Guess our outgoing Auditor Tom Salmon (mmmm, so good to say that) has some time on his hands as he prepares to formally check out of the office he hasn’t really wanted since, oh, I’m guessing, the day after he first occupied it. (see: his repeated and empty threats to run for higher office)  

Well, he had time enough to pay a visit to Treasurer Beth Pearce’s Facebook page this week and post a snarky, partisan remark. I’ll reproduce the full image after the jump, but here’s the text:

With all due respect, Governor Dean gets Atty General Sorrell through the primary over TJ Donovan with Super PaC (sic) funded commercials, now he’s the super critic of PAC money? Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of (sic) her opponent. No one crying then. What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.

Typo and bad grammar aside, let’s take a closer look at what our distinguished Auditor is saying.

The first sentence, I can’t really argue with. After that, though, we are reminded why we’ll be happy to see Tom Salmon go off to one of those high-paying out-of-state gigs he’s supposedly been offered. The naked partisanship, the faulty reasoning, the shaky grasp of math and literacy.

After the jump: the Facebook screenshot, and Tom Salmon’s woeful grasp of the facts.

_____________________________________________________

“Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of her opponent.” I went back through the campaign finance reports for this season. The only time Beth Pearce had anything close to that money advantage was at the first filing of the year — back on July 15, when the official campaigning had only just begun. Pearce had raised $82,000 in cash contributions, while Wilton had amassed $16,000. That’s four and a half to one, not five to one. But maybe Tom rounded up.

“No one crying then.” Well, no, it was a very early report. If anyone was crying, I’d imagine it was Wendy Wilton and/or Angry Jack Lindley. After all, Wilton was their best hope for electing a hardcore conservative to statewide office. And here comes Beth Pearce, the supposed political neophyte, bagging the big bucks and showing herself to be a real contender.

But the main point is that it was way too early for anyone to be crying, or drawing conclusions. It just meant Wilton had some work to do. The money gap closed in later campaign finance reports, and it was completely reversed upon the entry of Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First into the fray, throwing gobs of cash into pro-Wilton advertisements in print, on the air and online.

“What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.” Uh, Tom, that’s a matter of public record. Not literally “today,” of course, but anyone with a computer can find out where the candidates stood on October 15 by visiting the Elections Division’s website. You ought to know that, considering you’ve run for office before.

To save you some trouble, the answer to your question is that as of October 15, Beth Pearce had raised $183,481 and spent #138,275. Wendy Wilton had raised $73,504 and spent $68,952. So Pearce has maintained a money advantage over Wilton, but nowhere near 5:1.

And Tom, good old free-marketeer, worshiper of the entrepreneurial spirit, why castigate Pearce for successful fundraising?

Besides, you’re missing the point and you know it. Wilton’s money disadvantage has been more than compensated for by Lenore Broughton’s checkbook. We don’t know exactly how much money Vermonter First has spent on Wilton’s behalf, but we do know that since October 8, it has spent nearly $200,000 for WIlton. We know it spent a lot on WIlton before that, but only Tayt Brooks (I.M.O.M.) knows the total.

So if you combine WIlton’s kitty with Broughton’s bucks, you get at least $261,000 spent for Wilton’s candidacy (and certainly far more than that) versus $166,000 spent by or on behalf of Pearce.

Okay, Tom. Put that in your calculator and add it up.  

We’ve spent a lot of time chronicling Lenore Broughton’s hyper-generous support for Wendy Wilton (by way of her tame Super PAC, Vermonter (sic) First). But we should not ignore Broughton’s activities in Legislative races, where VF has been funneling substantial money into mailers and newspaper ads for House and Senate candidates. Particularly, in this case, the House.

Usually, those races are low-profile affairs, more about handshakes and shoe leather than ad blitzes. In such a setting, a small amount of Super PAC money can have a decisive impact. And if it does, the door will be open for a fundamental transformation of our politics. Rich people and political operators may see Vermont as a state where a little money (relatively speaking) can make a huge difference.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, on a per-capita basis, Lenore Broughton has vastly outpaced the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove. If VF is successful this year, Broughton will be encouraged to spend more in the future, and wealthy outsiders may see Vermont as low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked.

t’s a concern shared by Nick Charyk of the VT Democratic House Campaign. “I don’t want to see it work,” he says of the Vermonters First money bomb. “It’s very unusual for a candidate to spend more than $10,000 on a House race. Often, it’s just door-to-door, talking to people. This is a referendum on whether people-powered campaigning can win against big money.”

After the jump: Shock and awe. And the potential stakes for single-payer.

One of the under-appreciated aspects of Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First is its “shock and awe” approach: the Super PAC didn’t officially organize until early September, and it didn’t open the financial floodgates until after the September 15 campaign finance report deadline — so we didn’t know how much money they planned to spend until the ensuing deadline in mid-October.

(On 9/15, VF reported $100,000 in donations, all from Broughton. On 10/15, VF reported raising almost $700,000 — all but $900 from Broughton. That report was a stunner for the political media, and presumably for the Dems and Progs.)

Smart tactics. In the home stretch of the campaign, the game had suddenly changed. “I have a fairly small budget,” Charyk told GMD. “I’d allocated all of it for specific candidates. I didn’t have anything for a broad-based effort. But it seemed to me that we had to push back.”

This week, the House Dems produced radio ads and mailers, some of them countering VF’s overall message and some in support of specific candidates who’ve been targeted by VF. Those key races include five seats in hotly-contested Rutland County, two House seats in Franklin County, home base of VF Treasurer Tayt Brooks (International Man of Mystery); and four in Windsor County. The latter includes a rematch of 2010’s closest race, in which Democrat Sarah Buxton ousted then-Republican incumbent David Ainsworth by a single vote.

Charyk admits it’s an uphill battle; his resources are a drop in the bucket compared to VF’s. But he is hopeful that Vermonters will reject the big-money blitzkrieg of Vermonter First and reward the candidates who’ve played by Vermont’s traditional rules.

Whatever happens on Tuesday, the Dems are certain to have a lopsided majority in the House. So what difference will it make if VF poaches a few seats?  “There wouldn’t be any short-term impact,” Charyk acknowledges. “But if they gain traction, it’s hard to fight against that. We saw what happened with President Obama’s health care reform: the Republicans got out in front and spent a lot of money, [and won the 2010 midterms].

“Health care reform will be a hard vote for some of our candidates. If right-wing messaging on health care gains traction, it could make it harder to pass single-payer health care.”  

If you live in a House district targeted by VF (you’d know because you will have received multiple mailings), please vote next Tuesday. And if you have any time to spare this weekend, contact your representative and see if there are ways you can help in the campaign’s closing days.  

Poor ol’ Six Teats. Not only is he a gigantic underdog to incumbent Attorney General Bill Sorrell, now the state’s court system is conspiring against him. Yesterday, he filed an emergency request for a court hearing on evidence-free allegations that Sorrell colluded with a national Super PAC during the Democratic primary campaign this summer.

Today, the court set a hearing date.

On Thursday, November 8.

Jack, of course, reacted with all the taste and discretion characteristic of your 2012 VTGOP.  

“It’s conveniently two days after the election,” McMullen said. “I can’t help but wonder if that’s a coincidence or not.”

Yeah, Jack. Jeb Spaulding slipped a couple Benjamins to the court clerk, and the docket mysteriously and suddenly “filled up” for the next four days.

McMullen joins the august company of VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley and Republican candidate for Treasurer Wendy Wilton in the Republican tinfoil hat brigade.  

As you may recall, after the August primary, Lindley implied collusion between the Progressives and Democrats to keep Annette Smith off the ballot, and implicitly accused Secretary of State Jim Condos of corruption. And on October 25, Wilton accused the Vermont Municipal Bond Board of malfeasance, implying that it had put Rutland on its “watch list” as part of a plot to undermine her candidacy.

Back to their new partner-in-tinfoil, Jack McMullen. Either he is woefully uninformed about how the court system works (not something you want in a prospective Attorney General), or he never really wanted disposition of his complaint before Election Day. Court system ain’t a barbershop, where you walk in, read an old Sports Illustrated for a few minutes, and then get your hair cut.

Let’s recap, shall we? The Democratic primary was August 28. The alleged collusion took place before then. The idea of collusion was first floated by Sorrell’s challenger, TJ Donovan, during the primary campaign. At the time, Donovan acknowledged that he had no evidence, just a suspicion.

In September, Lindley demanded an independent inquiry into the alleged collusion. The Governor and Attorney General told him to follow procedure and ask a State’s Attorney of his choice to investigate. Lindley did so, choosing Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster — who was appointed to the office by, ahem, Republican Governor Jim Douglas. Fenster is still mulling over the request. (Oh no… they… got to him, too!)

And then, on October 31, four business days before Election Day, McMullen files his emergency request. Did he just happen to remember all this stuff on Wednesday? Why didn’t he start this process earlier if he really wanted answers before the election?

Nah. As I said before, Six Teats doesn’t want answers. He wants to be able to ask politically damaging questions. We refer to the oft-repeated tale about one of Lyndon Johnson’s Texas campaigns, when he supposedly told an aide to spread a rumor that his opponent enjoyed carnal relations with pigs.

“C’mon, Lyndon,” the aide said. “You know he’s not a pigfucker.”

“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”  

Update: Additional material on the Freeploid which, just like the Herald/Times Argus, endorsed Doug Hoffer in 2010. New stuff is in bold italic print below and at the end of my piece.

Okay, so the two biggest newspaper organizations in Vermont have endorsed Vince Illuzzi for Auditor: the Freeploid on Oct. 25, and the Herald/Times Argus on the 30th.

In reality, the endorsements will sway a handful of voters at most. But they are so completely illogical that they deserve some deconstruction.

Both are excellent examples of reaching a conclusion and then cobbling together an argument to support it. In both cases, the logic is torturous and the writers ignore inconvenient truths. And in both cases, the newspapers have reversed themselves, having heartily endorsed Doug Hoffer for Auditor in 2010.

First, I take you back to October 27, 2010, and the editorial pages of the Herald and Times Argus:

Hoffer offers an impressive resume of work done for the state on numerous complex issues related to jobs and economic development. Professionalism at a remove from partisan politics is what the auditor’s office needs, and that is what Doug Hoffer promises to deliver.

Yep, the Herald and Times Argus endorsed Doug Hoffer over four-year incumbent Tom Salmon. The editors said Hoffer “has exhibited a high degree of expertise and professionalism during his campaign,” and would bring to the job “years of experience monitoring state finances and the economy,” and “His analysis of the numbers always appears incisive and independent of special interests.”

And it quoted a certain State Senator, Vince Illuzzi, calling Hoffer “an invaluable resource.”

This year, however, expertise and professionalism and independence and inciseiveness and an impressive resume seem to have become less pertinent.

Illuzzi is not a traditional “numbers guy” by profession. His background is as a lawyer. Slipping into the state auditor’s role will require a learning curve, and perhaps some whiplash in having to keep tabs on the office’s constitutional duties that have been outsourced in recent years.

Oh. Ah. (Cough.) I see.

This year, the Mitchell Family Organ is happy to jettison expertise and professionalism in favor of a guy who’ll need on-the-job training and might even suffer a case of “whiplash.” Well, that’s a novel way of looking at things. (They also ignore Illuzzi’s intention to continue as Essex County State’s Attorney for an indefinite period of time, which will definitely slow his learning curve.) What else does Illuzzi bring to the job?

Illuzzi has had to be part of the action, whether it was throwing support behind projects for his constituents in the Northeast Kingdom, or around Windsor County, in greater Rutland or across central Vermont.

So he brings home the bacon for his constituents. Does the term “pork barrel” ring a bell?

He is a political machine, and he remains a publicity hound.

Oh, come on now. I think you’re just playing with us. Are you honestly trying to elect this guy? I guess so, but I don’t really understand why. Can you give me a reason, O Mighty H/TA?

But now, in the face of ever-tightening state budgets, we believe it is time to let Illuzzi loose to see what he can do to make a more efficient, streamlined government.

What the hell, give ol’ Vince a shot, see what happens. Yeah, I’d rather do that than elect someone with professionalism and expertise and integrity and two decades of directly relevant experience.

Uh, excuse me, Editorial Board, but you’re not convincing me. And it doesn’t help that you acknowledge the ethics violations on Illuzzi’s record; those might be considered pertinent in a campaign for a position that could be characterized as Chief Financial Ethicist. Do you really want a “political machine” with questionable ethics as your Auditor?

Really?

You know, Doug Hoffer could make a hell of a campaign ad for himself by quoting this endorsement. That is, he could if he was interested in negative campaigning, which he isn’t.

Let’s not forget something that goes unmentioned in this editorial: Vince Illuzzi didn’t plan to run for Auditor; he wanted to run for Attorney General. He switched to Auditor only because it was an easier path to a statewide office with a full-time salary. This endorsement seems to rely on the real unspoken argument of the Vince Illuzzi campaign: He’s been around for a long time, we all know the guy, so let’s give him a gold watch.

And one more bit of rhetorical legerdemain: While the endorsement does not refer to Hoffer’s party affiliation (Democrat and Progressive), it manages to call Illuzzi “The Democrat-Republican from Newport.” And while it’s technically true that Illuzzi has run for State Senate as both Republican and Democrat, he is first and foremost a Republican, and he is the GOP’s nominee for Auditor. Calling him “Democrat-Republican” in this context while omitting Hoffer’s party affiliation is deliberately misleading.  

Okay, let’s turn our attention to the Freeploid’s endorsement, which is oddly brief — only three paragraphs. Less than two hundred words. Or, in professional writers’ terms, “awfully damn short.”

The editorial begins by recounting his lengthy service in the Legislature — but not his checkered career as a lawyer, including a close shave with disbarment — and then says “It’s time to give this long-serving legislator a shot at a different challenge.”

Good God. Just like the Herald/TA. Let’s give ol’ Vince a shot, see what he can do.

And here’s the second of the three paragraphs, in its entirety. How do you like this logic?

Illuzzi has made many friends and acquaintances from all areas of the political arena in his time as a state senator, but he has been one to always speak his mind. Meanwhile, he has always kept his finger in the air to check the shifting winds.

Whaaaaaat? Your idea of a good Auditor is a glad-hander with friends in high places who’s always mindful of “the shifting winds”? What about independence and relevant experience? Integrity? Professionalism? I guess not:

People know Vince Illuzzi as an insider. For 32 years he has strolled the halls of the capitol building. But they also know him as a capable deal maker, someone who is quite clever and can get things done.

Oh, that’s even better. An insider, a deal maker. And somehow, after that description of the ultimate old pol, the Freeploid concludes that “Vince Illuzzi will be an effective watchdog.”

Huh?

“Lapdog,” I can see. That’s exactly what the Freeploid just spent two paragraphs describing. Where they get “effective watchdog” from that, I have no f’in idea.

One thing you won’t see in the Freeploid’s endorsement: the name “Doug Hoffer.” Not one single time do they mention him by name. Which is one reason why the ‘Loid’s endorsement is so brief: I guess the comparison would have been too embarrassing to mention.

It’s kind of an impressive rhetorical feat: both editorials are full of criticisms and backhanded compliments for Illuzzi, to the point where you’re expecting the papers to opt for Hoffer. And somehow they manage to endorse Illuzzi. Impressive, in a “WTF” sort of way.

The Freeploid took exactly the opposite tack two years ago, endorsing Hoffer on October 22, 2010 as the candidate “who would bring deep knowledge of how government works and a record of tracking down inefficiencies in Montpelier to the office of state auditor.” It also praised Doug’s “capable air and sharp focus.”

But the real topper, considering the Freeploid’s endorsement of the ultimate insider Vince Illuzzi this year:

As a Statehouse outsider, Hoffer brings a degree of skepticism about officialdom necessary for a watchdog. As a long-time policy analyst, he is familiar with the nooks and crannies where government information can hide.

Hoffer brings the right combination of experience and attitude to serve as auditor.  

Okay, Freeploid Editorial Board, I’ll bite — what about Doug Hoffer changed in the last two years? And what changed in the Auditor’s job description that you now prefer the insider to the outsider?

That would be nothing, and nothing. The Freeploid’s 180-degree spinaroonie MAKES NO SENSE.

Things are gettin’ tetchy on the Republican side of Campaign 2012. Today found Attorney General candidate Jack “Six Teats” McMullen throwing a Hail Mary in the form of an unprecedented court filing; and yesterday, we had gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock putting out the most negative ad of the year in Vermont, on the day after we narrowly escaped major storm damage — and at a time when neighboring states are still suffering from the effects of Superstorm Sandy. Tasteless? You make the call.

McMullen, dissatisfied with the pace of action on an evidence-free Republican charge of collusion between Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s campaign and a national Super PAC, today filed a court petition seeking a hearing within 24 hours on the charges. The filing comes under a provision in state election law allowing a candidate to request immediate court action on campaign-law violations in the days before an election.

I’d pause here to note that the alleged violations didn’t happen this week or last week; they happened in August. The fact that McMullen waited so long to make this dramatic move seems designed for maximum heat and minimum light. In other words, even if a court immediately hears his case, what chance is there of wrapping up the case before next Tuesday? None, I’d say.

Which leads me to conclude that McMullen’s true goal is to get maximum publicity in the last days of the campaign. He doesn’t care whether the charges are true or not; he’s just hoping to get some political gain out of making them.

After the jump: Desperation, Randy-style.

The same is true of Randy Brock’s last-minute request for an insane quantity of state documents, filed six business days before the election. Brock admits he has no evidence, just some stuff that people have told him. The truth: He doesn’t want a thorough airing of these charges; he just wants to be able to make them over and over again.

Which leads to Brock’s latest campaign commercial, a vile piece of propaganda straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. And released on Tuesday — one day after Vermont almost suffered a catastrophe with Superstorm Sandy. And on a day when New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other nearby states are dealing with real, deadly, and still-worsening states of emergency.

It’s borderline offensive to release such a negative ad on a day like yesterday. Politicians with some taste and discretion have eased back on the throttle for a decent interval. But not Randy. Hey, the ad was already produced and ready to go, the ad buys had probably been made, and there’s less than a week before the election. So damn the state of emergency, full speed ahead.

Another sign of real desperation on the Republican side. Desperation so deep and abiding that it overrides decent Republicans’ sense of propriety.  

Oh looky: another day, another mass-media filing by Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First, the conservative Super PAC.

Well, actually, two more filings: one was for $647 in newspaper ads for Dustin Degree and Norm McAllister, your Republican Senate hopefuls in Franklin County. But the big bucks, once again, go to support ultra-partisan demagogue Wendy Wilton’s candidacy for Treasurer.

This time: $19,450 for TV advertising. Which brings VF’s total spending on Wilton, by my count, to about $165,000.

Since October 11th.  

No matter how you slice it, by Vermont standards it’s obscene money. And it just keeps getting more obscene.

Update: This evening, Paul Heintz of Seven Days posted a very thorough piece on independent campaign spending at the “Off Message” blog. His count of Vermonters First spending on behalf of Wendy Wilton is higher than mine — $192,262 since October 10.

Think about that. Nearly $200,000 spent in 21 days. $10,000 per day to elect a Treasurer.

Well, actually, not true. But now that I have your attention, can we talk about this little thing that Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin seems to have going with Republican Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott? It was a nice bipartisan touch in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene last year, but isn’t it just a little bit Montague/Capulet this close to an election? Or, as Juliet puts it:

My only love spring from my only hate!

Too early seen unknown, and known too late!

Prodigious birth of love it is to me,

That I must love a loathed enemy.

Just in the last couple of weeks, we’ve had Shumlin saying that “Phil is rarely wrong,” and offhandedly saying “Phil Scott built a road” when discussing the dramatic rise in the value of his East Montpelier hideaway.

Then we had the announcement that Shumlin and Scott would jointly tour areas of Vermont devastated by Hurricane Sandy — a tour which was canceled due to lack of photogenic devastation.

Instead, we had a post-Sandy news conference in which Scott was wedged securely at Shumlin’s left hand, as depicted in this photo from Seven Days. (BTW, why are the ASL interpreters always female? And seemingly always the only female at the podium?)

And lastly, a nice bit of log-rolling from Scott, who was openly critical of fellow Republican Randy Brock’s latest TV ad, a 30-second anti-Shumlin hit piece straight outta the Karl Rove playbook.

It’s pretty obvious that Shumlin is spending a lot more time with Scott (and vice versa) than he is with any of his fellow ticketmates. That’s kind of understandable for Scott; who’d want to hang out with that bunch of losers? But Shummy’s chumminyess has got to be at least a bit galling to Cassandra Gekas, who, as you may recall, is kinda-sorta the Democratic challenger to the Republican Scott.

After the jump: A lesson from New Hampshire.

That would be the same Gekas who, assuming she loses to Scott, will take a job that will position her perfectly to be a thorn in Shumlin’s side: spokesperson for the state employees’ union. Hell hath no fury…

Anyway, this whole Shummy/Phil act is awfully heartwarming and helps burnish Shumlin’s bipartisan cred. But there’s a story that took place next door in New Hampshire that can serve as a warning about where this fraternization can lead.

Back in 2003, New Hampshire’s Republican Governor Craig Benson (a “run government like a business” type so incompetent that he was booted after one term in office) hired an ambitious young lawyer as his legal counsel. The lawyer’s name: Kelly Ayotte. The following year, Benson appointed her as the state’s Attorney General. (In New Hampshire, the AG is an appointed position with a five-year term.)

In the 2004 election, Benson was defeated by Democrat John Lynch, who is stepping down this year after four terms in office. Like Shumlin, Lynch has tried to govern from the center and work with Republicans whenever possible.

In 2009, in one of his bipartisan moves, Lynch renominated Ayotte for another five-year term as AG.

The following year, Ayotte quit and ran for U.S. Senate. She won the Republican primary and took office in the conservative landslide of 2010. This is the same Kelly Ayotte whose campaign appearance in Woodstock, Vermont this summer was slammed by the Vermont Democrats because she’s such an extremist.

Now, I can’t prove that we have John Lynch to blame for six years of Kelly Ayotte in the U.S. Senate. But she clearly would have had a much harder time winning if she hadn’t been reappointed by Lynch, collecting more than a bit of bipartisan credibility in the process.

I fear the “Shummy ‘n Scott” act may have the same result. Shumlin certainly seems to be doing his best to pave the way for Scott to succeed him as Governor.

And if or when that happens, we’ll find out whether Phil Scott is a real moderate or a fake one like Kelly Ayotte.  

At this point, going after Jack “Six Teats” McMullen is kind of like shooting a gnat with an elephant gun. But what he said about politicization of the Attorney General’s office should not go without pushback. Because it’s a great example of a larger trend among Republicans: Pot/Kettle Syndrome. Also known as raging hypocrisy.

Late last week, the VT Democratic Party put out a news release pointing out multiple election-law violations by Republicans, and claiming that the Attorney General’s office had begun investigating them. Which, turns out, was a bit of an overstatement; the AG is looking into the charges to see if an investigation is warranted.

No matter. McMullen, the Republican candidate for AG, pounced.

“They’re bloodhounds when they’re asked to go after Republicans but they’re lap dogs when it concerns the Democrats,” McMullen said in an interview.

Okay, just stop right there.

First of all, as the AG’s office rightly pointed out, there is no investigation. They’re looking into the Dems’ charges, just as they do whenever they receive a complaint.

And second, good God almighty, the last time we had a Republican president, his Justice Department spent eight solid years chasing the chimera of voter fraud while ignoring real cases of vote suppression or voter intimidation. Remember that little scandal over the Bush Administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys because they weren’t partisan enough? Remember the completely false outrage over ACORN?

(And we need to remember, because the Republicans are still hammering away on this issue.)

Talk about politicizing justice. The Republican Party wrote the book on it. Compared to Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, Bill Sorrell is a saint. And Jack McMullen should keep his mouth shut.

Update: I had another thought about this, which is appended below.

Earlier today, I posted a light-hearted little piece about two mailers I’d received today. One was from Pearce for Treasurer; the other was from Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First, on behalf of State Senate candidate Buddy Barnett. And included photos of both mailers.

Well, we just got a fascinating comment from Jeremy Hansen, Independent candidate for State Senate in Washington County. The tag line:

That’s not Buddy Barnett

Oh dear. Jeremy provided a link to a photo of the real Buddy. Here it is:

Compare that with Flyer Buddy… after the jump.  

Okay, here once again is the family photo on the Buddy Barnett flyer.

Well, both guys have mustaches, and they look vaguely similar. But definitely not the same person. If you need any further proof, the Washington County voter’s guide lists Barnett as being 68 years old; the guy on the flyer looks to be in his 40s. Jeremy’s theory is that VF just found a stock photo of some guy who looked a little Buddyesque and slapped it on the mailer.

Weird. I don’t know if this violates state election law, but Christ on a cracker, is it ever embarrassing.

Addendum. I have another idea about this mailer, which is no more flattering to Vermonter First and its resident Super Genius Tayt Brooks (I.M.O.M.).

(There was a mini-scandal a few years ago on the west coast, in which a candidate put out a mailer picturing him with a woman and a couple of kids. Turned out, he and his wife didn’t have any children; they just borrowed some from a neighbor or relative. This Barnett mailer is kind of in the same ballpark.)

Just like every other voter in Vermont (even the ones who live in rental housing), I’m getting my share of political mailers. Today there were two, and they were a nice little study in contrasts.

The good: a piece from Pearce for Treasurer, featuring a hearty endorsement from Governor Shumlin. Effective and positive.

The bad: a Vermonter* First mailer urging a vote for Buddy Barnett for State Senate. The piece was full of the usual lies — VERMONT DEMOCRATS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES, etc. But the capper was a rather odd photo of the candidate.

*I’m dropping the “s” in “Vermonters First” because it’s entirely the creation of one Vermonter’s inherited wealth. From now on, “Vermonter First” it is.

Which made me consider voting for Buddy.

But only if he’s the dog.

More on the mailers — with pictures! — after the jump.

The Pearce piece.  Nice big picture of Shumlin and Pearce on one side with a good positive message about Pearce’s experience and track record as Treasurer. Here it is, artfully photographed by Yours Truly with our woodpile as a backdrop:

The other side has a bigger picture of Shumlin with a full-throated endorsement: “A vote for Beth Pearce is not just a vote; it’s a smart investment.” All in all, a solid piece with just the right message.

The Broughton/Barnett billet. Lies, lies, lies. Odd spacing in the upper right, where “Buddy Barnett for Styate Senator” floats in an ocean of empty space. Plus weird photo putting a dog front and center, with the candidate (I think) lurking at the rear:

Oddest political photo since Vince Illuzzi’s rictus sardonicus in the short-lived Vermonter First online ad. (The one illegally depicting the state seal.) I guess the candidate is the shiny-domed, soul-patch-foreheaded guy lurking behind the happy family. Looks a bit skeevy to me. Or Photoshopped.

But hey, I love the dog! Noble beast, gazing confidently into the distance, bravely facing the future as if determined to make his/her mark on it.

The dog is obviously the central figure in this pose. And while I wouldn’t vote for Uncle Touchy there if Lenore Broughton paid me to, well, if the dog is actually the candidate, then I’m definitely voting for him. (Sorry, Tony.)

So… what’s in your mailbox today?