It’s not exactly a revelation that Vermont’s newspapers are suffering. Ad revenues and print circulation continue to plunge, and the Internet (with or without paywalls) doesn’t pay nearly enough to close the gap. And when the paper is owned by a big corporation, the shareholders are first in line for whatever revenue comes through the door.

So, staff cutbacks. Do more with less. Work harder, not smarter. (Or is it the other way around?)

But you still gotta fill that news hole every day. And you’ve gotta have something on the front page that might entice the casual reader to plunk down a buck for today’s paper. Or at least convince subscribers not to cancel.

The solution: journalism on the cheap. And today we have two prime examples, one from the Freeploid and one from the Times Argus.  

Freeploid: No news is… news. The new, full-color Freeploid has gotten a lot of mileage out of two stories: Chittenden County gas prices (see postscript below) and the timesheet follies at the Vermont State Police. Today brings an update on the latter story, which says… er… nothing.

Vermont State Police are continuing to climb a mountain of paperwork as they try to sort out allegations of possible time sheet padding by a former colleague.

… “The investigation is not complete. It continues. We want to make sure that it is done properly and thoroughly,” [State’s Attorney T.J.] Donovan said.

Mmm, yep. The rest of the article is basically a recap of the case. It could be worse, I guess; the ‘Loid could be doing this every damn day.

Times Argus: Making a mountain out of a molehill. This morning’s paper greeted me with the screaming headline, “Incident raises questions of practice.” Which is just so adorably, absolutely generic, it almost looks like a place-holder headline that made the print edition by mistake. Tomorrow’s front page story: “Insert Headline Here.”

The T-A’s paywalled Web edition has a less fascinating but perhaps more inflammatory header, “Early voting: Does it have its downsides?” Which almost sounds like a TV news teaser: “Are Juice Boxes Killing Our Kids? The answer tonight, on NewsScream 7!”

The “incident,” as you might have inferred, involves the TJ Donovan campaign mistakenly requesting an absentee ballot on behalf of a Brattleboro woman who didn’t authorize the request. And who happens to be a Bill Sorrell supporter. Oopsie.  

This one incident, posits the T-A, calls into question the widespread practice by most campaigns of asking potential supporters if they’d like to vote absentee, and then facilitating the process of getting them a ballot.  

Well, it may raise process issues, and it underscores a campaign’s responsibility for due diligence. But no, a single mistake doesn’t raise fundamental questions about the practice. It does make for a nice, easy front-page filler: get quotes from the usual suspects, raise questions and bat them down again. With any luck, it’ll catch on and you will have created a Controversy — the mother’s milk of journalism. But even if it doesn’t catch on, you will have at least filled that front-page hole for one more day.

Postscript. I understand why the Freeploid tried to make chicken salad out of chickenshit on the Deeghan case. But it really makes me wonder why the ‘Loid didn’t give any space to Bernie Sanders’ Monday hearing on gas prices in northwest Vermont. It’s their biggest, juiciest story in quite a while. And since it was a scheduled event, it was the lowest of low-hanging fruit for a desperate assignment editor gazing across a nearly-empty newsroom.

I can only think of two possible explanations. First, the Freeploid figured that other media would cover it (VTDigger has a good writeup) so they wouldn’t be able to claim it as their own. Second, they were afraid to lose ad revenue from the Big Four gas station owners.  

At the risk of tumbling headlong into the Bottomless Pit of Hubris, allow me to present Vermont’s first piece of post-election analysis. Yeah, election day is still three months in the future… but I’m comfortable in predicting a second consecutive catastrophic defeat for the Vermont Republican Party. Which gets me to wondering, what happens after November 6?

The VTGOP continues to have severe money woes (no paid party staff, remember?). It has even resorted to money-laundering for the Mitt Romney campaign in return for a badly-needed $20,000 a month, which should allow them to pay the rent and avoid the embarrassing fate of the Minnesota GOP.

And it has joined the national GOP’s sprint to the far right, giving prominent roles to the likes of El Jefe General John McClaughry, Darcie Johnston, and babyfaced menace Tarren Bragdon, among other unnamed, presumably even more embarrassing, luminaries. It invited Maine’s tea party Governor Paul LePage (R-Asshole) for a high-profile fundraiser. Meanwhile, Randy Brock is burning through his campaign cash at an unsustainable rate, lavishing the green stuff on Johnston ($48K in less than six months) and his right-wing out-of-state campaign advisors.  

To top all of that, it’s assembled a pathetically weak statewide ticket and a humiliatingly short list of candidates for state House and Senate that will doom them to at least another two years of political irrelevance. The only prominent Republican likely to win is Mr. Ceremonial, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. The next most likely Republican victor is Vince Illuzzi. A statewide win by any other Republican would be a huge upset; the third most likely Republican winner, Wendy Wilton, has developed a bad case of Financial Deficiency Syndrome, which is fatal to most campaigns.

At best, the Republicans might retain the Lite-Governorship and the Auditor’s eyeshade and win a few more legislative seats — but not enough to significantly dent the Dems’ overwhelming majorities.

(Please understand that Im not predicting an Illuzzi win, nor have I given up hope for Cass Gekas. I’m simply putting out the Republicans’ best case for 2012, just to illustrate how far up the creek they truly are. So please play along with me, if only for a moment.)  

In this scenario, the VTGOP would be a profoundly weakened party with no financial resources to speak of. It would be far to the right of Vermont’s political mainstream. At best they would have only two political figures of any significance. And both of them are self-professed moderates who like to stay on good terms with Dems and Progs.

What will they do?

If they had any sense, they’d dump the right-wingers and the free-market fundamentalists and return to the voter-approved moderation of their past (and of Phil Scott’s present and future). But sense is a rare commodity in Republican circles these days.

Should they insist on their right-wing course, they’d be ignoring two consecutive trips to the electoral woodshed. And effectively downplaying the leadership roles of their two most prominent figures. You’d think that the VTGOP would grab onto Phil Scott with all the enthusiasm of a drowning man clutching a flotation device. But then, I vividly recall that when Tom “Short Attention Span” Salmon made his exit from Vermont politics, VTGOP chair Jack Lindley was effusive in his sorrow:

It was always my dream that Tom would follow his dad and become governor one day.  …Vermont Republicans have lost a future leader.

Apparently ignoring Phil Scott, the guy who’s obviously best positioned to regain the Governorship for the VTGOP. (In favor of a guy who was a lifelong Democrat until less than three years ago, and was never able to muster any sustained enthusiasm for his job as Auditor.)

For that matter, what would Phil Scott and Vince Illuzzi do? Keep their heads down, ply their own trades, and try to ignore the rightward tilt of their own party? Or take their leadership role seriously, and try to move the VTGOP in a more sensible, moderate direction?

Which would require Phil Scott to take a courageous, principled stand. Something he’s never really had to do, as he’s risen through the ranks by dint of good works and warm fuzzies.

Does the VTGOP have a brain? Does Phil Scott have a pair? We’ll find out after the November election.  

Oh, that Congressman Frank Guinta, what a card. In the 2010 hard-right tide that engulfed New Hampshire, he ousted incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter. Now, after two years in Congress, he’s running for re-election — against incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter.

Neat trick, eh?

Text of a Guinta robocall:

“Hi, this is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I’m running to end the broken culture of Washington…”

He doesn’t mention the fact that he fully deserves the title “Congressman,” while granting Shea-Porter the entirely honorific “Congresswoman” allowed to any former U.S. Representative.

And then there’s an online fundraising operation targeting 10 incumbent House Democrats. Er, well, maybe nine incumbents and Carol Shea-Porter, pictured in an unflattering blue tint with the misleading caption you see here. The text begs for contributions to “replace” and “retire” someone who was “replaced” two years ago.

I guess Frank Guinta thinks his Tea Party supporters are really, really stupid. Dumb enough to not know who their Representative is.

I guess Frank Guinta has done absolutely nothing he’s proud of as Congressman, since he’s deliberately trying to conceal his incumbency. He obviously hasn’t made any progress to fix “the broken culture of Washington” that he’s been part of for two years.

Also, I guess Frank Guinta is a lying S.O.B.  

Every once in a while, I read a remark by some leading Vermont Republican (which is no large distinction) to the effect that “The voters should elect more Republicans because of the dangers of one-party rule.” The latest whiner is House (Extremely Small) Minority Leader Don Turner, in the Sunday Freeploid:

“What I am selling is Vermont needs a little bit better balance,” Turner said. “I want to bring more Republicans to Montpelier so there is debate.”

Yep, he wants affirmative action. We should elect more Republicans, not because they have better candidates or have done anything to merit our support, but to create some artificial “balance” in the Statehouse. I do hope Mr. Turner would make the same argument in reverse for Republican-heavy states like Texas or Utah. I hope, but I doubt.

He sure as hell wouldn’t have called for partisan balance during the century or so that Vermont suffered under the yoke of one-party rule by the Republicans.

Give me enough time with the Google, and I could find an almost identical statement from just about every top Republican in the state. But I’ll cite just one more.

 This is from the VTGOP’s own website, quoting Mike Bertrand during the brief time when he was the party’s Executive Director. (The time between his appointment in the fall and his resignation in the winter after the party failed to pay his salary.*)

*Speaking of which, according to the Freeploid, the VTGOP currently has no paid staff. Still hurtin’ for cash, I guess. Which is a really bad sign in a campaign year. Especially one that finds most Republican and conservative organizations flush with greenbacks.

“We have got to return some sense of balance to Montpelier,” said Bertrand.  “The simple truth is that Vermonters want elected leaders to act in the best interests of all Vermonters, and to develop sound policy solutions to our shared problems.  One party rule is not what Vermont needs at this critical time.”

Well, Mike, the thing about elections is that they reflect the will of the voters. At least, so we hear whenever the Republicans win one. I agree with you that Vermonters want leaders to act in their best interests and develop sound policy solutions. But Vermonters freely chose to elect a whole bunch of Democrats in pursuit of those ends, and decisively turned their backs on your party. They did so, not because of imaginary ACORN shenanigans or brainwashing by the allegedly liberal media, but because they overwhelmingly preferred liberal ideas and Democratic candidates. There was a battle of ideas, bucko, and you lost it. Bigtime.

If you want to end one-party rule in Montpelier, the task is simple: come up with candidates and ideas that appeal to Vermonters. The VTGOP used to be good at that: Bob Stafford, Dick Snelling, Jim Jeffords, Jim Douglas. These days, its only political figure with anything like broad appeal is Phil Scott.

What do those past and present figures have in common?  Relative moderation. Or, in Douglas’ case, the carefully-maintained image of moderation. If the VTGOP hopes to diminish, or even end, the Democrats’ dominance of state government, they need more candidates like Bob Stafford or Jim Jeffords or Phil Scott. And they need to turn back to the more moderate Republicanism of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You know — back when they used to win a lot of elections.

Instead, they’ve turned themselves into a carbon copy of the national party, whose far-right conservatism puts it way outside the Vermont mainstream. The result in 2010 — a year of epically-proportioned Republican landslides, and a year when the VTGOP hoped to bask in the fading glow of the Douglas years — was an embarrassing defeat that handed the Dems the governorship and veto-proof Legislative majorities. They follow up that incredible pratfall with a pathetic 2012 performance that included the financially-induced resignation of their executive director, the failure to even contest enough House and Senate races to come close to a majority, and a statewide ticket full of has-beens and never-wases. And Phil Scott.

Then they put the cherry on top of this turd sundae by inviting Maine Governor Paul LePage to raise money for Randy Brock — whereupon LePage immediately makes an ass of himself and creates a nightmarish news cycle or two for the VTGOP. And now they’re inviting Allen West??? Good God, what are they thinking? Or smoking?

And they have the sheer gall to complain about one-party rule, and plead with Vermonters to elect a few more Republicans for the sake of “balance.” Well, sorry, guys, but it’d be against your stated principles to consider you a minority group and grant you some affirmative-action hires. Get out there and earn it, you slackers!

A little free advice for our two-fisted Attorney General: Make some calls. Pay a few visits. Send some flowers, maybe a nice note. Kiss up.

Bill Sorrell has a big problem. It’s not any one thing; it’s not failing to get the endorsement of the state committee, it’s not failing to use a union print shop (he used one with family connections, his supporters note), it’s not failing to make courtesy calls to state committee members, it’s not not showing up for the meeting or the Hamburger Summit. It’s not not knowing about the meeting until the day before. It’s not anything specific about his record as AG.

It’s all of those things. It’s the appearance that he’s lost a step, he’s lost his edge, and he’s taking his position for granted. Fair or not, this is the narrative that’s taking over the race, and may well force Sorrell into an unwanted retirement. And his reaction to the state committee indicates that he doesn’t get it. VTDigger:

“The minority chose not to determine that I’m a credible, legitimate Democratic candidate and I think that’s unfortunate,” Sorrell said.

“I’ve been elected seven times as a Democrat,” Sorrell said. “If I’m not being partisan enough for some, then I’m sorry, I don’t think that’s consistent with what my oath of office is. The administration of justice in an even handed way is important to me, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do. I’m looking forward to the last five weeks of the primary campaign. I have every expectation of being the Democratic nominee for attorney general in the November General Election.”

No, Bill. That’s not going to help matters, not at all. You still sound like you’re taking it for granted — the office, the party, the voters. This probably wouldn’t matter in a general election, but it matters a whole hell of a lot in the Democratic primary.

This isn’t about right or wrong, or the dignity of your office, or the deference you seem to think you are due. This is a simple matter of basic politics. If you want the support of your party and the voters, you have to care about gaining their support — or at least act like you care.

There’s a little more than a month until primary day. You are in the race of your life. You’d best fire up the speed dial, get out your walking shoes, and try to mend a few fences.  

I couldn’t help noticing a few “off” notes in the Freeploid’s story about the state Democratic Committee’s failure to endorse Bill Sorrell. Hints of desperation and insecurity from Gannett’s Biggest Little Paper in Vermont (New and Improved, With Lots of Bright Colors to Distract You From the Shallow News Coverage). First, this:

With 28 committee members voting, Sorrell needed 19 votes to win the two-thirds majority required for an endorsement. When the votes were tallied he received 16 votes. The Burlington Free Press first reported the results via Twitter shortly after the vote, then on www.burlingtonfreepress.com.

Isn’t that just a little bit tacky, to congratulate yourself on getting the scoop? Not once, but TWICE? “Hey, looky here! Serious news organization, breaking the news!” As they say about excessive touchdown celebrations in football, when you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before.

But was the Tweet in full color? We 21st Century readers can’t absorb content without lots of purty pitchers to soften the harshness of pure text.  

The Freeploid then went out of its way to avoid mentioning certain political blogs, first in quoting TJ Donovan:

“Bill Sorrell is a good Democrat,” Donovan said Saturday afternoon while attending a political bloggers’ picnic at North Beach where the committee’s earlier vote was a buzz of conversation.

If the Freeploid were being consistent about this, it would have referred to the Democratic Committee meeting as “a gathering of top Democrats.” And it would have described the venue as “a public recreational facility on a lakeshore.”

It again went generic in quoting the picnic’s co-host and grillmaster (well, co-grillmaster, with Arnie Gundersen):  

“I would say stunning is the word, to not be endorsed by your own party,” said state Sen. Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden, who was hosting the political picnic at North Beach on Saturday afternoon and is a Donovan supporter.

That generic “political bloggers’ picnic” was, of course, the annual Hanburger Summit, a tradition of several years’ standing that not only rousts Phil and us GMD folks out of our mothers’ basements every summer (despite our fear of the bright yellow ball in the sky), but also attracts a goodly swarm of top politicians. It has a name, Freeploid, and we have a name.  

Well, after state officials rang the alarm bells about FEMA possibly reneging on $120 million in Irene recovery funds, one of those officials later sought to unring most of the bells.

We also got more clarity on why FEMA funding might be lower than expected for replacing the state complex in Waterbury — and yes, it mainly has to do with the Shumlin Administration’s quick decision to abandon the Vermont State Hospital.

First, the updated money count, courtesy of the Vermont Press Bureau and published in the Saturday Times Argus, but not (as of this writing) posted on the Times Argus website:  The worst-case scenario is not a $120 million shortfall, but $45 million. And state officials don’t expect the final figure to be even that low.

Which doesn’t explain how Administration staffers got their signals so badly wrong yesterday, but let’s move on.

The replacements that FEMA is now questioning are the Vermont State Hospital ($28 million), a state heating plant ($16-18 mil) and about $2-3 mil for demolition of abandoned buildings. Times Argus:

The apparent change comes as FEMA reinterprets whether the Vermont State Hospital was “damaged” or “destroyed,” state officials said.

…The cost for relocating a heating plant at the Waterbury Office Complex also is likely ineligible because the state made certain repairs to the structure, state staffers said.

Administration officials and lawmakers are angry over FEMA’s apparent change in position. And who knows what assurances were given when and by whom, and what the federal rules (which are apparently so Byzantine that the Byzantine Empire looks like a blank canvas by comparison) actually state. But there’s at least the possibility that the Shumlin Administration shot itself in the foot here.  

First, immediately after Irene, Shumlin vowed to shutter VSH even though many believed that the bulk of the building could be restored. Was this a sound policy decision, or was it a case of Shumlin seizing on the Irene opportunity to rid the state of a troubled facility and start over again — with federal funds picking up the tab? That won’t look too smart if, indeed, federal funds don’t pick up the tab, and Shumlin’s grand plans to revamp mental health care have to be scaled back.

As for the heating plant, I have no knowledge of the situation aside from the Times Argus story. But why would the state conduct repairs on a structure it planned to abandon? There could have been good reasons; maybe there were dangerous conditions that had to be addressed immediately. But if the repairs cause the state to lose a nice chunk of FEMA money, then that’ll be a significant administrative error.

And the Governor doesn’t need any of those in an election year.  

Friday afternoon brought a big dump o’bad news, as state officials told lawmakers that the federal dollars promised for rebuilding/replacing the Waterbury office complex may not materialize.

The state had budgeted $63 million of the projected $183 million cost of new state offices and replacement mental-health facilities. It had received assurances from the feds that somewhere close to 90% of the remaining $120 million would be covered by FEMA.

Well, as Ron Nessen would have said, those assurances are now inoperative. VPR:

…state officials said they learned recently that the full funding may not come through, and if it does, the federal checks may be delayed for months.

“We’ve been working on this for months. Our patience is wearing thin,” said Deputy Administration Secretary Michael Clasen. “We’re frustrated.”

He says the state’s has heard different interpretation of FEMA rules from different FEMA officials. He says the funding situation is now uncertain.

…Buildings Commissioner Michael Obuchowski has been working with FEMA for months. He says the state may face a $120 million funding gap if the FEMA funds it had hoped for don’t come through.

“Depending on what the gap ends up we may have to go back to the drawing board in relation to the state hospital and the Waterbury complex,” Obuchowski said.

So wait, did FEMA rehire Michael Brown or what?  

FEMA official Steven Ward explained the situation with all the clarity of a bureaucrat trained by Talmudic scholars:

“And there are some very challenging policy issues that include determination of the floodplain, what the state requires as far as codes and standards,” Ward said. “There are a lot of different aspects to developing the final number and we are in the process of going building by building through the Waterbury complex.”

A tantalizing hint was offered in the Vermont Press Bureau’s account (paywalled in the Times Argus):

The possible ineligibility is due to whether FEMA is interpreting the state hospital as “destroyed” and whether state repairs to a heating plant canceled federal aid, state officials said.

Hmm. Remember last fall, when Governor Shumlin categorically vowed that the State Hospital would never reopen? Even as many suggested that the Hospital could be rehabbed above the ground floor? Well, maybe Shumlin’s  steely resolve was misplaced, eh?

As for the Governor, he sought to tamp down the bitter disappointment his own staff had delivered to the Legislature. He told the Freeploid that “There is no new story here; FEMA has never given us a final number.” And…

Shumlin said he remained confident “we will get the money we deserve.” …

The state has to go through a negotiating process with FEMA, Shumlin said. “This is not going to be a smooth ride. No one thought it would be.”

Which doesn’t explain why his own staffers were so gloomy earlier that same day. Methinks the Gov has begun a diplomatic campaign to convince Washington to fork over the moola.

There was also bad FEMA news for the town of Bennington. FEMA has rejected the town’s request for reimbursement of about $4 million in post-Irene emergency work. The Banner:

Town Manager Stuart A. Hurd and Planning Director Daniel Monks said town officials learned of the FEMA rejection on Thursday. They said work completed on the Roaring Branch, known as emergency protective work, has been deemed to be ineligible for reimbursement. The rejection came as a shock because FEMA regulations given to the town, and FEMA officials themselves, had led the town to believe the work would be at least partially reimbursed, they said.

Monks added that the problem seemed to be an interagency tussle over reimbursement between FEMA and an Agriculture Department agency. Which is cold comfort for Bennington. If they can’t get the decision overturned, town taxpayers will be asked to foot the bill.

You know, this kind of bullshit is why so many people hate the government — even people who depend on government programs. I realize the United States is a huge, complex institution; but if it could only be a bit more people-friendly, transparent and simple, it might be easier to get people to vote Democratic and support taxation adequate to fund government services.  

Opponents of universal health care are fond of quoting horror stories about the quasi-holocaust known as the Canadian health care system. They natter on and on about lengthy waits for elective surgery, lack of modern technology, and probably Soylent Green as well. My favorite recent example came from Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster, trying to defend Governor Paul LePage’s IRS/Gestapo comparison:

“I’ve got friends of mine who came here [from Canada] because they couldn’t get their knee replaced in eight months,” he said. “That would be the only way you could tie [the IRS and the Gestapo] together.”

Ah, the sweet breath of Republican reason.

But here’s a very different take on Canadian health care, from a recovering conservative who had to move to Canada four years ago, and “was somewhat disgusted” at the prospect of government health care, which she saw as “a violation of my freedom.”

And now, after multiple pregnancies?  

I had better prenatal care than I had ever had in the States. I came in regularly for appointments to check on my health and my babies’ health throughout my pregnancy, and I never had to worry about how much a test cost or how much the blood draw fee was. With my pregnancies in the States, I had limited my checkups to only a handful to keep costs down. When I went in to get the shot I needed because of my negative blood type, it was covered.

…I started to feel differently about Universal government mandated and regulated Health care. I realized how many times my family had avoided hospital care because of our lack of coverage. …

Here in Canada, everyone was covered. If they worked full-time, if they worked part-time, or if they were homeless and lived on the street, they were all entitled to the same level of care if they had a medical need. People actually went in for routine check-ups and caught many of their illnesses early, before they were too advanced to treat. People were free to quit a job they hated, or even start their own business without fear of losing their medical coverage. In fact, the only real complaint I heard about the universal health care from the Canadians themselves, was that sometimes there could be a wait time before a particular medical service could be provided. But even that didn’t seem to be that bad to me, in the States most people had to wait for medical care, or even be denied based on their coverage. The only people guaranteed immediate and full service in the USA, were those with the best (and most expensive) health coverage or wads of cash they could blow. In Canada, the wait times were usually short, and applied to everyone regardless of wealth.

Somehow, I don’t think this person will be a guest on Common Sense Radio or speak at an Ethan Allen Institute event anytime soon.  

Delightful little soiree coming up on July 31. (So sorry I shan’t be in town.) The Ethan Allen Institute, the vastly influential (in its own mind and that of its founder, El Jefe General John McClaughry) Ayn Randian propaganda outfit, is sponsoring a discussion on…

How one small village in Vermont decided to convert its public school into an independent school – and the obstacles placed in its path.

This would be the North Bennington elementary school, which has stoutly resisted the forces of  centralized government and fought the relentless pressure of the evil bureaucrats in Montpelier, who have been pressuring small schools to fold themselves into the hives of collectivism known as Regional Education Districts.

That bureaucratic push to centralize the schools was launched in 2006.

Hmmm. Who was Governor in 2006?

Oh yeah, renowned socialist Jim Douglas.

Well, I’m sure the panel discussion will be fair and balanced. As fair and balanced as everything else EAI does.