“I offer some candid, but not libelous, thoughts on some people.”

            — Former Gov. Jim Douglas on his forthcoming autobiography.

It’s so characteristic of Jim Douglas: he takes a step forward (“candid”) followed immediately by a backtrack to safer ground (“but not libelous”). There’s a tantalizing hint at some last-minute editing to remove some of the more intemperate musings of Our Dear Ex-Leader.

We thought this merited a little investigation. And in a midnight dumpster-diving expedition behind a certain Middlebury residence, a crack team of GMD operatives retrieved a plastic bag full of shredded papers. Then, through weeks of intensive effort, GMD’s Political Investigations Lab* confirmed our suspicions. The reconstructed papers contain passages excised from Douglas’ memoir, each page rubber-stamped “DO NOT PRINT” in red ink.

*Under the direction of PIL chief John Lydon, of course.

After the jump, we present selected “outtakes” for the edification of our readers.  

Well I remember the day I first met Peter Shumlin, then a freshman state legislator. “Jumpin’ Jehoshaphat, what a honker!” I thought, as the young Shumlin strode my way, his nose preceding him by some distance and a patently phony smile pasted on his face.  

He stuck out his hand. “Hi, I’m Peter Shumlin. My friends call me Pete, but you can call me Mr. Shumlin!” he laughed. I decided to give him the dead-fish special. He countered by clamping my fingers in a vise-like grip. This, I realized instantly, was not a man to be trifled with.

“Well, hello there,” I said, extricating my hand and trying not to grimace. “I’m Jim Douglas.”

“I know,” he said, glancing over my shoulder. “So, how’s tricks?”

“Oh, fine,” I said. “I look forward to working with you on–”

“That’s great,” he interrupted. “Excuse me, gotta run!”

I’m not normally one for strong language, but I clearly recall the thought forming in my mind: “Christ, what an asshole!”

_________________

People have often asked me what I saw in Brian Dubie, my loyal Lieutenant Governor who never seemed to be around when you needed him. (Not that we ever really needed him.) Simple: I needed a number-two who could easily be outmaneuvered if he tried anything funny.

One day, Neale [Lunderville] and I were in the office going over some scheduling. “We’ve got a bunch of requests for personal appearances,” he said. “Nothing great; no public-works ribbon-cuttings or any good photo-ops.”

“So what do you suggest?” I inquired.

“Let’s send Flyboy,” he sneered. “He’s not doing anything.”

“Not so’s you can tell,” I said, and we shared a hearty laugh.

After Neale calmed down, a thoughtful look crossed his face. “You know, Your Grace” — that was his little term of craven endearment for me — “Someday this Dubie thing could bite us in the ass big-time.”

“How so?”

“Well, what if you decided to retire?” he said. “Or say Bernie Sanders has an embolism during one of his marathon shouting sessions, and you appoint yourself to the Senate? The Party would be stuck with Brian Dubie, and you’d be off to greener pastures.”

“Eh, screw ’em,” I said. “You know what they say: Apres moi, le deluge!”

We laughed again. Those were good times.

_______________________

When I met President Obama at the White House in 2009, he famously asked me how I managed to keep getting re-elected in such a strongly liberal state. “Famously” because, well, I repeat it every chance I get.

At the time, I gave him some fake-humble nonsense about being in touch with the people or whatever. But the real reason is clear: the Democrats were complete bunglers.

Look at the record. I barely squeaked into office the first time around in 2002. I got 45% of the vote, but the liberal electorate was split and I won in the House.

In 2004, the Dems put up Peter Clavelle. What a joke. Then in 2006, Scudder Parker. Sounds like the treasurer of the yacht club. What the heck is a “scudder,” anyway?

2008 was the crowning glory. All I had to do was beat that retread Tony Pollina and the unorganized and underfunded Gaye Symington. Easy peasy.

So now I have a lifelong reputation as a master politician. But when you look at that procession of no-hopers, it’s clear that a potted plant could have done as well. I continually marveled at the Democrats’ inability to get their act together in the Governor’s race, when otherwise they were kicking our you-know-whats all over the state.

And, if truth be told, I didn’t mind that we were losing all those other races. It cemented my reputation as a political genius — the only Republican who could win in Vermont. And because the Legislature usually had big Democratic majorities, nobody expected me to accomplish anything. Low expectations: the secret of my success.  

Slow Sunday night, and I just paid a visit to Randy Brock’s website. Call me a glutton for punishment, I guess.

Couldn’t help noticing Jim Douglas’ endorsement of Randy, which starts off with this sentence.

No race this year is as important to the future of Vermont than electing Randy Brock governor.

My inner grammarian let out a loud guffaw.

There are a total of three — count ’em, three — endorsements on Randy Brock’s website. They are from Jim Douglas, Phil Scott, and Brian Dubie. Speaking of the ex-Lt. Gov., his endorsement begins with this curious sentence.

I wish I could be with you today, but my work takes me out of state.

This endorsement was first delivered at Brock’s campaign kickoff — and, indeed, Brian Dubie was absent due to the urgency of his “work.” The rest of the endorsement is perfectly acceptable. So why in God’s name did Brock’s genius staffers fail to simply omit that first sentence? It makes absolutely no sense.  

Overall, the new improved Randy Brock website appears to be unchanged since it was unveiled with a big splash about three weeks ago. The endorsements are the same sad uncorrected threesome. The listing of Events still includes only three “meet and greets” at the homes of supporters; if Brock is giving any speeches, nobody’s bothering to post them on his website.

The “News” page is similarly bereft. The last entry was on May 25, and it’s a link to a Vermont Press Bureau article about Brock’s health care plan. I guess he’s making no news.

And yes, the home page still opens up with that stupid “bears in the woods” ad.

Apparently, nobody’s minding the store at randybrock.com.

I do note that Brock is making progress on Twitter. Painfully slow and boring progress, to be sure. He’s up to 89 followers. Wowee. His Tweets are infrequent and dull; things like “Hope I see you at the Memorial Day parade,” or “Here’s a link to my interview on VPR.”

Yep, Randy Brock… building a bridge to the 20th Century.  

So a judge has ruled against Franklin’s tradition of starting Town Meeting with a prayer. The decision has reverberated across Vermont all the way to Brattleboro, which might be the last place you’d expect to open Town Meeting with a religious invocation.

You’d be wrong.

Longtime Brattleboro Moderator Tim O’Connor points out that Brattleboro residents have been starting their annual town meeting with a prayer since 1753.

What’s more, O’Connor has no plans to change unless the Franklin ruling is upheld on appeal.

“Until there is a final ruling by the Supreme Court I think there is a place for it,” said O’Connor. “‘In God we trust.’ That’s what the Pledge of Allegiance says. Anyone who doesn’t want to participate doesn’t have to come in until after it has been said.”

This is Brattleboro? Noted haven for hippies, socialists, nudists, and strolling heifers? I guess this is Brattleboro. To be fair, it’s said that the Bratt prayers are “ecumenical,” but that doesn’t help the atheist, agnostic, or the person who simply prefers a separation between church and state.

According to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, about a dozen communities open Town Meeting with a prayer. And the judge’s ruling is not binding in other counties, so O’Connor is within the bounds of the law.

But still. Brattleboro?

The news has been unavoidable: former Governor Jim Douglas is publishing an autobiography. In it, he promises reflections on past and current issues, as well as “candid, but not libelous” observations about noteworthy political personalities. This tempting hint has sent the political press into a mini-tizzy of anticipation. Vermont Press Bureau: “Douglas to offer insights in new book.” “Douglas will deliver the inside dope on his eight years in the state’s top elected office.”

Ehhhh, I’ll believe it when I see it. Has any politician, ever, written a memoir that was worth the paper it was printed on? I can’t recall any. And somehow I doubt that Jim Douglas, a man known for maintaining a moderate image (stressing image) in all things, will be the one to snap that streak and write a truly memorable political memoir. Nope, can’t see it.

And I anticipate with a shudder the Queen Elizabeth Book Tour to come, complete with fawning interviews and friendly press coverage. I expect plenty of sage bemoaning of today’s harsh partisanship and the drawbacks of one-party dominance in Vermont (especially when it’s not his party doing the dominating). It’s gonna be like a five-mile slog through a chest-deep sea of Malt-O-Meal.

Funny how the timing worked out: the book will appear, and Douglas will run his victory lap, just as the 2012 campaign is heating up. Amazing coincidence, no?

I have no plans to buy or read Jim Douglas’ Malt-O-Memoir, but I might be convinced otherwise if I knew that he’d actually been candid and frank about certain things.

(Things  which, I’m sure, will be ignored or glossed over in the actual book.)

So here’s what I’d like to see, and I invite your suggestions in the Comments. Maybe we can entice Smilin’ Jim to make some last-minute additions.  

1. Why did you leave the Republican Party a smoking wreck? You are typically portrayed as a savvy politico who managed to consistently win as a Republican in a blue state. But, aside from keeping your own ass in the big chair, what did you actually accomplish? During your tenure, the VTGOP lost ground in the Legislature. It failed to produce a new generation of leaders (with the possible exception of Phil Scott, for whom you deserve no credit at all). When you decided to step down, the Democrats had five first-class gubernatorial candidates, while the Republicans had nobody but Mr. Excitement, Brian Dubie.

And in a historically great year for the Republicans nationwide, your party got absolutely smoked in Vermont. Brilliant.

One year after you left office, your party was so short of money that it couldn’t pay its Executive Director. So he quit. And in 2012 it’s had to rely on recycled “talent” like Jack Lindley, Randy Brock, and possibly even (oh, the infamy) Jack McMullen, while scrambling to field a ticket with any credibility whatsoever. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Don Turner is merely hoping not to lose any more ground in the Legislative elections.

So Jim, if you’re such a brilliant politician, why did you completely fail to build a strong Republican Party or an influential conservative movement capable of appealing to the voters? Why did Vermont become the bluest state in the nation under your watch?

2. Why did you inflict Jim Barnett on our state? Barnett, for those who don’t recall, was Jim Douglas’ attack dog. A man who professes to admire Karl Rove and seeks to emulate him in political tactics and strategy.

As it happens, a succinct review of Barnett’s career came out this week on the Huffington Post, and it makes appalling reading. (HuffPo’s interest was sparked by Barnett’s current gig, running Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown’s re-election campaign.)

You, Jim Douglas, brought this shitweasel out of the Bush White House to run your campaigns and head the VTGOP. Barnett quickly made a bunch of enemies with his over-the-top, no-holds-barred style.  The HuffPo piece notes that…

Barnett coarsened the political dialogue in Vermont with his persistent and vitriolic attacks. “This is a tone we haven’t seen from Republicans until Jim Barnett got here,” said Vermont State Senator Jim Condos, when Barnett orchestrated malicious attacks on Democratic state senate candidates.

Barnett earned himself a variety of telling nicknames: “mad dog,” “Republican attack dog,” one of “the Nasty Boys,” a “sharp-toothed political snapper,” the “the ferocious political attack pooch,” “the evil twin,” “Barnett the Bad Cop,” “the Pit Bull” who “is always in attack mode,” a “White House protégé,” and a “Karl Rove character.” Eventually, Barnett built such a terrible reputation for himself that he had to flee the state.

(The embedded links are to the work of the late great Peter Freyne, which is well worth revisiting.)

You, Jim Douglas, introduced this guy and his political viciousness to our fair state, and turned him loose while you sailed blandly above the fray, basking in your nice-guy reputation. And now, in puffing your forthcoming memoir, you dare to criticize “the polarization we see today,” and tell the Vermont Press Bureau that “there has to be a return to collegiality, to compromise, to centrism.”

Here’s a promise. You explain why the VTGOP went on the critical list as soon as you left office, give a thorough explanation for hiring Jim Barnett and letting him do your dirty work, and even take responsibility for your significant role in polarizing our politics, and I’ll buy your goddamn book.

So there’s what I’d like to see — and won’t — in Jim Douglas’ Ode To Self. Now it’s your turn in the Comments: what do you want Jim Douglas to explain?  

Awww, some bruised fee-fees over at Campaign for Vermont, the “nonpartisan” policy shop that’s obviously and blatantly conservative to anyone with a brain who spends five minutes reading their website or listening to their radio ads.

It seems that those dastardly folks at Vermont Digger committed an act of journalism. It took a long hard look at CFV and its founder/funder Bruce Lisman, and published a story pointing out the obvious: that CFV is conservative, that its policy positions are closely aligned with the Republicans’, that all its attacks are against the Democrats, that Lisman is spending a whole lot of money and nobody knows what his real ambitions are.

And that gave Tom Pelham a sad.

Pelham is the main source of nonpartisan lipstick on the CFV pig, having served in Democratic and Republican administrations and as an independent state rep. He read VTDigger’s Lisman article and wrote a piece castigating Digger for “poor journalistic technique.”  The writer’s offenses included (1) failing to report what a nice guy Bruce Lisman is, (2) focusing on the political angle of CFV and interviewing political figures, and (3) pointing out that Lisman was a big-time financier at a time when Wall Street had its biggest meltdown since 1929.

Horrors!

There were a few factual errors in the original Digger story, but the thrust and the main points are completely inarguable — if inconvenient for CFV’s public image. So let’s take Pelham’s complaints one by one, shall we?  

1. Bruce Lisman is a nice guy. Pelham complains that the story didn’t touch on Lisman’s broad charitable activities as evidence of a man who simply wants the best for Vermont.

Sorry, Tom, but this was an article about Lisman and CFV as emerging political players in the state. When writing a story about political impact and implications, you don’t touch on the Vermont Symphony or the Boys and Girls Club. Lisman’s charitable activities are as irrelevant to the story as his hobbies. Does he collect stamps? Vermont needs to know!

2. CFV is nonpartisan, but Digger portrayed it as conservative. Pelham blames this on the writer’s dependence on political sources who evaluated CFV in partisan terms.

Well, Christ on a cracker, it doesn’t take Jake Perkinson or Kevin Ellis to point out that CFV promotes conservative causes. As I said earlier, all it takes is a brief perusal of CFV material.CFV may be an independent group, but there’s a nearly total overlap between its priorities and those of the VTGOP. If it was a Venn diagram, it’d basically be two circles on top of each other.

(In the process, Pelham sullies the reputation of Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis as an “armchair observer” who has “never met Bruce Lisman,” which we at GMD will not stand for. Eric Davis is a Vermont institution, harrumph, and criticizing him is akin to pissing on the Ethan Allen statue in front of the Statehouse.)

3. Bruce Lisman was a saint of Wall Street. Or, as Pelham puts it, “there is nothing to be found that taints Bruce’s career in financial markets.” Which reminds me of an old Calvin Trillin piece about a scuzzy politician who should use the campaign slogan “Never Been Indicted.”

I have no reason to believe that Lisman was involved in collateralized debt obligations or credit swaps or mortgage merry-go-rounds or any of the other hyper-caffeinated financial products that almost killed the global economy. What I do know is that he was immersed in that world for virtually his entire adult life, and he is very much a product of Wall Street. This is the real issue with Lisman: not that he himself was responsible for the crash, but that his views are a product of a fatally flawed system.

Two pieces of evidence, previously reported on this site, from Lisman’s 2010 speech in Burlington.

Lisman referred to the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 as “this thing that happened,” this “Darwinian asteroid,” this alien force that came out of nowhere and hit without warning, and was obviously nobody’s fault. This is complete horseshit that could only come from a Wall Streeter.

Lisman also referred to “capital at risk,” i.e. money invested in a business, as “the most precious thing in the galaxy.” Which is just plain obnoxious. He further asserted that because capital is so precious, we must cut taxes on capital gains and corporations. And, he later said, we should raise income taxes on poor and working-class Americans because “you’d want everyone to pay something in.” (Ignoring the fact that poor people pay lots of taxes, just not income taxes.)

If that isn’t the world-view of a Wall Street lifer, I don’t know what is.  

In sum, Mr. Pelham, the Digger story may portray CFV in a way you don’t like, but that doesn’t mean the story is wrong. It just didn’t serve your agenda. And I shed no tears for Lisman or CFV; they can buy all the good publicity they want.

And they have. And they will.  

Dear oh dear. I’ve annoyed our Attorney General. Well, either me or someone using the same words I used.

See, earlier this week I posted a diary entitled “Someone’s been fluffing Bill Sorrell’s Wikipedia page,” which noted (a) that an unknown person (IP address 24.147.92.129, come on down!) had filled Sorrell’s Wikipedia entry with pro-Bill puffery, and (b) that the entry, and Sorrell himself, are greatly exaggerating his role in the 1997 multi-state tobacco settlement.

So, at his campaign kickoff event on Wednesday, he again touted his role in the settlement — “several times,” according to VTDigger.

Seems a bit sad that a 15-year officeholder has to brag so much about something that happened in his first month on the job, but never mind.

After the jump: reality and revisionism.

In my previous diary, I referenced the history of the tobacco case and noted that, while Sorrell did, in fact, file suit within a month of taking office, he did so “at a time when Attorneys General were jumping on the bandwagon as quickly as they could.”

Now, a passage from the Digger account:

Sorrell’s critics have suggested he jumped on the bandwagon on a suit already in the works, but he denies the claim, calling that charge “revisionist history.”

All righty then. Let’s look at the timeline and see who’s doing the revising.

The first state filed suit in 1994. There was a slow trickle of new filings over the ensuing 20 months or so. Then, Liggett settled with the first four states. That led a bunch of others to file in 1996.

Then, Liggett settled with all the states that had sued since its first settlement. That touched off a land rush of states filing their own cases. Let’s lay it out for all to see.

March 1997: Liggett settles with a total of 20 states.

April 14: Alaska files suit.

April 22: Pennsylvania files.

May 1: Bill Sorrell becomes Vermont AG.

May 5: Montana and Arkansas file.

May 8: Ohio files.

May 9: South Carolina files. A tobacco state, for Pete’s sake.

May 10: Missouri files.

May 21: Nevada files.

May 27: New Mexico files.

May 29: Vermont files.

June 4: New Hampshire files.

June 5: Colorado files.

June 10: Oregon files.

June 12: California files.

June 16: Puerto Rico files.

June 18: Maine and Rhode Island file.

June 20: The tobacco companies and the state attorneys general announce a landmark $368.5 billion settlement. Such a complex deal must have been in the works before Bill Sorrell joined the case. And even if, somehow, dozens of states and the entire tobacco industry miraculously pulled this off in three weeks’ time, is it credible to believe that the brand-new AG of a very small state played an important role in the deal? No, not at all.

Vermont was the 30th state to file suit. It was the 10th in the parade of states that filed shortly after the Liggett deal. “Jumping on the bandwagon” may be an overly playful term for it, but this was clearly something that every attorney general in the country was getting in on.

Filing suit was the right thing to do, and it’s to Sorrell’s credit that he did so almost as soon as he took office. But It took no leadership and no original thought for him to join the parade. He deserves some credit, but he’s claiming a whole lot more than he deserves.

Conclusion: If anyone in this case is a revisionist historian, it’s Bill Sorrell.  

Oh, wow. Oh, no. Oh, man. I missed this little tidbit when it was first reported by the Associated Press a few days ago. Buried deep in an article about the Sorrell/Donovan Dem primary for Attorney General was this little gem:

So far no Republican candidate has entered the race, though Burlington businessman Jack McMullen said Monday that he would probably enter if he can put a campaign team together.

Jack Bleepin’ McMullen. Now, there’s a name from the past. For those just joining us, McMullen was the Massachusetts millionaire who moved to Vermont in 1998 and launched a candidacy for U.S. Senate. And was humiliatingly defeated in the Republican primary by the late great dairy farmer Fred Tuttle. And then ran again for Senate in 2004 and managed to win the primary, only to get his ass whipped by Pat Leahy, 71%-25%.

I guess the statute of limitations on political embarrassment has run out. Either that, or the VTGOP is truly desperate to fill out its statewide ticket. Or both.

Jack McMullen. Sheesh.

p.s. McMullen has a law degree, but has he ever practiced law? Is he a licensed attorney in the state of Vermont?

Awww. Connoisseurs of political schadenfreude will be disappointed to learn that Sen. Vince Illuzzi (D/R, Bumptious) has decided not to run for Vermont Attorney General. The Freeps’ politics blog, vtBuzz, reports that Illuzzi has narrowed his options to two: run for re-election to the Senate, or seek the Auditor’s seat about to be abandoned by Tom Salmon (D/R, Opportunist). WCAX-TV, meanwhile, says Illuzzi is leaning toward Auditor, which has the two advantages of (1) a full-time salary and (2) a departing incumbent who’s set the performance bar very low.

Either Illuzzi finally realized that his history of ethical troubles would be a huge hindrance in a run for AG, or he saw a better opportunity in the Auditor’s contest.  His fundamental assumption, I guess, is that he is innately qualified to hold any elective post in the state; it’s simply a matter of which office he will deign to hold.

Illuzzi’s AG abjuration, wise though it may have been, does leave another hole in the crazy-quilt Republican ticket for 2012.  

The filing deadline for this fall’s election is June 14, a bit more than two weeks away. And here’s how things stand for the VTGOP. (Hint: not a pretty picture.)

Governor: Randy Brock, trailing Peter Shumlin by a 2-1 margin in the latest poll with few undecideds, and running a hard-right campaign aimed at that solid bedrock 30% conservative electorate.

Lieutenant Governor: The only bright spot, Phil Scott, popular incumbent. The Dems may not even nominate a candidate.

AG: Haven’t heard any Republican names, As flawed as Illuzzi was, he had more name recognition than any other potential candidate. It’s looking more and more like the real contest for AG is the Democratic primary.

Treasurer: The Great White Hope, and sworn enemy of ShummyCare, Wendy Wilton. (Well, Emerson Lynn sees her as the Repubs’ GWH. Think he’s all alone there.)

Secretary of State: No names out there. Can the GOP find someone willing to lose big to Jim Condos? A young conservative looking to build a resume?

Auditor: The Republicans are reduced to mooning over Tom Salmon. Hey, there’s Vince Illuzzi, waving his arms in the air like the smarty-pants kid in second grade: “Pick me, pick me!” Senator Kevin Mullin is also pondering a run.

US Senate: John MacGovern and H. Brooke Paige want the privilege of giving Bernie Sanders a chance at his biggest-ever margin of victory.

Congress: Ditto Mark Donka running against Peter Welch.

Of the Senate and Congressional hopefuls, here’s an encouraging word courtesy of vtBuzz:

Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley said he doesn’t know any of the candidates.

Yeah, and he can’t find anybody better. Wow. This isn’t exactly a ticket designed to lift up the GOP’s legislative candidates. No wonder the Republicans are so ornery this year.  

Funny doings over at Wikipedia. Until early May, Bill Sorrell’s page was basically a stub — a couple paragraphs of basic biographical material, nothing more. Then, between May 4 and 6, there were eleven separate edits, each adding information that was completely one-sided, and always flattering to Sorrell.  

All eleven edits were made from the same IP address, 24.147.93.129, which traces to South Burlington. Aside from this burst of edits, 24.147.92.129 has done almost nothing on Wikipedia.

Thanks to 24.147.92.129’s literary efforts, Bill Sorrell’s Wikipedia page has been turned into a fluff piece extolling his accomplishments large and small and completely omitting any negatives or controversies. (Not a word about Vermont Yankee or campaign finance, for instance.)  One of his “major accomplishments” is so vastly overstated that it’s entirely misleading.

It’s a statement that is repeated in Sorrell’s own campaign puffery. It concerns his role in the multi-state settlement with the tobacco industry. Here it is, as it appears on Wikipedia (as of Tuesday May 29 at 7:00 a.m., in case 24.147 gets busy again):

Within weeks of taking office, Sorrell brought suit against the nation’s largest tobacco companies to end their deceitful behavior of lying about the harmful effects of their products.

The lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with Big Tobacco that to date has yielded over $300 million dollars for Vermont taxpayers; and, as a result of Bill’s leadership*, Big Tobacco will continue to pay Vermont approximately $25 million dollars a year in perpetuity.

*A curiously familiar phrase there: “as a result of Bill’s leadership.” You don’t usually see Wikipedia postings on a first-name basis.

We’ll get to the truth momentarily. But first, here’s a curiously similar passage from Sorrell’s campaign website:

As Attorney General, only a matter of weeks after taking office, I filed suit against the country’s largest tobacco companies for lying about the addictive qualities of cigarettes, marketing to children and causing the expenditure of millions of dollars of Vermont taxpayer money each year to treat tobacco-related illnesses.  The settlement of the case has resulted in payments of approximately $300 million to the state and these payments of approximately $25 million per year are to continue forever.

There’s a lot of word-swapping between the two versions, but in terms of shape, thrust, and meaning, they are identical. It’s hard to imagine that 24.147 could have written the Wikipedia entry without using Sorrell’s own statement as a template. (It could have happened the other way around as well, but I hope Bill Sorrell hasn’t been reduced to cadging his campaign material from Wikipedia.)

After the jump: the truth about the tobacco settlement.

Now, aside from the issue of Wiki-fluffing, there’s a larger question: how much credit should Bill Sorrell get for the tobacco settlement? The historical record suggests that he’s claiming far more than he deserves.

(The following information largely taken from a PBS Frontline history of the tobacco lawsuits.)

The first state lawsuit was brought in 1994 by the AG of Mississippi. Three other states joined by early 1995. About a year later, the Liggett Group reached its own settlement with five states and numerous private plaintiffs. That touched off a series of filings; 14 more states joined the party by the end of 1996.

In March 1997, Liggett settled with the rest of the states that had filed suit by then. That touched off a flood of filings; 18 states filed in May and June alone.

Bill Sorrell took office as Vermont AG on May 1, 1997 (according to his Wikipedia page, heh). Vermont filed its tobacco suit on May 29. It was the 10th state in that flood of 18. So, the truth is, Sorrell filed suit a few weeks after taking office — but he did so at a time when Attorneys General were jumping on the bandwagon as quickly as they could. It took no particular “leadership” on Sorrell’s part.

The tobacco settlement was announced not long thereafter, on June 20, 1997. These things take a lot of time, and the deal had obviously been in the works long before May 29. It’s unlikely that Sorrell had much to do with it aside from signing his name.

There’s an Associated Press article about the Sorrell/Donovan primary race which includes an interestingly written account of Sorrell’s boast.

During his tenure, Sorrell said, he ushered hundreds of millions of dollars into the state through enforcement actions, including the tobacco settlement, which will bring $25 million a year to the state for as long as the tobacco industry is in business.

That much is true. He “ushered in” the big bucks, the same way an usher shows you to your seat in a theater. Which is a long way from asserting that the usher produced the evening’s entertainment.

I hope our ever-diligent Vermont political media will closely question Mr. Sorrell on the truth of the tobacco settlement. While they’re at it, maybe they can track down 24.147.93.127.

That, apparently, is what the Republican Party believes, including the most prominent conservatives in Vermont. Because in spite of their anti-tax rhetoric, they would really, really like to raise taxes on the poor and working class.

Sheesh. And they accuse liberals of engaging in class warfare.

I’ve reported the following comments before in this space, but I think they deserve to be spotlighted. Especially since they are part of a nationwide trend.

First, Bruce Lisman of the allegedly nonpartisan (but clearly conservative) Campaign for Vermont. This is from a 2010 speech in Burlington, previously documented here.

“The taxpaying base is quite thin. Because of the progressive nature of it, there’s a cutoff that excludes more than 50% of potential taxpayers from paying taxes. My view: I think everyone is either in the enterprise or they’re not. You’d want everyone to pay something in.”

That’s double mendacity, but we’ll come back to Cousin Brucie. Right now, we turn to presumptive Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock, from the Issues page of his website:

Simplify the tax code and even the load by making sure everyone pays at least something.

That’s right: what Vermont needs is higher taxes for its poorest residents. And these aren’t just one-off, throw-away comments; they are part of a national pattern, as documented on Friday’s Rachel Maddow Show. Republicans nationwide, as well as in Vermont, are loudly and broadly putting forth the idea that Poor People Need To Pay More Taxes.

Republicans across the country, including Mitt Romney, are complaining about the fact that 47% — or maybe 50%, or 51%, or 53% — of all Americans are not paying income taxes. That statement is technically true but fundamentally misleading, and Republicans know that. Sometimes they get sloppy, like Bruce Lisman, and simplify it to “not paying taxes,” which is completely false.

After the jump: The truth about taxes.  

On the federal level, low-income Americans don’t pay income taxes because of deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit — which is designed to encourage people to work, by allowing them to keep more of their meager paychecks*. But they still have to pay payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare. Those taxes hit low-income people proportionately harder.

*And here I thought Republicans wanted poor people to get off their duffs and work.

On the state level, the poorest Vermonters don’t pay income taxes — but they still pay property and sales taxes. Sales taxes hit them proportionately hard, because more of their income goes into buying the necessities of life.

Want some facts? According to a 2009 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Vermont’s tax system is one of the least regressive in the nation. Meaning we give poor and working people a fairer deal than almost every other state. ITEP used figures from 2007, the newest available figures at the time, and found that — yes indeed — the bottom 20% of Vermonters paid no income tax. They actually received money back. And the next 20% paid only a fraction of a percent in income tax.

But even so, the poorest 20% paid a total of just over 8% of their income in total state and local taxes. The next 20% paid almost exactly 8% of income. For them, sales taxes took the biggest bite. The top 5% of all Vermonters paid about 7.5% of their incomes in local and state taxes. According to ITEP, everybody in Vermont pays roughly the same percentage of their income in state and local taxes. (The middle 20% are actually the hardest it, at about 9.4%). And the poor, proportionately, pay more than the rich.

So Randy Brock, Bruce Lisman, and all those other Republicans are lying about poor people and taxes.

Let’s say that again, all caps: THEY ARE LYING.

Why are they doing this? It’s one of the most reprehensible of Republican tactics: trying to spark middle-class resentment against the poor. Yep, class warfare.

And, looking at the big picture for a moment, this is one more sign that Randy Brock is running a hard-right, tea party-style campaign. He has claimed that Peter Shumlin is the most liberal governor in Vermont history, which is balderdash. But the way he’s going, Randy Brock may be the most conservative gubernatorial candidate in state history.