Crossposted at The Vermont Political Observer, where you can also read my thoughts on the latest instance of the government/lobbyist Revolving Door.

Leaders of the Vermont Republican Party have done their best to set expectations for this year’s elections at an achievably low level: a gain of perhaps three Senate seats plus something close to ten pickups in the House. Well, now comes VTDigger’s Anne Galloway with an outlook on the legislative races;she quotes Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis as projecting two or fewer gains in the Senate and two to four in the House.

And I say, “Bet the under.”

For those unfamiliar with sports gambling, the bookmakers set a “point spread,” which is basically the expected margin of victory. Say, Patriots host the Jets, and are made an 8-point favorite. In order to win a bet on the Pats, they have to win by more than 8. If you bet on the Jets and they lose by 7 or fewer points, you win.

That’s called “betting the under.” Davis has basically made the Republicans a two-point favorite in the Senate and two-to-four in the House.

And if I were a (ramblin’) gamblin’ man, I’d bet the under. The Republicans will not even manage to meet Davis’ projection.

The Dems have a huge disadvantage, in that they are defending a large quantity of seats, including (presumably) a number of marginal constituencies that could easily swing Republican. On the other hand, the Dems have many advantages:

Davis says the Vermont GOP’s inability to recruit statewide candidates for state treasurer, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general indicates the party has organizational and financial difficulties that weaken its chances for regaining seats in the state Legislature. The Republicans have one full-time staffer and $36,430 in cash on hand as of the end of May.

The Vermont Democrats have candidates for all but 16 districts, and most are incumbents, which gives the party a huge boost out of the gate. The party also has strong infrastructure, $119,429 in cash as of May 31 and four full-time staffers.

Jinkies, whatever happened to that Republican windfall from last December’s Chris Christie fundraiser? You know, the one projected by party officials to take in perhaps a quarter million dollars? Methinks the take was a hell of a lot smaller than that, based on (1) their current bottom line, (2) the fact that, as far as I can tell, the VTGOP never released a dollar figure after the event, and (3) a cursory look at VTGOP financial reports doesn’t reveal any influx of cash anywhere near six figures, let alone $250K.

Anyway, that’s a daunting list of challenges for Vermont Republicans.

But it doesn’t include the Democrats’ biggest advantage.

Which is the in-depth, state of the art voter-contact operation they can generate with their financial and organizational edge. You might recall a post-election report by Andrew Stein, then of VTDigger, entitled “Got Ground Game? How Data Drive Vermont’s 2012 Elections.” It detailed how the Democrats exceeded expectations through the use of newfangled voter identification, tracking, and persuasion techniques based on a firm foundation of “robust voter data.” These techniques are actually much more effective than the traditional methods of mass mailings and advertising.

Stein reported that the Dems were much more attuned to these methods than Republicans, who were still reliant on the stuff of traditional campaigns. And while the Republicans came out of 2012 well aware of their deficiencies, they are still drastically under-resourced, while the Dems maintained a sizable full-time staff between 2012 and now. Including John Faas, then a newcomer to Vermont who ‘creatd a database that shows Vermonters’ voting hsitory, contact information, any previous contact with the party, the districts voters live in and party-specific modeling information.”

Well, Faas has remained on the job ever since. You think the Dems’ data has gotten even better in the last two years?

If you are in inveterate politics nerd, I recommend a lengthy article from late April in the New Republic, “How the Democrats Can Avoid Going Down This November.” Reporter Sasha Issenberg goes through the history of campaign strategy and tactics, leading to the data-heavy 21st Century iteration which has fueled Barack Obama’s two successful campaigns and benefited Democrats across the country.

There’s a whole lot of information in the story, but I’ll pull out a couple of key points.

There are two kinds of voters in America, and I don’t mean conservatives and liberals. I mean “reflex voters,” who vote in just about every election, and “unreliable voters,” who tend to vote only in Presidential years. Lately, the Republicans have had an edge in Reflex voters while the Dems have a lot of Unreliables.  

The Reflex voters will show up no matter what. The traditional stuff of campaigns — advertising, mailings, phone banks, etc. — doesn’t make any difference for them. The key to successful Democxratic electioneering is getting Unreliables to the polls. And the traditional stuff of campaigns won’t do the trick.

What does work is personal contact. Which is extremely time-consuming. But modern campaign research has identified ways to get the benefit of personal contact through printed or emailed material, and to professionalize formerly volunteer-driven field operations. But for all this to work, you have to know which voters to target. And the Dems have built a vast database of their Unreliable voters, which has allowed them to invest their resources in closely targeted, proven effective techniques. In 2012, this resulted in larger-than-expected Unreliable turnouts both nationally and in Vermont. And larger-than-expected Democratic success.

By itself, these methods don’t win elections. But they make a measurable difference, and can mean the difference between defeat and victory in close campaigns.

Vermont Democrats sail into the 2014 campaign season with these advantages fully on their side. And that’s why I’m betting the under: the Dems will limit their losses and might even pull off a gain or two.

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for Jeff Bartley, the VTGOP’s “Victory Director.” He’s fighting a steeply uphill battle against far superior forces, and he’ll be lucky to claim even a few victories on Election Night.  

Crossposted on The Vermont Political Observer, where you can also read “The New State Hospital: A Milestone, But Not the Finish Line.”

One of the bigger surprises of last month’s filing deadline was the appearance of an old face in a new place: Roger Allbee, Ag Secretary under Jim Douglas and self-described “liberal Republican,” is running for the State Senate in Windham County.

… as a Democrat.

Well, last Wednesday I guest-hosted The Mark Johnson Show on WDEV, and I booked Allbee as one of my guests. I thought it worthwhile to try to pin him down on his move to the Democratic side.

The result, such as it was, has earned Allbee one of my coveted nicknames: The Artful Roger.

He bobbed and weaved, ducked and parried, and determinedly changed the subject at every opportunity. In a very genial way, I should add. It wasn’t at all contentious; he simply wouldn’t say much about it. If you’re a Windham County Democrat wondering about the sincerity of his party switch, well, you can keep on wondering. The Artful Roger didn’t lay any doubts to rest. Indeed, my conclusion is that he hasn’t changed a bit: he’s still a liberal Republican, and his positions are more or less in line with the likes of Phil Scott.

His case for his candidacy as a Democrat: “People who know me know that I have always worked in a very bipartisan manner, and even when I was Secretary, to bring things together.”

Want more?

I’m passionate about Vermont and the values of our community, and believe that with my knowledge of the state and my reputation for working with people on all sides of the aisle in a very bipartisan way, that I can bring my great passion and knowledge to the Senate. I know how it works, and have been there as Secretary and think that my values, my skill and my background can help make a difference.

Prospective slogan: “Vote for Allbee: He’s Very Bipartisan.” Alternatively: “Allbee: ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Democrats.'”

He says he hasn’t moved, but the GOP has moved away from him:

When I grew up in Brookline many years ago, party labels really didn’t mean much. People voted for the individual, and for what the individual believed in. I still believe that, but the Republican Party that I’ve known in the past, the Aiken party, the Dick Snelling party, that party has certainly moved in a way that it doesn’t represent my views today.

True enough, but with Phil Scott trying to make the party more inclusive, this seems like exactly the wrong time for a liberal Republican to jump ship. Allbee replied that he respects Scott, but still believes his views “haven’t been included as much as they should be” in the party. Which doesn’t really answer the question.

Then again, he gave no indication that he has actually jumped ship. When I asked about switching to the Democratic Party, he replied, “I can’t say I really did switch parties.”

As quickly as he could, The Artful Roger launched into a lengthy explication of what he sees as the three big issues facing Vermont: Health care reform, the public school system and how to fund it, and economic development. An explication that lasted more than five minutes.

And it sounded like the kind of stuff you’d hear from Phil Scott (or, Lord help us, Bruce Lisman): long on exploration, short on specifics, plenty of talk about “concerns” with current policies but no outright criticism, and invocations of a more balanced approach to stuff like taxes and regulation.

I redirected the conversation by noting that Allbee should expect skepticism about his candidacy, and asked him to convince me it wasn’t sheer opportunism — his only way to win in a very liberal constituency. His answer was more of the same.

I think people who know me and know what I’ve done and how I’ve worked collaboratively with others and know my personality and my values, know that it’s not opportunism, but it’s using my experience. Obviously there will be some who say that. So be it. I think I have a history of working with all sides, and supporting candidates like Pat Leahy and Peter Welch and working with them, even Bernie Sanders. Governor Shumlin asked me to stay on [as Ag Secretary], because I had the reputation of being collaborative and working on the issues. So some will say that, but my history demonstrates otherwise.

“Even Bernie Sanders.” Nice touch.

My conclusion: Allbee’s a nice enough guy with a lot of experience and knowledge. I think he’s more or less honest about running as a Democrat, although there’s clearly an element of opportunism at work. He’s running in a solidly Democratic county at a time when one of the two incumbents is stepping down, leaving an open seat.

Still, he’d be a fine Republican candidate — from somewhere else, like Rutland or Caledonia. But Windham? One of the most liberal counties in the state shouldn’t be represented by a neo-centrist.

Besides, the State Senate already has too many of these types, both Democrats and Republicans: centrists or center-rightists who’ve helped block a lot of progressive legislation during the Shumiln years. We really don’t need another Dick Mazza, do we?

Postscript. There hasn’t been any coverage of the Windham County race in the statewide media (except my own stuff in this space), which surprises me. I realize the primary isn’t until late August, but this is a slow time for political coverage and Allbee’s entry sets up perhaps the most intriguing primary race in Vermont: a four-way run for two Democratic nominations, including one incumbent (Jeanette White), two newcomers (Becca Balint and Joan Bowman), and Allbee. And with no declared Republican candidates, the winners of the Dem primary will waltz their way into the Senate.

Crossposted on thevpo.org, where you can also find An Unfortunate Comfluence of Tweets, and whatever happened to Jim Douglas’ autobiography?

Semi-random thoughts upon the hiring of former Douglas Administration stalwart Neale Lunderville, who served as Governor Shumlin’s Irene Recovery Czar, as the interim GM of the Burlington Electric Department…

– When did Lunderville become Mr. Fix-It for Democratic administrations? Is there not a single Democrat with administrative chops who could be called upon to fill a leadership void in the public sector?

– Between his two government gigs, Lunderville was co-founder of NG Advantage, a firm that deals in compressed natural gas. He was there for less than two years. When and why did he leave?

– Since the Douglas Administration came to its merciful end, Lunderville has held (if I’m counting correctly) at least four jobs. For that matter, during the Douglas Years he moved around state government quite a bit. Coincidence, or is there a reason he keeps moving around? (Yes, I know the Irene gig was a short-termer from the gitgo. But even so, there seems to be a pattern here.)

– Lunderville was one of the more notable head-crackers in the Douglas Administration. And he comes to BED from a gig in the fossil fuel business. How committed is he to the ideals of a publicly-owned utility? Especially one with a strong commitment to renewable energy?

– The above question is even more crucial when, according to the Burlington Free Press, “Lunderville will conduct a strategic review of BED operations.” Will his ideological bent inform his strategic review, and shape his conclusions? Hard to see how it wouldn’t.

– He is said to be BED’s interim head, with a six-to-nine-month appointment. At the same time, though, Mayor Weinberger “temporarily suspended” the search for a permanent GM. Seems an odd decision; it often takes more than nine months to fill a top administrative position. Why wait? It seems likely that either Lunderville will stay longer than expected, or BED will soon be searching for another interim GM. Are the skids being greased for Lunderville’s permanent appointment?

Just askin’. Maybe some enterprising member of our paid political media could seek answers to some of these fairly obvious questions.

One further observation. The thing I don’t like about Shumlin and Weinberger hiring a Republican for a tough management task is the same reason I don’t like it when a Democratic President hires a Republican for Defense Secretary, or a military man for a non-military administrative post. It feeds into the stereotype that liberals can’t be effective, tough-minded leaders, and can’t be trusted with critical security and military issues.

Which is nonsense on both sides: there’s no guarantee a Republican will be a good manager, there’s no guarantee a general without the protections of rank and uniform will be an effective leader, and there’s no reason to think a Democrat, or even a Progressive, couldn’t handle a critical managerial challenge or keep our country safe. When Democratic officeholders hire somone like Lunderville, leaving aside the question of his qualifications, it feeds into those stereotypes. And that, in itself, is not a good thing.

Crossposted on thevpo.org, where you’ll also find thoughts on Darcie The Libertarian, Tom Pelham’s periodic eruption, and the Freeploid’s Kommitment to Kwality.

Apparently the race for Lieutenant Governor won’t entirely be the Prog/Dem kumbaya sing that seemed likely when Governor Shumlin endorsed Progressive Dean Corren. Because here comes Dick Mazza, putative Democrat and close friend of Phil Scott, pissing in the communal punchbowl. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld:

Among Corren’s Democratic detractors is state Sen. Dick Mazza, a political power broker from Grand Isle who will attempt to use his sway to thwart Corren’s bid for the nomination.

… After Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin expressed support for Corren’s candidacy last week, Mazza says he was flooded with calls from angry pro-Scott Democrats. The result is a newly sprouted coalition of Democrats that Mazza says will work hard to deliver Scott to a third term.

Mazza is talking about an active organization to raise money for Scott and even write him in on the Democratic primary ballot.

Which would be an absolute disgrace.

I detect two strains of thought behind Democrats’ prospective betrayal.

First, and relatively understandable, is that some moderate Dems would feel more ideologically at home with Phil Scott than Dean Corren. I can accept that.

What I can’t stomach is the other thing: that some Dems just hate the thought of supporting a Prog, even if there’s broad agreement on the issues.

Look, I realize I’m not a member of this Mutual Aggravation Society that some Dems and some Progs are part of. Because of past slights, real or imagined, they just can’t stand the other guys. A couple years ago a local Democrat wrote a letter to the Times Argus complaining that Shumlin had had the gall to appoint a Progressive to some state commission, and that this Dem would never again vote for Shumlin.

That kind of attitude astounds me.

Maybe if I were part of the long history of the Dem/Prog competition/coexistence I’d get it. But in this day and age, when the two parties work closely together on many issues — and many campaigns — it seems remarkably retrograde. Which is as good an adjective as any to describe Dick Mazza, Senator For Life and Friend Of Phil.

 

Oh, there it is. The news we’ve all been waiting for with — what’s the opposite of bated breath? — from Vermont’s Largest Newspaper.

Starting July 1, the price of home delivery will jump just as precipitously for many customers.

How much appears to vary from household to household.

So reports Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz in this week’s Fair Game column. And he has to say “appears to vary” because the Burlington Free Press has thoughtfully decided to slow-play the bad news.

It’s the opposite of the paper’s approach two years ago when, as Heintz points out, the paper imposed a stiff 31% price hike at the same time as it launched a redesigned slimmer, trimmer, and yet somehow fatter (in terms of margin and type font) newspaper, dubbed by me “the Freeploid.”

Nope. This time, the ‘Loid has published not a word about its loyal readers taking it in the shorts — instead, notifying subscribers by mail.  

Not that I’m in the least bit surprised at the news. The ‘Loid dropped a big fat hint back in January, when it announced the pending addition of USA TODAY “content” to its daily paper.

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.”

And now it’s time to pay the piper for his expanded “content.”

Myself, I’ll be looking closely at my options, and actively consider cutting back to online-only. If other readers follow suit, the Freeploid can kiss some of its relatively robust print-only ad revenue goodbye, as it continues to pursue short-term gains at the expense of long-term viability.  

Greetings. Your Obedient Serpent jvwalt here with a bit of news about myself, for once.

I’ve established my own piece of online real estate called the Vermont Political Observer, or theVPO for short.

Which is not to say that I’m departing these hallowed precincts. I have a great deal of respect and gratitude for GMD and its community; you’ve given me a platform and taken my views seriously. (Well, usually.) So, with the assent of my fellow GMDers, I’m sticking around here as well as at theVPO.

The reason I’m doing this: GMD was conceived as a group space to accommodate a variety of voices from the Democratic/liberal/progressive community. I think it works best when there are many voices. And sometimes I tend to dominate the conversation.

I’ve been known to write as many as four posts in a day. Which leaves little room for others to provide their own analysis of the day’s events. So I want to open more space for others’ voices.

My plan is to write no more than once a day or thereabouts on GMD, and as often as I feel like it on theVPO. I hope you’ll take time to visit both outposts. The Internet’s a big place, after all.  

Cross-posted at thevpo.org.

The New Candidate For A New Millennium, Scott “Mr. Bunny” Milne, is off to an inauspicious start. He doesn’t have a campaign website yet, so there’s no established way for supporters to, like, give him a campaign contribution. He has yet to hire a single staffer. And he acknowledges that he has yet to formulate positions on some key issues.

Plus, at last Saturday’s VTGOP confab, he was a tad underwhelming. The Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck:

He then launched into a story about raising rabbits as a kid and how his out-of-state relatives enjoyed watching them breed, prompted by the premise that he got his rabbit cages in Wolcott, the town where Berry lives. In the parking lot afterward, Milne wondered how well the rabbit story had gone over with his audience. He has three months before the primary to weed the rabbits out of his political speeches.

Aww, bunnies.

So the novice candidate is off to a bumpy start. Understandable, but time is a commodity in short supply chez Milne. So what should he do? How can this longshot candidate elevate his slim-to-none chance of upsetting Governor Shumlin, or at least help to promote a new, more inclusive type of Vermont Republican Party? I’ve got ideas, and as usual, I doubt he’ll take ’em.

First thing: attach himself at the hip with popular Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. Do joint campaign appearances as often as possible. Announce common initiatives and policy ideas. Scott usually likes to hoe his own row, but he should be amenable to a little partisanship this year, since Governor Shumlin done left him at the altar and endorsed Progressive Dean Corren.

He should spend a lot of time talking with key business leaders. But not the Usual Suspects, no sirree. No BIA, no Ethan Allen. I’m talking about Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. I’m talking about some of the centrist business types who’ve abandoned the VTGOP in favor of Shumlin. I’m talking about Bruce Lisman; for all his faults, he does have a solid good-government orientation. Heck, he even has a few good ideas. Milne ought to make an overt play for the Campaign for Vermont crowd, and point out where the Shumlin Administration has fallen short on their key issues.

After the jump: health care reform, taxation, and more.

In terms of policy, he’s done a good thing by proclaiming himself a single-payer skeptic instead of an outright opponent. He would do well to refine his message by taking a stand in favor of universal coverage as a goal in some form or other. He should talk more about that, and less about cost concerns.

There’s lots of room for criticism of Governor Shumlin on health care. But it should be put in terms of managerial competence, not the usual tax-and-spend bumpf. Milne can legitimately question Shumlin’s ability to deliver, based on past and current track record. He can position himself as a champion of responsible governance in the tradition of George Aiken. That’s the true heart of moderate Republicanism, and it’s a message that could appeal to centrists and independents.

On many issues, I’d argue that Milne doesn’t have to develop specific proposals. As a general principle, he can position himself as a competent manager willing to work with the almost certain Democratic majority to find solid, responsible solutions. This is different than the VTGOP’s constant call for “balance in Montpelier.” This is a call for a new, inclusive approach to government.

Milne could even slip to Shumlin’s left on taxation. The Governor is a resolute foe of raising taxes on the wealthy. Milne could outline a thorough tax-reform plan including the school funding mess and a rebalancing of the entire system. Some new revenues could be drawn by cutting loopholes and deductions for top earners. If those revenues are balanced by lower taxes elsewhere (a plan promoted by the Democratic legislature in 2013 but blocked by the Governor), Milne would probably offend some of the dead-enders, but he’d gain respect across the board.

And yes, as I’ve written before, the wealthy get off relatively cheaply in Vermont’s current tax structure. If you include all taxes on working-age Vermonters, the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than any other group — including the bottom 20%.

On some issues, Milne can articulate a more traditionally conservative view if he establishes himself as an independent thinker. For instance, he could posit a more balanced cost/environmental approach to renewable energy — but only if he acknowledges the truth of climate change and our responsibility to address it in tangible, concrete ways.

He can continue the good-management theme on a variety of smaller trouble spots, such as the current DCF mess (but please don’t talk about Challenges for Change) and the whistleblower brouhaha: part of being a good, sharp-eyed manager is to welcome the input of employees with valuable perspective.

Any of these suggestions can be modified or swapped out for better-fitting parts. But I think I’ve outlined a way for Scott Milne to establish himself as a credible alternative to Governor Shumlin, and as the harbinger of a new and more appealing VTGOP.

I’m not saying I’d vote for this candidate, and I’m sure not claiming he’d win. But he’d make a good showing, and he’d get at least a feeling of satisfaction for all his hard work.  

Didn’t see this coming. Per WCAX:

“I think Dean Corren has it right on Health Care,” said Shumlin.

Shumlin endorsed a Progressive candidate for the second highest office in the Green Mountain State while wrapping up a press conference.

He called on the state Democrats to do the same.

Well, whad’ya know. Maybe the Governor values single-payer health care more than the happy vibes from having Phil Scott in his cabinet.

I expected that Shumlin would endorse Corren sooner or later. But I thought it’d be a lot later, and with more measured language. Now that he’s taken this position publicly, we should expect him to follow through. Some joint campaign appearances would be nice. Print up some Shumlin/Corren bumperstickers?

As for the Governor’s Republican bestie…

[Scott] expressed surprise by the timing of Monday’s news, but says he did not expect an endorsement from Governor Shumlin.

Do I detect the first-ever existential shudder from Phil Scott’s political soul?

After all, Dean Corren qualified for public financing, which means he’ll be (at the very least) financially competitive with Scott. Also, there’s this from VTDigger’s Anne Galloway:

Many big donors who have given to Lt. Gov. Phil Scott are now contributors to Gov. Peter Shumlin…

Hmmm. Galloway doesn’t go so far as to say Scott’s having trouble getting donations, but the implication seems clear.

But back to my main point: I’m glad to see the Governor come out so early and so prominently in support of Dean Corren. It can only help Corren achieve credibility with Democrats and independents. And I have to assume it presages a Corren endorsement by the Democratic Party. Good stuff.  

The cream in Dave Sunderland’s Monday morning coffee must have curdled when he read Anne Galloway’s assessment of the VT Dems’ “deep pockets, star power, organizational prowess and messaging discipline,” none of which are present in any meaningful quantity in his own VTGOP.

Galloway’s piece began with a lengthy recounting of the Curtis Award dinner, a night of self-congratulation and further widening of the money gap and enthusiasm gap between the two “major” parties.

The Vermont Democratic Party is now so big, so powerful and so rich going into this election cycle that there is little doubt, observers say, that the Dems will hold on to all of the current statewide seats and huge majorities in the House and Senate.

… no one in politics has any doubt that the Democrats rule the state and will continue to do so into the near future. The Vermont Democratic Party has practically absorbed the Progressives, has weakened the Republicans to super minority status and the Liberty Union candidates are barely on the fringe.

And after all that, Galloway brings down the financial hammer.

The final blow to Vermont Republicans is the Dems’ effective capture of the state’s most important business interests. Many big donors who have given to Lt. Gov. Phil Scott are now contributors to Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has made an effort to appeal to fiscal conservatives, and has a $1 million war chest. While the Dems have about $150,000 in the bank (plus the proceeds from the Curtis awards dinner), the GOP has $34,000 left going into the election.

Gee, I wonder where all the money from that Chris Christie fundraiser went. Maybe there wasn’t that rich a take after all.  

Galloway’s analysis is an important update on Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz’ must-read column from last December, which recounted a fundraiser for Shumlin hosted by a deep-pocketed Republican donor and attended by many more of the same — all eager to write checks to the Governor.

Whether or not you agree with Shumlin’s mollification of center-right business interests, it’s clear that in terms of political power, the strategy has paid off, big time. Sunderland and Scott are trying to broaden the VTGOP, but it may already be too late: as long as the money guys believe they can do better as the camel inside the Democratic tent than outside, the Republicans are well and truly screwed.

The lasting legacy of “Angry Jack” Lindley, methinks. Plus the complete abdication of the political field by everyone in the Jim Douglas administration. The only one I know who’s gotten involved in politics this year is ex-Ag Sec Roger Allbee, and he’s running as a Democrat.

So, ridin’ high on the hog are Shumlin and Co. Which calls for regular structural inspections for creeping rot belowdecks. This kind of one-party dominance rarely ends well, as I’ve written before on more than one occasion. The continuing troubles with Vermont Health Connect, as understandable as they are (big new government programs are always buggy at first), may be early signs of lax administration. When you don’t face any real competition, you tend to get a little lazy. And laziness can lead to bungling, corruption, scandal, and disgrace.

While I welcome a little schadenfreude with my morning egg & toast, I’d really like to see the Republicans emerge as meaningful competition. Give the Dems an occasional scare. It’d be better for our state, and for the vitality of the liberal movement in Vermont.  

This weekend, Vermont welcomed two prominent women: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and current Senator Elizabeth Warren. Both events were dutifully chronicled by Vermont’s Largest Newspaper, the Burlington Free Press. But I noticed an unusual difference in the Freeploid’s respective coverages.

The Rice article chronicled her speech, including her unhelpful advice to the Obama Administration that the US has to get back in Iraq and fix it. This time for sure, as Bullwinkle T. Moose put it. The ‘Loid also regaled us with her “quipped” response to the protesters: “Democracy is noisy.” The paper even put it in the headline, so much did they think of Rice’s witty comeback.

Somehow the ‘Loid missed the obvious derivation of Rice’s remark: Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous “Democracy is messy” comment on the post-invasion anarchy in Iraq. Was Rice, in her bland dismissal of the hecklers, making a sly reference to Rumsfeld’s bland dismissal of rampant violence and incivility? Probably not; that’d be a remarkably dickish thing to do, even by Bush Administration standards.

Anyway, on to my point about the Freeploid’s coverage. Aside from the reference to unruly protesters, the article made no attempt to include views contrary to Rice’s on the situation in Iraq.

Compare that with the ‘Loid’s coverage of Elizabeth Warren’s speech, in which reporter Nancy Remsen or (more likely) her editor felt compelled to include a Republican rejoinder. Remsen reached out to “Little Snell,” VTGOP Treasurer Mark Snelling, for some boilerplate Republican ranting about taxes and spending.

And I ask, why? Or alternatively I ask, why no Democratic rejoinder to Rice?  

Really, the whole notion of boilerplate rejoinders, published for the sake of some false journalistic “balance,” is useless. Not every article needs to include both sides — especially when you’re covering a visit to Vermont by a prominent figure. Balance isn’t a story-by-story thing; it’s a matter of fairness over time. I’d have been happy if neither article included the customary counterpoint.

But if you’re gonna do it, then you’ve gotta be consistent. For the Rice article, get Bernie Sanders on the phone; he’s always good for some quotable boilerplate. Or, if you want to be whimsical about it, get a comment from the Slummin’ Solon, Peter Galbraith. He’s a freakin’ genius when it comes to middle eastern policy, right?

As the Freeploid’s journalistic sins go, this is penny-ante. But it’s still worth noting.