One of my least favorite things about left/liberal politics is the tendency to wage self-destructive internal battles. I’ve got two examples today. First, VPIRG firing Cassandra Gekas when she decided to run for Lieutenant Governor; second, the hostility (by some) toward a new deep-pocketed advocacy group working in favor of single-payer healthcare.

Gekas gets the ziggy. This story from Paul Heintz, the newly-minted Fair Game columnist for Seven Days. (Andy Bromage has been promoted to News Editor.) Gekas was VPIRG’s health care advocate when she made a last-minute decision to run for Lite Gov.

The move, apparently, also came as a surprise to her employer. When she informed VPIRG executive director Paul Burns of her plans to run for office, Gekas says she was fired on the spot. “He just said, ‘Collect your things, leave immediately, and don’t come back,'” Gekas recounts.

Now, in addition to launching a statewide campaign, the 30-year-old Montpelier resident needs a new job so she can make her student-loan, car and rent payments.

Gekas could have handled the situation better. She didn’t tell Burns about her intentions until the day of the filing deadline. I realize her candidacy was a sudden thing, but she should have tried to notify Burns earlier.  

However, to fire her on the spot seems awfully harsh — particularly for an organization that promotes social justice. Giving her an unpaid leave, with some sort of severance deal, would seem more appropriate. I won’t tell anyone else what to do, but I’ll remember this the next time I get a fundraising call from VPIRG.

SEIU launches Vermont advocacy group.  Today’s Rutland Herald/Times Argus (paywalled, available here if you subscribe) has the story of a large national labor union setting up a 501c4 group in support of single-payer health care in Vermont. The Service Employees International Union says Vermont is on the cutting edge of health care reform, and it wants to ensure that Vermont stays there, providing an example for others to follow.

SEIU’s group, “Vermont Leads,” will benefit from the union’s deep pockets and connections to liberal donors across the country. But not everyone is happy about its entry.  

Sen. Anthony Pollina, a Progressive Party stalwart and early proponent of the single-payer concept, said Vermont Leads could trigger a big-money ad war that turns Vermonters off to health care reform.

The good Senator is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I don’t think SEIU, all by its lonesome, is going to trigger an HCR ad war. Citizens United took care of that. We’re likely to see big-money ad wars on HCR no matter what, and I’m glad to see that we’ve got at least one major organization on the good guys’ side.

There’s also an intra-labor aspect to this. The Vermont AFL-CIO is lukewarm about SEIU’s entry, because the two unions are both trying to organize home-care workers in Vermont. (AFL-CIO through its subsidiary, AFSCME.) One AFL-CIO official, Traven Leyshon, fears that the formation of Vermont Leads is an attempt “to curry political favor with Governor Shumlin,” rather than a sincere effort to bolster health care reform.

As far as I’m concerned, AFL-CIO seems more concerned about turf battles than major political issues. And as SEIU’s Matt McDonald points out, “there is absolutely nothing within the powers of this governor to advantage SEIU over AFSCME.”

In this case, I agree with Dr. Deb Richter of Vermont for Single Payer:

“The point is that people who tend to benefit from single-payer don’t have billions of dollars in their pockets,” Richter said. “We’re lucky to have this union recognize that if one state gets single-payer, then it’s likely to spread and be beneficial to the whole country.”

It’s been a year and a half since Smilin’ Jim Douglas last graced the corner office. But there are still plenty of, ahem, traces… leavings, if you prefer… effluvia, perhaps… of his time as alpha male of the Vermont political dog park. We’ve got a couple of good ones right here: a defeat in the Vermont Yankee case that can be blamed, in part, on Our Dear Ex-Leader; and a former Douglas henchman now tainting the landscape to our south.

First, Yankee. The state of Vermont suffered another courtroom defeat today, as a federal appeals court threw out a challenge to VY’s license renewal by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The state had challenged the validity of VY’s water permit; the NRC had argued that the state had failed to raise the water-permit issue in a timely manner.

But here’s the good part, the Douglas dookie:

The court found that after the NRC’s judicial arm, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), ruled on Entergy’s application to renew the license in 2008, the state “sat silent for two and one-half years, raising their objection only after the Commission issued the license renewal in March 2011,” the NRC said.

Well, of course the state didn’t object earlier. For almost all of that time, it was being run by staunchly pro-VY Jim Douglas. Consider this his parting gift to Entergy — he ran out the clock on one of Vermont’s possible avenues for blocking VY’s license renewal.

After the jump: another stinkin’ lump of Douglas legacy.

Second, the recent foofaraw over the Edward M. Kennedy Institute’s offer to host a debate in the senatorial race between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. As you may recall, the Brown camp demanded that Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow and Board chair of the Institute, agree not to endorse any candidate in the race. Anytime. This entire year. Yep, give up her First Amendment rights. She refused; the debate, at least for now, is off.

The Brownies claimed that the debate’s fairness would be questionable if Kennedy later endorsed Warren. Funny thing: two years ago, when Brown was facing Martha Coakley, the Kennedy Institutre hosted a debate. Brown had no objection.

So what changed between 2010 and now? Well, for one thing, Brown is in a tight race with a skilled debater, and his campaign seems intent on limiting the number and visibility of debates as much as possible.

For another, Brown’s campaign manager this year is one Jim Barnett, the young Republican Karl Rove wannabe and former Jim Douglas hatchet man. A thorough review of Barnett’s wrecking-ball career can be found at Huffington Post; we’ll just mention that he is credited for bringing a no-holds-barred, unrelentingly partisan (and often bitterly personal) style to the once genteel world of Vermont politics.  

When you look back at Barnett’s history working for Jim Douglas, it’s obvious that the Kennedy Institute melodrama — and the patently unreasonable demand on Vicki Kennedy — bear the distinctive fingerprints of Jim Barnett. The guy who did Jim Douglas’ dirty work, while the Governor floated serenely above the fray, ensconced in a cocoon of plausible deniability.  

Thanks, Governor.

This is a little old, but attention must be paid.

Remember last week, when VT Democratic Party chair Jake Perkinson criticized Randy Brock and the VTGOP for inviting Maine Governor (and staunch tea-partier) Paul LePage to Vermont for a Brock fundraiser? Remember how VTGOP chair Jack Lindley got all huffy in response, accusing the Democratic “flamethrowers” and “name callers” of engaging in personal attacks against LePage?

When, in fact, the Dems had attacked LePage purely on policy grounds. Not a personal attack at all.

Lindley closed his screed with “And  even if they don’t like [LePage’s] ideas, the least they could do is treat this man with the same civility that our side demonstrated during President Obama’s recent visit to Vermont.”

Okay, one lesson in civility from the VTGOP, coming right up.  

Let’s take a look at civility, Jack Lindley style. This is, verbatim, the VTGOP news release, dated March 28, regarding the Presidential visit.

“It’s a huge deal,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, said of the president’s visit.

“Yes, it’s a huge deal,” said Vermont GOP Chair Jack Lindley. “It’s a huge deal for Vermont taxpayers, who are still reeling from the cost of the worst flooding in the past 100 years; Vermonters who are still reeling from the cost of Obamacare and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil. And for Vermonters who are also going to be faced with a projected 18% increase in the cost of health care under the Governor’s plan for the health care exchange and an additional rate increase in their electric bill from the Governor’s proposed renewable energy bill.”

Said Lindley, “I had hoped the President would take time to meet some of those suffering as a result of his policies. Unfortunately, he’ll be spending most of his time raising money. And according to WCAX, it appears he’ll be sticking Vermont taxpayers with the tab for state and local police and traffic detail. WCAX reports that ‘police officers are expected to be stationed at every intersection along the route – a special detail that’s going to require dozens of officers from surrounding towns.’ And South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says he expects the cost to be ‘community borne.’ ”

“The President says he expects to raise and spend one billion on his reelection campaign,” said Lindley. “The least he could do is reimburse Vermont’s taxpayers for the cost of his fundraising visit, rather than ask the people of cash strapped Vermont to subsidize the cost of his campaign. Let us hope that our esteemed Governor, who is still having trouble balancing the budget, will see fit to speak up on behalf of Vermont’s taxpayers and ask the President for reimbursement.”

These words are taken directly from the Vermont Republican Party’s website. (You’ll have to scroll down; it’s the fifth item on the VTGOP “News” page, and the items can’t be selected individually. Cheesy web design.)

So Jack Lindley is a hypocrite. And a liar — about civility, and also about that billion-dollar Obama war chest. No one in the Obama campaign — much less the President himself — has ever said such a thing.

Civility, my Aunt Fanny.

Update 6/26: VTDigger has posted a good story on this subject. More info after the jump.

The decision came down last Thursday, and seemed to be a rare victory for Vermont’s campaign finance law. Vermont Right To Life had sought to overturn reporting and disclosure requirements for political action committees. US Judge William Sessions dismissed the suit, prompting a brief and boastful press release from Attorney General Bill Sorrell:

The court’s ruling provides resounding confirmation of the validity of Vermont’s campaign finance disclosure laws and the state’s ability to address Vermonter’s (sic) concerns about the influence of money in politics.

It was so reported by the Associated Press’ Lisa Rathke, and by Nancy Remsen on the Freeploid’s* vtBuzz blog.

*My nickname for the new, “improved,” tabloidy Burlington Free Press.

But not by Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau. (Update: Article now available for free at the VPB website.)

But while Sessions upheld the contribution limits in this specific case, he said that if a political action committee operates independent of candidates, and organizations that contribute to them, then the $2,000 limit would likely fail constitutional muster.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case especially, Sessions said, any limit on independent expenditures will likely be found to violate the First Amendment.

…The decision could open the door to increased corporate spending on Vermont elections, which have yet to see the kind of super PAC activity now influencing national politics.

After the jump: further explanation, and the health of our news media.

According to Hirschfeld, VRLC’s case was specifically tainted because it had failed to maintain proper distance between two political spending entities: its PAC, which makes direct contributions to candidates, and its Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (FIPE), which spends money on “independent” political activities.

VRLC argued that, because FIPE did not directly support candidates, it shouldn’t be subject to the state’s reporting requirements and its $2,000 limit on individual contributions. Sessions basically found VRLC guilty of sloppy bookkeeping — failing to truly maintain FIPE’s financial independence.

So it was a victory, but a narrow, procedural one. Sessions upheld the letter of the law, but he gave everyone a clear blueprint for how to circumvent its spirit. And that could open the door to more “independent” money in state politics. (And, as I pointed out in a previous diary, it doesn’t take a lot of money to create a strong presence on our political scene.)

This story is another example of how difficult it is to regulate political spending in a post-Citizens United landscape. It is also a rather astounding example of how shallow and unreliable Vermont’s news media have become. The Associated Press’ story failed to mention the broader implications of the ruling. The AP is the sole source for most other media outlets, including VPR, which offered only a brief AP rewrite in its newscast. The Freeploid, as far as I can tell, never published or posted a full writeup of the decision; its only coverage was in vtBuzz, an entry Remsen admitted was “based on a quick skim.” She promised “more reaction and analysis to come,” but it hasn’t come yet. Makes me wonder if the Freeploid has cut back on (or, as Jim Fogler would say, “improved”) its coverage of state politics. VTDigger, which does its level best with limited resources, did not cover the story at all — except to post Sorrell’s celebratory press release*.

Only Peter Hirschfeld of the VPB reported the full story — and his account is hidden behind a paywall, where most Vermonters will never see it.

Makes me wonder how many other stories are going unreported, or underreported. And with the economics of the business still in decline, it makes me wonder how much worse our news coverage is going to get.

*Update 6/26: VTDigger has now posted a full story on the court ruling and its implications for campaign finance. Recommended reading.

Oh boy. I took one look at my Times Argus this morning, and my mind immediately started writing the Republican press release that’s sure to come. If it hasn’t already.

Top story, from Peter Hirscfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau: “Democrats hire firm to dig into Brock’s past.”

Yep, the “name callers who dwell in the bowels of the Vermont Democratic Party” (quoth Jack Lindley) are at work again, looking for ways to destroy Randy Brock, Pure And Blameless Scion of the Green Mountains.

Er, yes and no. What the VT Dems actually did was hire an opposition-research firm to look into Randy Brock’s official past. Stanford Campaigns has filed a public-records request for information on Brock’s term as state Auditor in 2005-06. They are not, as far as we can tell, looking into Brock’s school report cards or nightlife proclivities. They aren’t sending out an army of trench-coated private dicks or dumpster-diving behind Brock’s house. The headline “dig into Brock’s past” is inflammatory and misleading, and is perfect fodder for a Republican howl of protest.

Oppo, for those just entering the 21st Century, has become a standard part of political campaigns. Shumlin hired the same firm to probe Brian Dubie in 2010 — that is, Dubie’s public and official record, not his personal life. Given that the Brock campaign has hired a bunch of high-powered right-wing campaign consultants, I’m sure they’re doing the same on Shumlin. Unless they’ve decided to save some bucks by simply borrowing Brian Dubie’s oppo files from 2010.  

Hirschfeld does Stanford Campaigns a big favor by extensively quoting its own puffery on how important and effective it was in 2010. I guess this is his way of inflating the importance of his “scoop.” On its website, Stanford claims a huge share of the credit for Shumlin’s victory over Dubie:

“The polls had Shumlin behind by 6 points, meaning he had to make up ground when every other Democrat in the country was just trying to hold ground,” the site says.


…”After two weeks of comparative television ads [based on Stanford material], Dubie had dropped 8 points as Shumlin established a slim lead that he held onto even as the bottom dropped out for Democrats across the country.”

Well, maybe. I don’t really recall it that way, and I imagine a lot of that is Stanford propaganda. In fact, since Stanford only works for Democrats, Stanford probably did oppo for a lot of those 2010 losers as well, and it didn’t do them any good.

In any case, VT Dem Chair Jake Perkinson draws the appropriate line regarding opposition research:

“I think there’s a big difference between pointing out deficiencies that an opponent might have … and slinging mud,” Perkinson said. “When you get into the realm of misleading or omitting important information, I think that qualifies as negative campaigning, and I don’t think that has a place in Vermont. I do think there’s a place for pointing out flaws in an opposing candidate.”

That’s exactly where the line should be drawn. If the flaws and deficiencies arise from a candidate’s public service, then they are fair game. And the Shumlin campaign is simply conducting due diligence by examining Randy Brock’s public record.

I realize that a newspaper has to put something on top of the front page every day… but as front-page stories go, this one’s a nothingburger.  

Slight correction: The ranking was not in Money Magazine, but on the website CNNMoney.com, which is a co-operative effort of CNN, Money Magazine, and Fortune Magazine. I’ve changed the references.

Following up on BP’s earlier post “Lisman’s hour between doom and gloom,” here’s some more good news for Vermont – -and bad news for Bruce, I guess.

CNNMoney.com has just posted a list of the ten most entrepreneurial states, as measured by the number of business startups (per capita) in 2011. And little old Vermont is #8.

Yes, Vermont, sworn Socialist enemy of business, quasher of the entrepreneurial spirit, smothered of enterprise through a deadly combination of Big Brother regulation and confiscatory taxation. Vermont, home of unwashed hippies, spoiled trust-fund kids, and lazy do-nothings sucking on the public teat. That Vermont is one of the most entrepreneurial states in the country.

Well, what do you know. Vermont’s on a list that includes low-tax havens like Texas, Florida, Alaska and Idaho. So tell me, CNNMoney, what makes Vermont so startup-friendly?

Smaller biotech, bioscience, environmental engineering and other tech companies are drawn to Vermont’s vibrant venture capital network and state funding for startups.

…Many innovative firms get their start in incubators based at the state’s top-notch schools, like the University of Vermont’s Fletcher Allen Medical School. Such academic powerhouses also help produce a highly skilled workforce for entrepreneurs to hire.

The list does cite Vermont’s high tax rates as a downside. But somehow, the state’s doing very well in spite of those taxes. Hmm, in fact, Vermont’s high ranking might lead me to believe that taxes aren’t the only, or even the most important, factor in making a state business-friendly. Properly-spent taxes contribute to a positive business climate through higher education, worker training, social stability, and adequate infrastructure.

(I’d take it even further and argue that single-payer health care would be an absolute boon to startups. One of their biggest concerns is health-care coverage for themselves and their employees. If you took that burden away, even at the cost of somewhat higher taxes, I believe it would be a net positive for startups and small businesses.)

Still, I have to admit I’m a bit surprised to see Vermont in the top ten. But the ranking got some affirmation from a Vermonter in the know: Cairn Cross, co-founder and managing director of FreshTracks Capital, a Vermont-based venture capital firm. “This is not a surprise to me since I spend my hours on the ground working with Vermont’s startup community,” he told me. “Anecdotally, I would say this is one of the best times ever to start a business in Vermont, and Vermonters are indeed starting businesses at a greater rate per capita than their peers across the country.”

Which is not to say that we don’t have our issues and our struggles. But here’s another reason for optimism. And for belief in the virtues of the Vermont way.

The complete CNNMoney list, from 1 to 10: Arizona, Texas, California, Colorado, Alaska, Missouri, Nevada, Vermont, Idaho, and Florida.

How dare those gutter-dwelling Democrats, resorting to “personal attacks” in a news release criticizing Randy Brock and his special guest, Maine’s Tea Party Governor Paul LePage.

I put “personal attacks” in quotes, because the accusation comes from the VTGOP, and it’s nonsense.

LePage won the Maine governorship narrowly in a three-way race with less than 40% of the vote. Since then, he’s taken a hard-right course, including the passage of insurance-industry-friendly “health care reform.” He’ll be headlining a Brock fundraiser later this week.

The Dems called the LePage invite a sign of Brock’s “allegiance to a radically conservative Republican agenda.” VDP chair Jake Perkinson added:

If Vermonters want a taste of what Randy Brock would do as governor, they should look toMaine, where Governor LePage is overseeing a massive effort to cut essential public services, eviscerate collective bargaining, and make affordable health care even farther out of reach for Mainers.

Perkinson had a solid basis for his words, since LePage is, in fact, a hard-right conservative. And there is, in fact, a solid Brock/LePage connection; Brock is consulting on health-care issues with Tarren Bragdon, the baby-faced ideologue who masterminded LePage’s health care plan.

After the jump: Sombody call an amberlamps! We got us an outbreak of BKS!

But the Dems’ release prompted a sudden onset of Bunched Knicker Syndrome at the top of the VTGOP, with Brock calling it “one of a series of nasty personal attacks coming out of the Vermont Democratic Party,” and VTGOP chair Jack Lindley really going over the top, railing at “the flamethrowers at the Vermont Democratic Party” and “the name callers who dwell in the bowels of the Vermont Democratic Party.”

Let me explain something to Randy and Jack. (I use their first names because they’re acting like children.) The Democrats’ attack was against LePage’s politics, and by extension Randy Brock’s. It was not, in fact, personal at all*.

Your attack on the Dems, on the other hand, was very personal and had nothing to do with policy or politics. “The bowels of the VDP,” indeed. You, good sirs, need to take a look in the mirror before you get out your flamethrowers again.

*Just for contrast, here’s a good example of a personal attack. The story goes that when Lyndon Johnson was running for Congress early in his career, he wanted to spread a rumor that his opponent enjoyed carnal knowledge with pigs. His campaign manager objected, “Lyndon, you know that’s not true!” Johnson replied, “I know, but let’s make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”

Now there, Randy and Jack, is a personal attack. For your homework, compare and contrast with Jake Perkinson’s issue-focused news release.

Hey there, alternative energy fans — here’s the news you’ve been waiting for. A Canadian pipeline company may be looking to transport oil from the Alberta tar sands across northern New England from Montreal to Portland, Maine.

The plan from Enbridge, Inc. would retrofit existing pipelines to provide an eastern conduit to overseas markets. Which shows you what a powerful economic force the Alberta tar sands have become: they’re looking far and wide for ways to get the oil out of Canada.

This idea has been out there for a while, according to NH newspaper Foster’s Daily Democrat:

One of Canada’s largest pipeline operators, Enbridge, Inc., developed a plan in 2008 to reverse one of its existing lines to begin moving tar sands oil east from Western Canada, where the industry is set to boom.



Enbridge’s Line 9, which starts in the western part of the country, would be capable of delivering tar sands oil to Montreal if the company reversed the flow of the entire line.



…To move the tar sands oil on the final leg of the journey from Montreal to Maine, the company proposed utilizing the existing Portland-Montreal Pipe Line.

The plan was shelved when the economy hit the skids, but environmental groups say there are signs that Enbridge is on the move once again. (They’re holding a news conference this morning in Montpelier to showcase the issue.) Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Varey says the project remains sidelined, but that might change in the future:

“It’s one of those things where, if the market demand is there, there is the possibility that we would be bringing Canadian oil to those markets,” in the Northeast, she said.

After the jump: the ugly realities of tar sands oil… and a map of the PMPL.  

The National Wildlife Federation outlines some of the potential risks of tar sands oil in the PMPL.

The plan would have exposed American treasures to the risks of a tar sands oil spill. These include Sebago Lake, which supplies Portland, Maine with its drinking water; the Connecticut River, New England’s largest; the Misissiquoi River, historically valuable to tribes and tributary of Lake Champlain; and other critical resources.

If you’d like a sample of the potential damage from a tar sands oil spill, just Google “Enbridge” and “Kalamazoo River.” Back in 2010, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in southwestern Michigan, sending 1.2 million gallons of oil into the river and one of its tributaries. Cleanup efforts were extensive, expensive, and only somewhat successful. FWIW, the Michigan Department of Community Health has concluded that there’s no long-term health risk to area residents and no sign of contamination in nearby wells. (Of course, Michigan’s government is headed by notoriously pro-business Governor Rick Snyder, so draw your own conclusions.)

Take particular note of a whistleblower in the Kalamazoo River cleanup: former contractor John Bolenbaugh, who claims he was fired after he complained the cleanup wasn’t being done properly. He’s planning to sue Enbridge for wrongful termination, and has posted information and videos online that support his case.  

Tar sands oil is particularly nasty stuff. When it’s spilled into a body of water, it doesn’t float — it sinks. A report from Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute asserts that the nature of tar sands oil greatly increases the risk of leaks and spills:

There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks.

Its study of historical spill data concluded that, if the Keystone XL pipeline were built, it could generate up to 91 major spills over a 50-year period. And that would be a new pipeline, built for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil. What are the additional risks of retrofitting an older pipeline?

At this point, the Enbridge plan is still on the shelf. But there’s a whole lotta dirty oil in western Canada, and economic realities dictate that it’s going to find an outlet somewhere. Might just be in our own backyard.  

Something of a stunner in Sunday’s Times Argus regarding the Democratic primary for Attorney General. Well, it stunned me at least.

The thesis of the (paywall protected) front-page story, written by Peter Hirschfeld and entitled “Yankee one key to AG primary,” is that Vermont Yankee will be a big issue in the race — maybe the biggest one. That didn’t surprise me, but thesis part 2 did: that VY will be an asset for Bill Sorrell.

If I recall correctly, he lost the case and has been criticized for his courtroom strategy. But even so, Hirschfeld posits that the anti-Yankee vote may break strongly for Sorrell in August.

“Generally speaking, if there’s somebody who wants to see Vermont Yankee shut down, Bill Sorrell has really positioned himself best with those voters,” said Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School and expert in constitutional law.

…high-profile voices at two of the state’s leading anti-nuclear organizations – Vermont Citizens Action Network and Vermont Public Interest Research Group – seem to be signaling a preference in that community for Sorrell.

The pro-Sorrell feeling arises from two factors: (1) early statements by Donovan that seemed lukewarm, or even negative, toward the anti-Yankee legal case, and (2) loyalty to Sorrell as the man who fought Entergy in court.

Even though he lost. Seems a bit backward to me; Donovan is being downgraded for his words (which he has since amended), while Sorrell is rewarded for taking action that failed.

After the jump: a dissenting view from the anti-Yankee camp.

This feeling isn’t unanimous; Arnie and Maggie Gundersen* of Fairewinds Energy Education — prominent opponents of Entergy Nuclear — are going with Donovan.

Note: Maggie is a fellow GMD front-pager. I have not discussed this diary with her; the commentary and analysis are entirely my own.

[Arnie] Gundersen is as critical of Sorrell as he is supportive of Donovan. Gundersen said Sorrell’s refusal to secure outside counsel at the outset of the Yankee case was “absurd.”

“You’re going up against an attorney (for Entergy) being considered for the Supreme Court and you don’t get outside help?” he said. “That’s a fundamental mistake.”

Gundersen said Sorrell also bungled an investigation into whether Entergy executives lied about the existence of underground pipes at the Vernon plant.

Gundersen isn’t the only one who’s questioned Sorrell’s handling of the case. Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law School has also said that outside counsel should have been retained for the initial trial — a step Sorrell has now taken for the appeal.

Parenteau said [Entergy attorney Kathleen] Sullivan had dominated the trial, and had gotten almost everything Entergy had sought from the judge.

“Kathleen Sullivan cleaned the deck and the state got out-lawyered,” he said. “She put on a better case.”

To my mind, the recent support for the appeal from nine states and the National Conference of State Legislatures reinforces criticism of Sorrell. The states are concerned with Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s reference to legislative debates, rather than simply evaluating the law that came out of the process.

At trial, Sullivan introduced numerous pieces of legislative debate. The fact that so many other states are getting involved says to me that Judge Murtha’s use of legislative debates was a highly unusual step, and that Sorrell may have been able to block it or counteract it more effectively.

Maybe someone in the anti-Yankee community can explain the apparent loyalty to Sorrell. To me, it seems like re-upping a general who lost a key battle. You can applaud his valor, but do you really want him in charge of the next fight?  

Er, that’s about it. For those who love to pore over long lists of names in tiny print, the Secretary of State’s office has released the Draft Candidate List. Available as a downloadable PDF here.

I did a quick count of Republican candidates for the Legislature, and came up with 79 for the House and 18 for the Senate. (Might be off by one or two.) A bit more respectable than we initially thought, but it still means that the GOP won’t compete for nearly half the seats in the Legislature.

Otherwise, have at it. If you spot something interesting, by all means note it in the Comments below or write a separate diary.