America’s Paper*, USA TODAY*, has just conducted an overhaul of itself and its website. “Big whoop,” you might say. “The only time I read that rag is when it’s slipped under my hotel-room door.” (Sad that you can slip a newspaper under a door these days, but let’s move on.) Well, you should care because USAT* is owned by Gannett, which also owns the Burlington Freeploid and 80 other local newspapers.  And because, according to Gannett Blog, an independent online journal produced by ex-USATer Jim Hopkins, the USAT* redesign is meant to be a template for every local Gannett newspaper.

*According to a Gannett news release, the newspaper in question should always be referred to as “USA TODAY,” never “USA Today” or “USAT.” They also want “USA” and “TODAY” to appear on the same line — don’t have “USA” at the end of a line and “TODAY” at the beginning of the next. Also, you can call it a “newspaper,” but don’t call it a “paper.” I’m proud of myself; I just violated three of their four rules of Brand Management in a single paragraph.

Hopkins writes that the redesign has been marshaled by Augusta Duffey, executive creative director for Gannett. She’s a creative designer by trade, but until her recent arrival at Gannett, she’d worked at advertising agencies most of her career. Which raises some ethical hackles among professional journalists concerned about a radical reshape of the paper and its content from a purely marketing point of view. As opposed to, say, a journalistic point of view.

And Duffey, according to her LinkedIn profile, is “driving redesign of all of Gannett’s digital and print platforms, including USA Today (sic) as well as 81 local newspapers and 23 broadcast channels.”

So the shiny new Freeploid is a little box on Gannett’s hillside, as identical as possible to all the other little boxes. And made of ticky-tacky by an advertising designer.

But that’s not all. Mr. Hopkins has more glad tidings for Vermont readers.  

The revamped USAT has been referred to as the paper’s first substantial reinvention in its 30-year history. But that’s not true; the paper’s inner workings were completely overhauled two years ago. It was supposed to reposition USAT as a viable player in the new-media environment. Part of the big redo was the “newsroom of tomorrow,” that would allow the paper to do more with less (there were about 130 layoffs at the time) and position it “for our next quarter century,” bragged then-Publisher Dave Hunke.

Since then, USAT revenues have continued to plummet, and most elements of the “newsroom of tomorrow” never came into being, or existed briefly and were then aborted. As for Hunke, he was kicked upstairs earlier this year, and just “retired” at the age of 60.

And this is the kind of genius that’s in charge of Vermont’s biggest newspaper. As Hopkins puts it:

Even if you don’t care about USAT, the paper’s new website and digital offerings are likely to serve as a template and proving ground for those 100 other community newspaper and TV sites that Gannett operates from coast to coast.

…Corporate has invested enormous resources in USAT’s technology in hopes that it can leverage that across the company. Its success or failure could push all those community sites ahead, or leave them further behind.

Those “enormous resources” are being poured into Gannett’s second attempt at reinventing USAT, and not into actual journalism, at a time when Gannett’s publishing arm is hurting for money. (Gannett’s TV properties, by contrast, are raking in record profits, as Paul Heintz reports. You tell me where corporate is going to spend most of its time and effort.)

And, just to shatter whatever faith you might have in the Freeploid’s corporate overlords, they are betting heavily on the Gannett-wide Sports Media Group, which is meant to aggregate all sports news from all Gannett properties into a wonderful new multi-platform sports news network that, Hopkins says, “would challenge heavyweights ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and Yahoo Sports.” You know, the established heavyweights with a multi-year head start on Gannett, well-established reader loyalty, and loads of attractive original content. Good luck with that.

This is a bad time to be running a newspaper anywhere under any circumstances. But when you add the relentless push for profits from a corporate owner, plus that owner’s track record of failure at meeting the challenges of today’s media environment, you have to conclude that there are many dark days in our Freeploid’s future.  

Our hard-drinkin’ State Auditor, Tom Salmon, CPA, CFE, ABS*, SOB**, DMW***, has put out another breathless news release announcing an expedition into the rat-infested gutters of government spending. This time, he compared — er, his staff compared — the Department of Human Services’ list of people eligible for assistance with the Social Security Administration’s list of deceased recipients.

*Alphabet Soup

** Self-explanatory

*** Dead Man Walking

Well, that sounds juicy. Probably found a boatload of literal deadbeats (sorry) collecting taxpayer funds from beyond the grave.

As you read his news release, you don’t immediately find out how much zombie teatsucking he uncovered. First, he goes through a lengthy explanation of state and federal record-keeping processes, and how his office conducted its audit.

Finally, in paragraph four, you get the money shot.

$10,600.

That’s ten thousand, six hundred dollars, spent on a total of 31 individuals listed as dead by Social Security. (“Spent on,” not necessarily “given to” — in a least two cases, money was sent to a health-care provider on behalf of a deceased patient for case-management fees.)

But wait, there’s more! According to Salmon’s own report, much of the money has already been recovered. He doesn’t say exactly how much, because it would further reduce the size of his already pathetic discovery.  

To quote Salmon’s report, “Vermont spends well over a billion dollars annually on human services programs.” It’s unclear exactly how much time his audit covers, but it refers to one case of a person who died in 2008. So it’s safe to conclude that multiple years of disbursements are included.

In which case, all I can say is: Damn fine job, Agency of Human Services! You handled billions of dollars in payments, and you only gave $10,600 to dead people. AND you got some of that money back!

That’s brilliant! It’s a record that any government agency — or private-sector business, for that matter — would be proud of.

And it explains why (1) Salmon buried the dollar figure deep in his news release, (2) he didn’t hold a news conference to trumpet the findings, and (3) the Vermont media haven’t reported his findings. At all.

I don’t know how much money ol’ Tom spent on this audit, but I bet it was a hell of a lot more than $10,600.

Oh, one other thing. The report includes a response from Doug Racine, Secretary of the Agency of Human Services. In it, Racine notes that the Social Security Administration’s death list isn’t always (ahem) the last word:

Overall, we are hesitant to rely on the SSA Deaths Master File (DMF) as an authoritative data source of deceased persons. According to the OIG*, “…there are about 1,000 cases each month in which a living individual is mistakenly included in the DMF…”

So it’s possible that some of those “dead” Vermont beneficiaries may, in fact, be alive.

I just can’t wait until this schmo clears out his office and moves on to one of those high-paying jobs he claims to have been offered. The taxpayers of Vermont will be able to breathe a sigh of relief when Tom Salmon can no longer engage in attention-seeking snipe hunts on the public dime.  

Old story: Legacy media’s finances caught in vicious circle, “new media” trying to fill the gap, but revenues (so far) don’t support a robust newsgathering effort.

But this is just sad. From Paul Heintz’ Fair Game:

Barre-Montpelier Times Argus reporter Keith Vance quit his job last month, citing low wages and the rising cost of daycare. But barely a week later, he was back on the beat, reporting for a new media source: his own hyper-local, online news organization called Voice of Montpelier.

“Financially, it made more sense for me to not work for the Times Argus anymore, stay home, watch my daughter during the day, freelance write and work for myself,” he says.

If you follow the musical-chairs game that is Vermont journalism, you know that turnover is constant. Young reporters come in, work for a few months to a couple of years, and when they’ve just about learned their beats, they move on to PR jobs in government, nonprofits, or the private sector. That’s bad enough, but to see a good young reporter decide that he can’t make ends meet on a full-time newspaper job — and that he may be financially better off taking a flyer on a website — just shows you how bad things really are.

I don’t know Keith; I like his writing, and I certainly wish him well in his new venture. This may be a good step for him, but it’s a very bad sign for the health of the news business. There’s already a substantial vacuum in coverage, and it’s going to keep getting worse unless someone figures out a way to make journalism pay in this new media environment.

Postscript: For those who don’t normally read the Comments, I urge you to read wdh3’s comment under this diary. He notes a central element of Keith’s dilemma: the cost of child care. Excellent point, and I’m glad he took the time to make it.

Well, I’ve just read Randy Brock’s “health care plan,” all five-plus pages of it. And now I understand why he released it the way he did: under the radar, with the least possible fanfare.

The plan is a disgrace. On many levels.

First, it’s riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. (Example: It refers to Vermont’s health care plan for children as “Dr. Dinosaur.” Er, Randy, that’s “Dr. Dynasaur.” I detect the fine hand of one of your expensive out-of-state consultants.) That’s inexcusable for a position paper on the biggest single issue in your campaign. Geez, Randy, you’d paid Darcie Johnston $64,000 as of August 15, but you can’t afford a proofreader?

Second, it’s loaded with vague proposals,  off-the-rack conservative rhetoric, and ad hominem attacks on Governor Shumlin’s plan.

Third, it’s got quite a few provisions that would actually increase the cost of health care and/or the size of government. Strange.  

Fourth, it’s not a coherent plan —  it’s a goddamn laundry list of every idea under the sun. None of them are quantified, and many are presented with qualifiers like “encourage,” “explore,” and “review.” Which means that he has no idea whether those ideas are even practical.

Fifth, it’s got way more than its share of really dumb statements. Real headscratchers.

I could spend a lot of time parsing out the ins and outs of RandyCare, but there’s so little meat on these bones that it would be a dry and thankless task. Instead, I’ll focus on the dumb stuff.

So here, as a public service (so you don’t have to read this… thing), are my Top Ten Dumbest Things in RandyCare.  

The Wastrel Elderly. Brock calls for relaxation of “community rating,” which would allow insurance companies to charge lower rates to younger, healthier people than to the older and sicker. Part of his rationale is that community rating “requires healthier young families with children and mortgages to subsidize the premiums of their older, sicker, but sometime (sic) much wealthier patients…”

Jeezum Crow. Those evil, shiftless olds with their mattresses stuffed with loot! They’re the real problem! Yep, old people just have it way too easy. Let ’em pay through the nose if they want to stay alive.

Visit Vermont: Fall Colors and a Tummy Tuck! Randy wants to bring together hospitals and the tourism industry to promote “medical tourism.” You know, create vast new revenue streams by creating luxury medical services for the well-to-do. Yeah, get your elective surgery and go skiing!

Wait, that won’t work… Hmm…

Bring a chicken to the doctor. Randy wants to encourage Vermonters to buy low-cost high-deductible insurance coupled with tax-deductible health savings accounts. He explains, “When informed consumers themselves pay more of their health care expenses, their pressure will drive efficiency, innovation and affordability among providers.”

Because it works so well when you go to the hospital and start dickering over the bill.

The free market works so well that the state will have to help consumers deal with it. He wants the state to add new programs to advise Vermonters on how to stay healthy, how to shop for insurance, and how to avoid the pitfalls of the free market.

Hmm. On the one hand, Randy wants to unleash the power of competition by lifting insurance regulations, thus allowing insurers to flood the market with fine print-laden policies full of exceptions and hidden costs. On the other, he wants the state to guide consumers through the free-market maze. Apparently government is incompetent to manage health care, but it’s capable and trustworthy in advising the public.

Cut regulation — except when it should be increased. Randy says we should “Ensure that the Health Insurance Exchange… is easy to use, clear and has an abundance of choices.” So we’re going to liberate the insurance companies, but mandate clear, simple language in policies and contracts? Who’s going to review the language? Who sets the standards? And to paraphrase Mitt Romney, are we really going to depend on BUREAUCRATS to ensure ease of use and clarity?

The buffet approach. Randy wants to “allow consumers to purchase coverage ‘a la carte.'” So if I’m a single man — or, even better, one half of a gay male couple — I don’t have to buy ob/gyn coverage? Sweet!

And how far does the “a la carte” thing extend? If I don’t have any genetic markers, can I decline coverage for Lou Gehrig’s Disease? If so, how costly would ALS coverage become?

Price tags. He calls for “full price transparency, so that consumers can see the price at various providers for similar services.” So we’re supposed to check prices and drive to different facilities for different services, based on price? And do we really want medical centers cutting corners wherever possible so their posted prices are the lowest?

This also gets to the issue of quantifiability. It’s easy to list a price for a simple procedure, but it’s almost impossible for complicated conditions or treatments. And that’s where most of the health care dollars go.

One test per customer, please. He wouldn’t want a patient to undergo the same test twice, even if the patient is transferred from a local hospital to a tertiary care center. As he says, “If we cannot trust testing in community hospitals, we shouldn’t allow them to test in the first place.”

Which is wrong on all accounts. When a patient is transferred, it’s because the community hospital isn’t equipped to handle the case. Their testing standards are fine for routine cases, but when a patient moves up the chain, more thorough testing is usually needed. If you had, say, an MRI at Rutland Hospital and they ship you to Fletcher Allen, you might very well need another MRI conducted by more skilled, experienced specialists.

Also, a patient’s condition isn’t a static thing. It changes over time — often rapidly. Retesting is often required to track a patient’s progress. This idea is meaningless at best, dangerous at worst.

An army of bureaucrats? He wants “independent performance audits to examine every cost and the health-effectiveness of every mandate.” Has he really thought that through? That would be an immense task. Would he want the state to do that? Or the insurance companies? Oh yeah, we can trust them…

Health care, health care everywhere. He’d like to see “around-the-clock non-emergency room access to basic health care within one hour of every Vermonter.” Nice idea. We need more access, especially for low-income Vermonters who’d (under RandyCare) have cheap, high-deductible insurance coverage. Which means they wouldn’t be able to pay for non-emergency services. That’s the problem with high-deductible plans: they incentivize people to stay away from health care service until their problems become acute. So who pays for the services? And who pays for establishing this intensive network of urgent care facilities?

So there’s my RandyCare Top Ten. As I said at the top, now I understand why Randy released this “plan” very quietly, and why he wants people to stop paying attention to it. It’s a bloody disgrace.  

So, remind me again: What exactly is Randy Brock getting for his big investment in campaign consultants?

It’s certainly not a well-run, credible campaign.

Last Thursday, Brock quietly unveiled his health care reform plan in a late-afternoon e-mail to journalists and supporters. Since then, he’s been continually on the defensive over the plan’s reliance on extreme free-market models (like Maine Governor Paul LePage’s), its lack of specifics, and its oddly low-key rollout. And now he’s promising more details “in a week to ten days.” (Back in May, he promised a full plan in early June. If he keeps to the same schedule, the additional details should arrive just in time for Christmas.)

His latest misadventure: he’s begging everyone to stop looking at his plan because the focus ought to be on Governor Shumlin’s. This, he says, is why he soft-pedaled his plan’s release:

In thinking about whether or not to do a formal dog and pony show, we decided that in a way takes the emphasis off what we should be talking about, which is problems with the Shumlin health care plan.

When Randy says “dog and pony show,” apparently he means “full discussion and examination of my plan.” (And I can’t resist observing that he may not like “dog and pony shows,” but he has no problem appearing at public events with a teddy-bear mascot. Bears yes, dogs and ponies no.)

Health care reform is supposed to be the single biggest issue in Brock’s campaign, and he’s asking us not to look at his own views on the subject. That’s leadership, folks.  

Oh boy, oh boy, a delicious little tidbit comes to us from Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid’s vtBuzz politics blog.

As you may recall, the VTGOP did a lot of last-minute scrambling to put together a statewide ticket — pulling Jack McMullen out of mothballs to run for AG, settling for no-name no-hopers to run for Congress, and really, settling for party lifer Randy Brock to be, apparently, its sacrificial lamb in the governor’s race.

And failing to identify a candidate for Secretary of State.

Well, in all the fuss over the Progressive Party recount, nobody thought to check on the Secretary of State’s race until Hallenbeck looked into it. And found the answer.

Jim Condos is your Republican nominee. Yep, more Republican voters wrote in Jim’s name than any other.

As Hallenbeck points out, this is the same Jim Condos who was basically accused of corruption and/or mismanagement yesterday by VTGOP chair Jack Lindley.

Hey, Jack: meet your newest candidate! Hope you put up a good fight on his behalf.

(Condos is also the candidate of the Progressive and Working Families parties. I’d say he’s the heavy favorite to win a second term.)

Hey, remember the news about the new conservative PAC, Vermonters First? THe brand-new group that’s about to pour $70,000 into a two-week barrage of TV ads on behalf of Republican candidates?

Well, I was wrong about one little detail.

They’re not supporting Randy Brock.

As Seven Days’ Paul Heintz reports,

The group plans to run two 15-second commercials spotlighting Republican state auditor candidate Vince Illuzzi and Republican state treasurer candidate Wendy Wilton.

Two observations. First: it’ll be interesting to see if this big-money conservative backing takes any of the “bipartisan” shine off Illuzzi.

Second: 70 large, and not a penny for ol’ Randy? That means one of two things: either Vermonters First is working its way up to Brock… or they’ve already given up on the guy, and see Illuzzi and WIlton as the hopefuls who might actually win if they get a little help. (Phil Scott doesn’t look to need any outside assistance.)  

Sigh. Well, the deep-pocketed rats might be leaving Brock’s sinking ship (Titanicampaign?), but at least he’ll always have his furry little friend.  

A pair of stories in today’s Vermont press reveals quite a bit about political money in our state — particularly Republican money. The Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld (who was a very busy boy yesterday) writes up the first conservative superPAC-style foray onto our airwaves; and the Freeploid’s Sam Hemingway explores the parlous state of the VTGOP’s coffers and how it’s whoring itself out for a little pocket change from the Romney money machine.

First, Hirschfeld’s happy news that a newly-registered PAC called “Vermonters First” has already laid down $70,000 for a two-week ad buy on behalf of — but not coordinated with, no, not at all, heaven forfend — Randy Brock. The new PAC’s treasurer is “longtime Republican operative” Tayt Brooks, who says the group is designed to counteract the “kind of one-party rule out there.” He doesn’t place the blame for that where it belongs: with a Republican Party that’s moved far to the right of the electorate and put together a bound-to-fail 2012 ticket.

As for which “Vermonters” are bankrolling Vermonters First… Brooks won’t divulge that information. He will have to file a fundraising report with the state on September 15, which should be entertaining. We’ll see how much of the money is coming from those Vermonters he claims to be putting First.

Hirschfeld has his suspicions:

Mike Schrimpf, communications director for the Republican Governors Association, wouldn’t say whether his organization – which spent nearly $1 million to try to get Brian Dubie elected in 2010 – is behind the PAC.

The $70,000 is just the first salvo, of course. If Brooks manages to tap into the torrent of conservative money coursing around the nation, he could easily close the huge (and widening) money gap between Brock and Shumlin. Which explains the seemingly inexplicable: Brock’s aggressive run to the right in the bluest of states. It was his only hope of getting a little rub from national big-money conservatives.

Thanks to our two-fisted AG BIll Sorrell for issuing the opinion that opened the door to big-money PACs — just in time to have one of them salvage his re-election bid with almost $200,000 in ad buys.

Meanwhile, as for the VTGOP and the Brock campaign, they continue to go begging for funds.  

The Freeploid serves up a reminder of the VTGOP’s role of money-launderer for the Romney forces:

The Vermont Republican Party suddenly has $5 million in its federal campaign fundraising account, but the money might as well not be there as far as statewide and local candidates on the GOP’s ballot in November are concerned.

That’s because the money is simply being parked in the VTGOP’s account until “Romney Victory Inc.” decides where to spend the money. And it almost certainly won’t be around here:

Vermont, regarded as a sure bet for President Barack Obama in the fall elections, is an extremely unlikely recipient for the funds, said Jack Lindley, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party.

Poor, poor Angry Jack. Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.

Well, he is getting a slow drip in exchange for temporarily holding the moneybags: Romney Inc. is giving the party $20,000 a month for the use of its account. Peanuts by Romney standards, but crucial to a state party that, according to Hemingway, only had $22,811 on its books before Romney Inc. stashed its five mill there.

That $20K per month will pay the rent and keep the lights on for a VTGOP that can’t afford a single paid staffer, but it won’t help the party’s financially-strapped gubernatorial candidate.

Randy Brock, the party’s gubernatorial nominee, said he wishes the state GOP could send some of the money his way, but understands that isn’t likely to happen.

Brock’s first two campaign finance reports showed an underfunded effort that’s spending money on “consultants” at an unsustainable rate. Hemingway’s story gives a hint as to what we can expect from Brock’s next finance report, due next week:

“It’s very tough out there raising money,” Brock said.

Don’t worry, Randy. Tayt’s got your back.  

Hey, remember back in late May, when Randy Brock offered a sneak preview of his health care plan? His free-market alternative to the big-government, budget-bustin’, granny-killin’ Shumlin plan?

The one he’d been working on with the likes of El Jefe General John McClaughry and Tarren Bragdon, the man responsible for Maine Governor Paul LePage’s rather disastrous health care plan?

Remember that Brock said he’d unveil the full plan sometime in June?

And then, silence?

Well, Randy’s finally released the Kraken. In the weirdest possible way, as Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau entertainingly notes:

We anticipated a glitzy, glamorous rollout for the plan, which is, very broadly speaking, a free-market alternative to the single-payer system favored by Gov. Peter Shumlin. Or at least a press conference, to draw TV cameras and front-page headlines, which he easily could have gotten.

Instead, “The Brock Health Care Vision: A 100% Solution,” rolled in unannounced to reporters’ inboxes at a time when many might have already called it a day.

Hard to make heads or tails of the strategy yet, but Brock obviously isn’t looking to make this plan the cornerstone of his campaign.

He also released it, intentionally or not, during a news cycle that’s going to be dominated by the fallout from the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary.

Hirschfeld’s explanation is the only one I can think of for this underwhelming rollout. Which is awfully damn pathetic, considering that Brock has made health-care reform — or at least criticism of Shumlin’s plan — a cornerstone of his campaign.  

At first glance, one can understand why this proposal might not look like a winner. It’s a lot like LePage’s, which has led to lower premiums for some (the young and healthy) but much higher premiums for others (the older and sicker, or those in high-risk occupations), and allowed insurers all kinds of regulatory leeway to offer really crappy coverage at relatively low cost.

Brock’s plan would allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines — because hey, it worked so well with credit-card issuers, who flooded the market with attractive-looking deals with all kinds of hidden costs and charges, deceptive interest rates, and unreadably dense terms of service. (What’s in your wallet?) Not to mention the big national mortgage mills that precipitated the 2008 crash by littering the landscape with bad debt.

He would also greatly loosen the rules on “community rating,” which forces insurers to bundle low-risk and high-risk customers into the same pool, thus leveling prices. As in Maine, loosening the rules would lower rates for the young and healthy, but raise them for the older, sicker, and more at-risk. (Lumbermen take note.)

The full plan, including all sorts of dandy conservative rhetoric (bureaucrats bad! Free market good!), can be read at Randy’s campaign website. Should you wish to.  

Well, the state canvassers’ committee met again today, and heard about a change in the final tally for the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial nomination. The revised total was 371 for Progressive Party chair Martha Abbott, and 370 for write-in “candidate” Annette Smith.

Smith picked up 16 votes from the original count, which had been certified by the canvassers on Tuesday. So what caused the discrepancy?

Faulty totals from two towns, Walden and Hardwick. Walden apparently underreported Smith’s total by 7, which was noticed by Smith supporters and brought to election officials’ attention after the canvassers’ Tuesday meeting. As for Hardwick, its results were initially faxed in to the Secretary of State’s office, and due to a combination of poor handwriting and poor fax quality, what should have been a “9” for Smith was tallied as a “0”. When Hardwick’s hard copy arrived in the mail, the discrepancy was discovered.

Smith has filed a formal request for a recount, as is her right since the final margin was within 2%.

At the canvassers’ meeting Director of Elections Kathy Scheele noted that “only a candidate, a losing candidate within a 2% margin, may…request a recount.” This was apparently aimed at Smith, who has not yet committed to actually becoming a candidate if she wins the recount. She has described herself as a sort of provisional candidate solely for the purpose of seeking a recount.

The big drama today was provided by VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley, who delivered a harsh attack on the process and all but accused Secretary of State Jim Condos of incompetence and/or grossly unethical conduct.  

 Lindley sat directly across a conference table from Condos, but never made eye contact as he delivered a rather rambling statement in which he sought to remove the Republicans’ previous validation of the primary result. (The aggressive content and subdued delivery were noticeably at odds; Lindley has spent most of his political career behind the scenes, and I think he’s not used to actually facing the person he’s targeting.)

“The process… may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party,” he said. “It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate [Abbott] has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filed for the fall campaign.”

Which is beside the point. Whether or not there’s a name in the Progressive slot has nothing to do with the conduct of the primary. But his implication was clear: the Democrats would prefer not to have a Progressive on the ballot, and pulled some sort of dirty trick to keep Smith one vote shy of victory. He has no evidence, naturally.

(I’ve appended the full text of his remarks below. It’s a wonderful example of inarticulate rhetoric.)

After the meeting, he told reporters that the situation “doesn’t pass the smell test.” When asked if he was implying collusion between Condos and party leaders, he said “It’s now  beginning to be a consistent pattern, whether it be the checklists and the validity of checklists in the state of Vermont, or in fact the counting of primary votes, and I’m very disturbed by it.”

Not sure what he means by “the validity of checklists.” I suspect he’s trying to tie this primary to the broader Republican theme of alleged vote fraud. For his part, Condos dismissed Lindley’s complaints as “strictly politics.”

Lindley has also reportedly thrown a monkey wrench into the recount process. By law, there has to be a five-day waiting period before a recount can begin. But if all parties agree, that period can be waived. (A recount of the Progressive ballots should only take a day or two.) But Lindley told VTDigger that the VTGOP would not agree to a waiver.

Which puts Vermont in danger of missing federal deadlines. Here’s how the situation was described by Condos and Scheele: The state has to deliver ballots to all of Vermont’s town clerks by September 21. If Lindley continues his obstructionism, the recount cannot begin until next Friday the 14th. Even if it were completed quickly, that would leave the Secretary of State only a few days to prepare the ballots, proofread them, send them to the printers, get the proofs back for final proofreading, get them printed, and ship them to all of Vermont’s town clerks by the 21st.

Lindley’s refusal to waive has nothing whatsoever to do with his accusations regarding the primary. He’s just throwing a tantrum. If somebody changes his nappy, maybe he’ll come to his senses and allow the recount to proceed as quickly as possible.

When all is said and done, this whole thing is interesting but essentially meaningless. It won’t have any significant effect on the course of the campaign. If Abbott’s victory is upheld, she’ll stay out of the race. If Smith turns out to be the winner, she’ll have to decide whether to fully commit herself to a candidacy. If she does, she’ll get the Progressives’ seat at the gubernatorial debates.

(Well, whichever debates remain. The first one is Wednesday the 12th on VPR. If Lindley doesn’t agree to a waiver, Smith won’t be able to take part in that one. Considering Lindley’s stated concern for having a Progressive in the race, shouldn’t he remove that roadblock to her participation?)

She does have something to lose in all of this, however. If she doesn’t come across as a credible candidate on a broad array of issues, she and her movement will lose some credibility with the public. And if her vote total is small — which seems likely, considering that her core supporters number a few hundred and the Progressive vote will be split between her and Shumlin — it’ll make the anti-wind movement seem insignificant.

And now, for your reading pleasure, we present the unexpurgated version of Jack Lindley’s protest to the committee of canvassers:

On behalf of the Republican Party, I realize there’s no signature required today, but we would withhold our signature on a process that we don’t believe is valid, has integrity, and stands the test of good — ah, good work. So at this particular point in time, my substitute had signed on another day, but at this point in time, we would be withholding our signature on the canvass committee.

We’re concerned that the process is full of, you know, not good work, and may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party, and we find that to not be in good order, and frankly we’re very disappointed in the outcome and encourage the Progressive candidate to file for a recount.

It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filled for the fall campaign. Anything less than that, in our judgment, serves no good for the voice of all Vermonters, and I must say that I find it very disappointing that we can’t get the numbers right the first time.

So if there is a process for us to withdraw the original signature, we wish to do that. If not, I’m afraid that we’re bound by signing on a canvass that was originally not valid.

Lindley was then informed that there was no process for withdrawing a signature because the revised count did not change the outcome of the election.

p.s. You may be wondering, what if the recount produces a tie between Abbott and Smith? In that case, the Progressive Party would choose one of the two as its candidate. In other words, tie goes to Abbott.