I’ve rarely felt so prophetic. And rarely have I felt so disappointed to be proven so prescient.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when I predicted that the journalistic narrative in the State Auditor’s race would be boiled down to “The Pol and the Wonk”? Grizzled political vet Vince Illuzzi versus the ivory-towered numbers guy Doug Hoffer?

Well, take it away, VTDigger.

State auditor’s race: Policy wonk vs. politician

Dead on. The bulk of the article consists of a lengthy exposition of the stereotype. Illuzzi’s out pressing the flesh, Hoffer is uncomfortable in public and hasn’t spent much time on the hustings. You can almost imagine him reaching for a bottle of Purell after every handshake.

Then, in paragraph 19, the story FINALLY mentions Hoffer’s very lengthy list of public campaign appearances all over the state. Which nicely undercuts the entire thrust of the article. And which can be seen here.

And in the next paragraph, Dem chair Jake Perkinson explains that Hoffer’s perceived lack of visibility might have more to do with his very low campaign budget rather than any aversion to contact with the Great Unwashed.

(And Jake, since you’ve noticed that Doug’s a little short on funds, why not do something about it? Throw a few of Governor Shumlin’s million bucks his way? Or talk to a few donors, tell them Shummy’s got all the money he needs, and urge them to write a check to Hoffer for Auditor?)

Finally, in paragraph 22, Perkinson raises the issue that perhaps Hoffer’s skills are more relevant to the position than are Illuzzi’s. Of course, most readers never make it that deep into an article. So congrats, VTDigger, for doing your bit to cement a stereotype! Now, can I sue you for headline plagiarism?

When last we saw “Angry Jack” Lindley, the VTGOP chair was getting all hysterical over the destruction of a single “Brock for Governor” yard sign, laying the blame on Governor Shumlin’s culture of arrogance or something like that. You know, the Guv snaps his fingers and one of those Vermonters mired in his Culture of Dependency runs out and rips up a yard sign. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Anyway, turns out Jack isn’t just about Teh Crazy; he’s also making a real effort to reach out and make new friends. 14,000 new friends.

(Hat tip to the Vermont Press Bureau for this item, which ran in the Sunday Times Argus, and is not available anywhere online as far as I can tell. For the benefit of those who aren’t print subscribers, I wanted to make sure this item got some exposure.)

Last Spring, AARP launched a petition drive over the GMP/CVPS merger — specifically, its plan to plow $21 million into a weatherization fund rather than returning the money to ratepayers, as had been promised ten years ago when CVPS got a $21 million bailout. AARP asked its members to send postcards to the Public Service Board, urging rejection of the plan. A total of 14,000 postcards were sent.

And now for the unintended consequences.

GOP Chairman Jack Lindley issued a public records request earlier this year seeking access to the more than 14,000 postcards…

… Lindley was granted access to the postcards, and he believes the names and addresses on them will chart a path to GOP victories this fall.

… A team of GOP volunteers has been scanning the postcards with a gadget that renders the relevant information into a digital database.

“Once we have that information, it’s just a matter of reaching out to those voters, letting them know we’re here, and we need them in November,” he said.

There you go. If you sent one of those PSB postcards, congratulations — you’re on the VTGOP’s mailing list!

At first glance, it struck me as a nice little tactical maneuver on Angry Jack’s part. On second thought, I’m not so sure. How many of those 14,000 are going to be happy to get Republican agitprop in their mailboxes, or robocalls on their home phones, or e-mails in their inboxes? And how many of those 14,000 are going to be convinced that the VTGOP is pro-Everyman and anti-corporation? Their overall record doesn’t exactly put them in the Occupy camp, and their opposition to the $21 million proposal was a transparent case of political opportunism rather than adherence to principle; you know that if the same deal was proposed under a Republican administration, the Governor wouldn’t hesitate to sign off on it..The Republicans only pounced on the issue after AARP’s campaign attracted so much attention.

There’s also an ethical question, IMO. When citizens have made an attempt to contact their government on an issue of concern, should they be forced to effectively volunteer themselves for political harvesting? Lindley is technically correct: communications with the PSB are public records. But do we want this to become standard practice?  

You’ve heard about Mitt Romney’s “sedret” speech to a crowd of high rollers, in which he dissed the working poor and seniors as well as anyone else who’s struggling in this country? Well, I just came across this chart at Balloon Juice, and couldn’t help but share.

In case you can’t read the tiny print, the “red” states are the top 10 for highest percentage of people who don’t pay any federal income tax.

Oh yeah, those dirty rotten no-good freeloaders with their sense of entitlement and dependency on the federal government… IN THE DEEP SOUTH. Yeah, I bet Obama’s gonna clean up down there.

Oh, the irony.  

Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty of so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them… This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth.

                                                 — Miguel de Cervantes

A full three weeks after the actual vote, the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary is over. (Except, perhaps, in the fevered conspiracy dreams of anti-wind dead-enders.) Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent* has accepted the final result of the recount: Prog Party chair Martha Abbott 381, write-in Annette Smith 340. The judge said Smith and her allies pointed out a small number of possible irregularities, but none were sufficient to change the outcome.

*Aha! See! Even his name reeks of corruption!



But Smith who, until yesterday, portrayed herself as a reluctant candidate — or maybe not a candidate at all — now plans to continue the race as a write-in. That won’t get her a seat at the gubernatorial debates, except for the Kabuki theater event on October 11 where she and Randy Brock will debate an empty chair. Shades of Clint Eastwood!

In (finally, belatedly) declaring her candidacy, Smith said “If there’s a popular uprising out there, I want to give people a chance to express it.” Sorry to be a cynic, but 340 write-in votes does not constitute a “popular uprising.” She risks throwing cold water on her own movement, should she come out of the November ballot with a small number of votes.

(Actually, she’s probably safe there; elections officials usually don’t even count write-in votes unless they might materially affect the outcome of the race in question. There’s no point, and it’s just a waste of public resources.)

After the jump: a miscount, and a call for moving the primary.

The big change in the final result, by the way, was due to a counting error in the state elections office. As officials rushed to tabulate the write-in votes, one worker mistakenly typed in “58” instead of “5” as Smith’s total in Westfield. State elections director Kathy Scheele dubbed it a consequence of Vermont’s late-August primary, which left her with an extremely tight timeline to meet federal ballot mandates. As a result, her employees put in very long hours.

Scheele also noted that since Westfield borders on Lowell, she thought it plausible that Smith could have actually gotten 58 votes in the town. (One might wonder why Smith supporters, who very carefully reviewed all the tallies for any sign of error, overlooked this one. Methinks they were only looking for mistakes that benefited Smith.)

Because of this whole mess, and because of extremely close votes in 2008 (Salmon/Brock Auditor) and 2010 (the five-way Dem primary for Governor), Scheele and Secretary of State Jim Condos are now calling on the Legislature to move Vermont’s state primary back to May or June. That would give elections officials plenty of time to deal with any eventuality, and it would move the vote out of summer-vacation season.

It would also pound the final nail in the coffin of our traditional conceit that campaign season doesn’t begin until the Legislature adjourns. Which is nonsense, but we do love our traditional conceits, so it’ll be interesting to see if the Legislature takes up the issue. Considering its recent inattention to election and campaign-finance reform, I’m not holding my breath.  

Sometimes those Sunday morning talk shows aren’t all boring.

Take, for instance, the 9/16 edition of WCAX’s “You Can Quote Me,” in which Vince Illuzzi, Republican candidate for Auditor, said that if he wins, he might just hold on to his other job — Essex County State’s Attorney — for a while.

How long? He wouldn’t say. He did say he asked the Secretary of State’s office for an opinion on holding both positions, and was told that it was legal. And he made reference to his term as SA expiring in 2014, so he’s at least pondering a full two years as both Auditor and SA.

This was brought to our attention via news release from Illuzzi’s Dem/Prog opponent, Doug Hoffer, who commented:

The Auditor’s office has a dozen employees, a budget of $4 million per year, and a list of issues to tackle that is extensive. It is disturbing to hear that Vince thinks the State Auditor’s job is a part-time position.

I didn’t depend on Hoffer’s word; I went back and watched the video myself. And after the jump, I’ll provide my (unofficial but as accurate as I could be) transcript of the key exchange, which begins around the 22-minute mark in the half-hour program.  

Host Gretchen Carlson noted that he holds the position of State’s Attorney, and asked if he would continue to hold it if elected Auditor.

I asked the Secretary of State’s office to look into it, and the statute does allow you to hold both positions. Whether I hold it or not is another question. I think there has to be some transition period.

One of the things I don’t want to happen is to have the office essentially closed and merged with another county.

He then quickly pivots to one of his talking points:

But speaking of the State’s Attorney’s office, one of the issues that has come to my attention in serving as State’s Attorney is that law enforcement agencies, by and large, are not equipped to handle fraud complaints.

Carlson interrupts: “Before we move on to that, I just didn’t quite hear an answer. So if you’re elected, would you hold two jobs?”

I think I would for a time period until I transition out of that position. It’s a four-year term; it doesn’t expire until 2014.

Carlson, who deserves full credit for trying to corner Illuzzi, asked: “So how long would you…?”

It depends on the decision — there would have to be discussion with the Governor, with the Executive Branch folks who administer that department.

He then swerved back to his talking point about local police and fraud cases.

It’s a half-hour show and time was running short, so I don’t blame Carlson for not continuing the chase. But a lot of questions are left unanswered here, and I hope someone holds Illuzzi’s feet to the fire on this.

First of all, it’s very revealing that Illuzzi made his inquiry with the Secretary of State. Clearly, he wanted to know if he could hold onto both jobs.

Corollary: It’s an unusual enough notion that he needed to get official clarification. Which kind of belies his whole point about “transition.” Isn’t there a built-in transition period after Election Day and before the new Auditor takes office? Does he really see himself as so indispensable to the people of Essex County that another attorney* couldn’t take over as interim SA?

*Perhaps an attorney who doesn’t have multiple ethics charges on his legal record?

Next, what’s with this “apres moi, le deluge” stuff? Is there talk of closing the SA office in Essex County? Maybe there is, I don’t know. But does he really think that he, and only he, can save the office by continuing to occupy it, like those Catholics in Boston who’ve been continuously occupying a church slated for closure? Bit of a messiah complex there, Vince?

Then, as I noted above, he notes that his term expires in 2014, which says to me that he’s at least thinking about serving out his term. Which would coincide with the entirety of the Auditor’s next term.

And finally, I have no idea what he’s talking about with the “discussion with the Governor, with the Executive Branch folks who administer that department.” What department? And why the Governor? Isn’t this a matter for the Auditor to decide, based on his/her sense of duty to the office and to the people of Vermont?

Illuzzi should have had this figured out before now, and should be able to give a clear, forthright answer to the question. And the answer clearly ought to be, “If I am elected, I will step down as State’s Attorney the day I am sworn in as Auditor.”

See, it’s simple, really.

Okay, all the mid-September campaign finance reports are in. Aside from the numbers I reported earlier, here are the top stories:

Peter Shumlin leaves Randy Brock even further in his wake — and tops the $1,000,000 mark in total fundraising. The Governor enters the homestretch of the campaign with a nearly 4-to-1 edge in cash on hand.

Beth Pearce widened her financial lead over Wendy Wilton. And Wilton — a bit embarrassingly for a would-be State Treasurer — had to file a few corrections to her mid-August report.

Cassandra Gekas had a mediocre fundraising performance, leaving her at a huge disadvantage against Phil Scott.

Vince Illuzzi didn’t have a terrific total, and spent a lot more than he raised; but he still holds the money lead over Doug Hoffer.

As for Jim Condos… well, it’s his world, and we’re all just livin’ in it.

Deets after the jump.  

Governor. Another great month for Shumlin. He raised better than $160,000, bringing his to-date contributions total to just over $1,000,000. (That figure includes in-kind donations; it’s pretty obvious the Shumlin camp really wanted to get into seven figures. Just another way to say, “Give it up, Randy.”) His report included a cover sheet trumpeting that million-dollar figure and his very impressive $893,267.58 in cash on hand. He spent a bit less than $35,000 in the past month, and has spent a total of $127, 723 in the campaign.

As for Brock, he had his best month to date, but nowhere near Shumlin’s. Brock reported contributions of $62,420. His overall total — including a $300,000 loan to his own campaign — is at $644,270. And Brock continues to spend at a rapid clip; expenditures of $61,000 in the past month, and $408,000 for the campaign. If not for his own loan, his campaign would be in the red. As it stands, by my unofficial calculation, he has about $236,000 in cash on hand.

Brock wrote plenty of handsome checks to his out-of-state consultants, and a couple more big ones to his best bud, Darcie Johnston. She glommed another $14,000 in the past month, bringing her campaign total to almost $80,000 by my count. In about a half a year. She’s clearly the big winner in this Titanicampaign.

Lieutenant Governor. A couple months ago, when she was turning in an underwhelming finance report, Cassandra Gekas said her campaign had received pledges for quite a bit of money. Well, a lot of those pledges must still be unredeemed. Gekas had her best month, but that’s not saying much; she took in just under $11,000. Her total fundraising is at $23,000, and she’s already spent $16,000.

Incumbent Phil Scott, meanwhile, took in more than $33,000 this month, bringing his total fundraising to $86,000. He spent a lot of money in the past month — $43,000, including nearly $20,000 in TV time on WCAX and WPTZ. (The vast majority on WCAX.) He also bought a buttload of yard signs. In spite of this splurge, Racer Phil still has a 3-to-1 edge in cash-on-hand;

Attorney General. Sad to report, the Secretary of State shorted me. I didn’t get a copy of Bill Sorrell’s filling, and I didn’t notice until after hours. (I’d file a complaint, but it is Jim Condos’ world after all, and I’m just a squatter.) Jack McMullen, as I reported earlier, took in about $22,000 — almost all of it from a handful of out-of-state donors.  He raised a measly $342.50 from actual Vermonters.

Auditor. Doug Hoffer, as I reported previously, continued his slow fundraising pace. Vince Illuzzi, meanwhile, didn’t have the best of months, but still did better than Hoffer. He took in $8,350 in the past month, bringing his total to just under $60,000. He’s spent about $25,000, so he still has a decent amount of cash-on-hand. (He’s also getting a nice bump from Vermonters First, of course.)

One little tidbit from his list of donors: Peter Galbraith, your Democratic Senator from Windham County, gave ol’ Vince a thousand bucks.

Treasurer. Incumbent Beth Pearce had a good month, raising $36,400, which brings her to-date total to $130,000. Take away expenses of $68,000, and you still have a nifty $62,000 in cash on hand. Challenger Wendy Wilton fell farther behind in fundraising; she took in $15,000 this time around, bringing her to-date total to $49,000. Take out expenditures, and she is left with about $18,000 in cash on hand. That gives Pearce an estimated 3.5-to-1 edge. (Wilton is also getting a hand from Vermonters First’s current ad buy.)

Oh, and as I mentioned at the top, Wilton filed three corrections to her mid-August report. The total money involved is only a few hundred bucks, no big deal — but it’s a trifle embarrassing for the rough, tough financial enforcer Wilton claims to be. One expense of $50.00 was mistakenly entered as $500.00, an explanation of an in-kind donation was omitted, and the totals for “Contributions over $100” and “Contributions of $100 or less” were off by $100 each.

Also, I reported earlier that Vermonters First raised a total of $100,000 from a single donor, Lenore Broughton. Its liberal counterpart, Priorities PAC, also had one single donation — for “only” $10,000 — from Lisa Steele of Shelburne. Priorities PAC hasn’t spent any money so far.

There you go. Sorry about the Sorrell goof.  

The most eagerly-awaited campaign finance report of the month is in. The newly-minted conservative superPac, Vermonters First, made a big splash with an ad buy of at least $70,000 in support of Wendy Wilton and Vince Illuzzi. Today’s when we found out how big of a bankroll VF managed to put together, and where the money came from.

The answer: $100,000. From a single donor.

Give Tayt Brooks credit, I suppose: his donor is, in fact, a Vermonter. Lenore  Broughton of Burlington who, according to Paul Heintz at Seven Days, is a regular bankroller of far-right candidates like Michele Bachmann and Allen West, and is the moneybags behind True North Reports, the laughable free-market website.

Broughton donated $100,000 in cash to VF, and is also credited for “in-kind” contributions of $34,500 for “research and consulting.”

So. No big influx of national conservative money. And, since Vermonters First lists an expenditure of $98,200 on a media buy, it basically has no more cash on hand. Which also means Randy Brock shouldn’t expect a big ad buy on his behalf.  

Unless Lenore writes another big fat check.  

Big day at the Secretary of State’s office. Today’s the deadline for filing another round of campaign finance reports; there’s only one more pre-election deadline after this one.

It’s early afternoon as I write this, and only a few reports have come in, mostly not terribly interesting. Jim Condos, the extremely unopposed Dem/Repub/Prog/Families First/Prohibition/Whig/Etc, sleepwalked his way to a total of just under $5,000 in funds raised for the past month. Jack “Six Teats” “Not Quite a Lawyer” McMullen apparently failed to include a summary sheet with his filing, but I came up with a quick total of roughly $22,000 — almost all of it in big donations from out-of-staters. He raised a total of $342.50 from Vermonters. Wowee.

22K is a respectable total by Six Teats’ standards, but I doubt it will help him much.

Incumbent Treasurer Beth Pearce hadn’t officially filed yet, but her campaign issued a news release announcing a very nice total of $37,000 for the month, bringing her overall total to nearly $133,000, far more than challenger Wendy Wilton had raised — and a very noteworthy total for a first-time candidate.

Then there’s Doug Hoffer, the only other candidate to file as of 2:00 p.m. Not a great month for Doug.  

He raised $5,630, bringing his campaign-to-date total to $32,665. Vince Illuzzi had more than that a month ago, plus he’s got some PAC money from Vermonters First buying ads on his behalf. Doug barely managed to outraise Jim Condos, who (did I mention?) is running unopposed this year.

Doug’s total includes $2,000 from “Friends of Bernie Sanders and $1,000 from Green Mountain PAC. That accounts for more than half his total. He also loaned his own campaign $10,000, not included in the fundraising total.

The contrast with Beth Pearce is striking. Pearce is a first-time candidate, Hoffer assumed the tough chore of challenging Tom Salmon two years ago. Both clearly have the chops for the respective jobs they seek. So, why the hell is Hoffer doing so poorly in fundraising?

(To clarify, I’ve got nothing against Beth Pearce. I salute her fundraising prowess, and hope she wins her race. My wonder, and growing ire, is aimed at all the people who aren’t supporting Doug Hoffer.)

I’ll have more to say about this in the near future. For now, I’ll just say it stinks. And if a Democrat can give me a coherent reason for the obvoius lack of love for Hoffer, I’d really like to hear it.

More later today on the rest of the campaign finance reports.  

In case you were thinking that Republican rabidity was limited to the likes of H. Brooke Paige, allow me to turn your attention to the latest eruption from “Angry Jack” Lindley, chair of the hapless and hopeless Vermont Republican Party.

In an e-mail to VTGOP supporters, Jack went all Captain Queeg over a single damaged “Brock for Governor” yard sign. I repeat: One… Yard… Sign. As reported by Paul Heintz at Seven Days, he laid blame for the dastardly deed squarely at the feet of our Governor.

“In so many ways what you see is symbolic of what is wrong in Vermont. And wrong about Governor Shumlin,” he wrote. “The arrogance of power. His ‘my way or the highway’ mentality; his arrogant refusal to listen to the ideas of others; his refusal to debate Randy Brock.”

Err, Jack, he didn’t refuse to debate Randy Brock; in fact, as you might recall, he’s already done it once. But when you’re in the throes of Republican Conspiracy Fever, you have no time for subtleties. Indeed, when Angry Jack was reached for comment, he took the accusation even further:

“I don’t know if this is something being put on by the Democrat party or what it is,” he said. “Obviously the command and control is the guy running for governor. And his staff and his reelection campaign. I’m really disappointed in them.”

I can just see it now: Peter Shumlin ordering one of his lackeys to drive out to wherever this single lawn sign was posted, and rip it down the middle. (Probably a union employee working on the taxpayer’s dime.)

The wrecking of one single sign was a masterful touch on Shumlin’s part — just enough to send Lindley into a foaming rage, but too subtle for anyone else to discern the Democratic — er I mean “Democrat” — plot.  

But wait — Jack’s not finished yet. From his e-mail:

“This is how someone chose to show their respect for Randy Brock, an African-American Vietnam veteran who earned a Bronze Star, a self-made businessman who rose from blue color [sic] roots and a man who served as Vice-Chairman of the United States Military Academy at West Point.”

Yeah, pull out all the cards. Race, yep; self-made “blue color” (ahem) businessman, yep; military veteran, yep. Oh, the perfidy of Vermont Democrats! And Angry Jack is the only one who sees through the fog of Democratic — er, “Democrat” — lies. And Angry Jack will not rest until he finds out who stole his strawberr — that is, damaged a single yard sign.

Good grief.  

The recount is done! The numbers in the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary have all been retabulated by Vermont’s 14 county clerks. They’ve been sent to the Washington County Clerk’s office.

So now we find out who won, right?   ……well, no.

Not until next week. Maybe Monday, and Tuesday for sure. Almost.

As you may recall, the final official tally was Party Chair Martha Abbott 371, write-in Annette Smith 370. Smith then filed for a recount. Under state law, recounts are overseen by the court system, not the Secretary of State’s office. The fourteen county clerks do the recount and send the totals to the clerk in the county where the petition was filed — Washington County. She then adds up all the totals and submits the whole thing to a judge for approval.

And now you’re dealing with courtroom time. As it happens, the judge is working in another jurisdiction today. He’ll be in on Monday, but his docket is already pretty full. So a hearing on the Prog recount is set for Tuesday morning at 9. The judge will have all the information on his desk Monday morning, and may decide to expedite the matter; but he’s more likely to wait for the scheduled hearing.

Secretary of State Jim Condos says that, in his opinion, the unofficial results could be released right now. But the court system works in mysterious ways.  

Washington County Clerk Elizabeth Battey says she can release the figures for her county, but not the other 13. Apparently some reporters are calling around the state, trying to get all 14 county totals, so while we won’t get the Last Word until next week, we might get the Penultimate Word sometime sooner.

Seven Days’ Paul Heintz reports that “Annette Smith picked up 11 votes in Rutland County and somehow lost 51 votes in Orleans County. Seems the latter discrepancy stems from a transcription error coming out of Westfield.” If true, then Smith is at a distinct disadvantage.

We can only hope that this mess could generate some momentum for election reform. “We’ll go to the Legislature and say, ‘You’ve got to help us with this,” Condos told GMD. For him, there are two major areas in need of change:

— The timing of the primary. A late-August primary puts Vermont uncomfortably close to federal deadlines meant to ensure that overseas military personnel are given every opportunity to vote. Condos would really like to see an earlier date for future primaries.

— A system that’s “still old-fashioned and human-intensive,” according to Condos. Many communities are still counting votes by hand. There’s a multi-step process for reporting election results. Errors can be made at any step. A simpler process using widely-available technology could greatly reduce the chance of an error in counting or reporting. But hey, this is Vermont, and we don’t like to change stuff.

Stay tuned.