Oh no, here comes Randy Brock, riding the momentum of his own internal poll showing that he’s gaining ground among left-handed ferret owners born in the months of May, July, August, and November. Or something like that.

Anyhoo, Randy’s feeling his oats, and now he’s got a red-hot issue to use against Governor Shumlin.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock on Thursday criticized incumbent Gov. Peter Shumlin for what the challenger said has been too much time away from the office.

A Shumlin aide confirmed Brock’s assertion that Shumlin was out of state and turned the reins of government over to Lt. Gov. Phil Scott for 119 days during his first 21 months in office.

Huh. Sounds like a lot. Is it, VTDigger?

Shumlin’s time away from the state is hard to put into context, as similar figures for former Govs. Howard Dean and Jim Douglas are not readily available. Douglas spent some time away from Vermont in his role as National Governors Association chair from 2009-2010.

Yeah, and I seem to remember that Smilin’ Jim was very fond of his overseas trade junkets, too. What’s more, it looks like Randy put Shumlin’s schedule in the worst possible light:  

Brock acknowledged that his count included weekends and holidays, which together have numbered slightly more than 200 days since Shumlin took office.

Uh-huh. And I guess the Governor should have been in his office nights weekends, and holidays, eh, Randy?

‘The ship of state demands a captain at the wheel at all times and Peter Shumlin has not been at the wheel,” Brock said.

Mmm, that sounds just a little bit crazy. Does Randy want to be Governor, or Captain of The Caine?

Oh, one more tidbit from the Shumlin camp:

Shumlin campaign manager Alexandra MacLean said on 44 of those 119 days, Shumlin was on official state business, mainly meeting with corporate officials in a bid to get them to bring more jobs to Vermont.

Okay, so that brings us down to 75 days in 21 months out of state and not on official business, a little more than 3 1/2 days per month. Some of those on weekends and holidays. Including vacations, to which even a Governor is entitled. Unless you’re Cap’n Randy, who plans to lash himself permanently to the wheel.

Intimidation! Censorship! Bullying! The horror, the horror!

Eighteen supporters of creating universal health-care coverage took their cause Thursday to the front door of a Burlington woman who’s funding a campaign with an opposing viewpoint.

The Burlington woman? Lenore “Miss Daisy” Broughton, tea-party  moneybags and sole funder of conservative superPAC Vermonters First. The protesters? Members of a pro-health care reform group called Vermont Leads.

Broughton was nowhere to be seen, but in a statement she called the protest bullying.

Hmm. According to the Freeploid article, the group gathered in a nearby park and walked to Broughton’s house. They only briefly stood in front of her house because the sidewalk was under construction.

Bullying? Hah. Miss Daisy gets the vapors awful easy. As does Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery, who called the gathering an attempt to “intimidate and silence a citizen.”

Again, hah. The Tayter must be a real softie if a brief gathering of 18 people makes him feel intimidated.  

Hey, remember those eye-searingly bad web advertisements posted by Tayt Brooks’ superPAC, Vermonters First, for Wendy Wilton and Vince Illuzzi? The ones that appear to be the handiwork of a color-blind computer newbie equipped with a copy of Web Advertising For Dummies?

Well, turns out the ads are illegal as well as terrible.

See, both ads feature the state coat of arms in the background. And, as VTDigger reports, that’s a no-no under state law.

So they’re gone. But thanks to my earlier posts, the awful ads continue to exist as images only — no active links — here on GMD, to serve as cautionary examples of what not to do for future generations of web designers. You’re welcome.  

The political fact-checker seems like a wonderful idea. It serves as an objective source to guide you through the blizzard of lies and half-truths that fill the airwaves every campaign season.

Problem is, there’s facts, and there’s truth. And sometimes the two don’t match up.

Example #1: Politifact’s notorious 2011 judgment that Democrats told a big fat whopper when they accused Paul Ryan of planning to “end Medicare.” Technically, the Dems’ claim was false; Ryan didn’t actually want to kill Medicare. He just wanted to fundamentally change it from a defined-benefit program to something of a defined-contribution program — taking away the real value of Medicare as a guarantee that senior citizens will always have health care coverage.  

But still, the Dems’ accusation was false. If you’re weighing the facts. But it’s not false if you’re weighing the truth.

So now our own Vermont version of Politifact — VTDigger and Seven Days’ Fact Checker — has similarly stumbled over the difference between fact and truth. They have judged as “True” the Republicans’ claim that Governor Shumlin’s health care plan will result in the “largest single tax increase in state history.”

Huh?

They judged it as “true” because, if Shumlin completes the transition to single-payer health care, nobody in Vermont will be paying premiums to insurance companies; we’ll be paying taxes instead. We won’t necessarily be paying any more in absolute dollars — in fact, if the plan works as envisioned, we’ll wind up paying less — but more of what they pay will go through the state.

So the Republicans’ claim is technically correct.

But the real message in their claim — that Vermonters will be paying through the nose, rendering our state unlivable expensive for the vast majority of Vermonters — well, that is total and absolute bushwah. Even so, it passes the “Fact Checker” test, which only examines the facts.

But they completely fail to discern the truth.  And in the process, by giving the Republicans’ charge their “objective” stamp of approval, they do a profound disservice to our political discourse.

I bet the Brock campaign and Vermonters First are already working on new TV ads featuring the Fact Checker’s conclusion.  

For those of you whose eyeballs aren’t permanently seared shut by the ghastly political advertisement reproduced in my previous post, well, I’ve got another one for you.

And now I have realized the genius behind this ghastly explosion of bad web design.

The answer… and again, to protect the kiddies, the disturbingly inept image… after the jump.  

Oh God oh God oh God, the pain, the pain.

Hmm, something familiar about this catastrophe. Eyeball-searing clash of color, check. Vermont flag for no particular reason, check. Mishmosh of fonts, check. Beginner’s level ad design, check.

And the topper: truly ghastly nightmare-fuel photo of candidate, check. Good grief, is that Vince Illuzzi or is it a still of Bela Lugosi taken from one of Ed Wood’s terrible movies? I can practically hear the mitteleuropean mellifluosity intoning, “I shall feast upon your flesh at midnight! AH, HA HA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!”

Really, this photo makes the Wendy Wilton image look positively welcoming by comparison.

Huh. Two appalling ads, designed in precisely the same way. And that’s when I noticed the fine print at the bottom of both ads:

PAID FOR BY VERMONTERS FIRST

That’s right, we have Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery, to thank for visiting these horrors upon our Internets.

Makes me feel better about the political acumen of the far right’s Great White Hope. If this is his idea of effective presentation, then he’s gonna flush a whole lot of Lenore Broughton’s money down the toilet.  

Just scanning around the Web, checking to see if anything’s up in the Green Mountain State, when I’m assaulted by a truly terrible example of political advertising. Social media, NOT.

I present the offending image after the jump, to give you time to send the children from the room.  

The horror, the horror!

Where do I begin? The riotous clash of colors? The  visual non-sequitur of the Vermont flag appearing for no particular reason? (What, she’s a True Patriot while Beth Pearce is an interloping tenant?) The mishmosh of fonts? The overall composition that suggests a beginner’s design skills? The squinting, leering mug of Wendy Wilton, for which I suggest the caption “Your hide will make a fine poncho”?

Seriously, is that the closest they could come to a photo of Wendy Wilton smiling? Damn scary. Gives me another reason to vote for Beth Pearce: I don’t want to see that image plastered on the Vermont Treasurer’s website for the next two years.

So who does her campaign graphics anyway? And which campaign functionary took a look at this “art” and said, “Yeah, that’s the ticket! Slap that baby on the Interwebs!” And can they be fired immediately and/or sued for design malpractice?

Please note: I hate it when female politicians are judged entirely on their looks or wardrobe. This commentary has nothing to do with Wendy Wilton’s appearance; it has everything to do with campaign ineptitude.

Miscellaneous items from the past week or so, for good and for ill. Possibly the first in a regular series; no promises, tho.

Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau, for getting the scoop on Governor Shumlin’s sweetheart land deal. Shumlin backers have complained that his private life should be kept private; but when he puts down $35,000 for a $700,000 property, there needs to be exposure and explanation. Which the Governor petulantly refused to provide. And an extra thumbs up to Hirschfeld for tolerating the Governor’s tantrum last Thursday.

Randy Brock, Republican gubernatorial placeholder, for his near-incoherence in explaining the most creative part of his economic-recovery plan, the Business In A Box. As Paul Heintz reported, he bumbled, fumbled, and stumbled his way through it, giving the impression that one of his consultants had come up with it, and that he’d never really given it much thought until he was facing the media. What’s next, Randy? A farm-assistance plan called “Pig In A Poke”?

After the jump: More thumbs and a finger poke, featuring Steve Kimbell, David Zuckerman, Jake Perkinson, and more!

Steve Kimbell, Commissioner of Banking, Insurance, And All Things Boring, for an overdue retraction of his attempt to prevent credit unions from uttering the sacred word “banking” in their advertisements. VSECU had been using the generic term in its ads, pointing out that it offers the same services as a bank. State regulations are designed to bar a credit union from pretending to be a bank; but the VSECU ads clearly identified it as a credit union that offered banking services. Last week, Kimbell finally backed off his niggling interpretation of the rules.

Chris d’Elia of the Vermont Bankers Association, for his weak-tea whinge in response to Kimbell’s decision. Banks have no monopoly on all iterations of the word “bank,” any more than Chick-Fil-A can claim all usages of the words “Eat More,” and d’Elia’s tired bleat changed no minds.  

State Senate candidate David Zuckerman, for putting together a really impressive list of Democratic supporters in response to his shunning by certain Democratic leaders. Which leads us to…

Vermont Democratic Party chair Jake Perkinson, for going along with Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell’s refusal to lend any support to Zuckerman’s candidacy because he dares to run as a Prog/Dem instead of a Dem/Prog. (Lite-Gov candidate Cassandra Gekas is doing the same, but no shunning for her.) Zuckerman ran as a Democrat; he won enough Democratic votes to gain a spot on the ticket; indeed, he finished fourth in the primary, better than two other Dems who are on the November ballot. Perkinson and Campbell are being small-minded, and their action seems designed to exacerbate simmering Dem/Prog tensions. And the liberal cause in Vermont is better served when the two parties set aside past offenses and manage to get along.

The Vermont political media, for pretty much ignoring the Campaign for Vermont Prosperity (?*)’s recently-released “energy plan,” a rehash of free-marketer complaints about the cost of electricity and how it’s making Vermont an unlivable hellhole, plus the usual “release the Kraken” bushwah about how the Markets Will Save Us All. Way back when the CFVP(?) was shiny and new, it promised to release detailed prescriptions for all of Vermont’s ills. Now, as the campaign season enters the homestretch, we finally see the first one. Too late to meaningfully impact public debate. Not that it would, anyway; it’s the same old stuff we hear all the time from the Republicans and their sugar daddies in the fossil-fuel industry.

*CFV can’t make up its mind on its own name: Campaign for Vermont, or Campaign for Vermont Prosperity? I’d suspect them of deviousness if (a) there were any pattern to the use of the names and (b) I thought they had the strategic capacity that makes deviousness possible.

Nancy Remsen of the Freeploid, for an unfortunate turn of phrase in her coverage of Randy Brock’s economic plan. In a story also undistinguished by her omission of Brock’s struggles to explain Business In A Box, she adopted the Republican phrase “common-sense health care reform.” Er, Nancy, that’s what Randy Brock calls it. It’s meant to draw a line between his market-worshipping version (common-sense) and Governor Shumlin’s plan (nonsense, I guess). If it’s not one of the Rules of Journalism, it ought to be: don’t adopt one side’s terminology. Makes it look like you’re putting your thumb on the scale.

Whoever’s responsible for the e-mails inciting Shumlin supporters to badger the news media. As I reported in this space, at least three commenters on a VTDigger story about the Guv’s fab new East Montpelier digs used the same phrasing. And one of them mistakenly cut-and-pasted his response to the e-mail into his VTDigger comment, thus revealing the scuzzy maneuver. And one of the comments strongly implied that the same tactic has been used against other media sources. This is an offense against the already-beleaguered practice of journalism, and it’s politically unnecessary in a race that Shumlin is certain to win.

That’s all for this installment. Feel free to brandish the Digit Of Your Choice in the Comments below.  

So here it is, less than a month till Election Day, and Jack McMullen has suddenly begun to flog “the key issue in the campaign.” Yep, after running for Attorney General for months on what might best be called “watered-down TJ Donovan,” Six Teats has finally discovered “the key issue.”

And, since he’s a Republican running for a law-enforcement office, you get one guess what the issue is.

Crime.

And Jack’s new TV ad is the usual Republican Panic In Needle Park stuff, as Paul Heintz reports:

It features footage of two somewhat preppy-looking drug dealers handing off the goods, as well as a still shot of an older woman with purple bruises below her eye and on her lips.

… McMullen said he wasn’t sure of the provenance of the image depicting the beat-up woman, nor whether the bruises are real, but he said, “We wanted graphic images of what actually happens… We thought it was representative of the kind of things that happen.”

In other words, stock images from the FearMongers’ Collection.

Anyway, congratulations to Jack McMullen for finally, belatedly discovering “the key issue in the campaign” after wandering in the wilderness for so long. And congratulations to Jack for finally discovering a ready source for campaign cash: his own pocket.

Too bad it’s way too late in the game to reset his entire campaign.  

So VTDigger has been closely following the political story of the week. and its coverage has sparked some fascinating responses. The political story of the week, by the way, ought to have been Randy Brock’s joke of an economic revival plan (the usual right-wing dogma, plus the mysterious Biz In A Box)…but, thanks to an epic brain-fart by Governor Shumlin, was instead the unanswered questions over the financing of his 2200-square-foot humble cottage.

Did he not realize how this would look? Like it or not, the topline on this story is “Governor gets $700,000 property with $35,000 of his own cash.” And as for his stout defense of his private life… well, he’s partly right. But when you occupy the top elective office in the state, and you’re the recipient of what appears to be an extremely favorable financial transaction thanks to some unknown out-of-staters, then your public life impinges on your private life, and some measure of explanation and disclosure is appropriate.

Instead, he got all huffy. And in the process of ineptly defending himself, he managed to channel his inner Mitt Romney:

“Are you going to criticize me now for forming an LLC?” Shumlin asked. “With the rest of Vermont and America?”

Yeah, Pete, “the rest of Vermont and America” is constantly forming LLC’s. Way to sound like an entitled, out-of-touch one-percenter. The inflated sense of entitlement continued through his Thursday presser, as he was obviously offended that reporters would dare question his sweetheart land deal. He delivered the topper with his ill-tempered walkout.

The following day, Shumlin campaign manager Alex MacLean delivered a reasonable explanation for the deal. If it had been given immediately, the controversy would have quickly been over.  Simple, basic politics. Something that Governor Shumlin is usually pretty good at.  

And now, the funny business over at VTDigger…  

Digger’s original story on Shumlin’s “cottage” sparked a lengthy comment thread. A lot of the comments were from Shumlin backers slamming VTDigger for daring to commit an act of journalism. State Rep. Warren Kitzmiller did his best to set up straw men and knock ’em down:

Is our Governor not allowed to buy land and build a home? Is it a requirement that he pay absolutely top dollar for the land?

No and no, but that’s not the point. The point is, if you make a deal like this, you ought to be prepared to answer a few simple questions about it. And Shumlin wasn’t. Next up to bat: Don Kreis of the Vermont Law School.

…where exactly is the news here? That the governor would like to travel back to Putney less and be closer to his office? That he has done exactly what every single other Vermonter would reserve the right to do without question? Nothing illegal, nothing improper, noting embarrassing, nothing even surprising.

Stee-rike three. This has nothing to do with the length of Shumlin’s commute. And sure there was nothing improper, but at first glance it sure looked funny. And Shumlin perpetuated it thanks to his hissy fit. Batter Up, Avram Patt of the Washington Electric Co-op:

An elected official looking to build a home has personal friends that he goes in on a real estate purchase with, in a legal arrangement that appears to work well for all of them. Turns out these friends have over the years contributed a few hundred dollars or a thousand dollars a pop to his campaign?

OK…..

So?

Another swing and a miss. The Digger story was written before anyone in the Governor’s camp explained his relationship to his “personal friends.” At the time, the Governor hadn’t told us a blessed thing. Which is precisely why this story became something more than a blip on the radar screen.

Then things get weird. Three commenters, in quick succession, write practically the same thing. First, Sarah Smith:

I used to have a lot of respect for Vt Digger. I have lost all of it. This reporter should be let go.

Then, Tom Holton.

I used to have a lot of respect for Vt digger.This is not the case anymore. This reporter should be let go. Sorry VT digger, you just lost a reader.

And the clincher, from Eric Robichaud. Read closely, please.

Thank you for the email requesting that we comment on this article in support of Governor Shumlin.

My comment is that I used to have a lot of respect for Vermont digger and I no longer do.

Thank you.

Oh great. So Eric gets an e-mail urging Shumlin supporters to slam VTDigger. And clearly Sarah Smith and Tom Holton received the same e-mail. What an excellent way to help the Governor.

A bit later, Eric apparently realized he’d screwed up, and posted another comment.

The reporter for Vermont Digger ought to be fired.

Thank you.

No, Eric, thank YOU for bungling your initial comment, thus revealing the organized effort to pressure VTDigger. Then, a few comments down the thread, Eric tries again. With equally unfortunate results.

Vermont Digger should be banned from all press conferences until they learn to respect Governor Shumlin.

I, amongst others, will no longer be buying your paper at local stores which will hurt the local economy. Truth be told, i never liked it anyway.

Think global, act local!

Oh yes, reporters who don’t show the proper deference should be banned. Tell me, Eric, what does Digger have to do to regain its “privilege” of attending a public event? Write “I Will Not Badger The Governor” 100 times on the blackboard?

And finally, Eric, thanks for revealing that you don’t have the least goddamn clue what VTDigger actually is. “Buying your paper at local stores,” indeed.

In closing, I speak to whoever sent the e-mail soliciting Digger slams: Cut it the f*ck out. Your actions are an affront against the exercise of journalism. And besides, do you really think Governor Shumlin needs this kind of help? He’s got this election in the bag, and he’ll have massive majorities in the Legislature. I shudder to think how you’d be acting if Shumlin actually faced a dangerous opponent.

Look, I’m gonna vote for the guy, and I want him to succeed. But when I see him screw up, I’m gonna write about it. And when I see his supporters playing games with VTDigger, I’m gonna write about that. It does him no favors to make excuses for his failures, and it certainly does him no good for him or his supporters to lash out at the news media.  

The neckties must be constricting at VTGOP Central. There’s an increasing component of flail to Republicans’ campaign tactics. Can’t really blame them; they’re facing a truly epic defeat in November which will deliver the last nail in the coffin of the Douglas Era, and there is no clear path to regaining electoral relevance in the future.

Exhibit A: The Wendy Wilton campaign’s opposition research must have come up completely empty, considering that they”ve resorted to attacking Beth Pearce for — parents, please send your kids out of the room, or cover their eyes at least — RENTING A HOUSE instead of buying. The horror, the horror!

The implications of this dastardly “lifestyle choice” are twofold, sez the Wilton campaign. First, Pearce isn’t truly committed to Vermont. She might up and move! The flatlander blood obviously still courses through her veins. We cannot possibly elect an ALIEN to one of our most crucial offices!

And second, she’s not really committed to our system because she isn’t directly paying property taxes. Yeah yeah, property taxes are part of what every renter pays once a month. But she doesn’t actually write a check to her municipality. Which obviously means she is incapable of truly participating in Vermont’s governance.

What transparent, complete, absolute, classist bullshit. This is very close to Mitt Romney secret videotape territory. Do the Republicans really mean to insinuate that only property owners should take part in our political system? Should we return to the early days of our Republic, when only white male property owners were allowed to vote? Them’s was good times.

After the jump: What’s in that box? And, Mt. Lindley continues to smolder.

Exhibit B: Randy Brock’s unveiling of his laundry-list economic recovery “plan.” As with his health care “plan,” this one isn’t a “plan” at all. A plan requires some overall coherence, a clear path to a clear goal. This is another “throw everything free-market at the wall and hope something sticks” maneuver.

And, as Paul Heintz reported in his devastating takedown of the Brock announcement, the Republican had a lot of trouble when asked to go beyond sound-bite level on the implications of his “plan.” Which is very strange, if not downright disturbing, for a candidate who is presented to us as a solid, sober guy with lots of business and financial savvy.

Heintz’ entire column is well worth your time, but the highlight is Brock’s befuddled effort to explain the most original idea in his “plan”: the Business in a Box. A small sample of Epic Flail:

“What should be in these boxes? They could be like franchises. They could be businesses that need to be done in a particular area because they’re not being done,” he said. “They may be new ideas. They could be anything. It depends on our imagination and our ability to package them.”

It got worse from there. Kudos to Heintz for reporting the grubby details of Brock’s announcement. Unlike, say, the Freeploid and VTDigger, which omitted all the embarrassing “I don’t really know what I’m talking about” stuff. Which was a failure of journalism and a disservice to the public. I mean, if a politician can’t articulate his own ideas, shouldn’t we maybe know that?

Exhibit C: Jack Lindley’s obsessive pursuit of the Bill Sorrell collusion complaint. Angry Jack doesn’t want to go through the established procedure of asking a State’s Attorney to investigate. Oh no, he wants, nay demands. a special prosecutor. His argument is that state’s attorneys don’t have the resources to do the kind of thorough, painstaking, “fruit at the bottom of the bowl” investigation that Lindley’s accusations obviously warrant. I do hope Angry Jack is getting his blood pressure checked regularly, for his own sake.

There’s a whole lotta flop-sweat cascading from Republican brows these days. And it’s only going to get worse; they still have five more weeks of staring into the abyss of imminent defeat, and it’s well known that gazing into darkness causes you to lose all perspective and become completely intolerant to light.