No, not Channel 3, and not Channel 5. It’s the other two commercial stations in the Burlington market — WVNY (Channel 22), an ABC affiliate, and WFFF (Channel 44), which carries Fox programming. (The Simpsons, not Bill O’Reilly.)

The stations are currently owned by a subsidiary of Boston Ventures, a private equity buyout firm. Boston Ventures has been selling its TV properties, and the two Vermont stations are among the last to go.

The new owner, pending FCC approval (which is usually, and unfortunately, a rubber stamp), is Texas-based Nexstar Broadcasting Group. Nexstar currently owns 50 TV stations, mainly in smaller markets. And it has an interesting way of doing business that may spell trouble for local staffing and programming.  

Nexstar likes to buy two stations in the same market. FCC regulations prohibit dual ownership, but Nexstar has a nice work-around. It’s called “virtual duopoly” — meaning that Nexstar technically owns only one of the stations while a closely-related (but legally separate) company owns the other. The two firms share resources (i.e. “people”) in sales, master control, news operations, and web content production. It’s a big money-saver: run two stations with basically the personnel of one.  

Once the deal is approved, most likely in early 2013, Nexstar plans a virtual duopoly for the two Vermont stations with Mission Broadcasting, a frequent partner in Nexstar duopolies. In their other partnerships, Mission usually operates the smaller of the two stations with a skeleton staff. And judging by the public statements from Nexstar, this is the plan for Vermont.

“These transactions are consistent with our criteria for acquisitions that further strategically diversify our operations, create or present opportunities for virtual duopoly markets and which are financially accretive,” said Perry Sook, Nexstar president and CEO.

And yeah, “present opportunities… which are financially accretive” means fewer jobs. The actual impact of this deal may be limited, since the stations already share office and studio space in Colchester. But judging by Perry Sook’s multisyllabic salivating, I’d say he has some ideas for new cutbacks.

BTW, Burlington TV properties are much more valuable than stations in similarly-sized markets,  because Burlington stations reach the Montreal market — which is, according to Wikipedia, ten times more populous than WVNY’s entire American viewing area. The sale price for the two stations is $17.1 million.  

It’s been known for a while that Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell is likely to face a challenge from Senator Ann Cummings (as was first reported by Paul “Scoop” Heintz, who now has no cause for carping). Now comes word that  House Speaker Shap Smith may be challenged by Paul Poirier of Barre.  According to the Times Argus (full article paywalled here; capsule version available free here),

A longtime Democrat who first ran as an independent in 2010, Poirier said he has been troubled by what he sees as Smith’s autocratic leadership style – a style he said has marginalized minority parties and chilled debate in Vermont’s House of Representatives.



“We don’t have debates anymore,” said Poirier. “Every time a member of a minority party raises an issue it’s immediately ruled out of order by the majority. I don’t think that’s right.”

Il Duce takes the news in stride.”If you’re doing your job, you’re probably going to make some people angry along the way,” he told GMD. “John is being challenged because the Senate is too chaotic; I’m being challenged for being too autocratic.”

Must be a sweet spot in there somewhere.  

Poirier says a Speaker should “make sure that all sides are heard.” Smith acknowledges that the House, whose part-time lawmakers have no offices and no staff, is often and by necessity a top-down kind of organization. But he insists that he does listen to all sides — to a degree that seems remarkable to fellow Speakers from other states. “They can’t believe that I have a Republican chair of the Transportation Committee [Patrick Brennan of Colchester].

“I think we have some pretty rigorous debates. We had a lengthy debate on health care reform, on the CVPS merger.”

Poirier estimates he’s about 90% sure to run. He admits it “looks like a huge uphill battle,” but insists that he could put together a coalition of Republicans, independents, and disaffected Democrats that could bring Smith down.

Smith doesn’t seem too worried. “There are people who are unhappy with me for one reason or another,” he said, “but I don’t see a significant split [in the Democratic caucus].” He adds that a contest for House leadership can be a healthy thing, but “I am worried that he is buying into the Republican meme” that Democrats are “out of control” and autocratic.

He notes that Poirier “did leave himself some room not to run,” and plans to talk with the Barre independent in the near future.

Not, we trust, to wield an iron fist.  

Corry Bliss, the master strategerist who cratered Brian Dubie’s bid for Governor in 2010, just did the same for Linda McMahon’s US Senate bid in Connecticut. Except that while Dubie lost a close race, by less than two percentage points, Bliss spent $100 million of McMahon’s fortune and led her to a 60% to 39% defeat.

And his expert leadership has drawn a sharp rebuke from Congressman Chris Shays, who lost the Republican primary to McMahon’s millions:

“The people advising her were thrilled to take her money, but they knew this was a long shot,” Shays said. “Corry Bliss, who ran her campaign, basically left Vermont in shambles, and he’s leaving Connecticut in shambles. But he’s got more money. He made more money.”

I’d chalk that up as a loser’s sour grapes, except that I recently read identical sentiments from someone right here in Vermont, who witnessed the Bliss/Dubie disaster up close.

“Corry Bliss took a candidate that was up 20 points and turned him into a loser by election day,” said Bradford Broyles, a Republican activist from Mendon, a town in the central part of the state, near Killington. “We’re still repairing the damage to the Republican party…If Corey Bliss runs [McMahon’s campaign] like he did up here, hold on to your seats.”

Yes, the same Bradford Broyles who just pulled a Bliss by piloting Wendy Wilton’s campaign into the nearest ridgeline. I guess he should know from turning winners into losers and damaging the Republican Party.  

Corry responded to Congressman Shays’ kiss-off with all the grace and restraint you’d expect from a disgraced Republican attack dog:

“Congressman Shays is a classless, bitter sore loser who should do the people of Connecticut a favor and keep his mouth shut and move back to Maryland,” Bliss said in an interview. “However, I would like to offer a portion of my salary to be used to pay for the psychiatric care that Congressman Shays desperately needs.”

I guess he should know from classless, bitter sore losers who should keep their mouths shut.

Anyway, given the track record of the Republican Party, I fully expect a bright future for Mr. Bliss. He’s spent his entire career failing upward. He graduated from law school in 2006. In 2008, he managed the losing re-election campaign of a Virginia congresswoman. Then he came up to Vermont and doomed Dubie. His reward: a bigger campaign in a bigger state with a $100 million budget. And a salary of $15,000 a month. Makes Darcie Johnston look cheap, no?

With that track record, I’m sure he will latch on, lamprey-like, to an even bigger campaign in 2014. Republicans are funny that way; they talk about the free market, but they reward failure among the ideologically correct. Just look at Ralph Reed, whose resume is a laundry list of failure and scandal, and yet he’s still a power player in conservative circles.

So weep no tears for Corry Bliss. He’ll find another Republican idiot he can fleece.  

So it’s three days after the election. And if, for some reason, you wanted to take a look at the Vermont returns, your first thought would be the Secretary of State’s website. Right?

Wrong. The state’s unofficial tally is stuck at 74.91% of all precincts, and has been since early Wednesday morning. The most complete (unofficial) returns can be found on VPR.net. (WCAX has apparently taken down its election-night “dashboard.”)

(Update: Just got a note from WCAX News Director Anson Tebbetts letting us know that you can still find their results online. I’m sorry I incorrectly reported their absence.)

So why is the state’s unofficial count (all counts are unofficial until the Canvassers meet next Tuesday) so sadly incomplete, three days after the fact?

Because, to put it bluntly, our election reporting system is a relic of a pre-electronic age, and our state Legislature has completely failed to bring it up to date.  

If you obsessively followed the returns on Tuesday night, you would have noticed that WCAX was consistently and substantially ahead of the state. This is because WCAX has put together a huge volunteer effort: stationing someone at each precinct, who can get the results and call them in to Channel 3. As for reporting through official channels to the state:

“The town clerks are not legally obligated to report to us” on election night, according to Secretary of State Jim Condos. He continues:

It’s a convoluted system. Local election officials count their ballots that night. The next morning, the town clerks come in and fill out their official vote reports. They mail them to us in prepaid overnight envelopes provided by the state. We expect to have all the reports by [today.]

That’s all the town clerks are legally obligated to do: mail in the returns on Wednesday. What you see on the Elections Division website — the 74.91% complete results — is what was voluntarily called in by local officials on election night. After those calls stopped coming in, the Elections Division had nothing to update its count with.

Today and over the weekend (if necessary), state election workers will tabulate all the official vote reports. And then wait until the Canvassers meet on Tuesday, where the count will be formally accepted. And published.

One week after the election.

Am I the only one who finds this absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical, (checks Thesaurus) ludicrous, harebrained, insane, cockamamie? Is this the kind of thing Vermonters accept because “we’ve always done it this way”?

In an age where Republicans have reinvented traditional ways through the sheer power of Lenore Broughton’s checkbook, and Democrats have reinvented traditional ways by building a strongly-staffed year-round political operation, can we please reinvent the way we count and report the vote?

“Election night reporting isn’t about me or the clerks,” Condos told GMD. “It’s about serving our constituents, the voters, the media, and the parties.”

Damn straight. Count me among the constituents who wants better service next time around.  House and Senate, watchin’ you.

So, Phil Scott, last seen singing “All By Myself” in the karaoke bar at the Capitol Plaza*, is the Last Republican Standing. A tiny red dot in an unbroken sea of blue. And other poetic imagery. So now, what the hell does he do?

*Kidding. The Plaza doesn’t have a karaoke bar. Way too classy for that.

Well, he squeezed a few minutes out of his schedule Thursday morning to stop by the Mark Johnson Show on WDEV  (interview archived at the link). It wasn’t really a full-fledged interview; about 15 minutes, including two very off-topic callers. So Mark had time to chase Captain Nice around a little, but not to really pin him down.

He did get the Lite-Gov to issue an interestingly limited denial of any plans to leave the GOP and go independent.

I’m not contemplating that, but you never know what happens in the future. I’m running as an individual, I’m running as Phil Scott. I happen to be a Republican, but I’m objective, I do listen to all sides, and I don’t necessarily follow anybody’s party line.

Later, Mark tried again: “Governor Shumlin would never run as anything other than a Democrat. Can you say the same?”

I don’t think I can say that, but I don’t have any aspirations of doing anything different. I’ll take two years at a time and see what happens. But I can’t say that I’m never going to do anything different.

Aw shucks, just li’l ol’ No. 14 makin’ his way around the track.

After the jump: Moderate or conservative? And, the choices he faces.

He said that he is loyal to the Republicans, but acknowledges that the far-right move of the national party has tainted the image of the GOP in the eyes of many moderates and independents. He proclaimed himself to be a moderate Republican, in the mold of “the George Aikens, the Bob Staffords, Deane Davis, those types of Republicans…” and he later added Dick Snelling and Jim Douglas to his list. Curious by his absence was Jim Jeffords, the lifelong moderate Republican who went independent because he felt the party had moved away from him.

What struck me was that when he started talking issues, he didn’t sound particularly moderate. He talked about the high cost of living in Vermont in words that could have come right out of Randy Brock’s platform.

I’ve always been one who listens to people. …and in the last two years, listening to Vermonters, they’re talking about affordability. They’re talking about how can I stay here? How can I afford to keep my kids here? How am I going to pay my property taxes?

And I guess the only solution that I can see, because we don’t seem to really really cut our overhead. If you look at the state as a business, if you can’t cut your overhead you can’t cut your costs. So if we’re not willing to do that, then we’ve got to grow the revenue. The only way you grow your revenue, I think, is to grow the economy. So I’m going to push that over the next two years. I think everything we do should be about how do we grow our economy? How do we make this a more prosperous state?  

Which also sounds a lot like Randy Brock. Or Jim Douglas. Or, to be fair, Peter Shumlin. And sure, we all want the economy to grow so that people have good jobs etc., but the problem is that this very language has been used by Republicans to push a pro-business agenda. So whether Phil Scott is really a moderate, depends on how he would pursue a growth agenda. It does make me uneasy to hear him say that “everything we do” should be about growth.

So the question I’d have for Phil Scott is this: What exactly makes you a moderate Republican? And don’t give me tolerance for marriage equality or abortion rights, those are no-brainers in Vermont. Tell me what makes you a centrist on the scope of government, labor rights, the environment, renewable energy? Where do you stand on health care reform? Single payer? Vermont Yankee? The war on drugs? Act 250?

I don’t expect Scott to be moderate on all of those issues, but I’d like to know exactly what makes him a moderate. I haven’t heard that yet.

Mark Johnson also asked, of course, about running for Governor, and noted that as the GOP’s only statewide officeholder, Scott would be under enormous pressure to run.

I get asked that all the time. But I answer it the same way. I don’t have that aspiration at this point. I think you have to really want that. Maybe that will evolve, I don’t know. But that’s not part of my game plan

.

And elsewhere, he said more of the same.

You have to have the aspiration to do something like that. The Governor maybe had made the assumption that he would be Governor when he entered  elementary school. I’ve never had those aspirations. I’m just doing this because I think there’s a role for me to play. And for the last two years as Lieutenant Governor, I’ve filled that role. I think I’ve done a lot.

…But I guess if you have a vision of being somebody else, then you take a different path and you become a lightning rod. I’m just there to serve. I don’t have any long-range goals.

Still playing the role of Good Old Phil Scott, the innocent abroad. And for all I know, he was perfectly sincere. But whether or not it was in his “game plan,” he now finds himself in a situation where he’s going to have to make some great big decisions. He can be content with being Lieutenant Governor, being everybody’s friend, racing stock cars and taking bike tours, and let the chips fall where they may regarding the VTGOP.

But he is, by default, the standard-bearer for his party. And, if you believe (as I do) that the VTGOP needs to move closer to the center if it is to avoid permanent fringe status, then Phil Scott is uniquely poised to lead it in that direction. That’s going to require a lot of work and sizeable cojones, a willingness to take control of his party by the scruff and lead it in a new direction.

We have yet to see what Phil Scott the politician really is — in terms of wielding power, and in terms of policy preferences. He is now in a situation that will force him to make difficult decisions and start to alienate people. If he stays out of the fray, he’ll be a huge disappointment to his party. If he stays in the GOP, he’ll have to either try to bend it in his direction and alienate conservatives, or start moving himself to the right and alienate all his precious moderate and Democratic friends. If he goes independent, he’ll have to turn his personal popularity into a political movement with real ideas and plans, not just warm fuzzies.

Will the real Phil Scott please stand up?  

One of the unspoken duties of the punditocracy is to boil down each political contest into a narrative — a story, with simple, graspable characters. Preferably it’s a neat, clean story that helps track and explain the course of a campaign.

Or stereotype it. Exhibit A: the race for Auditor. Vermont’s political media decided early on that it was a contest between a charmless campaign-averse policy wonk (Doug Hoffer) and a well-connected, widely popular born campaigner (Vince Illuzzi). It was obvious that Doug didn’t stand a chance.

And then Doug went and won, and upset the pundits’ applecart.

Well, not if you’re Jon Margolis, political analyst for VTDigger. Even Hoffer’s victory did not shake Margolis’ faith in the pundits’ narrative. As he saw it, Hoffer’s triumph was a simple case of a blind squirrel finding an acorn with a lot of help from his sighted brethren.

You don’t have to spend oodles of money. You don’t have to exude charisma or have a scintillating personality. You don’t even need a brilliant strategic plan.

You just need to be a Democrat.

Yeah, never mind that “Vermonters vote for the person, not the party” and “There are no coattails in Vermont” are articles of punditic faith. Because Hoffer’s election made it clear that even someone with no charisma, personality or plan, even someone with boils on his face and vomit stains on his tie and the stench of evil oozing from his pores, can win. But only if he’s a Democrat.

Otherwise, auditor-elect Doug Hoffer probably would not have edged out Republican Sen. Vince Illuzzi, who has represented the Northeast Kingdom since roughly the Pleistocene era, and who was endorsed by leading Democrats as well as Republicans and a host of unions and other organizations. Illuzzi is an accomplished campaigner. Hoffer is not. Illuzzi radiates optimism and charm. Hoffer, as one active Democrat noted, tends to be “dour.”

See, technically Doug may have won the election, but even so, he is still a fatally flawed candidate.

Okay, let’s take a closer look at conventional wisdom and where it departs from reality.  

First, I’ll acknowledge that coattails were a factor in this race. Hoffer would have had a harder time winning if the Republicans had put together a credible ticket. But he did beat Illuzzi by a healthy margin. Was none of that his doing? And compare “master campaigner” Illuzzi to Phil Scott, a Republican who managed to take 57% of the vote. Illuzzi fell 12 percentage points short of that.  A lot of centrist ticket-splitters passed over Illuzzi and opted for Hoffer.

Now let’s look at the claim that Illuzzi enjoyed broad support across political divisions. It’s true that some of Democratic Senate warhorses backed him, as did most of the state’s labor unions. But did that turn into tangible support? Neither Hoffer nor Illuzzi was gangbusters at fundraising. In fact, if Illuzzi hadn’t loaned his own campaign $30,000, he would have had a smaller war chest than Hoffer.

Maybe the pundits should have rethought their narrative after seeing those numbers. I was slow to catch onto that; I was critical of the Dems’ failure to support Hoffer but failed to note that Vince was doing no better. Illuzzi reportedly didn’t have a campaign manager, and his campaign was pretty much a solo enterprise. Doesn’t sound like someone with deep connections and three decades of favors to draw on.

Illuzzi has certainly made many friends in his 32 years in Montpelier. He’s also made some enemies. (He is quick to anger, and slow to let go of a grudge.) Is it possible that some of his endorsements were formalities? How many unions or prominent Democrats maxed out their donations to Vince? How many unions urged their workers to get involved? Judging solely from his fundraising, I’d guess that there was at least some lip service in those much-ballyhooed endorsements.

As for Illuzzi’s overwhelming edge as a politician, let’s not forget that he’d never run a race outside his home turf — the Northeast Kingdom. That’s hardly evidence that he’s an “accomplished campaigner.” Campaigning is easy where everybody knows you and victory is in the bag. He was well known in the Kingdom, and he was a fixture in the Statehouse; but how well known was he, really, in Rutland or the Upper Valley or Brattleboro or Bennington? Or even Chittenden County, Doug Hoffer’s home turf?

Vince Illuzzi had never run for statewide office. Doug Hoffer had. Did the punditocracy ever consider that he might have learned a trick or two from his first run? That maybe, dour and uncharismatic though he may appear, he formed a few connections and made a few friends in 2010?

For that matter, Doug does have a lot of political capital in Progressive circles. That’s not as big a deal as Democratic or Republican circles, but it’s nothing to sneeze at either. Especially since his campaign was buoyed in the closing days by Bernie Sanders* lending a strong hand.

*At the Dems’ election night party, the biggest cheer came when Obama was re-elected. The second biggest wasn’t for Shumlin or Leahy or Welch — it was for Bernie, and it wasn’t close. He is Vermont’s political superstar.

Illuzzi’s biggest real advantage was inside the Vermont political/media bubble, as Mark Johnson and Eric Davis pointed out in their post-election wrap on Wednesday morning. The connected types all know him; the politicians and lobbyists all know him; God knows, the political media all know him. (Reporters love a guy who gives good quote; just ask John McCain.)

But the vast majority of Vermonters never set foot in the Statehouse, and don’t keep up with political news. When you live inside a bubble, it’s hard to imagine the perspective of life outside.

Vince Illuzzi is another case of what I call the Laracey Effect, named after Mel Laracey, onetime deputy treasurer of the city of Ann Arbor. One year he decided to run for State Representative in a very crowded Democratic primary. He thought he had a really good chance of winning, because “everybody knew him.” Turned out, “everybody who worked or spent a lot of time in City Hall” knew him; he got 3% of the vote.

Now, Vince Illuzzi is no Mel Laracey. But the inside-the-bubble dynamics are the same.

Finally, let’s talk credentials. Even the newspapers that endorsed Illuzzi were hard-pressed to make a case for him. His political background could be taken as a plus — or a minus, since it called into question his ability to be an honest broker. Doug Hoffer clearly had the edge in professional qualifications and experience. Does that count for nothing? Especially with an electorate that is supposedly smart, involved, and willing to vote for the person not the party?

All this said, I’ll acknowledge that Doug Hoffer’s win was the biggest surprise of election night. I’ll acknowledge that I was gratified to see qualifications win out over connections. But the punditocracy never stopped to take a second look at its chosen narrative in light of the facts. And Jon Margolis is determined to stick to the narrative, even after the ending turned out to be completely at odds with it.

There were perfectly valid reasons for fixing upon the chosen narrative in the Auditor’s race — wonk versus pol — but the punditocracy shouldn’t have adhered to it without thoroughly examining the unfolding reality. They ignored all the facts that didn’t fit the narrative, and ignored the hints that this race might not have been so simple as they believed.

Not only did the state next door just elect another Democratic Governor and two Democrats over Republican incumbents for Congress, and pull off a historic first: the first state to have a female Governor and an all-female Congressional delegation — it also produced a remarkable turnover in the state legislature.

The House, which had a Republican supermajority, will now have a Democratic majority, and the formerly one-sided Senate will have an even split (or nearly so).

The Republicans had achieved a massive victory in 2010 as you may recall, with only Democratic Governor John Lynch holding the fort against the legions of Legislative loonies. And loonies there were plenty. And they made the Republican brand so toxic that they’re being blamed for the GOP’s reversals this year.

Many of the looniest were sent packing on Tuesday, including Robert Kingsbury, the guy who wanted every new legislative bill to cite precedent from the Magna Carta, was convinced that kindergarten causes crime because kids are taken away from their moms too soon, and believed that statehood for the District of Columbia would increase New Hampshire’s crime rate by 25% because who the f*ck knows.

After the jump: Birthers, knives in the capitol, and the Top Crazy in exile.

Also deservedly losing was Henry Accornero, who sought a special state commission to formally charge President Obama with treason and who, along with fellow loser Susan DeLemus, wanted the NH ballot commission to remove Obama from the state ballot because, y’know, Kenya.

And let’s not forget Jenn Coffey, who moved to NH as part of the Free State movement, backed Ron Paul for President, and wanted people to be able to carry guns and knives into the Statehouse.

The ringleader of this legislative circus was deeply conservative Speaker Bill O’Brien, who ruled his majority with an iron fist; he’s been called a “dictator,” a “tyrant,” and a “clown” — by members of his own caucus.

He became the symbol for Republican overreach, and proved to be an albatross around the neck of any Republican running for office in the state. He’ll be back in the Legislature next year, but he’ll be exiled to the back benches — his own public little Elba.  

This morning on the Mark Johnson Show, Mark and Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis were mulling over the election, when the subject of Phil Scott’s future came up. And Davis mentioned that two New England states have independent governors (Rhode Island and Connecticut) and a third (Maine) did in the recent past.

Which led into the question: would Phil Scott break loose from the VTGOP at some point in the future and run for Governor as an Independent? Both agreed that Scott has tremendous popularity, and might best be able to tap it as an Indy — given that the “Republican” label seems to be a net negative in Vermont. Davis, in fact, averred that Jim Douglas may well have been Vermont’s last Republican governor — but not Vermont’s last non-Democratic governor.

Which got me to go back and look at Scott’s victory speech last night. The only victory speech at the Republican gathering. And it sure as hell didn’t sound like he was talking to his fellow Republicans. (And they didn’t react like he was; there was only one weak smattering of applause in the whole, brief speech.)

What he said… after the jump.    

It’s not easy being a Republican in this state. Even for a moderate like myself.

Ooh, not a strong start. Get all Debbie Downer on your party, and slap the toxic label “moderate” on yourself. But do continue.

There are some who imply that the Vermont Republican Party has become irrelevant. But tonight, first and foremost, I need to say that this is a democracy, and every single voice is important. No voice is irrelevant.

This was the “applause” line. But look: he’s defending his party by saying that they’re just as relevant as, say, Peter Diamondstone. Way to fire up the troops, Phil.

If we really want to see an end to the gridlock that has gripped our country, then we must ignore those critics on both sides of teh aisle who dismiss every Republican who works with a Democrat and vice versa.

No, that’s not good either. Phil, remember, you’re speaking to a roomful of people who HATE Democrats, who think the Dems are arrogant and on course to drive Vermont off a cliff. You want these Grand Old Men to work with… those people?

We have to roll up our sleeves. We have to work together, listen to each other, admit that we don’t have all the answers, and be willing to acknowledge that a good idea can come from anywhere.

Now, does that sound like a guy who’s ready to suck up to the Lenore Broughtons and Jack Lindleys of the world? Or does that sound like a guy who’s ready to dump his party and go independent?

I choose option B.  

I was just wandering around WCAX’s website and came across this little number:

As Vermont Democrats celebrated Election Day victories, Sen. Patrick Leahy told WCAX News he plans to run for re-election.

…”I was in this room two years ago when I won and I expect to be in this room when I win again,” said Leahy, D-Vermont.

There’s not much more to the story than that. But has Leahy said this anywhere before?

His term expires in 2016; he’ll be 76 years old, and I’ve kinda-sorta assumed that he’d bow out and there’d be a Welch/Shumlin battle to replace him. If he does run for his eleventy-billionth term (kidding; it’d only be his EIGHTH), that’d really gum up the works for Vermont’s upwardly mobile Democrats.  

“I cannot fathom it.”

That’s how Rob Roper, former executive director of the VTGOP (back when they could, y’know, afford to pay staffers) turned conservative radio huckster, today began “Common Sense Radio,” his daily hour of free-market gospel paid for by the nonprofit Ethan Allen Institute.

Because, ahem, the free market wouldn’t support his crappy radio show.

“I am at a total loss to understand what people who voted for Obama were voting for,” he continued. Well, I could give him a hint: voters were soundly rejecting the ultraconservative quasi-libertarian economics and Christian Right social policies of Your Republican Party. Not to mention its absolutely horrible record of governance when in power, and the 30-plus years of proof that conservative trickle-down economics don’t work. And Mitt’s complete lack of personal appeal. But maybe I’m nitpicking.  

Rob’s take on the Vermont results: “It was pretty harsh.”

Ha ha, yeah.

But it didn’t take the Robster very long to get back on his scooter and come up with some (wrong, farfetched) answers. They tripped lightly off his tongue, unladen by facts, reason, or connection to reality.

“People out there were voting for a handout,” he said. “Mitt Romney was right about the 47%.”

After the jump, worshipping windmills, blaming public education, and a Secret Republican Victory.

Yep, blame it on the bottom-feeding government-dependent bloodsuckers. Not the deserving poor, of course; those hit by natural disasters, veterans, hardworking folks temporarily down on their luck, seniors who worked all their lives for Social Security and Medicare, and the legitimately (to borrow a term from Todd Akin) disabled.

No, when Rob and company talk about the 47% who just want more government teats to suckle on, they mean the lazy, undeserving poor. The ones who, as one of Rob’s callers said today, “spend all their money on cigarettes and beer and dope, and then they go back and ask for more help.”

Somehow I don’t think 47% of the country falls into that category, Robster.

He did manage to discern a “silver lining” in those “harsh” Vermont returns. And wait till you hear what it is; it might just make you laugh out loud.

Rob Roper seriously said “This election killed single-payer health care.”

Yes, the election where the Dems nearly swept the statewide offices and the Republicans failed to make the slightest dent in the Dems’ legislative majorities. See, we really lost this election. So sez Rob. How so, you may ask?

Because of the ads run by Vermonters First, the Democrats promised not to raise the sales tax. They took that off the table.

There are only three options to pay for single-payer: the sales tax, a 14% increase in the payroll tax, which Shumlin has taken off the table to some degree. The only one left is the income tax.

And by Rob’s reckoning, the income tax would have to be quadrupled or quintupled to cover his massively overinflated view of single-payer’s cost. And that would be political suicide.

So see? We may have won the battle, but Rob’s side just secretly won the war. And Lenore Broughton didn’t toss a million bucks down the toilet; she actually sprung a clever trap on those clueless liberals.

Hoo boy. Talk about desperate Republicans.

Over the ensuing hour, more conclusions were drawn from the same poisoned well, thanks to the combined brain power of Rob and his regular callers. One of them said “This all goes back to the 19th Century, to Karl Marx. This is a religious war, and we’re losing it.”

Rob then noted that Vermont is one of the most unchurched states in the union, and concluded that “Liberal politics has replaced the church. Those windmills on mountaintops are less about energy than about having icons to worship.”

Stop just a minute and let that sink in. Yeah, we’re just like them Egyptians and those folks what built the big heads on Easter Island and Stonehenge and stuff. Us liberals, we like to build stuff and worship it.

And of course, Dick from Barre chimed in with his intimations of the coming Communist/Nazi/Humanist/Muslim statist regime: “Unless we change direction, we’re going to be pledging allegiance to something other than the Stars and Stripes.” And Dick’s fellow traveler (sorry), George from Barre, called Bernie Sanders the Huey Long of our day. George noted that Long may well have seized power as a populist/socialist dictator if he hadn’t been assassinated.  

I don’t think he meant to imply that somebody should do the same to Bernie.

Apparently, according to the Robster and the Barre Gang, this all starts with the public schools, which discourage competition and excellence and try to make everybody feel good. Which produces masses of lazy, dependent, entitled Americans who blindly vote for the Democrats. And worship wind turbines, smoke cigarettes, drink beer, and do dope.

I couldn’t help but listen to the whole hour, just to find out what kind of shit would come out of this crowd after yesterday’s election. Now I have, so you don’t have to. I’ve never before listened to an entire hour of Common Sense Radio, and as God is my witness, I will never listen to an entire hour again.