Here's a great column that sets forth a variety of positive reasons to support Gaye Symington in Tuesday's election.

Courage outside the comfort zone

Per today’s Brattleboro Reformer, a good piece by Bob Audette:

Is Entergy stonewalling requests for documents from various state agencies around the nation?

In New York state, the Public Service Commission’s administrative law judges had to file a legal decision to get Entergy to turn over documents related to decommissioning cost studies of the Indian Point nuclear power station in the Hudson Valley.

In Mississippi, Entergy is fighting the attorney general’s office there, which has demanded it supply documents that might prove Entergy has been charging its customers too much money for electricity.

And in Vermont, it recently took several requests from the Department of Public Service’s public advocate to get a report on the effect of the recent economic turmoil on Wall Street on the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

[…]

“Entergy’s disregard for the process is notorious,” said New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Westchester, a long-time critic of Indian Point, which is in his district. “They say one thing and do another all the time. They have no regard for the public interest here. Their concentrated greed and cupidity is beyond belief.”

There’s also lots of great Entergy spin in the piece, but the resistance to providing documentation is what I think of as the most relevant.  Any chance they’ll be hiring Dick Cheney in a few months?

(The latest on this rapidly moving, largely Nate-powered story. Promoting despite the weird comment about “GMDers” and “new point(s) of view” that I don’t really grok… – promoted by odum)

UPDATE:  “Weird comment” deleted. 

November 1st, 2008 may become the tipping point toward Vermont's political future.  Along with the Saturday night time-change, we may just see a big step backward for he who has been ahead.  Jim Douglas's clock is beginning to run out.

First, a tip of the hat to Vermont's 4th Estate for their coverage of quickly evolving issues surrounding Shay Totten's illuminating October 15th report, “The Governor's Free Ride.”  Indeed, Halloween day proved busy, heated and a little on the scary side of Vermont politics.

The political debate today began two weeks ago with the unexpected revelation deriving from Jim Douglas' campaign finance reports.  Totten noticed no accounting, reporting or reimbursing of taxpayer resources overlapping into the Douglas campaign.  He may not have been the only journalist to pick up on this, but he was the first to ask the question, follow up, ask again, follow up and finally get to an absolute response.  

After a week of dodging repeated questions about whether the Douglas campaign follows Dean’s lead, the governor’s campaign manager Dennise Casey told “Fair Game” on Monday: “No, we don’t.” 

It shall be no surprise that the second-in-the-polls candiate, Gaye Symington, found some Douglas meat to chew; although it's probably more accurate to say that Symington was grossly appalled to witness Douglas as the bully in the school yard who steals your lunch money and later that day pretends to be your pal.

This is where th ball was kicked into play.  Truth be told, Symington jumped on the ball right away but no one was watching.  Douglas was starting to fear Pollina, so the guys pushed out chins and bellies posturing in the press for a good 10 days.  Then, with an October 27th post by Adam Quinn, the ball came into our court here on GMD.  

On Wendnesday, the 29th, Quinn returned and helped inspire us to get back on track and maybe even move out of the GMD microcosm into the fresh air of face-to-face politics.  Symington staged her press conference, VDP blew the trumpet and we were off to play the game of politics, real world.  

Since then Douglas has been trying to dodge, evade and deflect Gaye Symington as she pushed the issue forward into the press.

Douglas moved from one angle to the next, starting from a position that he didn't need to reimburse the state despite the fact that former governor Howeard Dean did so over his decade-long tenure.  Then he countered that Howard Dean only reimbursed, “a token” amount of campaign-related expenditures back to the state (about $7500).  

After Douglas' tenuous shift of blame to Dean, he and his campaign manager, Dennise Casey, attempted a side-shuffle fake-out by answering Symington's charge exclusively on the cost of a required security guard.  The Douglas/Dean comparison was still ascending, however, and on Thursday the Attorney General and Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources interrupted the play with a call of  no-foul.  But by Thursday afternoon, Douglas was once again on the defense at an appearance in Bennington, where Banner reporter Neal Goswami asked the question again:

“Aside from you security detail, is your campaign reimbursing the state for all campaign-related expenses?”

Douglas fell back to his safety:  Symington's pro forma tax returns.  A savvy player, he's never had to down the ball behind the 20 yard line when running the pro forma tax return play.  In the world of politics you play the play the same way over and over again and it almost always works.  But when the sport starts to get rough it's only a matter of time before a Douglas fade back will risk either a safety or a sack behind in the defensive endfield.  In “bogus” tax return play, Douglas' 20 yard line is his life-long experience in government and his complete awareness that pro forma tax returns are accepted by the Vermont Tax Department on a regular, ongoing basis.  Since he still hasn't been sacked by Symington, who could respond with an fast-throw quote from the tax department, Douglas predictably faded back into the play.  

The only thing “bogus” about the tax return squabble is Douglas' utter disrespect for Symington's husband, who stated early on that he wished to protect his financial privacy.  And then there's self-described “cheerleader,” Brian Dubie, laughing and somersaulting away from Costello's 1040 Challenge.  What's really bogus is that the governor's #2 gets a free pass as he stays on the sidelines, cheerleading away.  

Meanwhile, outside the conference room in Bennington, a small group of protestors held cardboard signs reading, “We're not your ATM, Jim.”  By Friday, larger clusters of protests were organized and took place in every county across Vermont.  The morning papers and mid-morning reports revealed an incumbent governor at wits end.  Throwing an over-the-barn-roof Hail Mary Pass to GOP chair Rob Roper, Team Douglas filed a counter-complaint to the Attorney General's office alleging illegal activity betwwen the Symington campaign and Democracy for America.

It was a week for Jim Douglas that would end in a politically nightmarish Halloween.

I loved what Rep. Mitzi Johnson had to say about it in today's Free Press.

MITZI JOHNSON: In 2002, supported the top vote-getter. I'll listen to constituents again. Readers: Please contemplate candidates in office for 26 years who still can't earn 50 percent of your confidence. 

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Hat tip to Vermont's 4th Estate on coverage of the quickly evolving issues surrounding Totten's October 15th illuminating report, “The Governor's Free Ride.”  Indeed, Halloween day proved to be busy, heated and yes, a little on the scary side of Vermont politics.

The political debate today began on October 15th with the revelation of Jim Douglas' lack of accounting, reporting and reimbursing of taxpayer resources for his re-election campaign.  Since Monday the 27th, Douglas has been trying to dodge, evade and deflect Gaye Symington as she pushed the issue forward into the press.

Douglas moved from one angle to the next, starting from a position that he didn't need to reimburse the state despite the fact that former governor Howeard Dean did so over his decade-long tenure.  Then he countered that Howard Dean only reimbursed, “a token” amount of campaign-related expenditures back to the state (about $7500).  

After Douglas' tenuous shift of blame to Dean, he and his campaign manager, Dennise Casey, attempted a side-shuffle fake-out by answering Symington charge exclusively on the cost of a required security guard.  The Douglas/Dean comparison was still ascending, however, and on Thursday the Attorney General and Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources interrupted the play with a call of  no-foul.  But by Thursday afternoon, Douglas was once again on the defense at an appearance in Bennington, where Banner reporter Neal Goswami asked the question again:

“Aside from you security detail, is your campaign reimbursing the state for all campaign-related expenses?”

Douglas fell back to his safety:  Symington's pro forma tax returns.  A savvy player, he's never had to “down” the ball on the 20 yard line on his description of Symington's pro forma as “bogus.”  In the world of politics you play the play the same way over and over again and it almost always works.  But when the sport starts to get rough it's only a matter of time before a Douglas fade back will trap him behind his own 20 yard line.  In this case, Douglas' 20 yard line is his life-long experience in government and his complete awareness that pro forma tax returns are accepted by the Vermont Tax Department on a regular, ongoing basis.  The only thing “bogus” about the tax return squabble is Douglas' utter disrespect for Symington's husband, who stated early on that he wished to protect his financial privacy.  And then there's self-described “cheerleader,” Brian Dubie, laughing and somersaulting away from Costello's 1040 Challenge.  What's really bogus is that the governor's #2 gets a free pass as he stays on the sidelines, cheerleading away.  

Meanwhile, it's Outside, a small group of protestors held cardboard signs reading, “We're not your ATM, Jim.”  By Friday, larger clusters of protests were organized and took place in every county across Vermont.  And the morning papers and mid-morning reports revealed an incumbent governor at wits end.  Throwing an over-the-barn-roof Hail Mary Pass to GOP chair Rob Roper, Team Douglas filed a counter-complaint to the Attorney General's office alleging illegal activity betwwen the Symington campaign and Democracy for America.

It was a week for Jim Douglas that would end in a politically nightmarish Halloween.

But now it's November 1st and after a hard week of political football without advancing the ball, Jim Douglas has more trouble on his hands than ever before.

Gaye Symington, Vermont's  to every Sarah Palin in the schoolyard,   

moved back to a proven hit, referencing Symington's pro forma tax returns.  (I'm not sure why no one has called Douglas out on his use of the word “bogus” in reference to pro forma documents, especially since the Vt Tax Department accepts pro forma tax returns on a regular basis.)  By Friday, Douglas brought in the big guns of the RNC.

related expenses such as meals, travel, gasoline, office supplies and services, etc.  When you consider that one round trip between Montpelier and Bennington is about 240 miles at this summer's average price of $4/gallon, it doesn't take a CPA to conclude that Jim Douglas spent a lot more than $0 on travel expenses over the last few months.

Still, it's not a ton of taxpayer money the governor is too cheap to put back into the state's coffers.  Let's just say Douglas averaged the same as Howard Dean, per Terri Hallenback's research.  That would be $2000 per election cycle — and that was in the days when gas was $`1.35/gallon.  The ballpark figure ends up somewhere in the range of $6000.

But the way Jim Douglas, Dennise Casey, and now David Herlihy are dodging all around the question, the issue about money has evolved from a petty, eve-of-the-election squabble info something much bigger than it was when Totten's report was published in Seven Days 16 days ago.  

As of November 1st the conversation turns into the uber-question of government integrity and the need for independent oversight.

If we take a break from parsing minutiae or following the quick-pointing fingers of blame, the underlying problem emerges as if a pattern in the carpet.  Vermont's system of indivually practiced self-oversight of elected and appointed officials has become a quaint notion of our innocent past.  The bloom has come off the rose in Vermont politics. 

Given the last three election cycles in which we have begun to see more negative attacks than ever before .  Jim Douglas has lead the pack, consistently eliminating his opponents with mockery and fear-mongering.  Rich Tarrant's 2006 campaign comes in a close second given the frequency of ad rotation throughout the day.  The nicey-nice days of campaigning are over.

 in light of remarks made by the governor and the less than lackluster consideration of the matter by his political appointee, Dept of Human Resources Commissioner, David Herlihy.

isn't about money, and it's not even about proving a principle. 

— which is now likely continue well past next Tuesday.  Things are getting interesting all over the place, particularly in the Banner, Free Press, TA/RH, VTBuzz, and of course, Fair Game.  

While Jim Douglas is spinning this as last minute campaign tactics, there's quite a bit more to the story than first meets the eye.But here's the thing:  Ultimately, the questions be raisedwhat's at stake is the integrity of government, lacking independent oversight laws, policies and procedures.

Ironically, only 18 months ago, Jim Douglas rebuked Gaye Symington's proposal to establish a Code of Ethics into law with an independent council providing oversight of both the executive and legislative branches of goverment.  Symington advocated for a legal framework that held herself to the same standard as everyone else.  Jim Douglas, on the other hand, claimed himself and his political appointees to be “beyond reproach,” and suggested it would cost to much to set up a method to prevent corruption in government. 

The question of government oversight remained mired in the details of heated exchanges.  But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. My report for GreenMountainDaily.com is below the fold.

*********************** 

It's been a busy day.  After reading the Bennington Banner this morning, it was clear that Shay Totten's story, “The Governor's Free Ride,” keeps unfolding with unexpected twists.  

Above the fold I'll provide chronology, context and conclusion.  Below the fold, look for a new complaint to the Dept of Human Resources in regard to Employee Policies & Procedures as well as my renewed complaint to the AG based on Jim Douglas' has admision of bypassing finance reporting procedures by paying these transactions “out of his own pocket.”

Nate Freeman reporting for GreenMountainDaily.com.  Hat tip once again to Vermont's news journalists with particular gratitude to Shay Totten, Dan Barlow and Neal Goswami.

Chronology:  Friday, October 31st

1.  Douglas admits non-reporting of campaign finance related activity as reported in this morning's Bennington Banner.  The most suspect procedures and policies violations regard campaign manager Dennise Casey, as reported by Totten just two weeks ago. 

2.  I submit my renewed complaint to the AG.

3.  In the same Bennington Banner article, David Herlihy, Commissioner of Dept Human Resources said he “does not believe Douglas violated any ethics or state personnel policies,” and apparently conducted no review. 

4.  I submit a formal complaint to Herlihy at DHR, referencing Totten's article and Section 5.6 of the Vermont Personnel Policies and Procedures manual.\

5. DHR Commissioner David Herlihy responds to Symington's complaint in regard to the use of state resources for the private benefit of the Douglas campaign by saying, “It's really out of the governor's hands,” in reference to the cost of the governor's required security detail.

6.  The Symington campaign reiterates its focus is on non-transparent, non-accounted and non-reimbursed expenses assocaited with meals, fuel, office supplies and other campaign-related expenses.

7.  Commissioner Herlihy at DHR responds to my formal complaint via email one minute before end of workday saying he was unaware of Totten's article and is currently out on military service, unavailable until next week. 

8.  Assistant Attorney General, Michael McShane did not return phone calls nor respond to eamail regarding the intial complaint on October 30th.  Dan Barlow reports the AG's position this morning's Times Argus/Rutland Herald.  

Analysis & Context

1. Commissioner Herlihy is a Douglas political appoiontee and as such, cannot exercise adequate oversight of his superior.  There is a significant lack of closed-loop oversight in the highest level of Vermont government.  Political appointee and DHR Commissioner, David Herlihy, defends Governor Douglas on the question of Personnel Policies and Procedures without review.  Political appointees are subject to the Executive Code of Ethics; however, only the Governor or his designated agent can enforce ethical violations.  Instead of a closed-loop oversight model, Governor Douglas and his political appointees are practicing a “rinse, spin and put out to dry” approach to policy enforcement.

2.  Dennise Casey delays the campaign finance story from going public by stonewalling journalist Shay Totten as well as members from the Vermont Press Bureau.  Totten says,

After a week of dodging repeated questions about whether the Douglas campaign follows Dean’s lead, the governor’s campaign manager Dennise Caseytold “Fair Game” on Monday: “No, we don’t.”

This week, Douglas and Casey claimed the Symington campaign was forcing the issue at the last minute.  Dennise could have and should have come clean to reporters long ago.

2.  The Attorney General's office appears to have been remiss in it's conclusion that Douglas has not violated campaign finance law.  In my complaint, I stated that Douglas “has not offered general accounting practices in delineating public expenditures such as the use of security details in his campaign finance reports.”  This complaint should have led the AG to consider a possible violation of reporting requirements as implied by Sec of State Deb Markowitz as quoted in the Banner Friday morning.   

3.  Commissioner Herlihy has spoken out against accountability measures as recently as mid-March on the whistle-blower protection bill, as reported by Dan Barlow on 3/13/08 in the Rutland Herald. 

Conclusion: 

1.  Jim Douglas has violated campaign finance law.

2.  There is zero accountability in the highest tier of Vermont's executive branch.

3.  Vermont needs a standard Code of Conduct established in law as is the case in most states as well as the  Federal Government. 

4.  Legislators need to review Symington's 2007 call for independent oversight of both the Executive and legislative branches via this Code of Conduct law. 

Mr. Freeman-

I was unaware of that story until you brought it to my attention.  I am out today on military duty and will not be able to look into this until next week.

For those who are not too familiar with David Herlihy's positions on disclosure and accountability, here's the intro to Dan Barlow's report in the Rutland Herals back in March:

Crossposted @ www.vermontbloggernaut.blogspot.com

For six years Jim Douglas has been at the helm, how can we again elect a captain who cannot bait his own hook?  That was a very telling moment on that riverbank when Douglas’s own Fish and Wildlife employee had to bait his hook for him.  Everyone should take notice.

Did the state employee feel that his boss was unable or unwilling to bait his own hook? Did Douglas not want to dirty himself, but just enjoy some photo-ops with a rod in hand? This is again to me a central theme in the whole Jim Douglas theory of governing Vermont.

He sets himself to look like he’s doing all these great things, but its fake. If our governor does not grasp the concept of baiting a hook for himself and searching out a fish, how good will he be at attracting new business? That’s indeed the very thing Vermont must do, fish for some businesses to grow here, using incentives as our bait. Incentives to relocate here, expand, and grow their business here.

Again with the fishing analogies, but we also need a governor who knows what to do when s/he’s got one on the line. They need to know how to finesse the fish into the net, so we don’t go home empty handed. We need to work with businesses that are already here that we’ve “hooked”. We need to keep them here, and help them to grow here. Their successes are our successes.

That’s why Jim Douglas’s failure to bait his own hooks makes me question his ability to lead Vermont through these troubled times. If he needs other people to do his work for him, why are we electing him in the first place? I understand delegating responsibility and such, but this is where the governor needs to rise to a leadership role.

The next governor of Vermont needs to say it’s their responsibility to find work for Vermonters and they’re not gonna rest till they do. That’s not the vibe I get from Douglas when he has state employees bait his hooks for him. It’s more like, I have people do my work for me so if they fail, the blame doesn’t fall on me, and I can point fingers elsewhere.  

What a life Studs lead. A “real” working class hero. RIP Studs.  

The 11th Hour surge in energy and aggressiveness from Symington on the issue of Jim Douglas’s use of public resources for campaign purposes comes as much (or more) from the VT Democratic Party proper and Nate Freeman leading the grassroots as it does from the actual Symington campaign. It certainly could’ve come two weeks ago, bouncing as it is off of the reporting from Seven Days’ Shay Totten, but its heartening to see regardless.

But the unspoken question on the lips of many, given the dramatic change of political fortunes seemingly taking place, is whether or not this last minute surge isn’t ultimately to the electoral benefit of Anthony Pollina, rather than Symington herself. It’s a tough question.

The art of looking at poll numbers is in the attempting to discern cause from effect. Usually its not too hard. In the latest R2K poll, there are three numbers of note: the huge increase in Pollina’s numbers, the significant drop in Symington’s numbers, and the huge increase in Symington’s negatives. Cause and effect are clear here – you don’t decide you dislike a candidate because you don’t want to vote for them, you decide you don’t want to vote for a candidate because you dislike them. Clearly, Symington’s negatives are the driving force in the huge difference between this poll and the last R2K poll. The financial disclosures issue lit a fuse that has continued to burn steadily and quickly, eating up much of her goodwill and opening the door for Douglas to cast further doubts on her character by whatever means he can think of. There’s no question that the disclosure issue will be remembered as a turning point. And in Vermont, all it takes is finding and exploiting one key negative narrative to step on a campaign. With only 400,000 voters, political changes – as a matter of percentages – have the potential to turn faster here than any other state in the union. They just don’t, usually.

On the Progressive side, as outraged as many Dems were, Pollina hasn’t taken a hit from his latest campaign finance challenge. With that off the table, he really hasn’t been making mistakes (and as I noted recently, he’s been fairly creative with outside-the-box organizing). Nor has he been so ready to beat up on Democrats as a collective entity, narrowcasting his criticism to Montpelier instead.

And the massive increase in Symington’s negatives also suggest that the Pollina’s increases aren’t due so much to his own messaging, so much as his positioning to be the beneficiary of Symington’s stumbling (given the lack of his own of late). As such, he seems – both from the recent poll and anecdotally – to have broken out of the single-digit doldrums. Voters may be allowing him a “reboot” and we could easily see him repeat his numbers against Shumlin.

If I had to bet money, I’d still think that he will end up in third, but just barely. Douglas’s tone has certainly changed. Last week, Douglas seemed to be going out of his way to promote Pollina’s candidacy, presumably because of the effect it has on Symington’s numbers and with an eye towards keeping the runner up well out of the range where a legislative promotion of a non-Douglas candidate is politically easy. As I said, if Douglas were serious about Pollina, he’d be getting mean. It’s what he does.

Well, in the last couple days, Douglas has gotten mean, hitting Pollina on the Milk Company troubles. Now that does mean he’s up in the polls.

It’s an interesting game of fine-tuning going on. It seems unlikely to impossible that either Pollina or Symington on their own could keep Douglas below 50%, despite the inevitable crowing of both sides. Douglas’s job is to fine tune his negative attacks and the resultant peaks and troughs in the polls of his opponents to keep them largely canceling each other out and preventing one or the other from getting close enough to pull off a legislative coup. Something he seems to be doing masterfully.

But back to the original point: Does this latest push from Symington benefit her campaign or Pollina’s? In the twin bubbles of Washington and Chittenden Counties, anecdotal evidence runs high that the clear, unprecedented surge in early voting is benefitting Pollina more than Symington – but it can be hard to see the rest of the state from here when one is depending on anecdotes. Die-hard Progressives are certainly confident, as they have been far more solicitous to me of late with the “it’s all about Douglas” and “we have to pull together” comments (the exceptions of a few posters on this blog notwithstanding). Even with some “oh yeah, we’d support Gaye if she came in second” stuff that I very specifically was not hearing before. Human nature being what it is, that’s a good sign they have less concern about Symington actually coming in second, and that Mr. Pollina’s comments to Mark Johnson that “Boy I wouldn’t want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.” are so no longer operative, if indeed they ever were.

Let’s hope this new rhetorical reality is consistent (even if next Tuesday doesn’t go as Pollina supporters hope), and that Symington supporters can match it, if necessary. Getting the legislature to move on the number two if he or she is not within 10 is going to be like pushing a boulder uphill, and they’re going to need the support of the number three to have any chance at all.

( – promoted by odum)

Here’s a sampling the "Jim Douglas, We’re Not Your ATM" events around the state. This piece is a work in progress as more photos are sent in later today. In Burlington there was a good turnout with lots of enthusiastic honks

From Green Mountain Daily

Wow, a great turnout in the early morning hours!

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily

A big crew here:

From Green Mountain Daily

More below the fold, and more to come…

Here's a couple from Bennington, where Jim Douglas balked in his scheduled appearance and quickly organized a "counter-rally" from the sheep in his flock.

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily

A Washington Post headline in the “Nation” news section is a pure example of the politically obvious.  So alright, we can give the  some cred for what's also obvious:  Mike McConnell's transparent, fear-mongering nod to McCain 4 days before the general election.

Intelligence Head Says Next President Faces Volatile Era 
 
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Friday, October 31, 2008; Page A10
NASHVILLE, Oct. 30 — The next U.S. president will govern in an era of increasing international instability, including a heightened risk of terrorist attacks in the near future, long-term prospects of regional conflicts and diminished U.S. dominance across the globe, the nation's top intelligence officer said Thursday.
Competition for energy, water and food will drive conflicts between nations to a degree not seen in decades, and climate change and global economic upheaval will amplify the effects, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in a speech here.
McConnell, who has given security briefings to both major-party presidential candidates, said the list of worries will soon drown out the euphoria as the next occupant of the White House settles into the job.
“After the new president-elect's excitement subsides after winning the election, it is going to be dampened somewhat when he begins to focus on the realities of the myriad of changes and challenges,” he said.