade.  

As you may recall, after the August primary, Lindley implied collusion between the Progressives and Democrats to keep Annette Smith off the ballot, and implicitly accused Secretary of State Jim Condos of corruption. And on October 25, Wilton accused the Vermont Municipal Bond Board of malfeasance, implying that it had put Rutland on its “watch list” as part of a plot to undermine her candidacy.

Back to their new partner-in-tinfoil, Jack McMullen. Either he is woefully uninformed about how the court system works (not something you want in a prospective Attorney General), or he never really wanted disposition of his complaint before Election Day. Court system ain’t a barbershop, where you walk in, read an old Sports Illustrated for a few minutes, and then get your hair cut.

Let’s recap, shall we? The Democratic primary was August 28. The alleged collusion took place before then. The idea of collusion was first floated by Sorrell’s challenger, TJ Donovan, during the primary campaign. At the time, Donovan acknowledged that he had no evidence, just a suspicion.

In September, Lindley demanded an independent inquiry into the alleged collusion. The Governor and Attorney General told him to follow procedure and ask a State’s Attorney of his choice to investigate. Lindley did so, choosing Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster — who was appointed to the office by, ahem, Republican Governor Jim Douglas. Fenster is still mulling over the request. (Oh no… they… got to him, too!)

And then, on October 31, four business days before Election Day, McMullen files his emergency request. Did he just happen to remember all this stuff on Wednesday? Why didn’t he start this process earlier if he really wanted answers before the election?

Nah. As I said before, Six Teats doesn’t want answers. He wants to be able to ask politically damaging questions. We refer to the oft-repeated tale about one of Lyndon Johnson’s Texas campaigns, when he supposedly told an aide to spread a rumor that his opponent enjoyed carnal relations with pigs.

“C’mon, Lyndon,” the aide said. “You know he’s not a pigfucker.”

“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”  

I’ve spent my entire legal career as a Legal Aid lawyer. After I graduated from law school in 1979 I worked at Legal Aid of Western Michigan for four years, and I’ve been working at Vermont Legal Aid since 1983. I’ve loved not necessarily every day of it, but definitely every year, and it’s mainly because the work and the Legal Aid movement makes it possible to bring about positive change both for individual clients and for large segments of the population touched by poverty, neglect, and injustice.

Working in Legal Services for so long I know that we don’t make our achievements alone, and I’m proud not only of what I can accomplish but when my colleagues are able to accomplish great things.

This is one of those stories. At Vermont Legal Aid we have a project that provides legal representation to Medicare beneficiaries, and recently we had an individual case in which a client had been denied reimbursement for rehab services because they weren’t helping her get better. No surprise because lots of people have chronic conditions that will never get better, but rehab services will help them live independent lives in their own homes, giving them the maximum level of self-direction possible, and saving society a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on nursing home care into the bargain. By good lawyering my colleagues were able to keep the independent living services coming and one Medicare beneficiary was able to preserve her independent living situation.

But it didn’t stop there. You may have read about this in The Times. Vermont Legal Aid cooperated with the Center for Medicare Advocacy and filed a class action seeking to change the policy not just for our individual client, but for Medicare beneficiaries across the country who were in danger of losing the home-based that were enabling them to live outside of nursing homes. Last week it was announced that the government had agreed to settle the case, and to continue providing these vital services.

As The Times reports:

Federal officials agreed to rewrite the Medicare manual to make clear that Medicare coverage of nursing and therapy services “does not turn on the presence or absence of an individual’s potential for improvement,” but is based on the beneficiary’s need for skilled care.

The case also attracted an editorial from The Times, which said of the settlement, “It is clearly the humane thing to do for desperately sick people with little hope of recovery.” and “The solution to Medicare’s cost problem is not to deny needed services but to make the delivery of care more efficient and less expensive, and to ensure better management of care for the chronically ill.”

I didn’t work on the case, but I’m proud to be part of an organization that was able to see the need for this change and was willing to support the excellent work needed to carry it through to success.

As I said, the work is hard, the days can be challenging, but the rewards are great.

Update: Additional material on the Freeploid which, just like the Herald/Times Argus, endorsed Doug Hoffer in 2010. New stuff is in bold italic print below and at the end of my piece.

Okay, so the two biggest newspaper organizations in Vermont have endorsed Vince Illuzzi for Auditor: the Freeploid on Oct. 25, and the Herald/Times Argus on the 30th.

In reality, the endorsements will sway a handful of voters at most. But they are so completely illogical that they deserve some deconstruction.

Both are excellent examples of reaching a conclusion and then cobbling together an argument to support it. In both cases, the logic is torturous and the writers ignore inconvenient truths. And in both cases, the newspapers have reversed themselves, having heartily endorsed Doug Hoffer for Auditor in 2010.

First, I take you back to October 27, 2010, and the editorial pages of the Herald and Times Argus:

Hoffer offers an impressive resume of work done for the state on numerous complex issues related to jobs and economic development. Professionalism at a remove from partisan politics is what the auditor’s office needs, and that is what Doug Hoffer promises to deliver.

Yep, the Herald and Times Argus endorsed Doug Hoffer over four-year incumbent Tom Salmon. The editors said Hoffer “has exhibited a high degree of expertise and professionalism during his campaign,” and would bring to the job “years of experience monitoring state finances and the economy,” and “His analysis of the numbers always appears incisive and independent of special interests.”

And it quoted a certain State Senator, Vince Illuzzi, calling Hoffer “an invaluable resource.”

This year, however, expertise and professionalism and independence and inciseiveness and an impressive resume seem to have become less pertinent.

Illuzzi is not a traditional “numbers guy” by profession. His background is as a lawyer. Slipping into the state auditor’s role will require a learning curve, and perhaps some whiplash in having to keep tabs on the office’s constitutional duties that have been outsourced in recent years.

Oh. Ah. (Cough.) I see.

This year, the Mitchell Family Organ is happy to jettison expertise and professionalism in favor of a guy who’ll need on-the-job training and might even suffer a case of “whiplash.” Well, that’s a novel way of looking at things. (They also ignore Illuzzi’s intention to continue as Essex County State’s Attorney for an indefinite period of time, which will definitely slow his learning curve.) What else does Illuzzi bring to the job?

Illuzzi has had to be part of the action, whether it was throwing support behind projects for his constituents in the Northeast Kingdom, or around Windsor County, in greater Rutland or across central Vermont.

So he brings home the bacon for his constituents. Does the term “pork barrel” ring a bell?

He is a political machine, and he remains a publicity hound.

Oh, come on now. I think you’re just playing with us. Are you honestly trying to elect this guy? I guess so, but I don’t really understand why. Can you give me a reason, O Mighty H/TA?

But now, in the face of ever-tightening state budgets, we believe it is time to let Illuzzi loose to see what he can do to make a more efficient, streamlined government.

What the hell, give ol’ Vince a shot, see what happens. Yeah, I’d rather do that than elect someone with professionalism and expertise and integrity and two decades of directly relevant experience.

Uh, excuse me, Editorial Board, but you’re not convincing me. And it doesn’t help that you acknowledge the ethics violations on Illuzzi’s record; those might be considered pertinent in a campaign for a position that could be characterized as Chief Financial Ethicist. Do you really want a “political machine” with questionable ethics as your Auditor?

Really?

You know, Doug Hoffer could make a hell of a campaign ad for himself by quoting this endorsement. That is, he could if he was interested in negative campaigning, which he isn’t.

Let’s not forget something that goes unmentioned in this editorial: Vince Illuzzi didn’t plan to run for Auditor; he wanted to run for Attorney General. He switched to Auditor only because it was an easier path to a statewide office with a full-time salary. This endorsement seems to rely on the real unspoken argument of the Vince Illuzzi campaign: He’s been around for a long time, we all know the guy, so let’s give him a gold watch.

And one more bit of rhetorical legerdemain: While the endorsement does not refer to Hoffer’s party affiliation (Democrat and Progressive), it manages to call Illuzzi “The Democrat-Republican from Newport.” And while it’s technically true that Illuzzi has run for State Senate as both Republican and Democrat, he is first and foremost a Republican, and he is the GOP’s nominee for Auditor. Calling him “Democrat-Republican” in this context while omitting Hoffer’s party affiliation is deliberately misleading.  

Okay, let’s turn our attention to the Freeploid’s endorsement, which is oddly brief — only three paragraphs. Less than two hundred words. Or, in professional writers’ terms, “awfully damn short.”

The editorial begins by recounting his lengthy service in the Legislature — but not his checkered career as a lawyer, including a close shave with disbarment — and then says “It’s time to give this long-serving legislator a shot at a different challenge.”

Good God. Just like the Herald/TA. Let’s give ol’ Vince a shot, see what he can do.

And here’s the second of the three paragraphs, in its entirety. How do you like this logic?

Illuzzi has made many friends and acquaintances from all areas of the political arena in his time as a state senator, but he has been one to always speak his mind. Meanwhile, he has always kept his finger in the air to check the shifting winds.

Whaaaaaat? Your idea of a good Auditor is a glad-hander with friends in high places who’s always mindful of “the shifting winds”? What about independence and relevant experience? Integrity? Professionalism? I guess not:

People know Vince Illuzzi as an insider. For 32 years he has strolled the halls of the capitol building. But they also know him as a capable deal maker, someone who is quite clever and can get things done.

Oh, that’s even better. An insider, a deal maker. And somehow, after that description of the ultimate old pol, the Freeploid concludes that “Vince Illuzzi will be an effective watchdog.”

Huh?

“Lapdog,” I can see. That’s exactly what the Freeploid just spent two paragraphs describing. Where they get “effective watchdog” from that, I have no f’in idea.

One thing you won’t see in the Freeploid’s endorsement: the name “Doug Hoffer.” Not one single time do they mention him by name. Which is one reason why the ‘Loid’s endorsement is so brief: I guess the comparison would have been too embarrassing to mention.

It’s kind of an impressive rhetorical feat: both editorials are full of criticisms and backhanded compliments for Illuzzi, to the point where you’re expecting the papers to opt for Hoffer. And somehow they manage to endorse Illuzzi. Impressive, in a “WTF” sort of way.

The Freeploid took exactly the opposite tack two years ago, endorsing Hoffer on October 22, 2010 as the candidate “who would bring deep knowledge of how government works and a record of tracking down inefficiencies in Montpelier to the office of state auditor.” It also praised Doug’s “capable air and sharp focus.”

But the real topper, considering the Freeploid’s endorsement of the ultimate insider Vince Illuzzi this year:

As a Statehouse outsider, Hoffer brings a degree of skepticism about officialdom necessary for a watchdog. As a long-time policy analyst, he is familiar with the nooks and crannies where government information can hide.

Hoffer brings the right combination of experience and attitude to serve as auditor.  

Okay, Freeploid Editorial Board, I’ll bite — what about Doug Hoffer changed in the last two years? And what changed in the Auditor’s job description that you now prefer the insider to the outsider?

That would be nothing, and nothing. The Freeploid’s 180-degree spinaroonie MAKES NO SENSE.

Hurricane Sandy is just an excuse for Obama to shove more Big Government Socialism down the throats of the American People!

The Dems worship at the altar of government largess, and they are using this ‘disaster’ as an excuse to take over Free Enterprise and replace it with government-run Communism!

We need Mitt Rmoney to be president to stop this wasteful and unnecessary government spending.  He’ll disband FEMA on his first day in office, and once we get rid of FEMA we’ll have no more of these disasters.

We should put Halliburton in charge of disaster relief efforts and assign relief based on the economic production of each citizen.

Things are gettin’ tetchy on the Republican side of Campaign 2012. Today found Attorney General candidate Jack “Six Teats” McMullen throwing a Hail Mary in the form of an unprecedented court filing; and yesterday, we had gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock putting out the most negative ad of the year in Vermont, on the day after we narrowly escaped major storm damage — and at a time when neighboring states are still suffering from the effects of Superstorm Sandy. Tasteless? You make the call.

McMullen, dissatisfied with the pace of action on an evidence-free Republican charge of collusion between Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s campaign and a national Super PAC, today filed a court petition seeking a hearing within 24 hours on the charges. The filing comes under a provision in state election law allowing a candidate to request immediate court action on campaign-law violations in the days before an election.

I’d pause here to note that the alleged violations didn’t happen this week or last week; they happened in August. The fact that McMullen waited so long to make this dramatic move seems designed for maximum heat and minimum light. In other words, even if a court immediately hears his case, what chance is there of wrapping up the case before next Tuesday? None, I’d say.

Which leads me to conclude that McMullen’s true goal is to get maximum publicity in the last days of the campaign. He doesn’t care whether the charges are true or not; he’s just hoping to get some political gain out of making them.

After the jump: Desperation, Randy-style.

The same is true of Randy Brock’s last-minute request for an insane quantity of state documents, filed six business days before the election. Brock admits he has no evidence, just some stuff that people have told him. The truth: He doesn’t want a thorough airing of these charges; he just wants to be able to make them over and over again.

Which leads to Brock’s latest campaign commercial, a vile piece of propaganda straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. And released on Tuesday — one day after Vermont almost suffered a catastrophe with Superstorm Sandy. And on a day when New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other nearby states are dealing with real, deadly, and still-worsening states of emergency.

It’s borderline offensive to release such a negative ad on a day like yesterday. Politicians with some taste and discretion have eased back on the throttle for a decent interval. But not Randy. Hey, the ad was already produced and ready to go, the ad buys had probably been made, and there’s less than a week before the election. So damn the state of emergency, full speed ahead.

Another sign of real desperation on the Republican side. Desperation so deep and abiding that it overrides decent Republicans’ sense of propriety.  

Oh looky: another day, another mass-media filing by Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First, the conservative Super PAC.

Well, actually, two more filings: one was for $647 in newspaper ads for Dustin Degree and Norm McAllister, your Republican Senate hopefuls in Franklin County. But the big bucks, once again, go to support ultra-partisan demagogue Wendy Wilton’s candidacy for Treasurer.

This time: $19,450 for TV advertising. Which brings VF’s total spending on Wilton, by my count, to about $165,000.

Since October 11th.  

No matter how you slice it, by Vermont standards it’s obscene money. And it just keeps getting more obscene.

Update: This evening, Paul Heintz of Seven Days posted a very thorough piece on independent campaign spending at the “Off Message” blog. His count of Vermonters First spending on behalf of Wendy Wilton is higher than mine — $192,262 since October 10.

Think about that. Nearly $200,000 spent in 21 days. $10,000 per day to elect a Treasurer.