Today I spent an hour monitoring the local ad breaks in the Rush Limbaugh Show, to see what local businesses were supporting his misogyny. And what I heard made me feel pretty good: there was an obvious dearth of actual local advertising.  

I was listening on WSNO, 1450 AM in central Vermont, roughly between 12:40 and 1:40 pm. A decent sample size.

The tally:

— 6 local paid spots

— 7 national ads*

— 4 public service announcements (unpaid)

— 5 station promos (unpaid)

— 3 bits of station content (unpaid; weather, community calendar)

*Syndicated programs are often bartered: You get our shows for free, you agree to carry our spots. The stations put those ads in open slots, wherever they haven’t managed to sell the time to local advertisers. These spots are usually offloaded into non-peak hours; their appearance in Limbaugh is not a good sign for him.

Rush Limbaugh is the highest-rated conservative talker, and he’s supposed to be a profit center for local stations. And yet, WSNO only managed to sell six slots out of 25. That’s a really bad ratio. It’s strong evidence that a lot of local advertisers are steering clear of Rush, even though there’s been no public groundswell on the local level.

So you probably want to know: who’s still sponsoring Rush?

Answers after the jump…  

There was only one local advertiser with multiple spots in that hour of Limbaugh: Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont, with two.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, I’m disappointed. I thought you were nonpartisan!

Surely, if you seek to build a broad coalition of support for your “common sense” ideas, the last thing you’d want to do is associate your cause with Rush Limbaugh. I’m sure I speak for all of us at GMD when I say, please reconsider your support for Rush. It’s only harming your credibility as a nonpartisan entity.

Snort.

The other local advertisers were three car dealerships — Walker Volkswagen, Town and Country Honda, and Formula Nissan — and Westview Meadows, a retirement community in Montpelier. The dealerships buy huge amounts of advertising on just about every local radio station in the area, and probably made a big “Run of Schedule” buy on WSNO — meaning their ads run throughout the day, not on any particular show. Retirement home, there’s Rush’s core demographic in a nutshell.

I’ll also mention that many of those national advertisers were not… shall we say… from the best of families. They included a “natural” weight-loss supplement, the Lifelock identity-security pitch, an ambulance-chasing lawyer trolling for mesothelioma patients, and an investment firm trying to get people to invest their IRAs in gold. (They’re going to hell.)

All in all, a very weak showing for the King of Conservative Talk.  If this randomly-selected hour is any indication, Rush Limbaugh may be in even more trouble than we thought.

If you want to monitor your local station while minimizing your exposure to Rush, his local breaks occur at roughly the same times every hour, approximately :18-20, :30-34, :45-46. :54-56, and :58-06 (mostly news, but also local spots). Simplest thing is to listen during those eight minutes, or perhaps from :54-06 if you can stand two minutes of Rush.

VT stations that carry Rush: WVMT (620 AM) in Burlington, WSNO (1450 AM) in Barre, and WSYB (1380 AM) in Rutland. Also NH-based AM 1490 in the Upper Valley.

The Progressive Party in Burlington wants to move two neighborhoods into different districts – not because there is any need to move them, but because two Progressive candidates want to run for a seat in one district. To restate: the proposal is to move two neighborhoods so two Progressives won’t have to run against each another for one seat.

Ok, they don’t say it exactly like that, but from all appearances, that’s what they’re trying to accomplish. There are many ways to accomplish redistricting without moving whole neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, there are ways that do so while adhering more closely to state law (more on that below).

The basic “strategy” appears to be to attempt to get two Progressives into the State House by redrawing districts to bump two of the most progressive Democrats out of the State House.

Um . . .

More below the fold.

:: First: The Obvious Problem

There’s a difference between good strategy and bad strategy. A strategy that injures your allies while strengthening your opponents should probably be set aside if there are other options. The Progressive Party in Vermont has a bizarre history of playing redistricting Russian roulette . . . and losing.

If the Progressives’ goal is to make the legislature more progressive, then why do they keep teaming up with Republicans to make it easier for Republicans to win? Why don’t they team up with Democrats on redistricting to make it harder for Republicans to win? I know, the hypothesis is that making it harder for Democrats makes it easier for Progressives, but that hasn’t really worked out very well, thus far. When a hypothesis is tested and fails, it’s usually because the hypothesis is wrong and it’s time to find a new one.

The people of our state are clearly worse off with “conservative” policies, and better off with more progressive policies. Yes, from the perspective of the Progressive Party, we’re not as much better off with Democrats as we would be with Progressives. But why a total crap-shoot? Why play enabler for “worse off,” when there’s a “better off” solution? There are real people who get hurt by those “worse off” policies. It doesn’t seem like the risk is worthwhile.

:: Second: The Statutory Problem

The Vermont Redistricting Law [17 VSA 1906b(c)] requires the Board of Civil Authority to use the following considerations:

(1) preservation of existing political subdivision lines;

(2) recognition and maintenance of patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests;

(3) use of compact and contiguous territory;

(4) incumbencies.

The proposed redistricting appears to largely ignore (1) and (4).

:: Third: The Transparency Problem

The group appointed to the subcommittee by Mayor Kiss has kind of forgotten to ask a good chunk of the people affected by the proposed new districts whether they want to move.

Committee member Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a city councilor, posted a request for feedback in the Front Porch Forum email list-serve for the Roosevelt Park neighborhood (one of the two getting bumped). She did NOT post the request in the forum for Lakeview Terrace residents. Word has it that folks in the Lakeview Terrace neighborhood are not supportive of the proposed change.

In addition, by listing only the “pros” of the proposed move, the resulting feedback may be slanted toward the outcome she’s hoping for:

. . . we have an opportunity to keep the district line the same in the I.A.A. neighborhood or try a different option. The working committee for the city council, for which I serve on, has considered an alternative which would pull the I.A.A. neighborhood back into the Old North End and into the 3-3 District (currently represents most of the Old North End). And would put the streets along North Ave on the western side of the Old North End into the 3-3 District. This would include Crowley Streets, Lakeview Street, Front St and some of the small streets around Battery Park. It seems more logical to include a part of the O.N.E. that are physically connected by a road (North Ave) and are also already somewhat use to being connected to the New North End because some streets are in 3-2 already over there (Ward St for example) and also by city wards (Ward 7 covers Lakeview). Plus students on that side of the O.N.E. already use the middle school in the N.N.E. versus the students in the eastern side (I.A.A. neighborhood) who go to Edmunds.

:: Fourth: The “Representativeness” Problem

Seven of the fifteen members of the Board of Civil Authority are Democrats. But the subcommittee has only 1 Democrat (Ed Adrian) out of its 5 members. The other subcommittee members are: Bob Kiss (Prog), Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (Prog), Karen Paul (Independent), Paul Decelles (Republican).

So from a committee that’s 1/2 Democrats, Kiss created a subcommittee that’s 2/5 Prog, 1/5 independent, 1/5 republican, and 1/5 democrat.

The lone Democrat has made several proposals, all of which have been voted down, including one that adheres more closely to the law than any of the others, thus far.

:: Fifth: The Pissing Off Your Legislators Problem

In response to all this, 7 Burlington State Representatives have registered their displeasure. Two key quotes:

“The maps in the plan that you have presented to us substantially alter the districts of Chittenden 3-1, Chittenden 3-2, and Chittenden 3-3 in a manner that we cannot support.

…

We understand the difficulty of the task before you, and realize that tough decisions have to be made, However, we cannot support the maps as presented. We urge you to please reconsider Councilor Adrian’s proposal (Democratic Plan C).”

Signatories are: Bill Aswad, Chittenden 3-1; Jean O’Sullivan, Chittenden 3-2; Jason Lorber, Chittenden 3-3; Jill Krowinski, Chittenden 3-3; Kesha Ram, Chittenden 3-14; Johannah Donovan, Chittenden 3-5; and Suzi Wizowaty, Chittenden 3-1.

:: Summary

All-in-all, it appears that redistricting in Burlington has been handled badly. Here’s hoping a sensible solution, with better communication emerges soon, though with Kiss at the helm of the subcommittee…  

(It’s 3 a.m., I have insomnia, and I’m feeling uncharitable. Release the Kraken!!!)

___________________________________________

Hear ye, hear ye! Big news from the Vermont gubernatorial campaign! Randy Brock is about to do something! Or so he says!

The glad tidings from Thatcher Moats at the Vermont Press Bureau. Quotes from VPB, snark from Yours Truly.  

Sen. Randy Brock, the Franklin County Republican who will try to take the governor’s office this fall, said he spent Town Meeting Day week gearing up for his election bid, raising money and putting his campaign infrastructure in place.

“Wups, it’s March already, and the Leg is off this week. Guess I better do somethin’.”

This week, Brock said, he will announce the main consulting firms he is hiring for the gubernatorial race, which will provide the backbone of his campaign.

The chattering class is rapt. (Darcie Johnston.) Who will Brock hire? (Darcie Johnston.) What big names, what giants of modern politics, will he enlist? (Darcie Johnston, Darcie Johnston.)

After the jump: Yeah, more snark.  

Brock said he will rely more on specialists in media, polling and policy from outside firms while trying to be lighter on paid staff.

This strategy will allow his campaign to “let people do what they do well,” Brock said on Tuesday.

Oooh, he’s privatizing his campaign! How 21st Century Neocon of him.

Not to mention cheap. Guess he won’t be paying any health insurance premiums or Workers’ Comp.

W-2’s or 1099’s? You make the call.

The firms Brock intends to announce this week will form a major part of his campaign, he said, but additional resources will continue to be added.

“It will be a substantial part of it, yes, but it will not be all of it,” he said.

“Oh God, I hope I can raise some more money.”

Brock held three house party fundraisers as the Legislature took its week-long, mid-session break, the candidate said. Brock wouldn’t say how much money he raised.

There’s a good sign.

“I will simply say our fundraising is on target,” Brock said.

Aim for the stars, and perhaps you’ll reach the sky. Aim for the ground, you’ll probably hit it.

Brock said he also held an event at the DoubleTree hotel in South Burlington on Saturday that raised money, but was more focused on bringing together “some of the key people” – ranging from policy advisers to students with an interest in grassroots organizing – who will chart the path to victory.

“A real motley crew, that was; we passed the hat and got $6.27. Managed to get some frat boys signed on to my ‘grassroots organizing’ team, once they had enough beer in ’em.”  

Poor Mitt. Poor, poor, poor Mitt. He dragged himself all over the Deep South, pretended to like NASCAR and (American) football. He said “Y’all,” choked down some Cheesy Grits, and imperiled his Ferragamos by stomping a cockroach. He said all the ridiculous things his overpaid gaggle of advisers told him to say.

And this is the thanks he gets? Those yokels stick a Whoopie cushion in his club chair?

Do they not know their place?

Do they not realize how fortunate they are that this giant of a man, this financial Colossus, would deign to descend from on high and accept the mantle of Their Leader?

Apparently not.

After the jump: Abrams Tank v. Clown Car. Guess who wins?

Remember me? I’m the guy who wrote, back on January 10, that it was in the bag, it was all over, Mitt was gonna win the nomination. And while he remains the favorite, despite his third-place showings in West and East Yayhoo, it’s looking more and more like the prize won’t be worth winning. And it certainly won’t be worth the price he’s paid — in his own wealth, his dignity and self-respect*, and in the quiet snickering he’ll hear at the country club.

*Yes, I think he’s got those things. He’s just put them in a blind trust for the duration of the campaign.

Well, I’m here to explain why Mitt hasn’t sewn up the nomination. And might actually lose it. In which case, they won’t be snickering down at the club, they’ll be laughing out loud. And come September he’ll open the safe deposit box where he stashed away his dignity, self-respect, and soul, and discover that it’s empty.

I still think I was right on January 10:

The primary race is about to kick into ridiculously high gear. …Which means that Mitt’s big advantages — in money and organization — are about to become decisive.

None of his challengers can come close to equaling Mitt’s machine. They’re each just hoping to slow down the Mittmentum enough to give voters another chance to change their minds. Won’t happen.

I was right, that is, under any reasonable permutation of the process. What I didn’t see was exactly how bad, how awful, how execrable, a candidate Mitt Romney would prove to be. He combines the physical grace of Al Gore, the easy bonhomie of John Kerry, the natural charm of Bob Dole, and the forthright honesty of Richard M. Nixon. His overwhelming political advantages have gone pfffft in a cloud of Thurston Howell gaffes, transparent posturing, and doomed attempts to connect with Real People that stink of blatant condescension.

“You might be shaking the president’s hand,” Mr. Romney told a man in Mobile…

On the other hand, you might be shaking the hand of the biggest schmuck in These United States.

Let’s look at Mitt’s Road to the White House. Or to political ignominy, whichever comes first. He’s been running for President since at least 2006, in spite of his ludicrous denials. He used his own millions to buy a seat in the center of the 2008 race. And while he lost to John McCain, he did cement himself as the Guy Whose Turn It Would Be in 2012.

He continued to spend and fundraise, building a campaign infrastructure that nobody else could match. He used his contacts in the world of the One Percent to build himself a war chest that didn’t rely on his own money. He sailed into 2011 as the clear front-runner.

Then everything broke his way. The two guys who might have contended for the title of “conservative enough to win the nomination but plausibly moderate enough to appeal to the center,” Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, never got out of the starting gate. Others with potential appeal, like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels — there’s a sad commentary on the state of the Grand Old Party, that those mooks qualified as Great White Hopes — stayed out of the fray. Which left Mitt (and his Abrams tank of a campaign) to simply fend off a rotating Clown Car o’ Candidates unworthy of the seediest downmarket sideshow.

Really. Did ever a major-party candidate face such a pathetic field of contenders? Look at the Democrats in 2008, by contrast: not only did you have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but also Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Any of them would have been far more qualified for the presidency than anyone in the GOP Clown Car. Dennis Kucinich was no more ridiculous than Ron Paul, John Edwards no more narcissistic than Newt Gingrich, and Mike Gravel much smarter than Rick Perry.

And Mitt can’t put these guys away. It’s like an all-star baseball team playing the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, and having the series go seven games.

William of Ockham would have something to say about this. And it wouldn’t be flattering to Willard “Mitt” Romney.  

Oh no! The apocalypse is upon us!

Property tax rate likely headed up another penny

My blood pressure cranked as I read those words from the Vermont Press Bureau. Cue the outrage on Common Sense Radio! The spittle-flecked postings on Vermont Tiger! The doom-fueled bleatings of El Jefe General John McClaughry! Fire up Jack Lindley’s mimeograph machine! Those perfidious Democrats, forcing our tax rates ever higher in spite of the broad-based anti-tax fervor of the Green Mountain populace!

Wait, what’s that?

The House last month approved a 1-cent increase in the statewide rate, bringing the figure from 87 cents to 88 cents. But that was before Vermonters headed to town meeting. And the school budgets approved last Tuesday, lawmakers learned today, included much higher increases than legislators had projected.

Oh, so the outraged voters did it to themselves.  

Because state school aid is partly based on local taxation, the voters’ generosity will mean greater demands on the state education fund, and the state property tax will go to 89 cents in order to maintain an acceptable balance in the fund.

How generous were the voters?

Of the 226 [school] budget votes, only seven went down. Districts collectively will spend about 2.9 percent more next year than they did this year. Twenty-two towns have yet to vote on their school budgets, though those districts aren’t large enough to impact the overall spending trajectory.

Very generous indeed. More generous, in fact, than our big-spending Democrat Governor.

Gov. Peter Shumlin had urged districts to hold the line on school spending. Doing so, he said, would allow the state to likewise hold the line on statewide property taxes.

Well, Jeezum Crow. There go two big conservative talking points: the notion that Vermonters are “taxed to death” and are ready to re-form the Green Mountain Boys and wipe out our librul overlords… and the notion that everyone’s sick and tired of our terrible, horrible very bad public schools.

Truth is, most Vermonters are willing to pay taxes for good public services. And, at least in terms of public education, they still think they’re getting a good deal.  

Dick Cheney, one of the brave men who started the Iraq war and helped make the world safe for water-boarding has canceled a speaking engagement in Toronto Canada due to security fears. The April engagement was promoted by a company named Spectre Live Corp.

“He felt that in Canada the risk of violent protest was simply too high,” said Ryan Ruppert, president of promotions company Spectre Live Corp., which had booked Mr. Cheney for an April 24 appearance at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.  

In September, Mr. Cheney was speaking at a private club in Vancouver when protesters massed outside the front door harassing ticket holders and in one instance, choking a security guard. The former vice-president was reportedly held inside the building for more than seven hours as Vancouver Police in riot gear dispersed the demonstrators.  

“God forbid there was ever an emergency,” said Ruppert, noting Cheney’s history of heart problems.

Cheney has said he has no regrets about his embrace of water-boarding and “harsh” interrogation techniques. And after leaving office he said "I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk."



However Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says

“He’s developed angst and almost a protective cover, and now he fears being tried as a war criminal.”

Bigtime.

 If you drive down State St. in Montpelier, in the vicinity of the State House, you will drive by Governor Davis Avenue and then, very shortly, Governor Aiken Avenue. Together they take you toward the entrances at the two ends of the State House.

 What you will not see, either on the maps of our state or on any public building, is a recognition of Governor Phil Hoff.

 The authors of a recent biography of Phil Hoff teach us that “No individual deserves more credit (or in the view of political rivals more blame) for the transformation of Vermont than Philip Hoff.” Nevertheless, they also tell us that Governor Hoff's memory has been neglected, and where other prominent politicians are honored by parks, state buildings, and roads, there is no building or other monument to Hoff's accomplishments.

 Half a century has passed since Phil Hoff was first elected governor, yet we have no physical monument to remind us of his years of service. While on the national stage we have too often been subject to premature idolization, as in the nationwide urge to name things after John Kennedy after his assassination or Ronald Reagan after his death, but Phil Hoff's achievements as governor have stood the test of time.

 It is long overdue to recognize Phil Hoff in the buildings or roads of Vermont.

my fourth fuckin’ tour

well I know how to get

the hell outta here

the guys are gonna say:

shit, why didn’t we

think of that?

well lock and load guys

I’ll leave plenty of civilians

left to go around

Obama’s gonna have to

apologize again

fuck him

he increased the goddamned

tours–what the hell

did he expect?

I’m going home

they gave Rusty Calley

3 years under house arrest

I can do that

too bad people have to die

but war is hell

it’s a sonofabitch

and I wish folks back home

would fuckin’ do something

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Hmmmm. Interesting little development on that vtBuzz posting I mentioned in my previous diary. So far, one comment has been posted beneath it:

Didn’t he get his license suspended years ago?

The author of the comment: Tayt Brooks.

There aren’t too many guys named “Tayt” around these parts, so I’m going to assume that this is the Tayt Brooks who ran Kurt Wright’s campaign for Mayor of Burlington. Who before that was Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party. Who before that held a Cabinet position in the Douglas Administration. Who before that was an undersecretary in Douglas’ cabinet. Who before that was chief lobbyist for the Home Builders’ Association.  

In short: tried and true Republican, well-connected insider.

At a time when Republicans are supposedly urging Illuzzi to run for AG, why is this guy calling attention — albeit with studied innocence — to Illuzzi’s checkered past?

My suspicion, and that’s all it is, no evidence whatsoever: The Republicans would like to see him run for AG so they can be rid of an unreliable Senator with loads of seniority, hoping to replace him with a doctrinaire conservative. My question: Is the Republican Party putting Illuzzi in a lifeboat and trying to convince him it’s a yacht?  

We have a winner! WDEV talk show host Mark Johnson has finally broken the Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash!

Brief recap: Longtime State Senator Vince Illuzzi is considering a run for Attorney General. He has a long and dismal record on legal ethics, having been repeatedly brought to task by the Bar and the Judiciary. His law license was suspended for over four years in the mid-90s, and was very nearly revoked. (See my previous diary for some of the details.)

Illuzzi was a guest on the Mark Johnson Show this morning, and Mark held his feet to the fire pretty thoroughly on his past ethical problems. If you missed it, Mark puts his shows in a podcast archive — usually within 24 hours or so.  

Highlights… after the jump.  

First, Illuzzi confirmed that he’s 75% sure that he’ll run, that he won’t make a final decision until after the Legislative session is over because he doesn’t want his Senate activities perceived as political blah blah blah*, and that he’s pondering whether he’d run as a Republican or Independent.  

*I hate that excuse. It’s flimsy as hell. You can tell when somebody’s planning to run for something; Illuzzi has pursued quite a few high-profile issues of late, that are clearly aimed at raising his profile as a fair-minded independent kind of guy. And our campaign finance laws let these guys get away with it; the initial reporting deadline isn’t until July 1st. In this day and age, that’s laughable. But I digress.

Also note that, although Illuzzi stuck to his 75% estimate, the conversation quickly adopts the future definite tense — “I will,” rather than “I would.” So that 75 is probably a teensy bit low.

After asking about the job Bill Sorrell has done and getting the requisite non-answer (“It’s not about his record, it’s about what I would bring to the position”), Mark launched directly into Illuzzi’s past ethical troubles.

Mark: Is it reasonable to run for AG with all the troubles you had in the 90s? A slew of ethical charges, and having your law license suspended?

Illuzzi: It’s a fair question. The issues placed me in a position — one was we had — The courts had been trying to close the Essex County Courthouse. We passed a law mandating that Essex County cases be tried there. This judge didn’t want to drive up there, so he moved the cases. I pursued the matter; the judiciary disagreed with me, and turned around and filed charges against me. I acknowledge that, from their perspective, I was wrong.

Stop right there. Illuzzi’s history is backwards in a completely self-serving way. As the Supreme Court record clearly states, the ethical case against Illuzzi was filed, and THEN he started pursuing the judge — David Suntag, whose wife Wendy Collins was handling the State Bar’s ethical case against Illuzzi. The Court record states that Illuzzi pursued Suntag because he was mad at Collins.

Mark: There were other problems, too. You directly contacted an insurance company instead of going through its counsel.

Illuzzi: That was an interesting time in the law. A number of attorneys including myself would contact insurance companies, which were not directly parties to the litigation. This was hotly contested, and the Supreme Court ruled against me. I made a mistake and moved on.

Mark: Don’t you think your opponent would raise these questions?

Illuzzi: They will and I’ll answer them. If that’s the focus of the campaign, I’ll lose. But you can’t wash away my 32 years of service in the Legislature. It’s a balance. If people are looking for a reason to vote against me, you’ve given it to them. If they look at my record and experience, they’ll vote for me.

Mark: But can you overcome those ethical questions?

Illuzzi: I have in other aspects of my life. I’ve been the Essex County Attorney since 1998, I’ve had a successful law practice. If folks think all of that is secondary, then I’ll lose. My constituents saw all of this up close —

Mark: But that’s different. You were running for Senate. Now you’re running for the state’s top legal job.

Illuzzi: Well, that’s all I can offer.

Mark: Why would you roll the dice and give up 32 years of seniority? You can’t run for both, can you?

Illuzzi: I could, but I wouldn’t. After 32 years, it’s reasonable to consider using my experience in a different way. My life is a bit overwhelming right now; I have three jobs, and a demanding schedule. As i get older, it’s harder to keep up. I’ve been thinking about cutting back. It makes sense to refocus on one thing.

Interesting bit of news there. So he’s likely giving up his Senate seat because he’s tired of chasing three part-time jobs all over creation. Can’t say I blame him, and it’s a decent explanation for why he’s willing to risk 32 years of seniority on what he himself acknowledges is a real gamble.

There you go. Mark didn’t tackle every aspect of Illuzzi’s ethical record, but I thought he did a very good job of directly confronting the guy. I hope this opens the gates for all Vermont media to directly tackle Vince Illuzzi’s record, and explore whether or not he is fit to occupy the position of the state’s top legal officer.