The following is not based on inside sources or secret documents; it’s just me, interpreting current events and connecting a bunch of dots that appear to be related. Take it for what it’s worth.

As lawmakers reconvene in Montpelier, our political media fill themselves with coverage of Governor Shumlin’s Very Big Day and the opening rounds of legislative action. Meanwhile, the real important stuff has been happening elsewhere, without any bright lights, cameras or microphones. What might that be?

The Governor (and other top Dems) carrying out a grand strategy to permanently co-opt the political center, thus marginalizing the Republican Party on the right, and the Progs and liberal Dems on the left. Whether or not there’s an actual deal or just an unspoken accord, it looks like this: Business interests and mainstream conservatives allow Shumlin to pursue single-payer health care, and in return, he steers a centrist course on other issues — keeping a lid on the (small-P) progressive aspirations of the left.

I have a bunch of items to get to, but I’ll start with the unspoken but very obvious dance between Shumlin and our buddy Bruce Lisman. Three unmistakable signs:

1. Shumlin’s apparent 180-degree spinaroonie on ethics reform. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld’s initial report for VPR included the following passage:

Gov. Peter Shumlin voluntarily disclosed the kind of information being sought by Lisman and Gilbert during his first two gubernatorial campaigns. He says he supports the move to make the disclosures mandatory.

“It’s just important for the public to know, when you’re going to be the chief executive of the state or frankly be involved in making laws for a state what assets you have and what conflicts you might have,” the governor said.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think Hirschfeld realized it, but he got something of a scoop there. Until now, Shumlin’s been an opponent of ethics reform, especially in the case of state legislators. (In case the highlighted quote above wasn’t clear enough, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz now reports that Shumlin would require financial disclosure for “all elected officials serving in Montpelier.” Now, let’s spin the clock back to November 2012:

Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, who frequently talks about his commitment to transparency, says the voluntary disclosure system works well for statewide candidates, and it wouldn’t be “fair” to require lawmakers to disclose financial information.

And back in 2009, Shumlin told then-ink-stained wretch Peter Hirschfeld that “Vermont has proven immune to the kind of seedy lawmaking that might make financial disclosure laws necessary in other states.”

Hmm. Looks like the Governor has changed his tune. In fact, he’s now singing harmony on Bruce Lisman’s favorite song.  

2. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. In this case, the dog that didn’t bark is Bruce Lisman.

He’s all in favor of transparency and accountability, right? He’s big on government efficiency, right? And what’s been the number-one issue of the last several months regarding transparency, accountability, and efficiency? The troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect. Republicans have been all over Shumlin’s case on this, and they plan to continue as long as they possibly can.

Well, as far as I can tell, Lisman hasn’t uttered a single word about VHC. Curious, isn’t it?

3. Lisman’s latest opinion piece, praising the Governor for his “focus on jobs and prosperity.” And, naturally, trying to hog all the credit for anyone who talks about economic growth — “it’s been our focus for the past two years.” Yeah, Bruce, and before you came along, nobody had ever thought of the issue before. Insufferable.

But the point is, Lisman praising the Governor. Remember the expensive and unavoidable launch phase of Campaign for Vermont, and its ceaseless railing against the powers in Montpelier? Well, now Lisman is making nice. Granted, he does it in the context of pushing his own agenda; but it’s a stark change in tone.

I don’t think this means Bruce Lisman is a rising star. What I do think is that he’s politically useful to Shumlin: Lisman spends his money pushing a centrist agenda, and thus provides a counterweight to the braying dead-enders in the VTGOP as well as the liberals who want to use the Dems’ political power to shift Vermont substantially leftward.

All right, so there’s my case for A Secret Love between Gov. Shumlin and Vermont’s own Wall Street baron. Now, on to other exhibits in my case for a top-down centrist freeze.

— Previously cited in this space, the Governor’s fundraising prowess among Republicans and business leaders, as documented last month by Mr. Heintz. Including the quid pro quo as overtly stated by Barre Mayor (and Shumlin donor) Thom Lauzon: “We don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The Governor has probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

It’d be instructive, not to mention a public service, if some political reporter who actually draws a salary would take the time to examine Brian Dubie’s 2010 donor list and compare it with the 2012 lists for Shumlin and Randy Brock. I bet a lot of folks crossed over, and I bet that’s the primary reason that Brock’s fundraising efforts tanked so badly.

— The apparent closed-door deal on campaign finance law, which will immediately benefit Governor Shumlin, and will in the future benefit any candidate occupying the political center. As first reported by, oh God, Paul Heintz again, the emerging bill “is so watered down that the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which has spent years fighting for such a bill, has already vowed to oppose it.”  

The bill would double the ceiling on donations to a single statewide candidate from individuals, corporations and PACs from $2,000 to $4,000. There’s only one guy who has a significant number of maxed-out donors under the current law, and that’s Peter Shumlin. If this bill passes, his overwhelming financial advantage will grow even larger.

— Finally, some old news, but freshly pertinent in this context. While there are more than a few fire-breathers in the Dem and Prog caucuses, the House and Senate leadership is reliably moderate. Shap Smith is a self-described moderate, and John Campbell obviously is. Indeed, I suspect that the main reason Campbell is still Senate President Pro Tem in spite of his disastrous 2012 session is that he keeps a lid on any potential lefty outbreaks under the Golden Dome. Not for nothing have I called him “Shumlin’s doorstop.”

And don’t forget that the 2012 challenge to his leadership, in the person of Sen. Ann Cummings, quickly dissolved after initially being seen as a huge threat to Campbell. I suspect some arms got twisted there.

Conclusion, finally. It looks to me like the Governor and his allies are moving to cement the Dems’ control of the center — which means cementing relationships (and forging compromises) with centrist Republicans, business groups, and deep-pocketed donors who are fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

This may be a sound political strategy; if it works, the Republicans will be marginalized for a long, long time. But it’s a disappointment to people like me who see Republican Governors like Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Tom Corbett, Scott Walker, and (until recently) Bob McDonnell resolutely push their states rightward, while we Vermonters settle for health care reform and not much else.

Health care reform’s a big deal, to be sure. And if Shumlin does manage to get us to single-payer, his administration will have been an overall success and his legacy will be assured. But it’s hard not to wish for more, given the Dems’ political dominance. And the party’s elected leaders are choosing to follow the safe road.  

For those just joining us, last week I had a bit of sport at the Governor’s expense: I dared to point out that his spiffy new anti-poverty council was saddled with the unfortunate acronym POOP. (Pathways Out Of Poverty.)

Well, it looks like the administration has seen the shit hitting the fan (sorry) and quickly sidestepped the spray. According to GMD commenter Ernesto, posted yesterday:

Sat in on Human Resources committee this afternoon. I believe the excrescent acronym to which you referred the other day has been hurriedly amended to MFOOP — Moving Families Out Of Poverty. The power of the virtual pen leaves its indelible mark and moves on..

.

Okay, so they’ve shifted from a scatological acronym to a silly one. (It still, unfortunately, echoes the conservative talking point that the sole purpose for anti-poverty programs is to eliminate poverty. Which is quite impossible, especially in these times of drastic wealth maldistribution.)

Anyway, pardon me if I toot (sorry again) my own horn.

Man, once the poop jokes start, it’s really hard to stop.  

Since my last post had the unfortunate side-effect of giving my colleague Sue Prent a sad, here’s a little something to bring cheer to the heart of any St. Albans Democrat.

Ah, here comes our old frenemy Dustin “Dustbin” Degree, former Jim Douglas fartcatcher and one-term Republican State Representative, to enlighten us all on the status of Vermont politics by way of a commentary posted on VTDigger. Hint: Everything is terrible, and it’s all the Democrats’ fault.

This week, the Legislature sits and as it has since 2009, the Democratic supermajority will once again control every single aspect of the legislative process.

Hey, Dustbin: ya don’t like it, WIN SOME ELECTIONS.

…the supermajority will impose its will on Vermonters with little desire for compromise or acknowledgment of those who, often vehemently, disagree.

Yes, the legislative supermajority elected by a supermajority of voters will conduct its business without compromising with a party that’s fallen into a black hole of political irrelevance due to its own disorganization and rabid conservatism.

Damn voters, anyway. Ingrates! They reject the wisdom of Our Greatest Living Citizen:

For eight years, the Douglas administration warned of the consequences of rising taxes, increased spending and burdensome developmental permitting.

And after eight years, the voters were fed up with the Douglas administration’s constant hectoring and lack of new ideas or coherent policy.  

Doomster Dustbin goes on to cite carefully selected employment numbers purporting to show how our state is going straight to hell in a Democratic handbasket. He then concludes that “the Democrats’ experiment in single party rule has failed,” which makes it sound like the Dems seized power in a coup rather than prevailing in a series of free and fair elections. In part because of their appeal to voters, and in part because of the Republicans’ lack of appeal.

I realize you’re too young to remember it, Dustbin, but about the time you were pooping your Pampers (b. 1985 per Wikipedia), Vermont was a solidly Republican state. Maybe instead of castigating the Democrats for daring to beat your party, you should look in the mirror and ask, “How did we manage to blow it so badly? And what can we do to reconnect with the voters?”

In the absence of such an honest reappraisal of, by, I can understand why you so energetically present this disaster-porn of a prediction — why you seem so eager for economic catastrophe. Your only hope for regaining power is for Vermont to go so far off the rails that your self-marginalized party will start to look like a reasonable option.

Finally, a couple more howlers from Dustbin’s conclusion:

We must demand that the allegiance of our senators and representatives lies with the people, and not the praise or preference of party leadership.

Uh, er, are you talking about “the people” who knowingly and enthusiastically elected all those damn Democrats? I guess in your fantasy world, those elections somehow didn’t count (ACORN?), and our elected representatives are somehow out of touch with the very people who’ve repeatedly endorsed their policies through multiple election cycles.

And we must restore the sacred concepts of cooperation and compromise to our legislative process.

In other words, the Democrats should voluntarily relinquish their freely-won political mandate; instead, they should water down their policies to mollify the 30-35% conservative dead-enders.

Just like the Republicans have done in places where they have the majority, eh, Dustbin? Florida, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio? Would you hold up Paul LePage or Rick Perry or Jan Brewer as models of “cooperation and compromise”?

I guess you’d reject the words of George W. Bush after his extremely narrow (and disputed) 2004 victory, when he said “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Well, Mr. Bush had earned a mere fraction of the political capital accumulated by the Vermont Democratic Party. Can you blame the Dems if they want to spend a little of it?

Well, a reasonable person couldn’t. But Dustin Degree can.  

Well, I don’t know if that’s what they’ll call it — probably not — but Our Governor is the clear and obvious winner in a backdoor maneuver to fast-track a new campaign finance bill. And I mean extremely fast track.

I know, the Legislature isn’t even in session yet. But, per Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, the fix is in.

One of the Vermont legislature’s first acts upon reconvening this week may be to vastly increase the amount of money in state politics.

After failing to reach compromise last spring over competing campaign finance bills, House and Senate negotiators narrowed their differences during the legislative off-season and are scheduled to sign off on a final bill Tuesday morning. Both houses could pass the new version by the end of the week and send it to Gov. Peter Shumlin.

The campaign finance reform issue was an embarrassing flameout in 2013. It began with broad tripartisan support, and ended with the State Senate going into a Four Corners offense and running out the clock with nothing accomplished.

And, during the long recess, it appears as though the Long Knives came out and gutted the legislation of anything meaningful whatsoever.

At present, candidates for statewide office can raise $2000 per two-year election cycle from any individual or corporation. That would double to $4000 if the current draft is passed.

Political action committees that donate directly to candidates would be able to raise up to $4000 from any individual or corporation, up from $2000. And political parties would be able to raise $10,000 from such entities, also up from $2000.

… The new $10,000 party limit is actually far higher than either of the two versions passed last spring by the House and Senate. The House had proposed limiting contributions to parties to $5000, while the Senate had proposed $3000.

The spending limits wouldn’t do much for the vast majority of candidates. But it should vastly increase the size of gubernatorial war-chests. Well, one war-chest in particular, since Peter Shumlin is the only guy who’s been maxing out a whole lot of donors. (Incuding quite a few Republicans, as Heintz has previously reported.)  

This bill would make it even harder for anyone — Republican, Progressive, Independent, Lismaniac — to mount an effective challenge to Shumlin, who goes into this campaign with something like a million bucks in the bank.

Of course, that advantage depends on Shumlin’s — or successor Democrats’ — ability to appeal to Vermont’s monied class. Which tilts the balance toward “moderate” stances on, oh, stuff like tax reform. If that seems like a stretch, recall the words of Barre’s Republican Mayor, Thom Lauzon, who maxed-out his (current) donation limit at a November fundraiser for Shumlin:

“It was all Republicans!” jokes Lauzon, who says he and his wife, Karen, donated $2000. “Certainly with Republicans, one of our issues is we don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The governor’s probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

OTOH, the (so far hypothetical) person who’d lose the most under the new campaign finance scheme is Your Next Progressive Candidate for Governor, who’d have an even harder time competing with a well-funded Democrat (or Republican, if or when the VTGOP regains its bearings).

So, there you have it: the Peter Shumlin Bailout (and Screw The Progs) Act of 2014.  

Well, seeing’s how my most recent GMD diary touched off something of a shitstorm (durr hurr hurr), I’d like to present a few more thoughts.

Regarding the unfortunate acronym, POOP (Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty): my criticism of that is purely on political/PR grounds. It’s just plain stupid to craft an acronym with unintended connotations. It is, as they say in soccer, an own goal. The Council isn’t done any favors when it’s given a name straight out of Beavis and Butthead.  

I’ve also raised an objection to the underlying idea behind the name. It borrows from conservative rhetoric: that the purpose of social-service programs is to eradicate poverty. That’s part of it, to be sure; but some people will never escape the need for assistance. This is especially true in a society where the deck is stacked against the poor and working poor — and even the middle class are walking a tightrope above the chasm.

As for the work of the committee itself: Some very good things may come out of the simple fact of putting this group of people together on a regular basis. They may well spot systematic problems — the forest beyond their individual trees — that can’t be seen from any single perspective. But if their charge is limited to the social-services system, their ability to create anything as grand as “pathways out of poverty” will be limited as well. Social services fights against very strong currents of wealth and income inequality, the decimation of the middle class, many years of wage stagnation for the working poor, and tax policies that too often favor the rich.

That’s a lot to overcome. A close consideration of social-service flaws is useful, but it fails to address most of the equation.

I don’t know for a fact that the Council’s charge is limited to social services, but its membership points in that direction. I’d be happier if the Council included some progressive voices on broader policy questions. To pick a name out of my frontal lobe, how about Paul Cillo or Jack Hoffman of the Public Assets Institute?

As for the new antipoverty measures unveiled by Governor Shumlin this week: Chris Curtis is encouraged. I, the snarky blogger, am cynical. Based on past experience.  

The Governor’s January “priorities” have died a quick death before. In January 2013 there was a lot of lip service to, among other things, energy efficiency, social services, and early education. But during the actual legislative session, some items just didn’t seem to get a lot of push, and others failed when the Legislature balked at Shumlin’s preferred funding mechanism.

And the Governor has yet to say where he’d find the money for this week’s initiatives. Based on past experience, it wouldn’t surprise me if he dumped the whole thing in Doug Racine’s lap (“Here, Doug, cut something else to pay for these things”) or identified a funding source that’s unworkable (the ill-fated break-open tickets tax) or unpalatable (the ill-advised proposal to slash the Earned Income Tax Credit) or both.

One more thought from the blogger’s cynical brain. This wouldn’t be the first time Shumlin used a bunch of good people as a backdrop for a feel-good announcement that never went anywhere. I don’t blame any of the participants in this week’s event; if the Governor asked me to be part of his backdrop, I’d say yes. And I’d feel a little dirty afterwards.

So this week’s announcement was a good first step, but there’s a long way to go. And past experience doesn’t fill me with confidence.

And the Council, unfortunate name and all, is full of fine people — some of the state’s best and most dedicated. Indeed, maybe a measure of hope is the difference between them and me: They go out and fight the good fight, while cynical me sits in my metaphorical Mom’s Basement and writes commentaries.

I hope they prove me wrong. But for now, I remain skeptical.  

Sometimes I think, not at all self-servingly, that Governor Shumlin ought to hire a snarky blogger — to provide a bit of perspective, a bit of sour in the dough, and as a preventative to doing stupid stuff like…

Gov. Peter Shumlin signed an executive order Monday creating a new council to combat poverty … the Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty will have between 10 and 30 members and meet three times a year.

Uh, er… a POOP Council? Really, now.

I do have some more substantive comments on the Governor’s new POOP. Back in the 1990s, my home state of Michigan had a conservative Republican Governor by the name of John Engler. One of his strokes of rhetorical brilliance was to give the Department of Social Services a new name: the Family Independence Agency. Because, y’know, we’re not in the business of giving handouts to the undeserving poor; we’re giving people a chance to achieve Family Independence!

Stupid shit, which Engler’s successor Jennifer Granholm quickly undid. And Governor Shumlin is dipping into Engler’s tainted pool of anti-welfare jargon with this “Pathways Out of Poverty” POOP.

I’m not arguing with the idea that we’d like to see as many people achieve independence and security as possible. But, as Our Lord and Savior once said, “the poor you will always have with you.” Especially since one of the principal products of our 21st Century economy is poverty and financial insecurity.

You want evidence? Take a look at the Public Assets Institute’s new report, “More Jobs, Clustered in Low-Wage Sectors.”

The [November] unemployment rate inched down to 4.4 percent, mainly because fewer Vermonters are looking for work. At the same time, employers reported 2,200 more Vermonters on the job than in October, with most of those newcomers in traditionally low-wage service sectors.

A nice shiny chart, displayed after the jump, illustrates this disturbing reality.  

All those low-paying jobs put a smiley face on our unemployment rate, but they do little or nothing to give people a Pathway Out Of Poverty.

Now, that chart is a noe-month snapshot. But it’s part of a longer-term trend — as shown in PAI’s year-end report “State of Working Vermont 2013,” which finds that “fewer Vermonters were working in 2012 than in 2007. And private employers were providing fewer jobs, most concentrated in low-wage sectors.  Also, “the number and the percentage of Vermonters in poverty had increased,” as had the number receiving food stamps (up a stunning 86% in five years) and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Governor’s new Council will have to be awfully darn creative to buck these trends and provide real Pathways Out Of Poverty. Methinks it’s more likely to produce a honeywagon-load of POOP.

In addition to his new Brown Ribbon Committee, Shumlin also announced a brace of anti-poverty initiatives worth a grand total of $2.2 million. Funding source TBD, since the Gov is determined to flatline next year’s budget. Human Services Secretary Doug Racine described the initiatives as “more aggressive than efforts put forth in other states,” and “a huge initiative [that] will make a huge difference that you aren’t going to be seeing in the rest of the country.”

Gosh, Doug. Mighty big (or should I say “huge”) words for a couple mill. I know that’s a lot of scratch for your average working-class stiff, but it seems like a spit-in-the-wind for the fight against poverty. Can two million dollars — and that’s generously assuming Shumlin comes up with a funding scheme that’s acceptable to the Legislature — really “make a huge difference”? Somehow I doubt it.

Look, it’s nice and all. But don’t oversell what is, in reality, a very modest proposal.

And I wish good luck to the curiously variable 10-to-30 members of the Governor’s new POOP, I really do. They’re gonna need it.  

Wise men run for the hills (and staffers update their resumes) when these dreaded words fall from the lips of Jim Fogler, President and Publisher of the Burlington Free Press:

I have exciting news to share.

Because it usually means “Look out, folks, I’ve got a truckload of manure to dump on your heads!”

And what a truckload it was, that greeted His Dear Readers on this first day of 2014.

The opening shovelful deacribed the Freeploid’s new digs:

We’re moving our Free Press news, advertising and business offices to a new, state-of-the art media facility in mid-January from our downtown College Street location…

See, it’s not a “newspaper office,” it’s a “media facility” suitable for synergy and crossbranding and multipurposing and other buzzwords deployed to conceal the death rattle of Fogler’s enterprise. The Freeploid’s new offices media facility is a rental space on the seventh floor of a downtown building. He played up the nice view of Lake Champlain (I wonder who got the corner office), but what it really means is that the Freeploid’s corporate masters at Gannett have decided to cash in their real-estate chips.

Inevitable, but sad. Newspaper buildings used to be landmarks; now, they’re hidden away in nondescript quarters invisible to the general public. But what wonders, aside from a lovely view, does the “media facility” have to offer?

The high-tech, new location will put all of our employees in open spaces, helping all of our departments build off of the energy of others. There will be increased communication…

… yelling, shouting, airport-level decibel readings, and no privacy whatsoever — for those key off-the-record conversations, or for a bit of on-the-clock Web browsing. You’ll never know when Jim Fogler’s tiptoeing up from behind.

There will be more TV screens throughout our new space showcasing Facebook, Twitter feeds and news programs, keeping us up to date on news developments and our readers’ feedback.

Oh goodie, the sportsbar approach to newsroom decor. Big video monitors displaying the continuous flood of meaningless Internet gibber. Yeah, that’ll lead to in-depth, revealing journalism.

Wait, no, it’s not “journalism,” it’s “product.” As in…  

…a higher-quality product in digital and in print.

Nice thing about buzzwords like “product” and “content” is that they say absolutely nothing about quality or insight or truth. Nope, we’re all just crankin’ out the product. And then we get to the real business of the Freeploid’s new “media center” — DA BENJAMINS.

Our sales teams will be able to show our customers in media rooms what’s new and being offered in regard to our new digital capabilities, including Web development, social-media strategies and placement, targeted emails and search engine optimization (SEO) and marketing (SEM).

Oh, I am so glad to hear that “our sales teams” will have a prominent place in the newsroom. That concept of an unbreakable wall between journalism and sales is so… 20th Century, don’t you think?

I’m also glad that my newspaper is dedicating itself to search engine optimization and marketing. Is there a Pulitzer Prize for that?

Oh, and then Fogler gets to the real shitball of Freeploid 2014.

On the content front, look for a larger printed Burlington Free Press soon.  …a newspaper with more to read… We’ll be adding more pages of content…

Larger, more to read, more pages of “content.” Must be a good thing, yes?

Well, yes, if you believe that an 800-pound man is healthier than a 180-pound man. Because what Fogler is talking about is not an expanded commitment to local or Statehouse reportage; it’s stuffing the Freeploid with a castrated version of the industry’s chief castrato, USA TODAY (all caps please, per Gannett’s copyright team).

Or, as Fogler puts it, Gannett will “leverage both USA TODAY’s national coverage and the unique, local reporting of our journalists.”

That’s “leverage” as in “maximize profit.” Because, as we previously discussed in this space, the daily insertion of USA TODAY pablum will allow Gannett to claim a much larger circulation figure for its dismal national newspaper. And, as we’ve already seen, they’ll be “leveraging” us readers as well:

Asked whether prices would rise for subscribers receiving the extra USA Today content, a Gannett spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, said, “As we introduce enhanced products, consumers tell us they are willing to pay for the added value we’re bringing them.”

Meanwhile, the real focus of The New Freeploid will be stuff like…

On the digital front, with iPhones in our reporters’ hands, we offer more video today than most media locally. We also are planning a redesign of our website and our mobile apps in 2014 that will make it easier to find the stories and video you want to see. Our digital offerings include solutions such as Web development, targeted emails, SEO/SEM solutions and display ads on one of the most viewed websites in the market.

“More video.” Not “better video,” just MORE. Plus all those “solutions” for problems I don’t have. I turn to a newspaper or website for news, for information — not targeted emails, SEO, and more intrusive advertisements.

And, in more evidence that Jim Fogler and his ilk have their eye firmly off the ball:

Our presence on Twitter and Facebook is constantly engaging readers, including young people, which helps them recognize the importance of the Burlington Free Press in their daily lives.

“Young people.” The constant preoccupation of dying media empires (and the Republican Party, heh). Hey, Jim, haven’t you heard that “young people” aren’t that into Facebook anymore? Why not force your ever-more-distracted reporters to create Tumblr feeds and Instagram accounts and gifs and Vines while you’re at it?

Fogler closes his missive with reassurances about the ‘Loid’s survival evolution and growth. He promises that…

…we are here not only to stay, but to grow…

Just like the 800-pound man.  

Since last I posted in this space, i’ve been (a) out of town visiting family for THE HOLIDAYS, suck it Fox, and (b) crafting a nice little WordPress blog about my father’s military service in World War II. (Nothing terribly dramatic by Great War standards, but something for me and the folks.)

During my absence, Peter “Test, 1-2, 1-2, Test, Test” Hirschfeld produced a nugget of journalistic goodness for the Mitchell Family Organ. (Paywalled, sorry.) It’s about ten days old now, but since the MFO frequently serves as a little tiny echo chamber where stories go to die, I thought it was worth dredging up.

Basically, it’s about the key role that Vermont Republican operatives have played in generating bad publicity for Vermont Health Connect. The hook: Back in early November when Health Access Commissioner Mark Larson kinda misled a House committee about a single privacy breach? Well, it turns out that the loudest mouth in the anti-reform movement, Darcie “Hack” Johnston, was the one who instigated the event:

Not only was Johnston aware of the security issue when the question about the breach was posed to Larson on Nov. 5, she actually fed the inquiry, via handwritten note, to the Republican lawmaker who asked it.

And then, of course, ran to the nearest camera to bemoan what she called “a really sad day for Vermonters.”

All I can say is, good on ya’, Darse. You’re not quite as useless as I thought you were.

The rest of the article explores “the role of a small group of Republican operatives who have launched an opposition-research campaign aimed at weakening Vermonters’ appetites for… health care reform.”

Using the state’s public records law, Johnston, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock and Brady Toensing, the newly minted vice chairman of the Vermont GOP, have mined primary source material for evidence of technological misfires and bureaucratic incompetence. Johnston and Brock have funneled this information to Vermont media.

Ask me, it’s all good. Searching public records for politically useful material? Absolutely nothing wrong with that. (Makes me wonder, though, about the complicity and independence of “Vermont media,” but that’s a subject for another day.)

But it does raise a very real question about the “new,” “moderate” VTGOP.  

We have three names here. Randy Brock, supposedly a nice guy, but he and the Hack have been close for a long time, and he paid her an ungodly sum of money to run his gubernatorial campaign (into the ground). Then there’s Toensing, the scion of DiGenova and Toensing, a particularly nasty DC law firm whose speciality is ginning up fake controversies about Democrats. (He’s the junior partner; his mommy and daddy are the headliners.) Hirschfeld helpfully notes:

Toensing said he acted mainly out of concern as a private citizen who has been affected personally by the technological difficulties that have followed the roll-out of the exchange.

His request came nine days after he was elected vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, however…

Hirschfeld quotes “party colleagues” as depicting Brady Toensing as an “opposition-research guru.”

How lovely.

I hope we never hear another goddamned word from any Vermont Republican about how we ought to do things The Vermont Way, meaning with honesty and purity and respect. ‘Cause Brady Toensing is none of those things.

And he’s the #2 man in the state party.

And he got there with the backing of Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, alleged nice guy, alleged moderate.

Nowhere in Hirschfeld’s epistle do we see the name “Phil Scott,” or for that matter “David Sunderland,” the new party chair.

What we do have is a pair of tried-and-true attack dogs, plus an embittered former gubernatorial candidate, playing conservative hardball on Governor Shumlin’s signature issue for the benefit of the Vermont Republican Party. And, in the case of brand-new party official Brady Toensing, presumably with the approval of the Vermont Republican Party.

The new, “moderate” Vermont Republican Party.

The new “moderate” party that happily hired “an opposition-research guru” as its vice-chair, and is allowing two prominent members of the bad old non-moderate VTGOP to play point on the party’s behalf.

This is the kind of stuff I would’ve expected from “Angry Jack” Lindley, not from the supposedly kinder, gentler, Philler VTGOP.

Meet the new boss…  

Hey, remember that time Scott Brown came to Vermont and held a fundraiser that reportedly lost money?

The $125-a-head private reception at the Rutland Holiday Inn began with veggies, dip and libations. After small talk and speculations about who might run for governor, the party of nearly 50 moved into the dining room for dinner and Brown’s speech.

“Nearly 50,” you say. All righty then, let’s give ’em the benefit of the doubt and round up to 50. That’s a gross of $6,250?

I have no idea how much it costs to run a shindig for Republican bigwigs, but it’s safe to say the event was not a success.

Well, ex-Sen McDreamy just held a big-deal event in New Hampshire, where he’s about to establish residency (in the tony seacoast enclave of Rye) and is doing a high-profile Hamlet act on whether to run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

And how did the Nashua fundraiser go?

Er…

…protesters outnumbered activists who coughed up $50 to see Brown.

The tally: About 90 people inside; over 200 protesters outside, according to the NH Union Leader. (A majority were gun-rights activists, some dressed in hunting gear and carrying guns.) And Brown, brave stalwart that he is, “snuck in [the] back door,” said longtime political reporter Kevin Landrigan.

Sheesh.

Leaving aside the brutal optics for a moment, just think about the dollars. A prominent Republican ex-Senator who might just be his party’s candidate, giving a speech in NH’s second-largest city, manages to gross a woeful $4,500. Looks like another money-losing “fundraiser” for ol’ Scotty Too Hotty.  

The ex-Senator is supposedly the Great White Hope of the state party, whose other Senate hopefuls include two-state joke Bob Smith and far-right activist Karen Testerman (think of her as the Nancy Sheltra of New Hampshire). But hardly anybody shows up for his event. And his track record of occasional moderation in hopes of flummoxing the Massachusetts electorate now serves to completely alienate the hard-core base of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

I do have a serious thought, in addition to the irresistible chance to have a good guffaw at Brown’s expense. Which is, how much appeal does a “moderate” Republican actually have? There’s a lot of talk about Third Way centrists and moderate Republicans who can recapture the political center. But while that idea has a lot of appeal to the political pundit class, the bumble-stumble-fumble of Scott Brown makes me wonder how many actual voters would flock to a centrist’s banner.

It also makes me wonder whether Vermont’s own avatar of moderation, Phil Scott, really has broad appeal. How would he actually do if he had to run a serious, issue-oriented campaign? How would he manage the tightrole walk of establishing moderate credentials without making himself anathema to the conservative base?

I realize that Scott Brown is not Phil Scott, even though they are very similar in many ways. But you’d think that if Scott Brown is an exemplar for Republican victory in a blue state, then why can’t he headline a fundraiser without losing money on the deal?  

Hold the phone, everybody! Stop the presses! John McCain, inescapable creature of the Sunday morning talk shows, has had an idea!!!

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Wednesday that he would introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own set of reforms.

… It is composed of conservative pet policies, such as tax credits for individuals and tort reform to stem medical malpractice lawsuits.

Well, isn’t that special. President Obama and the Democrats fight and fight and fight for reform. They barely manage to get a bill through an unfriendly Congress. They endure five-plus years of constant, relentless attack from the right. They barely survive a Supreme Court challenge, and then prevail in a 2012 election that was, at least in part, a referendum on health care reform. They beat back Republican attempts to tie Obamacare repeal to lifting the debt ceiling. And they take us most of the way down the road to Obamacare implementation.

And now, after all of that, John McCain has the colossal nerve to try to reopen the issue.

A little frickin’ late, isn’t it?

Does he really believe the President and the Democrats are going to dismantle their signature accomplishment just because he’s unrolling… er… a five-year-old leftover casserole from his unappetizing Presidential bid?

The central tenet, tax credits for purchasing health coverage, was also included in McCain’s 2008 presidential platform.

Normally I wouldn’t go to the trouble of posting a GMD diary about this absurd bit of political Kabuki. Except that it’s echoed by one of Vermont’s own, Republican Senate Minority leader Joe Benning. In a recent opinion piece posted by VTDigger and also published by God knows how many of our content-starved newspapers, Benning calls for setting aside partisan labels and taking a fresh look at our health care system.

After “objectively” assessing the pros and cons of the government and free-market approaches, Benning grandly offers:

Perhaps it is time to consider a hybrid system built on the best attributes of both sides.

(Cough.)

Er, Joe. A couple of points:

— Obamacare already IS a hybrid system. It actually includes some of the best AND worst attributes of both sides, but that’s because of all the contortions and compromises needed to get reform through Congress. But Obamacare, while providing a structure of government oversight and regulation, leaves a whole lot of room for the free market to work its alleged magic.

— Benning writes as if we are only just now approaching the health care reform issue for the first time. The fact is, for those just tuning in, we’ve been fighting this battle for the last five-plus years. There have been endless debates, proposals and counter-proposals, and Our Side Won.

— Okay, three points. We’ve already spent a whole lot of money, time and toil on trying to implement a new system. Surely Joe Benning, being the good fiscal conservative that he is, wouldn’t want us to just throw all that away, would he?

Benning is a complete dunce if he really thinks he’s offering a serious proposal. What it really is, is yet another last-ditch Republican attempt to undo their string of defeats on health care reform. They’re desperately trying to get to the front of a parade that has already ended.

Furthermore, look at what he offers as a model for “hybrid” reform:

Take, for instance, our interstate highway system. Competition, with government-set parameters and monitoring, has built what is arguably the world’s best road system.

What the frak????? Our interstate highway system is a model of a hybrid approach? What planet does Joe Benning live on? The interstate highway system is far, far more centrallized and government-controlled than Obamacare. It’s actually much closer to Governor Shumlin’s single-payer model. Because in the interstate highway system, the federal government is the single payer.

Generally speaking, Joe Benning is one of the better Republicans in Vermont. But this? A Godawful, irrelevant mess, delivered much too late. Just like John McCain’s “new” plan.