Well, jack “Six Teats” McMullen has finally committed himself to his campaign for Attorney General in the only way a businessman respects.

With his own money.

His October 15 campaign finance report shows total donations of slightly less than $15,000.

And personal loans of $144,000. Yep, One Gross Thousand Dollars. Bringing his total of self-loans to $153,000.

And he spent every bit of that money plus a bit more in the past month: reported expenditures totaling $150,000. The vast majority of that was for TV ad buys.

Since his campaign is attracting a mere handful of actual donations (mostly from out-of-state rich folks), I see more loans in Six Teats’ future.  

Oh boy. Vermonters First has submitted its final pre-election campaign finance report, and it’s a doozy.

Lenore Broughton, who had previously underwritten VF to the tune of $100,000, has added another $548,000 to the kitty.

Yes, that’s five hundred forty-eight thousand dollars.

For a to-date total of $648,000.

Also, VF did manage to broaden its donor base. It got a total of three — count ’em, three — gifts from people not named Lenore Broughton. They add up to $900. So it’s still pretty much Miss Daisy Against The World.

On the expenditure side, VF reported total spending of $463,000 for this period and $561,000 overall. So if they’re going to maintain their pace through Election Day, Miss Daisy may well crack the million-dollar mark all by herself.

Which, needless to say, would be absolutely unprecedented in Vermont politics.

Can we dispense with the myth that Lenore Broughton is just a simple individual who wants to do her part as a citizen? In reality, she’s trying to stage a one-person leveraged buyout of Vermont politics.  

(I’ll have more later on mid-October campaign finance reports.)

Anne Galloway and VTDigger, for another big step toward success. Perhaps because the Freeploid and Herald/T-A are now behind paywalls, Digger’s readership has doubled in the past year. From the look of the homepage, I’d say ad revenues have improved significantly. And Digger’s nonprofit overseer, the Vermont Journalism Trust, is investing back in the product. Over the weekend Digger announced the hiring of four new employees, including two reporters. Anne Galloway has put a ton of effort into Digger, and the work is paying off for all Vermonters in the development of a new, trustworthy — and free — online news source. This is especially crucial, given the ever-increaseing financial pressures on other media sources. (They do, of course, accept donations. I’m a donor; if you value Digger’s work, please consider doing the same.)

Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock, for effectively undercutting his own message. Recently, two noted pundits pronounced his campaign DOA (cough, ahem, only two and a half months after this observer did the same, on July 16. Guess I haven’t earned my Pundit Card yet). In response, Brock told reporters that his internal polling showed the race is still winnable. And then he stomped all over his message by hinting that today’s campaign finance report will, again, be disappointing. Which means that, unless he makes another six-figure loan to his own campaign, he won’t have the resources he needs to make the race competitive. Sigh.

State Sen. Ann Cummings, for having the (entirely metaphorical) stones to announce a run for Senate President Pro Tem, challenging incumbent John H.A. Campbell. “I’ve been there for 16 years,” the Washington County Democrat told Seven Days, “and I think the last two were just — we didn’t use our time well.” Nice understatement there. Campbell mustered all his (cough) diplomatic skill in attributing Cummings’ challenge to “personal issues” between the two, and hinting that Cummings had sometimes fallen short in performing her own duties.

And thumbs up to old H.A. himself, for gaining the support of the two eldest Dicks in the Senate, Sears and Mazza. The Pro Tem battle will be a real test for the Old Boys’ Caucus. Here’s hoping they fail. We’ve got way too many Old Boys in positions of power, thank you very much.

The Shumlin Administration, for a trifecta of bad news on its health-care reform plan. First, the Green Mountain Care Board voted to exclude dental care. Second, Jeb Spaulding announced that the administration won’t unveil financing plans for a single-payer system until 2015. And third, the news that next year’s transition to a health-care exchange may result in massive cost increases for low-income Vermonters, and that the administration and Legislature are still trying to figure out what to do about it. Shumlin deserves all the credit in the world for tackling health care, which is obviously a huge, complicated and difficult task. But if he faced a credible challenge in this campaign, these setbacks would spell real political trouble.

After the jump: Phil Scott, Franklin reactionaries, Jeff Danziger, Tayt Brooks, and more!

Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, for completing his eight-day, 568-mile bicycle tour of Vermont’s 14 counties. It was another feel-good event for the Mr. Happy Face of Vermont politics, best known for doing other people’s jobs for a day. (Which is oddly appropriate, for a guy whose “real” job involves… erhm… doing nothing much). I don’t want to downplay the good stuff that he’s done, notably the upcoming “Wheels for Warmth” tire-resale drive. But I do look forward to the day when Scott actually has to run a political campaign, get serous about the issues, and maybe even take some unpopular stands.

The Good People of Franklin, for continuing the senseless battle over prayer at Town Meeting. The town plans to appeal its defeat in court, and plaintiff Marilyn Hackett is facing intimidation and harassment for seeking to end the prayer. And the really strange thing about it is, if you believe the Freeplod’s story in the Friday edition, it has nothing to do with religion. It’s just something they’ve always done, and they don’t like change. “We’ve always done that,” “Tradition is tradition,” and other deep thoughts. Well, progress is progress, too. And the absence of what the invoking pastor calls “a simple invocation, it takes 20 seconds,” isn’t going to change the fundamental character of the town. At all. What really changes the community is the smoldering anger and bitterness of too many townspeople.

Washington County Judge Geoffrey Crawford, for rejecting the Republican Governors Association’s effort to launch a fishing expedition. (The ruling was issued on September 30, but hadn’t been reported as far as I can tell until a Vermont Press Bureau story published on October 8.) The RGA is defending itself against charges that it illegally colluded with Brian Dubie’s 2010 campaign for Governor. It sought to depose Shumlin aide Alex MacLean in an effort to find evidence of similar collusion on the Democratic side. The judge said the RGA was “building a case out of straw,” and seeking “to act as a private attorney general, combing through the records of its ideological opponents for evidence they too broke the law.” Sounds about right.

Well-meaning animal-rights activists, for their opposition to Green Mountain College’s plan to slaughter two oxen and process the meat for use in the college cafeteria. The beasts in question, Bill and Lou, have been campus fixtures for years, but they can no longer work as a team because of injury. Since the College teaches sustainable farm practices and the slaughter of aging work animals is a normal part of farm life, the decision makes perfect sense. But GMC is being called “cruel” for turning down an offer to house the oxen at a nearby animal sanctuary. Lord knows, there are plenty of battles to be fought on the animal-rights front; this one shouldn’t be anywhere near the top of the list.

Jeff Danziger, political cartoonist extraordinaire, for nailing it again with his Sunday effort in the Herald/T-A. Not available online anywhere I can see, but here’s the gist of it. The Dalai Lama and Governor Shumlin are sharing a cup of tea, sitting cross-legged at a low table.

The Dalai Lama: “The Buddha tells us the truth of love is seen in the trust for wisdom to visit in our hearts and find the gift of life in the blessings of friends who give us of themselves without fear or favor when we know that what is given in spirit of love is the reality of man’s true wealth.”

Shumlin: “The Buddha got land deals?”

Tayt Brooks, International man of Mystery, and the Super PAC Vermonters First, for staining the Internet with some truly ugly advertisements for Wendy Wilton and Vince Illuzzi. The ads featured a riot of colors and type fonts, plus really unflattering photos of the two candidates. That would have earned a Thumbs Down; what elevated it to Poke In The Eye status was the fact that, after GMD put its spotlight on the ads, it turned out the ads were illegal as well. They violated a state law banning the use of the state seal in advertisements of any sort. The Tayter quickly tucked his tail between his legs and pulled the offending ads. That should come as a big relief to Vince Illuzzi, who looked disconcertingly skeletal in the VF ad. (Unfortunately, he couldn’t complain about it or provide a replacement photo, because that would have been illegal coordination, wouldn’t it now?)

That’s it for this week, boys and girls. I welcome your own Thumbs Up and Down in the comments below.  

The U.S. Justice Department is suing the Vermont Secretary of State

Remember when Lead Sycophant and Senior Bootlicker, Hack Lindley held up the vote recount for a week, just because he could.  This forced the absentee ballots to go out a little bit late.  Which prompted the US Department of Justice to sue the Secretary of State’s office.

Hack Lindley is at the forefront of TeaBircher Assholism here in Vermont: Intentionally breaking the political process so he can complain about the broken political process in order to try to gain political advantage over the non-aholes in Vermont Politics.

And as I drive about the state I see that his plan is working. I see dairy farm after small business with Rmoney/Brock/Republican lawn signs, all approving of the VTGOP’s disrespecting of the political process.  I am amazed at small business owners voting for Rmoney who’s stated goal is to drive them all out of business and sell America to the Communist Chinese.

Here’s the full story:

http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/12…

I’ve had a lot of fun at the expense of Angry Jack Lindley, the chair of the Vermont Republican Party. And I’m sure I will continue to do so. But I have some sympathy for old A.J., and I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.

The last time Lindley was chair of the VTGOP in the late 70s and early 80s, it was a proud institution that still held the Governorship and two of Vermont’s three seats in Congress. Then, in early 2012, he was pulled out of pasture and put in charge of a party with no resources and an acute charisma shortage (see: Brock, Randy, and McMullen, Jack).

And out of a sense of partisan duty, he basically agrees to become captain of the Titanic when it’s a half-mile from the iceberg. The bad decisions had already been made by his predecessors, and his hands will be on the tiller when the ship inevitably sinks. No wonder the guy goes nutzoid once in a while.

Not to mention that while his party crawls across the desert, it is surrounded by securely fenced oases. The $5,000,000 in Romney Bucks parked in the VTGOP account; the bulging purse of Lenore Broughton, tightly shut to Angry Jack but wide open to the superPAC Vermonters First. As for the loyal Vermont conservatives who used to bankroll the party, where have they gone? I don’t know, thanks to the unconscionably primitive state of Vermont campaign finance reporting.  

But I am not here to bury Angry Jack, nor to praise him. My purpose is to assess the immediate future of the VTGOP, a party with no resources and an acute charisma shortage (see: Brock, Randy, and McMullen, Jack).  And a party that has tacked sharply to the right, despite the fact that the balance point of Vermont politics is clearly center-left.

I’ve asked the question before. Why has Randy Brock run a campaign right out of the Ethan Allen Institute playbook? Why make health care denialist Darcie Johnston the highest-paid political operative in Vermont? Why hire out-of-state campaign consultants known for their work for Tea Party candidates? Why develop policies on advice from the likes of El Jefe General John McClaughry and baby faced free-marketeer Tarren Bragdon? Why bring in Maine Governor Paul LePage for a big fundraiser, only to have his evil shadow linger over the campaign like the stench of a cheap cigar?

Why all of this, when Brock’s only real chance was to run as a tough-minded, non-ideological technocrat?

The answer, it now seems clear: Lenore Broughton.  

Well, not necessarily Miss Daisy her ownself, but what she represents. She and her ilk are the moneybags of the contemporary Republican Party, and they want the GOP to keep tacking rightward. And it’s only by sucking up to the Broughtons of the world that the VTGOP can hope to get the money it needs to stay competitive.

Problem is, that takes the party even farther away from the Vermont electorate.

Second problem is, it’s not working. Brock’s not attracting any national money. (Or pretty much any money, for that matter.) And while Broughton’s making it rain, there’s nary a drop to be found anywhere near Brock or the VTGOP.

Okay, big picture. Most of the races are all but settled. Phil Scott’s the only statewide Republican candidate who’s a strong favorite. Vince Illuzzi’s got a decent chance at Auditor, like it or not (and I don’t). The political observers tell me the Treasurer’s race is competitive; I don’t buy it. I think Beth Pearce will keep her post.

So. Here’s something I’ve pointed out before: if Scott is the sole Republican winner, then the party’s obvious leader and #1 gubernatorial hopeful will be a conspicuous  moderate. (The same holds true if Illuzzi joins Scott in the winner’s circle.) The VTGOP leaned hard to the right this year, and is likely to come out of this election at an historic low: no money, a tiny minority in the Legislature, and uncompetitive at the top of the ticket.

Meanwhile, you’ve got Vermonters First and Lenore Broughton, with much deeper pockets than the party itself, urging the party ever rightward. The Vermont Republican Party, only two years removed from the Douglas Era, will be a shell of an organization. Its top elected official (and, ahem, the electorate) will be on one side, and its deepest pockets on the other.

This looks like a tug-of-war with a feeble Republican Party pulled in both directions. That is, assuming that Phil Scott really is a moderate. So far in his political career, he’s been able to play Mr. Nice Guy without having to make the tough calls. He’s the ideal Lieutenant Governor, really; but what happens when (or if) he has to take a role of partisan leadership? Does he try to pull the party back to the center, which he knows, from his own experience, is the best location for a Republican victory? Or does he pull a Mitt Romney and become a born-again conservative?

You never know in politics. Too much success an make a party complacent — or even corrupt. The Dems could very well get fat and lazy, and create openings for the VTGOP. But the Republican hierarchy will have to get creative to take advantage of any Democratic missteps. They’ll have to be willing to jettison the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh line, abandon any hope of attracting far-right funders, and fashion a new Republican Party based on managerial efficiency rather than conservative dogma. Phil Scott will have to become a true leader, instead of a guy who organizes charity drives and does other people’s jobs for a day.

I don’t really see any of that happening. I think the party leadership is too wedded to dogma. I think they actually believe the stuff. And until I see evidence to the contrary, I don’t thin Phil Scott is capable of taking charge, fighting political battles, and leading his party out of the wilderness. He’s certainly shown no sign of it so far.

In any case, Vermont Republicans will have plenty of opportunity to assess their situation and consider the alternatives. God knows, they won’t have to worry about doing any governing anytime soon.  

This post began as a response to this comment:

…

I spent eighteen years working in environmental law and education and only when our mountain ecosystems began to get blasted did I shed the scales from my eyes and see these giant turbines clearly.  It’s insane to destroy Vermont in order to save it.

But I thought it important to make the point very clear right on the front page. Here’s my response:

You seem to misunderstand the definition of “destroy,” so let me help.

Destruction:

Mountain top removal turns former mountains into barren, infertile, moonscape plateaus, surrounded by toxic waste, with downstream waters poisoned for hundreds of miles. That IS destruction.

NOT Destruction:

The Lowell wind farm changes a small portion of the landscape in a way that is largely recoverable, and does not endanger the life on the mountain (alters somewhat, yes; endangers, no). That is NOT destruction.

Quiz:

In the photo below, which state is being destroyed – West Virginia (top) or Vermont (bottom)?

It’s VERY simple:

We MUST replace earth-destroying carbon sources with lower-impact energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, the impact of a typical wind project with modern turbines is NOTHING compared to the damage from coal mining, fracking, or other fossil fuel extraction.

Nothing.

And that doesn’t even count the planetary emergency being caused by CO2 production (nice coal-fired smog, there, in Lowell – obliterating the views in the distance, eh? So much more attractive than those turbines…).

We no longer have time to wait for “perfect” energy solutions. It is absolutely imperative we move to “good enough” solutions that stop CO2 inputs into the atmosphere. Now.

We’ve already “broken the arctic,” as Bill McKibben says. We can’t break any more of our planetary climate ecosystems. The planet will be incompatible with human life if we continue the carbon path.

We have two choices: accept a future that involves a lot of wind power in conjunction with other renewables and efficiency, or kill of most of the population (including animal populations) on the planet.

You do not get to choose the latter for the rest of us. Sorry.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance: 

We've written about this before: a local resident, Marilyn Hackett, successfully sued the town of Franklin and this year won an injunction preventing the town fathers from beginning their annual Town Meeting with a prayer.

It was a heroic effort and the news reports at the time documented the abuse she was subjected to based on her willingness to stand up for her principles. Perhaps most shockingly, one of the suggestions from the town was that if she doesn't like the prayer she just shouldn't show up at Town Meeting. That's right, in the view of some of her fellow townspeople it would be reasonable to condition her right to participate in the governance of her town on her acceding to their religious views.

Today the Burlington Free Press has an update, and guess what: bigotry and intolerance are still rampant in Franklin. I think the article is behind their paywall, but here are a couple of key quotes:

“It’s almost like a joke — a cheap shot — to try to knock that thing out of there.”

“I said right from the beginning to have an outsider come into town and all of a sudden she’s changed the way Franklin runs its Town Meeting,” Hartman said. “I think it’s awful.”

“If she (Hackett) was somebody who wanted to be a part of that town, she could’ve overlooked that.”

In addition, the story by Sally Pollak makes clear that Marilyn Hackett continues to be harassed, including by students at the school where she works in nearby Richford.

What do we learn from this episode? A few things.

First, if there were any doubt, today's story illustrates just how brave someone has to be to stand up for principle, especially in a small town.

Second, it confirms the heroism of Marilyn Hackett.

Finally, everything in this story demonstrates how important it was for Marilyn Hackett and the ACLU to bring this case. It's not the people who go along with the majority, who hold popular opinions, who need the Constitution's protection. It is the minorities, people who can't get their way without the protection of the law, the courts, and civil libertarians.

Those of you with no lives may be counting the days until October 15, the final pre-election deadline for filing campaign finance reports. I’ll certainly be there for the Big Release Monday afternoon, and will be posting reports on this site.

But yesterday, Randy Brock gave reporters a bit of a preview — and it wasn’t a pretty picture. Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau ()behind the Herald/T-A paywall):

Brock said the fundraising totals he’ll reveal next Monday… will show totals on par with what he’s raised in previous reports.

The previous reports, as you may recall, were consistently underwhelming, well short of the pace that Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis has declared as necessary to remain competitive with Gov. Shumlin. What’s worse, his campaign is continuing to spend money faster than it’s coming in. Indeed, if you add up his recent media buys, his spending pace has quickened.

He said he’s considering another personal loan to the campaign – he contributed $300,000 of his own money in July – but that he’d prefer to “shake some trees” elsewhere.

Eeeuuuugh.  

D’ya think there are any likely trees he hasn’t shaken already? He’s gonna have to dig deep into his own pocket in order to keep his campaign going. And Shumlin hasn’t really even started advertising yet.

As for his strategery for the stretch run:

Brock said his campaign will be targeting political moderates he believes can be swayed to his side.

Hey, brilliant! Maybe he’s finally realized what I explained way back in May — he has to appeal to the center if he’s to have any hope of winning.

Too bad he’s spent the entire campaign pandering to the far right.

That’s the headline on a blog post by the Vermont Food Bank.

50%

– Just as we head into winter.

– While many families are still reeling from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Irene.

We may have gotten most of our roads and bridges back in place, but that can’t replace the jobs lost when businesses were washed away. It doesn’t help the families whose homes are still gone. It doesn’t feed our kids.

The Vermont Foodbank and its network of 270 food shelves, meal sites, shelters, senior centers and after-school programs are experiencing record demand for our services.  Thousands of families are finding it harder to make ends meet, struggling with only one wage earner or reduced hours and wages.  And as the need for food assistance dramatically increases, the charitable food system is working with fewer and fewer resources.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is an income-based federal program that provides food at no cost to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger relief through organizations like the Vermont Foodbank.  During FY 2012, the Foodbank saw a 50% reduction in its allotment of TEFAP food; that is over one million pounds of food.

TEAP is one of those social programs the republicans love to cut. After all, it benefits the working poor and their “moocher” children.

At the very time when food prices have skyrocketed. At the very time when heating season is about to hit – with record high fuel prices. At the very time it is needed most, the funding is cut, leaving children and their families hungry.  If you’ve ever been in the situation of having to decide to not eat for a couple of days so you can make sure there’s enough food for your kids, you know just how evil these cuts are. If you’ve ever had to explain to your children that the dinner they had at the local free church supper is all they get today, you know.

I don’t generally post to ask for money, but the situation in Vermont is becoming dire. If the proposed cuts to food assistance (SNAP) are passed, it’s going to get much, much worse.

“This lack of food is having a ripple effect,” said John Sayles, Vermont Foodbank CEO.  “Many of our partners are struggling to keep food on their shelves while providing for those in need walking through their doors.  And while grocers, food manufacturers and financial donors have been generous, the Foodbank still struggles to fill the void of the 1.2 million pounds of food that we were counting on.”

Short by 1.2 million pounds of food. Think of how much hunger that would represent if we weren’t still recovering in the aftermath of the most destructive hurricane in nearly 100 years.  Think of how much hunger that would represent if SNAP benefits weren’t also on the chopping block. Think of all the families who will sacrifice heat for food.

Please help by donating to the Vermont Food Bank. A donation of $25 = 150 meals. Even the smallest donation can fill the void for a child for a day.

Donate, because no child deserves to go to bed hungry.

So I caught Annette Smith on the Mark Johnson Show yesterday, and something about it bothered me. Well, more than one thing, but one in particular.

During her appearance, the write-in candidate for Governor ticked off a long list of issues animating her campaign:

The school lunch program, the F-35’s, ridgeline wind turbines, wireless smart meters, forced vaccinations*, the Green Mountain Power merger with CVPS and the $21 million.

*What “forced vaccinations” exactly? Who’s pinning down kids and jamming needles in their arms?

She later added another one: EPA-mandated disinfection of public water supplies.

What’s the common thread that ties all these issues together? I would have said “small isolated groups of single-issue activists brandishing junk science,” but maybe that’s just me. What does Ms. Smith say?

Local control. There are increasing federal mandates, federal burdens, and a government that seems to be much more in league with the corporations than with the people.

…There is this convergence of feeling like we are just completely losing our local control to federal and state mandates, and the people are not being listened to.

If you just read the words, and don’t know it’s Annette Smith talking, what do you think?

I think “Tea Party.”  

Tea partiers are angry about the perceived loss of control over their lives and their subservience to forces larger than themselves. People who want smaller, less powerful government. People who are willing to accept any evidence, no matter how flimsy or suspect, that appears to support their cause. And unwilling to accept any evidence, no matter how credible, that undermines their cause.

I also think “demagoguery.” That may sound harsh, but during the interview Smith compared wind development to terrorism. (The quote: “When you work on the wind issue and you go into these communities, it’s like a terrorist has landed in your community.”) Untethered rhetoric, one of the characteristics of the demagogue.

Riddle me this: Would Ms. Smith be willing to accept any evidence that wind turbines aren’t so bad after all? Or would she continue to oppose them no matter what? And is there a single issue on which she believes that a small group of activists is wrong, and big government is right?

Furthermore, if you’re advocating local control and a diminishment of federal and state power, where do you draw the line? Are you against state and federal health care reform? Single payer must be a nightmare of government overreach, no? Are you against Medicare and Social Security? You don’t like the EPA mandating treatment of public water systems; do you want them regulating pollution? Are you against Act 250, which takes land-use decisions out of the hands of individuals and local governments? If you’re against state and federal mandates in education, are you against Act 60, which forces people in some communities to send a portion of their tax dollars to other school districts?

If not, there’s a fundamental contradiction in the worldview. Unless your guiding principle is “Government is bad when it does bad things, and good when it does good things.” Which isn’t a principle at all.

As a liberal, I see government as a necessary counterweight to the power of corporations and the untrammeled free market. Government certainly doesn’t work as well as it should, but cutting government power isn’t going to usher in a Golden Age of the People; it’s going to allow corporations to gain more control and let the free market run wild.

The problem isn’t that the government has too much power. The problem is that it too often fails to use its power wisely. Annette Smith’s movement is not the answer. I hope her candidacy is a failure, because I don’t want Tea Party-style politics to gain traction anywhere.