(Promoted again. Philip Baruth and Doug Hoffer are pledging to help defend Mike against the Republican smears. Anyone else?

As we witnessed in the Republican primary and earlier in St. Albans City elections, there is a particularly ugly side emerging in Franklin County politics; but daylight is the best disinfectant, so we especially appreciate Mike’s diary appearing on GMD! – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Just so we’re clear, I’m Mike McCarthy, and I post on GMD as azvox. I’m a Democratic candidate for the State House in Saint Albans (Franklin 3-1). I also am a new Dad, a husband, the owner and operator of Cosmic Bakery & Cafe on Main Street, a volunteer at the St. Albans Community Justice Center and the Vice Chair of the Saint Albans Downtown Board.

A day after the primary a friend tagged me on his Facebook comment on a page entitled “I Like Mike McCarthy to Go Away”. The page, mirroring my campaign site, was filled with messages dating back to June 19 imploring the anonymous author’s friends to show their dislike for me.

All of the posts on the page were in caps, so the page had a pretty amateur feel, but the animosity was expressed with great enthusiasm and little humor. A hint of positivity graced the page, a link to the page of one of my opponents, Casey Toof.

Saint Albans is a pretty close-knit town, and we usually avoid overt negativity in our local races. However since the contentious City Council race in the Spring, it seems that some people find it acceptable to trash talk and call candidates “ARROGANT, SELFISH, and OUT FOR HIMSELF” on the old Facebook.

The site has since come down, but facebook traffic about the site has revealed some of the author’s associates and their feeling that my letter in the Labor Day edition of the Saint Albans Messenger was “full of untruths”.

It’s funny how bullies claim they’re the victims when a light is shown on their behavior. As I said in my letter to the editor, I would ask my supporters to keep their responses positive and clear about the vision we have for a more vibrant Saint Albans.

You can “like” my real Facebook page at http://facebook.com/ilikemikes…

Following up on Sue’s previous diary… I was also dismayed by Governor Shumlin’s decision to cut down on the number of debates, but for a completely different reason.

The decision itself didn’t bother me much. Shumlin faces an underfunded and longshot challenger; it’s basic politics to limit the amount of time he shares a stage with Randy Brock. I’d be upset about it if he only wanted two or three debates, but he’s agreeing to at least five or six, which strikes me as an adequate number. Do we really need a dozen or more? (After a while, I stopped paying attention to the seemingly endless Sorrell/Donovan debates.)

And I don’t especially mind that Shumlin only wants media-sponsored debates. I’ve never before lived in a state where gubernatorial debates were sponsored by constituency groups; their absence wouldn’t trouble me much.

So, what did bother me? The Shumlin campaign’s transparently disingenuous bullshit about him being too busy governing to bother with campaigning.

Look, the Governorship is an elective office. Campaigning isn’t a distraction or an annoyance; it’s part of the job.

The Governor serves at the pleasure of the people. That means staying in touch with them and periodically seeking their approval. I get it that Shumlin is trying to position himself as a diligent administrator, but there’s a flip side to the “too busy for campaigning” notion: it lends credence to his reputation for arrogance. That’s not politically helpful.

So there’s my position on debates. Agree to a reasonable number, and I don’t much care where they are held or who sponsors them. But Governor, please stop pretending you’re above politics. You are a politician. Your job is a political one. And besides, you’re good at it. Why run away from it?

A better position would go something like this: Tell us that you enjoy campaigning, but that you have to balance it with the demands of the job. Be visible, both as a campaigner who loves interacting with people (or at least is good at pretending you are) and as a Governor, efficiently conducting the people’s business.

That’s not so hard, is it?

I was disappointed to read that the Governor’s reelection campaign has nixed any and all debates apart from those hosted by media outlets.

Most specifically, I am disappointed that there will be no debate hosted by Toxics Action Center, the VNRC and the rest of the environmental community, who came together in November 2009 to launch the Democratic gubernatorial debates with an extremely friendly forum at their annual “Environmental Action”event in Randolph.

Governor Shumlin should remember that forum well.  He rocked the room with fiery promises, and received thunderous applause for most of his comments.  

Set aside for a moment the fact that this particularly warm reception was bolstered by his campaign posse, who were liberally peppered throughout the audience and conspicuously exited at the end of the debate without staying for any of the closing remarks from the groups who sponsored the forum.  This was the signature event that opened his stellar primary run.

Many of the same people who attended that first forum were present a year later, in November 2010, at the same annual event to hear the new Governor-elect address his environmental supporters in a recorded speech, reiterating his commitment to their shared values.  Despite what had turned out to be a bitterly fought primary race and close election, or perhaps because of it, the Governor’s response from this core constituency could not have been warmer.

Governor Shumlin might be feeling a little uncertain about his reception this time by the environmental community; especially so, in light of his stream-bed reclamation decisions, post-Irene.  This would be his opportunity to square himself with a key-constituency by recognizing their importance to his authority, and by making himself available for questioning.  The environmental community is, for the most part, a sympathetic audience, which stands ready to give a fair hearing to his rationale.  

He can’t possibly think himself more vulnerable than Randy Brock on environmental issues!

The AARP represents another front on which he might seize the opportunity of a debate to take control of the message.  He certainly has the healthcare chops to win a more focussed hearing from the AARP crowd for his rationale in opposing the CVPS payback that AARP (and Randy Brock) supported.  But I can well-understand that this is not necessarily a venue that is to his distinct advantage.

The environmental lobby is very definitely a venue where he needs to do some serious fence mending, and where there is no risk of being bested by Brock.  

It’s a snub that could well come back to bite him sometime in the future.

Nice little fluff piece on VTDigger about Vermont Republicans at the national convention. Jack Lindley bragging about screwing over the Ron Paul delegation (he’s hated them since they prevented Mitt from bagging a majority of the Vermont primary vote), Randy Brock working the hallways trying to pump some money into his rapidly-emptying warchest, and an intriguing little item about the difference between the state and national GOP.

You may recall this little convention-preview tidbit from the Freeploid:

You might wonder if [Randy] Brock is worried about how spending time at the Republican National Convention will go over with voters back home where the national Republican scene – including the rise to the prominence of tea party groups – gives some Vermonters the heebee jeebies.

Brock shrugged that off, suggesting he could be a good influence on the national party. “The best way to insure that their side prevails is not to participate,” he said. “I need to be part of that debate.”

At the time, I posed the question, exactly how does “their side” (the tea partiers) differ from Randy Brock’s allegedly kinder, gentler side? Well, here’s the answer, courtesy of one Craig Bensen, radical fundamentalist minister who’s still trying to overturn marriage equality AND who was the chair of the Vermont delegation to the national convention.

My view is that the two platforms are pretty much consistent. The national platform has a lot more pages and specifics, but the broad brush strokes are very similar.

But hey, don’t worry about it, Vermont moderates! The platform is so meaningless, it might as well be written on toilet paper. So says Randy Brock:  

Although the platform represents official party positions nationally, Brock argued that it isn’t really that significant as a political document, especially for the average Vermonter.

“It represents the position in some cases of those so-called ‘base activists’, not really relevant to those of us here in Vermont,” said Brock, who added that Vermont Republicans have been an “independent breed” and a moderating influence on a more right-wing national party platform. “But some underlying issues in the platform, particularly the size and role of government, and the need to revitalize our economy, are things we’re in closer alignment on.”

Profiles in Courage. Brock admits that the VTGOP stands with the national party on financial and budgetary issues, regulation, taxation, and giving the One Percent even more leeway to do what they want. (Hey, that’s the national GOP’s entire economic program, right?)

As for what makes Vermont Republicans an “independent breed,” not a clue. You might assume that the VTGOP is less stringent on social issues… but Randy doesn’t say so. And the party did choose Craig Bensen to lead their delegation — a significant honorific for a fringe character whose focus is entirely on social issues.

And about Randy’s claim that the VTGOP is a “moderating influence,” well, the available evidence suggests that the VTGOP has about as much influence as a fart in a windstorm.

And I’m still waiting to find out how the VTGOP differs from the national party.  

“It’s dull. Dull. DULL. My God, it’s dull. It’s so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL.”

The timeless words of Mr. Anchovy came to mind with distressing frequency during today’s broadcast of “Vermont Edition” on VPR. It was a good old Reporters’ Roundtable, with three Statehouse journalists* killing an hour by batting around political stories about Tuesday’s primary and the outlook for the general election. (Guests: Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid, Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau, and John Dillon of VPR. Host: Bob Kinzel.) And since there’s precious little suspense to be found in Vermont’s 2012 campaign, the reporters didn’t really have much to talk about.

*Given the diminished status of the Vermont media, a single IED could have decimated our political press corps. Paul Heintz would have been the Last Man Standing.  

Which didn’t stop them from talking, although it was pretty obvious that none of them had much enthusiasm for the task. It was like a group of shoppers in the worst second-hand store in the world — examining various forlorn objects, searching fruitlessly for something worthwhile.

(Although, funny thing, in their rote rundown of the political outlook, they completely omitted some stuff that I find fascinating.)

The biggest problem is the paucity of suspense in this campaign. Barring a huge surprise, the Dems will retain sizable majorities in the Legislature and will dominate the statewide races except for Lieutenant Governor and possibly Auditor. (With all due respect to Cassandra Gekas.) But the reporters couldn’t simply admit this. Tor one thing, it’d violate their false sense of objectivity; for another, they have a professional interest in heightening the suspense. They need stories, and in a time of ever-shrinking news holes, they need to capture the attention of editors and readers. (In that order.)  

So they started by tossing out the question of whether Annette Smith might wield some influence on the gubernatorial race. Well, for starters, the number of Progressive write-in votes is significantly short of Martha Abbott’s — and at least some of those write-in votes will be for other people. So her odds of winning a ballot spot are short indeed.

And even if she does get on the ballot, how much influence will she really have? She has the active backing of a few hundred single-issue voters. She’s never run for office before. And as for the gubernatorial debates, she might be a forceful advocate for her chosen issue, but what is she going to do the rest of the time? WIll she have any answers on health care, education, taxes, economic development, crime, corrections, infrastructure, etc.? I think the debates would expose her, instead of bolstering her cause.

But still, it was the closest thing to potential interest in the gubernatorial campaign that the reporters could find.

They then went down a laundry list of issues, asking the question, “Could _______ be a good issue for Randy Brock?” The answer, generally speaking, was “Maybe.” Left largely unspoken were some fundamental truths about the Shumlin/Brock matchup:

1. Shumlin has huge advantages across the board:  fundraising, organization, and most of all, the fact that he’s done a pretty decent job as Governor.

2. Incumbents never lose, Bill Sorrell’s close shave notwithstanding.  

3. Brock has failed to raise anywhere near enough money to be competitive.

4. Brock has shown no sign of being the kind of dynamic figure that could galvanize the voters.

5. Brock has run a hard-right campaign that will alienate moderates and cement Shumlin’s built-in edge with a left-leaning electorate. (This is a question I wish the panel would have tackled: “Why has Brock run so far to the right, when the only Republicans who do well in Vermont are centrists?”)

So, after ignoring all those salient facts, they dutifully ticked off the other statewide races. They spent a fair bit of time trying to gin up interest in the Attorney General’s race, pretty much omitting the fact that Jack McMullen is a joke of a candidate — even if you leave out the unfortunate Fred Tuttle affair.

There was, generlaly speaking, a curious lack of consideration for the role of money in the campaigns. They mentioned that Beth Pearce had vastly outraised Wendy Wilton, but otherwise the candidates’ relative fundraising prowess was largely ignored. Nobody mentioned Brock’s perilous financial state.

About the only time when the reporters went out on a limb — or, to be more precise, took a single gingerly step away from the trunk — was when they acknowledged that Vince Illuzzi has the early edge in the race for Auditor. They correctly observed that Illuzzi is more politically skilled than Doug Hoffer; but they did not broach the most interesting subject in that race: why the Dems and their donors haven’t done more for Hoffer.

The broadcast wasn’t helped by the fact that the reporters seemed to be walking on eggshells throughout — being very careful not to say anything that might be interpreted as bias or jumping to conclusions. Well, either that, or their natural speaking style is slow, halting, and colorless.

It made for an unrelentingly bland hour of radio. I don’t recommend that you bother catching tonight’s rebroadcast or listening online. You won’t learn much of anything.  

Color me unimpressed.

News that President Obama has authorized limited drilling by Shell off the Alaskan coast was just the latest in a series of energy decisions made by the President that betray his environmental credibility.

Although the Republicans have attempted to make a lot of hay with the Solyndra failure, relatively little initiative toward a clean energy future has been forthcoming under Obama.  He continues to favor nuclear and the oxymoronic “clean coal,”  still prioritizing expansion of domestic supply over any real progress in the country’s commitment to energy efficiency.

I will not dispute the fact that he has temporarily halted the Keystone XL pipeline, and, through the EPA, advanced the timeline for more fuel-efficient automobiles; but let’s not kid ourselves, there is every reason to believe that he will ultimately cave on Keystone as he has on Arctic drilling; and we know that even with the EPA’s new timeline, the U.S. is way behind the fuel efficiency curve and not trying all that hard to catch-up.

We can see where this drilling off the coast of Alaska is headed.  It may begin as a “cautious” trial but is almost guaranteed to expand to deep-water drilling before you know it.

Instead of making a stronger argument for reducing consumption; an argument that, even economically, makes the best long-term sense; President Obama has moved further to the right on this issue.  

By embracing the Republican meme that we cannot do more with less oil, he has given them the upper hand on all things energy; because whatever drilling he authorizes, whatever regulations he relaxes and whatever dirty industry he enables, it will never be enough to satisfy the right-wing demand for total deregulation.

I think that this is a strategic mistake not just from an environmental standpoint, but also from a political one.  

I seem to recall a successful candidate for Hope and Change who wasn’t afraid to be a one-term president.

By drawing a sharp contrast between his social positions and those of his Republican opponents, the President has solidified and expanded his appeal, even in the face of discouraging economic times.

I believe that he stands a better chance of winning over the undecideds by not caving to the right on environmental regulation.  

By making the case for bolder rules and clean energy initiatives, drawing a deep and vivid distinction between the economic future that responsible environmental decisions will provide for our children and the toxic spiral of catastrophe that would result from deregulation under a Republican administration, the President can demonstrate his charismatic leadership and make good on his promise of real change.

I Hope it isn’t too late for that Change!

The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham said this about the demographic challenges of Republican Party:

"The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

So this morning after enjoying a self-imposed news blackout last night to avoid listening to Mitt Romney’s Republican festival of lies (turned off the radio, TV, and laptop) I find the Republicans have embarked on a counter-intuitive outreach effort.  Eighty-two-year-old Clint Eastwood and an empty chair upstaged Mitt Romney’s make-or-break acceptance speech. The aging star posed leading questions to a chair in which sat an imaginary President Obama. Obama “chair” replied with suggested obscenities and was rebuked by Eastwood.

More damagingly, perhaps, this most controlled of candidates risked being overshadowed by a bizarre, meandering performance from veteran actor Clint Eastwood.

Eastwood used up roughly 10 minutes of network TV primetime with a soft-spoken, ad-libbed address that involved him talking to an empty chair that purported to represent President Obama. TheHill.com

It is hard to imagine a more perfect illustration of Lindsey Graham’s worries about over-reliance on angry white guys than to have angry-white-guy Clint Eastwood ramble at an empty chair for 10 minutes. Guess Romney-Ryan are just going for the “Get-off-my-lawn” voter. Big tent?

Since the Democratic primary for Attorney General is now over, the Incredible Shrinking Pack of Vermont Journalists has dutifully turned its attentions to the Man in Waiting — Jack “Six Teats” McMullen, the Republican challenger so cavalierly dismissed by Bill Sorrell on primary night. The Freeploid, VTDigger, and the Vermont Press Bureau attended McMullen’s post-primary news conference* where he outlined his agenda. And, it seemed to me, there were quite a few “off” notes.

*Since the primary wasn’t actually decided until that morning, wouldn’t McMullen have been wise to postpone his presser? I realize it was scheduled in advance, but why not put it off for a day and have a news cycle all to himself?



The big item on ol’ S.T.’s agenda is some kind of a War on Drugs that seems to be an amalgam of right, left, and fuzzy. Plus a couple of ideas that strike this non-lawyer as fundamental changes to the way our legal system works.

McMullen held the presser outside a Burlington house in a neighborhood reportedly victimized by a rash of burglaries. His approach to fighting “drug-driven crime in the state of escalating proportion” (parse that one, amateur grammarians!) starts with a delineation between violent and non-violent drug crimes*. Violent offenders would be dealt with harshly, while the nonviolent would be diverted into treatment.

*So, is burglary violent or nonviolent? Just askin’. I’m sure Jack’s homeowner/host would like to know if his burglar is headed for the pokey or the Betty Ford.

Also, for dealing with the violent, he wants some sort of coordination by the AG among the county state’s attorneys that sounds an awful lot like the AG telling the state’s attorneys what to do. Digger:

“With 14 different state’s attorneys addressing the problem, you have an uneven approach to it and what that means is that the bad guys can figure out where the seams are and then work them,” McMullen said.

Somehow I doubt that drug gangs are conducting in-depth analyses of the counties’ sentencing patterns, and targeting their crimes accordingly. I think they go where the money is.

But aside from that, it sounds like Jack wants to eliminate prosecutorial discretion and centralize punishment standards in the person of the Attorney General. Which is dandy if you’re the AG, but is that the way our system is supposed to work?

For the nonviolent drug offenders, treatment would be the preferred option. Wait, what? Is Jack McMullen a secret Democrat? Coddling criminals, calling for expanded treatment? He even promised to lobby the Legislature for more money for treatment programs. To help how many people? Freeploid:

McMullen said he didn’t know how many offenders could be diverted to treatment.

Not even a guess? Awkward. I guess Jack is still boning up on this Attorney General stuff.

Speaking of which, he was inevitably questioned about the small matter of him not being licensed to practice law in Vermont. His reply: he’s gonna fix that. And it doesn’t really matter anyway. Digger:

“I should be a member of the Vermont Bar in a matter of months, but I’d also point out that as Attorney General Sorrell well knows, most of the cases are not prosecuted by him, they’re prosecuted by his staff.”

Yeah, well, technically he’s right, kinda sorta. But wouldn’t it be better to have an Attorney General who’s actually got some prosecutorial experience? Even if only so he can effectively advise his staff? And devise policies that adhere to the law?

This Amateur Hour problem was on display in Jack’s rather revolutionary proposal for dealing with out-of-state drug offenders. Vermont Press Bureau:

If residents of New York or Massachusetts – two source states for cocaine, heroin and other opiates, according to law enforcement officials – are convicted of serious drug violations in Vermont, McMullen said, then their home states ought to be responsible for jailing them.



“The idea is if it’s your guy, you should pay for it,” he said.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but is this legal? If a guy commits a crime in your jurisdiction and is convicted in your courts, can you just ship him off to the state he came from?

Evan if it is legal, I see all sorts of procedural problems. What if state of residence is unclear? What if an offender is from New York but has lived in Vermont for a year or two or five?

And what if other states don’t want to play ball? I’m sure there are far more crimes committed in Vermont by New York or Massachusetts offenders, than there are committed in New York or Massachusetts by Vermonters. Jack’s idea would be a great deal for Vermont, but I don’t know why other states would want any part of it.

Finally, there was a big fat “Trust Me” moment when McMullen addressed Vermont’s legal battle with Vermont Yankee. He’d drop the state’s lawsuit and try to make a deal with Entergy. VPB:

McMullen said he’d work with Shumlin to find out what concessions he wants from the plant’s owners, then go try to extract them.



“Let me go there and cut the best deal,” McMullen said.

First of all, this wasn’t the only time McMullen promised to work with Governor Shumlin. Which would seem to presuppose Shumlin’s re-election. Wonder how Randy Brock feels about that.

Second, if we want an AG who can work with Shumlin, why not a Democrat, hmm?

And finally, and most obviously: do you really trust Jack McMullen to go into a quiet room with Entergy and come out with a good deal for the state?

All in all, it was an underwhelming debut for Six Teats. Nothing as egregious as his debate performance against Fred Tuttle, but for a guy who’s been running for AG at least since May, he still seems to be engaged in active on-the-job training. His good ideas were all cribbed from Democrats, particularly TJ Donovan, and his bad ideas came from his very own brain. Which isn’t what you want to see in a major-party candidate for a high state office.  

I lived in Vermont as a child. We had a farm in Williston (the old Williston). My mother worked at the University of Vermont. My brother still lives in Vermont.

I love Bernie Sanders. In my mind Vermont represents the essence of liberty and freedom, and the US Constitution and democracy. This is why I am appalled about what has been happening to Rocky Anderson. The Secretary of State has done just about everything possible to keep Anderson off the Presidential ballot in Vermont.

Once Anderson volunteers had collected the necessary 1000 signatures, a new law required that each signature be validated by the town clerk in the town where each signer lived. (Many, many towns in Vermont.) The campaign filed suit and won. Rocky Anderson supporters were given two additional weeks to get their signatures validated. The SOS filed an injunction to stop this. Once again the court decided in favor of Anderson. The SOS filed an appeal. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of VT rejected the appeal and determined Anderson’s name appear on the November ballot. The SOS now plans to challenge that. What a waste of taxpayer’s money. What an attempt to circumvent democracy. OUTRAGEOUS. As Ethan Allen once said: “Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason.

 Loading ...

Punched up the Freeploid’s website this evening, just to see if anything new was going on.

Check that: “just to see if the Freeploid was aware of anything going on.”

And there, at the top of the page, in the ‘Loid’s  deeply annoying “drop-down-then-scroll-back-up” adspace, was news of another exciting improvement to the ‘Loid’s online offerings: Sports PULSE.

As part of our continuing upgrades to content, the Burlington Free Press has expanded its online sports coverage with the launch of the Sports PULSE to its online Sports section.

Hey, sounds great. Tell me more, O Freeploid.

The latest national sports stories from the professional and college ranks are available on our Sports page in addition to our local report and coverage by the Associated Press.

Ah. “The latest national sports stories” meaning the same wireservice stuff you can already read on numerous popular (and lucrative) sports websites. ESPN.com, SI.com, Yahoo! Sports, CBSSportsline, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention any halfway-competent local sports site, like for instance WEEI.com in Boston.

Sigh. Any other good news?

The page has been created by USA Today Sports.

Ooh, the Blandmasters of Journalism are behind this thing.

In other words, this is another way for the corporate overlords at Gannett to recycle existing content, hoping to wring every last penny out of its ever-dwindling journalistic enterprise.

And this warmed-over rehash of stuff that’s easily accessible elsewhere is supposed to somehow compete with established and well-entrenched online brands that offer the same stuff PLUS a whole lot of their own original content? And is supposed to somehow add value to the Freeploid’s online offerings and entice readers to plunk down 12 bucks a month for full access?

Methinks not.

I hope Jim Folger’s got some better tricks up his sleeve. This one’s a no-hoper from the gitgo.