I’ve got to give Randy Brock some credit for daring to attend the Renewable Energy Vermont conference. He knew he was going to face a hostile audience, and he delivered his free-market message. Didn’t sugarcoat his opposition to government support for renewables.

“I had an underlying question in my mind: Is it appropriate for government to pick industrial winners and losers in the renewable energy industry?” asked Brock.

…”Are we asking the taxpayer and the ratepayer to become investors in technology? What’s the ratepayer going to get in return? … Are they going to get any benefit? Folks weren’t able to answer that question, at least to my satisfaction,” said Brock.

Yes, Brock deserves some credit for a minor act of political bravery. On the issues, however, he couldn’t be wronger.  

First, there’s no such thing as an energy free market. Every form of energy benefits from some form of government assistance. Nuclear energy wouldn’t exist at all in a totally free market because the risks are too high. And the original development of “peaceful” nukes was heavily pushed and funded by the government. The free market wouldn’t have done that on its own.

And of course, even the profitable fossil-fuel industries get all sorts of tax benefits that tilt the free-market scales in their favor.

And just as the government played a decisive role in creating nuclear energy, it did the same for hydraulic fracturing, i.e. fracking. The Associated Press:

“The free market has worked its magic,” the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, an industry group, claimed over the summer.

The boom happened “away from the greedy grasp of Washington,” the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, wrote in an essay this year.

…But those who helped pioneer the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, recall a different path. Over three decades, from the shale fields of Texas and Wyoming to the Marcellus in the Northeast, the federal government contributed more than $100 million in research to develop fracking, and billions more in tax breaks.

Now, those industry pioneers say their own effort shows that the government should back research into future sources of energy – for decades, if need be – to promote breakthroughs. For all its success now, many people in the oil and gas industry itself once thought shale gas was a waste of time.

“There’s no point in mincing words. Some people thought it was stupid,” said Dan Steward, a geologist who began working with the Texas natural gas firm Mitchell Energy in 1981.

Well, all right then. Whatever you might think of fracking — or nuclear power, for that matter — the point is proven. Government assistance for new technologies is an integral part of the way our economy works. Without it, a lot of the things we take for granted wouldn’t exist.

And given the environmental benefits of renewable energy development, we should at the very least give renewables the same public-sector benefit we’ve given to nuclear power and fracking.

Randy Brock: Brave But Wrong. Put that on a bumper sticker.  

Our morning friendly, the Freeploid (the Cafeteria Lady of Vermont journalism) delivered a heapin’ trayful of political news today. There was the unveiling of Randy Brock’s Dick In A — sorry, Business In A Box plan. There was a political roundup column. There were dueling op-eds from Brock and Governor Shumlin on health care.

And there was an overview of the race for Treasurer, accompanied by a pair of photographs that, considering their visual presentation, might well have been chosen by the VTGOP.

The article is headlined “CONFIDENT VERSUS CONCERNED.” Which refers to incumbent Beth Pearce’s certitude in the soundness of Vermont’s fiscal path, and challenger Wendy Wilton’s alarmism.

It is accompanied by photographs that present exactly the opposite image: a smiling Wilton standing outside the Statehouse on a gorgeous sunny day, and a frowny Pearce speaking in some indoor public setting.

With Governor Shumlin hovering directly behind her.

What do these two pictures tell us? That Wilton is a self-actualizer at home in the corridors of power; while Pearce is reticent if not downright mousy, and wields authority only through her relationship to an Alpha Male.

In the printed paper, the two photographs are the same size and placed side-by-side. On the Freeploid’s website, however, the WIlton photo is splashed across the top of the story, while the Pearce photo is smaller and tucked into the body of the article.

The article itself isn’t bad. But the visual presentation comes across as a covert bit of Republican propaganda. If it wasn’t meant as such, it was badly bungled by a layout designer who’s astoundingly clueless about the impact of images.  

When it comes to VTGOP chair Angry Jack Lindley, I’ve never applied my customary diagnosis when it comes to exaggerated political outrage — Bunched Knicker Syndrome, or BKS for short — because with Angry Jack, it’s not an occasional unexpected eruption; it’s a chronic condition. Like, say, male pattern baldness.

But although he isn’t a classic case of BKS, his frequent outbursts are still worth recording for posterity. And we had a doozy last week.

Now, usually I don’t bother much with True North Reports, the eyeball-hurting conservative “news and opinion” website that’s almost entirely opinion and very little news. But as I was researching yesterday’s piece on Lenore “Miss Daisy” Broughton, I clicked on over to True North.  And there, I found a piece by one Kevin Joseph Ryan about Secretary of State Jim Condos’ efforts to meet the federal deadline for getting absentee ballots to overseas military personnel. Vermont did pretty well; 94.5% of the ballots arrived on time. (Which Mr. Ryan rounded down to 94% in his headline.) By now, 100% have been delivered.

Which wasn’t good enough for Angry Jack, no sirree.

“Condos does not want people to vote or candidates to run. He’s made that very clear,” Lindley told TNR. “And, he doesn’t want to follow the law.”

Or, in other words, grump grump harrumph growl gnash ROAR.  

Okay, there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance at work here. Do you remember why there was a rush to get the ballots out on time? It was triggered by the uncertainty over the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary, which resulted in a recount request by write-in candidate Annette Smith.

By Vermont law, officials have to wait five days between the filing of a recount request and the onset of the recount. This waiting period can be waived if all parties agree.

The Dems and the Progs were agreeable. Smith was agreeable. But Angry Jack, in a fit of pique, refused to waive — showing no concern whatsoever for the voting rights of our military personnel.

Let’s look at the timeline. The Canvassers Committee approved the (revised) result on Thursday 9/6.  If the waiting period had been waived, the recount would have begun on Friday 9/7 and been completed no later than Monday 9/10. It would have been certified on Tuesday or Wednesday 9/11 or 9/12.

Thanks to Angry Jack’s shitfit, the recount didn’t commence until Thursday 9/13. It was completed the following day, but the presiding judge was out of town. He didn’t certify the result until Tuesday 9/18.

The federal deadline was 9/21, so Condos had only three days to get the final ballots to all of Vermont’s town clerks. His staff almost pulled it off, but not quite.

Other factors were involved, to be sure. But it’s indisputably true that if Angry Jack had agreed to waive the waiting period, the ballots would have gone out on schedule, and 100% of our military personnel would have received them on time. Instead of “only” 94.5%.

A word of advice to Angry Jack: think before you speak. Alternatively, STFU. You’re embarrassing yourself.  

Although we won’t know for sure until mid-October’s campaign finance reporting deadline, it seems certain that Lenore “Miss Daisy” Broughton has spent at least a quarter-million dollars to boost the otherwise-somnolent conservative cause in Vermont through massive underwriting of the new superPAC, Vermonters First.

The Vermont media has made little effort to explore Broughton’s background, beyond a few cursory unreturned phone calls. She’s been identified as the backer of the defunct True North Radio and the still-breathing True North Reports, and as a generous donor to conservative political causes, but that’s about it.

We’re talking about a person who’s trying, single-handedly, to sway the course of this year’s campaign. And presumably establish a conservative force to be reckoned with in the future. (Possibly even taking over the nearly-bankrupt Vermont Republican Party, in fact.) You’d think that someone in the Vermont political media would take some time to delve more deeply into her background and intentions.

Especially since, even if you can’t afford a 24-hour stakeout at her home, it’s not that hard to find a decent quantity of information by spending a good hour with The Google. I didn’t find out anything about her professional life, or even a photograph; but I did get a fuller picture of her history as a political donor than has been reported anywhere else.

Topline: Over the past 15 years, she’s spent at least $2.5 million on conservative causes and politicians.

Details after the jump.  

According to Federal Elections Commission online records, she has given more than $500,000 to conservative politicians and political organizations over the past 20 years. The money went overwhelmingly to the far-right end of the political spectrum; pretty much all the usual Tea Party suspects are on her list. Allen West, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Richard Mourdock, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, among many others. She’s also given at least $7,500 to the Right to Life PAC, and $15,000 to the Right to Work Committee PAC.

Those are her political contributions, some of which has been reported in the Vermont media. But there’s also something called the Broughton Fund, based in Chicago. Between 2001 and 2008, the Fund gave more than $1.7 million to ultra-conservative nonprofit organizations. Where did the money go?

In the early 2000s, there were plenty of donations to conservative Jewish causes, most notably around $200,000 for “Toward Tradition,” a group headed by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who’s been called the Christian Right’s favorite Jew because of his wholehearted support for its agenda. Toward Tradition was notoriously linked to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Most embarrassingly, Rabbi Lapin ginned up a bunch of fake “awards” for Abramoff, to help him gain membership in an exclusive private social club in Washington, D.C.

But enough about the good Rabbi. The Broughton Fund also gave lots of money to conservative educational organizations. She funneled hundreds of thousands into the Vermont Student Opportunity School Fund, which gives scholarship money to parents who wanted to send their kids to private schools or homeschool them.

Other notable gifts: a single infusion of nearly $300,000 into the Leadership Institute, a nonprofit whose goal is to “train conservative activists and leaders.” And $25,000 to the Bill of Rights Institute, which apparently produces archconservative “educational” materials on American history.

(Honestly, the stuff that qualifies for nonprofit status in America.)

The Broughton Fund’s activity came to an abrupt end after 2008. Over the last four years, it has continued to exist at a minimal level. A few thousand dollars in its accounts, and no donations.

Hmm. What happened at the end of 2008? Oh yes, Barack Obama won the Presidency.

Maybe that made her mad. From 2009 through the present, Broughton has spent her money on straight politics. No more nonprofits — not even partisan entities thinly disguised as nonprofits.

There’s a curious pattern to the Fund’s giving. For a year or two, it will focus its attention on a particular cause or single organization. After a year or two, it moves on to something else. Often, there’s a single large gift to an organization and nothing further. And, of course, she virtually abandoned the Fund in 2009. She seems to be a woman of serial enthusiasms.

Her latest, of course, is Vermonters First, headed by Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery. (I wonder if her other Young Republican rentboy, Rob Roper, is feeling any pangs of jealousy. After all, the crappy website he operates with her money, True North Reports, might soon be yesterday’s newspapers.) Her pattern of brief and generous enthusiasms might mean that she won’t be around for the long haul of Vermonters First — which would obviously not exist if it weren’t for her — but on the other hand, she certainly has the ideology and the deep pockets to keep it an active participant on our political scene.

She can clearly give it much greater resources than the bedraggled VTGOP itself.

Hint to Vermont political journalists: Miss Daisy may not be returning your phone calls, but she is associated with the Vermont chapter of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 movement, and she’s apparently even attended some of the group’s events.

Well, they have a Taxpayers’ Picnic coming up on Sunday October 7 at the Champlain Valley Expo. If you political reporters have nothing better to do, why not hang around the gathering? You might actually see the Sugar Momma of Vermont Conservatism in the flesh.

One other tip. The Broughton Fund’s President is Lenore Broughton. Its Vice President is John Camm Broughton, presumably a relative, and apparently a freelance photographer in Burlington. Maybe he’d answer a phone call, even if Lenore is feeling a bit shy these days.  

Oh, looky here: amidst all the excitement around the unveiling of a half-billion-dollar development project in the Northeast Kingdom, a press release from Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont got lost in the shuffle.

Perhaps unsurprising; it was CFV’s first press release since May 1. Indeed, after a supercharged launch of what appeared to be Lisman’s bid for a hostile takeover of Vermont politics through the sheer power of his money, CFV has been largely invisible since the official campaign season began. No new radio ads since April, and only a smattering of public appearances by CFV founder and ex-Wall Street one-percenter Bruce Lisman.

But oh, its press release is a real piece of work, in its single-minded focus on the efforts of lead developer Bill Stenger to create something out of nothing through the muscular application of entrepreneurial drive. Almost entirely absent from CFV’s version of events is any acknowledgment of the public sector’s decisive role in the development. First paragraph:

The Campaign for Vermont Prosperity congratulates Bill Stenger for continuing to convert federal EB-5 immigrant investor program into good construction, aviation and travel and tourism jobs in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the first, last, and only mention of the government’s role in the project. When, in fact, EB-5 is generating 95% of the investment capital for the project. But CFV spins a tale of a brave businessman prevailing in spite of — not because of, but in spite of — the public sector’s single-minded efforts to thwart the workings of the free market.

Think I’m exaggerating?  

Entrepreneurs like Bill are working day and night, and against many forces, to move their communities, and our state, in the right direction. His effort reminds us that clear vision and a focused effort achieves real results.

While it is important to celebrate this exciting new project, it is equally important to acknowledge that there is much more work that must be done, and many reforms that must be made in state policy, to put all of Vermont–and all of Vermont’s families–on a prosperous path.

And more…

Though the effort is substantial, and the results real, we can’t fix these problems through the hard work of people like Bill Stenger alone.

Jesus Christ on a cracker. Even Bill Stenger himself wouldn’t claim that this project was realized “through the hard work of…Bill Stenger alone.” Quite the opposite, in fact; Stenger gave the credit to Senator Patrick Leahy, who worked hard for an extension of EB-5.

Stenger praised Leahy’s efforts in Congress. “It’s his work that has opened this window,” the ski area mogul said. “If it were not for him, this window would not exist.”

The gold-plated balls of Campaign for Vermont, putting out this piece of one-sided garbage in response to a real triumph of cooperation between public and private sectors.

If this is emblematic of Bruce Lisman’s contribution to our political discourse, I would welcome his move to a nice secure tax haven — say, in Florida or the Cayman Islands — where his free-market dogmatism would be a better fit.  

(It’s like an “enthusiasm gap,” only bigger.)

The good folks at Gannett’s Washington bureau (assuming they still qualify for the plural) have gifted us with a little analysis of Vermont’s political contributions to Presidential candidates, drawn from Federal Election Commission reports, and published in the Freeploid on Friday. And the numbers are quite striking.

Vermonters are giving heavily, and the overwhelming share of the money is going to President Obama.

According to the FEC, Vermonters gave $1.6 million in itemized contributions – those amounting to at least $200 – to the Obama campaign. That accounted for 86.1 percent of the $1.9 million that state residents gave to all presidential candidates.

I know this is a notoriously liberal state, but even so, that’s incredibly one-sided.

It’s even more so than in 2008. At the same point in the 2008 campaign, total donations to Obama from Vermont were almost $300,000 less than this year. And Mitt Romney is doing substantially worse in Vermont than John McCain did four years ago. (Romney $153K, McCain $179K.) Given four years of inflation, that’s not good news for Vermont Republicans; they certainly aren’t doing much to enhance their stature on the national stage. Which won’t help them attract the big out-of-state donors they’d need to be financially competitive in state races.

After the jump: our Pundit Laureate weighs in.

  To interpret the numbers, Gannett’s Washington correspondent called on — guess who — Vermont’s Pundit Laureate Eric Davis. He said that a lot of liberal money in Vermont is going to Obama because Vermont “lacks competitive elections this year” while “I think (state residents) see it’s a close presidential race and they know (Obama) needs help from Vermont.”

Funny thing about that: Peter Shumlin’s raising truckloads of cash, which pokes a hole in the Pundit Laureate’s theory. Also, if he was quoted accurately, it’s too bad he overlooked the races for Auditor and Treasurer, which appear to be very competitive. (We really don’t know, because there hasn’t been any recent polling.)  

Y’know, for this entire campaign cycle, conventional wisdom has told us that Republicans would be far more motivated and enthusiastic than Democrats, and that Obama would have trouble getting his base to give money and show up at the polls. In Vermont, at least, he’s got absolutely nothing to worry about. And remember, all these numbers were tabulated before Mitt’s infamous “47%” video came out. That’s when the bottom fell out from under Willard’s campaign.  

When a political campaign is one-sided, there’s a tendency among political journalists to try to make it seem closer than it is. For one thing, it looks unsporting to dump on an obvious loser, and the loser’s party is very likely to accuse you of bias. For another, it can hurt your audience’s interest in your product if the race is, for all practical purposes, over.

So I can understand the impulses that led Paul Heintz, intrepid Seven Days political reporter, to shade things the Republicans’ way in his Friday appearance on VPR’s Vermont Edition. This sort of thing happens a lot.

It’s still not right, but it happens.

And it certainly didn’t do Paul any favors that the interview questions were carefully curated to avoid any appearance of bias — even at the cost of accurately reporting the state of the campaign. Paul was interviewed, if that’s the word for it, by VPR’s Bob Kinzel, who always sounds like he’s reading copy rather than having a conversation. A bit stilted, his delivery is.

The topics were the campaigns for Governor and Treasurer. And if you entered the interview with no previous knowledge, you’d come out of it thinking that Randy Brock can still make a comeback and upset Governor Shumlin, and that Wendy Wilton is a serious threat to unseat Beth Pearce. And you would be lacking some crucial information about Campaign 2012.

After the jump: a somewhat obsessive deconstruction of the interview in question.

A discussion of the most recent gubernatorial debate (on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show) segued into an exchange on the health care issue. There, Heintz fell back on a journalist’s favorite crutch: the false equivalency: “Both candidates are appealing to fear,” he said.

Well, yeah, but Shumlih has “appealed to fear” on one single issue — community rating — while Brock’s health care campaign has been nonstop fearmongering from day one. So I suppose you can say that both sides are doing it, but it’s kind of like having one guy take a penny from a convenience store’s penny dish and a second guy robbing the cashier and saying they both took money from the store.

There followed a series of questions in which Kinzel brought up issues that Brock might use against Shumlin. The unstated truth behind these queries: Brock is trailing badly and needs something — anything — to put a dent in Shumlin’s armor. And then Kinzel asked Heintz:

Let’s say you’re Brock’s campaign manager. Looking at the race right now, what does Randy Brock have to do in the net 5 1/2 weeks to make this a closer race?

Again, the unstated assumption is that Brock’s campaign has been a failure so far. They can assume it, but they’re sure as hell afraid to say it. Heintz’ response:

I think maybe two things. First, I think that he’s really got to put a lot of money into television advertising.

Uh, problem. Brock’s fundraising has been so dismal that he cannot possibly “put a lot of money into television advertising.” He has very little money, especially compared to Shumlin’s massive warchest. This is the single biggest reason why the gubernatorial campaign is effectively over; Brock lacks the resources to stage the kind of ad blitz he needs. That fact goes conveniently unmentioned.

Heintz’ second point:

What he also needs is a more clear message. He seems to be vacillating between a couple of them. One is the philosophical idea that the Shumlin Administration thinks they know better than we do, and he tries to apply this to the utility merger, to wind, to health care, to many things like that. But it’s not an argument you can get into in a sound bite. He’s also worked on an economic message, saying that things just aren’t so good in Vermont right now. It’s a bad place to do business, a bad place to retire, our kids are moving out. And I’m not sure that that message is really resonating either. It provides an opportunity for Shumlin to turn around and be a real optimist.

Sort of true, but missing the real point. Brock has tried a variety of issues — remember the tie-dyed bear? — and none of them has worked. He’s been throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks. But the problem isn’t the lack of clarity; it’s the utter lack of effectiveness. The latter is the cause of the former.

It would also have been nice to note that late September is way too late to be reinventing a campaign or testing out a new theme. But then, we can’t possibly say out loud that Randy Brock is a dead man walking.  

Then it was on to the Treasurer’s race which, according to Kinzel, “seems to be very competitive.” He didn’t offer any evidence for that assertion. Heintz’ take:

This is an interesting one…. The incumbent is actually less politically experienced than the challenger. Wendy Wilton has run for office a number of times, and she is more comfortable with retail politicking than Beth Pierce is.

Ah, The Pol and The Wonk, a storyline borrowed from the Auditor’s race. I would point out that while Wilton has, in fact, run for office a number of times, she has a mixed track record. She served one term in the State Senate and got bounced in her bid for re-election. She then settled into the elective but very low-profile Treasurer’s office in Rutland. Not exactly a sterling resume. And Pearce, although a rookie pol, has certainly held her own in organizing and fundraising. More Heintz:

My feeling about this race is that the Democratic Party thought that this was not going to be a really tough race.  I think their strategy was to keep a low profile throughout the campaign season and expect that if President Obama and Governor Shumlin end up doing quite well in November, that Beth Pearce will benefit from their coattails.

A couple of points. First, I disagree with the assertion that the Dems thought they could sleepwalk through this race. Pearce and the Democratic Party certainly kicked into high gear on fundraising; she’s second only to Governor Shumlin in campaign fundraising among candidates for state office.

Second, this is Heintz’ one and only mention of the coattail effect, and it’s woefully incomplete. The Dems will also benefit from the presence of Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch on the ballot, facing little-known and underfunded Republican challengers. The coattail effect will certainly be strong; it may, in fact, be the dominant factor in the outcome of the election. Back to Heintz:

I think that dynamic has changed in recent weeks, and the reason for that is that this conservative superPAC called Vermonters First has invested heavily in supporting Wendy Wilton’s campaign. And in so doing, I think that they’re tipping the scale a little bit in a race in which most voters don’t really know either candidate.

He certainly has a point there — although, again, he cites no evidence for his impression. But it’s a funny thing; in the Treasurer’s race, he makes a very big deal about the influx of superPAC money changing the dynamic, whereas in the gubernatorial race, the influence of Shumlin’s 4:1 cash advantage goes unmentioned amid a flurry of talk about tactics and issues. So the question: Does money play a big role (Treasurer) or a minimal one (Governor)?

*Also unmentioned: the implications of Vermonters First’s failure to put one single dime behind Brock. Which I can only interpret as a tacit acknowledgment that Randy Brock is beyond help. Otherwise, wouldn’t they rather influence the race for Governor rather than Treasurer?

All in all, it was an inoffensive way to fill ten minutes of airtime. But if the purpose was to inform listeners, it was pretty much a dull failure. Blandness, inoffensiveness, false equivalency, and ignoring the elephant (ahem) in the room: the fact that the VTGOP is  poised for an epic FAIL.

But I guess objective journalists can’t say so, even if it’s the truth.  

Here at GMD, we tend to focus on the bad stuff — poor decisions, controversies, the missteps and foibles of the high and mighty. But it’s also good to take note when things go well. Those of the liberal persuasion believe that government can be effective in solving problems and providing a countermeasure to the jagged edges and wretched excesses of the free-market system. When government actually does those things, it does more for the cause than a year’s worth of GMD snark.  

And this week, we have two prime examples: a crisis averted at the Vermont Veterans Home, and a huge development project that could lift the Northeast Kingdom out of its seemingly-endless doldrums.

First, and the lesser of the two: addressing troubles at the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington, thus ensuring Medicare and Medicaid funding. The Home had faced a September 28 deadline — hey, that’s today! — for cutoff of federal funding. Which would have blown a huge hole in the Home’s budget.

And it would have been a big political black eye for the Shumlin team, right in the middle of a campaign.  

But things got busy behind the scenes, and the Home passed a last-minute inspection. Through the combined efforts of the Home’s staff and administration, the state government, and our Congressional delegation, the crisis was averted two days before the deadline. Make that crises: the governmental, and the political. Board of Trustees President Joseph Crawczyk Jr.:

“I mean, you talk about jubilation. The patients are going crazy. They were our biggest cheerleaders during this whole thing, our resident veterans. They didn’t understand what was going on, why it was going on. They didn’t believe what they heard. I’ll tell you, this is there family and they know it.”

Good government, good politics.

The second, and bigger, is the massive development project in the Northeast Kingdom.  Say what you will about massive developments, but the NEK needs this desperately. A half-billion-dollar investment, a top end of 10,000 new jobs? Seems like a miracle. What it is, is the creative use of government power. VTDigger:

Ninety-five percent of the money will come from the EB-5 Visa program, which enables foreign nationals to invest $500,000 in “targeted employments areas” in exchange for a two-year green card. Each investment must result in 10 jobs.

There’s a slightly greasy feel to the EB-5 program, which allows wealthy foreigners to jump the queue for green cards. But in this case, it’s hard to argue with the results: a massive infusion of growth into our most downtrodden region. Since 95% of the investment capital is coming through EB-5, it seems safe to say that this project would not have happened without the federal program. Lead developer Bill Stenger heaped praise on Sen. Patrick Leahy, who worked hard to win an extension of EB-5.

It’s a wonderful example of the power of government creating opportunity where the free market had failed to deliver. And it’s exactly the kind of thing that can convince working-class conservative voters that, yeah, maybe government can make a positive difference in their lives.

I’ll close with an odd little passage from yesterday’s announcement of the project. The only cautionary note was sounded by the guy you’d think would be the biggest cheerleader: the “King of the Kingdom,” Vince Illuzzi. Freeploid:

He said he had an inkling of what would be said, but had no idea of the scale. Illuzzi admitted to some trepidation.

“Having served in this area for 32 years, we’ve always tried to attract investment income, but I have to admit it’s a bit scary to have $500 million flowing into two counties, and all this construction,” he said. “It almost feels a little overwhelming. Can the area absorb that much change?”

Weird. He ought to be doing cartwheels. Well, maybe I’m just cynical, but do you know what I think? I think two things: First, he was a bit put off because he wasn’t let in on the project beforehand*. And second, Vince has been a big frog in a small pond for a long time, and he doesn’t really want to see the pond get bigger. Might attract more frogs, y’know?

*Political kudos to announcement organizers for not giving a Republican candidate for statewide office a turn in the spotlight. Must have been some interesting backstage moments before the big unveil. I can almost picture Vince banging on a locked door, begging to be let in.

VTDigger had a similar Vince quote with a really strange ending:

State Sen. Vince Illuzzi, R/D-Essex-Orleans, said he found the prospect of the developments “almost overwhelming and a bit scary to have all of this happening essentially at the same time, but it’s a window of opportunity, not only because of EB-5 but because the world economy has all but collapsed.” More investors, he said, are seeking a safe haven in North America.

Huh. i must have missed the total collapse of the world economy. Where does this guy get his financial news? And is this the kind of insight and deep thinking we want in our Auditor?

Illuzzi weirdness aside, yesterday was the best day the NEK has had in a long, longn time. And it was a government program that made it happen. And as I said at the top, effective government is the strongest evidence for the liberal cause.  

Most political candidates put out news releases that can safely be ignored. It’s the usual partisan push/pull, distortions of the opponent’s record and inflations of one’s own.

Doug Hoffer’s are different. There’s usually some substance, some real information, some lessons to be learned. So it’s disappointing when one of his releases is ignored by most of the Vermont political media. This morning, VTDigger finally gave it some coverage*, but nothing from the Freeploid, Vermont Press Bureau, Seven Days**, or VPR.

*But relegated it to the “News Briefs” section, while giving home-page treatment to Wendy Wilton’s baseless bleat about overtime in the Treasurer’s office.

** Well, Paul Heintz sorta-kinda covered it in his politics blog, but in a minimal and rather weird way. More below.

So we’ll shine our little flashlight on it here.

On Tuesday, he put out a bulletin saying that under Tom Salmon, the cost of performance audits has skyrocketed, averaging $158,000 per audit over the last three fiscal years. The methodology was simple enough: Salmon’s office spent $2.4 million for performance auditing, and released 15 performance reports. Divide $2.4 million by 15, you get $158K per. Hoffer’s comment:

Having read the reports and produced similar work on my own in the past, these costs are excessive and raise questions about the management of the Auditor’s budget and staff resources. Vermonters can be assured that as Auditor, I will make certain that we get the most for every dollar of taxpayer money. … The cost of reviewing state programs seems to have gone off the rails.

After the jump: Petulance from Salmon, irrelevance from Illuzzi.

When contacted by VTDigger, Salmon got all pissy. He called it a “classic, not fully informed, Hoffer cheap shot.” He called Hoffer’s figure “not factually correct,” and blasted Hoffer’s “negative” and “sensationalist” campaign tactics. And he said it was “misleading” to calculate an average cost because each audit is a different animal.

Gee, here I thought Doug Hoffer was a dry, dispassionate “numbers guy” who, if anything, is too wonky to be a politician. In other words, Salmon’s rant couldn’t be farther off the mark. And if he really had any political smarts, he’d know that this kind of attack just isn’t going to stick to Doug. In order for an attack to work, it has to align with a person’s perceived shortcomings — like calling Mitt Romney out of touch and uncaring.

And although Salmon claims to be a “numbers guy” himself, VTDigger noted that “Salmon… couldn’t, however, provide concrete figures to back up his assertions.” Furthermore, VTDigger reported,

Salmon estimated that his office had prevented over $6 million in wrongful payments through their performance audits, though they didn’t track the individual savings per audit.

Whaaaa??? Why the hell not? If you don’t track the results, how do you know whether the audit had any lasting impact?

In an e-mail to GMD, Hoffer noted that he asked the Auditor’s office for cost figures on each individual audit, but that Salmon failed to provide that information. GIven the puny results of Salmon’s most recent audit, he might be reluctant to reveal precise figures because they’d be too embarrassing.

Digger contacted Republican candidate Vince Illuzzi for comment:

You can’t sit back and criticize the professional staff at the auditor’s office until you know the size and scope of the performance audit, and what findings came from it.

Ah. Exactly the information that Hoffer sought and that Salmon failed to provide.

Illuzzi also added some soothing words from his own vast experience:

Based on his view from the Senate’s appropriations committee, which oversees the auditor’s office, said Illuzzi, Salmon had admirably managed his office’s performance audits over the last few years.

Hoffer’s response, e-mailed to GMD: :

My intent was not to annoy Mr. Salmon but to demonstrate (again) that I’m willing and able to ask the tough questions about state government including the office I hope to run. In contrast, my opponent assumed everything is fine instead of digging into the facts. He just blindly supported Tom without bothering to even consider the information I presented.

In other words, Illuzzi’s reaction encapsulates the weaknesses he would bring to the job: a lifelong insider’s go-along-to-get-along attitude that everything’s hunky-dory and we’ve always done it this way and please don’t look at the lumps under the rug. Exactly what you DON’T want in an Auditor.

Finally, a rare note of criticism for Paul Heintz. In “Off Message,” the 7D politics blog, he dumped a whole bunch of miscellaneous stuff into a single post. Y’know, clearing out the old inbox. In one paragraph, Heintz took note of Hoffer’s news release, and then concluded with “Alas, nobody picked up the story.” (That was before the VTDigger article was posted.)

Well, geez, Paul. Where do you get off saying that? After all, you yourself are one of the “nobodies” who failed tp pick up the story. Don’t go all Captain Renault on us.  

Looks like Senate President Pro Tem John “H.A.” Campbell is at it again, establishing a purity test for Senatorial candidates and giving David Zuckerman a failing grade.  Deep down in Paul Heintz’ Fair Game column:

Fair Game has learned that the political action committee run by Senate Democrats will support the five other nominated Dems competing for six seats in the state’s most populous Senate district – but not Zuckerman.

Though he wouldn’t specifically address how the PAC would spend its resources, Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell said Zuckerman’s choice to run as a “Progressive/Democrat” – not the other way around – makes him ineligible for financial support.

Oh, good grief. Zuckerman’s grievous offense was that he failed to put “Democrat” first? If he simply reversed the order, he’d qualify for your money pot? Yeah, that’s not at all petty, small-minded, or spiteful. Zuckerman was one of the winners of the DEMOCRATIC primary. Democrats in Chittenden County saw fit to choose him from a crowded field in spite of his  stated intent to run as a P/D, not a D/P.

But H.A. has another rationale for his move:  

…because incumbent Republican Sen. Diane Snelling would likely hold on to one of the county’s six seats, supporting Zuckerman “would be to the detriment” of the five full-fledged Dems in the race.

Now, there’s a real stalwart for you, presuming that one of his party’s nominees is fated to lose. Nice.

Considering how much trouble Campbell seemed to have with the last biennium’s rookie class, I suspect that his real interest is in protecting veteran Senators. Even if they’re Republicans. The last thing he needs is another bomb-tosser like Phil Baruth gumming up the works. Or perhaps even — gasp! — agitating for a change in Senate leadership.

Zuckerman’s response to Heintz was nicely balanced: diplomatic, while still making his point:

“I earned the support of 7200 Democratic primary voters having been clear I was going to run as a Progressive/Democrat,” he says. “I think voters, in general, are tired of the little bickering and were supporting me because I was willing to run with both parties and get down there to work on serious issues.”

Count me as one of those voters tired of the little bickering.