Well, now. Vermont’s two-fisted Attorney General, Bill Sorrell, has filed suit against Brian Dubie and the Republican Governors Association, accusing them of collusion in Dubie’s 2010 campaign for governor. The Burlington Free Press somewhat curiously says that it “could be the first case of the state taking enforcement action against an individual political candidate,” which sounds significant but was apparently too difficult to fact-check. “Could be”?

Anyway, Sorrell charges candidate and entity with sharing polling information in a way that was “unusual compared with common election practices.” To wit:

…the state cites testimony under oath by Dubie campaign manager Corry Bliss and RGA regional field director Dennise Casey that they communicated regularly during the campaign period, and that Bliss agreed to share Dubie’s polling information with the association. Casey, a Vermonter who was Douglas’ campaign manager in 2006 and 2008 and eventually his deputy chief of staff, went to work for the RGA in 2009.

The shared polling information amounts to a contribution from Dubie to the RGA, the state alleges, and should have been reported in state election filings by Dubie and the RGA but was not. Likewise, the state alleges that the RGA’s television and radio ads should have counted as contributions to Dubie’s campaign.

Dubie’s polling information allegedly helped RGA formulate its ad campaign supporting Dubie and slamming Shumlin. (Or, in the charming words of campaign strategist Gene Ulm, “WE NEED TO LAY WOOD ON SHUMLIN.” E-mail message, all caps. Good grief, is politics always such a soul-curdling enterprise?)

After the jump: a carefully worded denial and a stock accusation of prosecutorial politics.  

Dubie and RGA deny the charges and have asked the court to dismiss the case:

In their responses filed in court, [Dubie’s lawyer Brady] Toensing and association attorney Chris Roy argue that sharing polling information does not constitute coordination. The state offers no evidence that Dubie knew what ads the RGA was going to air or wanted those ads aired, Toensing argued in court papers filed Monday.

Hmm. They don’t deny the sharing of polling information, which would seem to be a crucial part of the case. And they go out of their way to deny something that Sorrell doesn’t allege: that Dubie “knew what ads the RGA was going to air.” They appear to be aiming for a very narrow definition of “collusion,” which makes me think that they’re in trouble on the merits of the case.

Toensing also goes after the messenger instead of the message, accusing Sorrell of partisanship: “The attorney general, at the behest of the Democratic Party, had engaged in intrusive and extensive investigations of this and other campaign matters.” (Italics mine.)

That’s pretty strong stuff, calling Sorrell a puppet.

Sorrell denies it. In fact, he points out that the case was filed without any fanfare in December, and has only come to light because of Toensing and Roy’s filing.

Myself, I doubt that the charges are politically motivated. Sorrell certainly didn’t try to publicize the case, which is what a politically-minded prosecutor would do. Besides, the short-term gain isn’t worth the potential long-term pain of having a groundless case thrown out of court. I suspect that Sorrell has a lot of evidence on his side.

If so, this could do some damage to Dubie’s carefully constructed image as a Jim Douglas-style nice guy. Stay tuned.  

Having posted a couple of diaries about Bruce Lisman’s websi — er, sorry, the Campaign for Vermont’s website, starring Bruce Lisman, directed by Bruce Lisman, written by Bruce Lisman, Executive Producer Bruce Lisman, but having nothing whatsoever to do with promoting Bruce Lisman, heaven forfend* — I thought I’d spend a little time with the website of Vermont’s number-one actual Republican candidate for high office. Ahem, Randy Brock.

*I just stopped by Bruce’s — er, sorry, the Campaign for Vermont’s website, and see that they’ve done a bit of housecleaning. Replaced their ubiquitous photo of an oddly unfocused Bruce with a more forceful image of Bruce in a suit speaking into a microphone. They also pushed the photo further down the page so it’s not the first thing you see. And they replaced the banner image of Bruce in his L.L. Bean gear with stock photos of happy people doing interesting things, in an apparent attempt to mildly de-Brucify the site. Could it be that somebody at Lisman headqua — er, the Campaign for Vermont — is reading GMD and responding to our critiques? I blush.

Sad to say, compared to the relative professionalism of the CfV website, Randy Brock’s is a study in weaksauce. It looks like a generic “Candidate Website” template from GoDaddy.com or something. (I certainly hope he didn’t pay a web designer. If so, he should demand a refund.) The banner features a waving American flag; Brock’s campaign logo in red, white and blue; and a photo of Randy looking almost alive and a bit constipated. (Couldn’t they get him to smile?) All told, the very model of a Generic Candidate Banner.

The website is strikingly thin on content. I count eight pages, most of them very brief. Four of the pages are stock items like “Get Involved” and “Contribute.” Click the “Tell a Friend” button and it generates an e-mail with a subject line “Elect Randy Brock” and a message as follows:  

I thought you might be interested in reading more about Randy Brock. Randy is running for election as Governor of Vermont. I am urging all my friends and family to join me in supporting his campaign. We need his leadership, integrity, and independence.    Please take the time to learn more about Randy Brock and consider signing up for his email list. Visit his website at: http://www.RandyBrock.com

Inspiring. Almost as inspiring as the first two lines of his home page, under the headline “WELCOME”:

I am a candidate for Governor of the State of Vermont. I take that candidacy very seriously.

The man’s prose is incandescent. I must look away, ere my retinas burn.

After the jump: No news is no news, Salmon envy, and green incoherence.

The “News” page contains a single lonely link: to Randy’s campaign announcement on December 7. Guess he hasn’t made any news since then. Below that is a list of newspaper “Endorsements” — dating from his 2006 bid for re-election as Auditor.

The “Background” page features a short list of bullet points, the “highlights” of his excellent career, many of which are about auditing. Think he’s still pissed about losing to Tom Salmon?

The “Issues” page contains a measly 500 words of Republican boilerplate: lower taxes, more efficient government, growing the economy. I will point out three of the less awesome passages:

Under “Protecting Our Natural Resources,” he begins by saying “Vermont’s environment must be protected.” Having touched that base, he immediately pivots to permit reform, saying nothing further about protecting the environment.

Under “Making Healthcare Affordable,” he calls for encouraging competition and cutting waste, proudly citing his work as State Auditor in discovering “millions of dollars in fraud, waste, abuse and error in Medicaid alone.” Then he seems to take a swat at his successor Tom Salmon, saying “We have not done what we should to continue and expand these efforts.” Get on the stick, Tom!  

Brock ends his six-line healthcare paragraph with a call for a Marshall Plan on healthcare. But wait: wasn’t the Marshall Plan a massive expenditure of government funds? I’m confused.

Thirdly, there’s his “energy policy” paragraph, which mostly concerns Vermont Yankee. It then ends with the following sentence about green energy:

We need to continue to encourage the development of new, green initiatives maintain our position on the leading edge of innovation for new, green initiatives for cost-effective alternative energy sources.

Yikes. Apparently he doesn’t care enough about green energy to produce a coherent sentence on the subject.

Now, I realize that it’s early in the campaign cycle and Brock is just getting started. Well, he’d better hope so, anyway. But if his campaign website is anything to judge by, the Brock for Governor effort is off to a rocky start. And/or an underfunded one. Is Bruce Lisman hogging all the loot?

(Brock does also have a Facebook page. No Twitter, tho. The most recent Facebook entry was posted on February 4, a whole ten days ago. It says he’ll be at the Windson County Super Bowl Party. Yes, “Windson.”)  

All across the nation, the Republican Party is trying to clamp down on voting rights. Citing an imaginary epidemic of voter fraud, they proclaim themselves the guardians of electoral purity.

All righty then. So how do the Republicans fare when they’re running their own electoral process? Badly.

So badly, I wouldn’t put them in charge of a Bingo game, let alone an election.

Rachel Maddow highlighted several instances of GOP incompetence on her February 7 show. The takeaway: Of the contests held to date (primaries and caucuses), only two were relatively trouble-free — New Hampshire and South Carolina. Every other one was seriously flawed. She referred to the whole thing as a “freaking mess.”

Since then, the Maine caucus has added another entry on the bad side of the ledger. On caucus day, Mitt Romney was the announced winner by less than 200 votes over Ron Paul. However… the caucus in Washington County, Maine was called off due to inclement weather. The Paul camp claims to be very strong in Washington County. But while the county GOP chair (a Romney supporter) wants to hold the caucus this weekend, the state chair is refusing. He says the results are final as they currently stand. I guess he doesn’t care that an entire county was disenfranchised.

Once again, a state Republican organization blithely fumbles its process to choose a candidate for the most powerful office in the world. And these are the people who claim to believe in the sanctity of the ballot box.

Just for yuks, we’ll run down the list of other Republican blunders after the jump.

The Iowa fiasco is pretty well known. The “crucial,” “first-in-the-nation,” “bellwether,” insert-your-cliche-here Iowa caucuses were screwed up six ways from Sunday. First, Mitt Romney was named the winner. Then the Iowa GOP broke its own rules by waiting 16 days to finalize the results. Then they announced that, oops, Rick Santorum had a lead. But wait, some precincts are missing, and we can’t really say who won. Oh, all right, Santorum won. And they never did find those missing votes.

Sheesh. On to Florida where, as far as I can tell, the voting went off reasonably well. No hanging chads or anything. But the apportionment of delegates is up in the air. The national GOP had stripped Florida of half its delegates for scheduling its primary so early — but the state party is hoping to reverse that ruling. And second-place finisher Newt Gingrich is appealing the winner-take-all rule, seeking a share of delegates equivalent to his share of the vote. So as of right now, we have no idea how many delegates Florida will have or who they will support.

Then came the Nevada caucus, where the specially-scheduled Sheldon Adelson evening caucus was marred by controversy when party officials tried to impose a religious test on those wishing to vote. And it took two days for the Nevada party to count the votes and release a total, because there was so much confusion to sort through.

The state of Missouri then spent $7 million on a meaningless Republican primary. Following a dispute with the national party,  the state GOP stripped the primary of any role in delegate selection. That’ll happen later. But they held the primary anyway. Way to waste the taxpayers’ money.

On the same day as the meaningless Missouri primary, Colorado and Minnesota held meaningless caucuses. Meaningless because state party rules specifically state that the results of the caucuses have no bearing on the ultimate selection of delegates. Who are, if we need a reminder, the folks who actually go to the convention and pick the GOP nominee.

Looking at this comedy of errors, I can only conclude that the Republican Party doesn’t care the least little bit about clean elections. Which shows, yet again, that their anti-voter-fraud drive is purely and simply an attempt to limit participation. It has nothing to do with principle, because the Republicans routinely ignore the principle in their own house.  

This week, we learned that the two top executives of Montpelier’s Kellogg-Hubbard Library have resigned, and that management is being restructured. Beyond that, a number of questions are unanswered. Given the cozy insularity of many Vermont institutions, public and private, large and small, I fear these questions will never be answered.

(Pretty much the only media source for this story is the Times Argus, whose website and archive are behind a paywall, so I won’t bother embedding a link. I’ll include some fair-use quotes in this story. To see the rest, subscribe! Or go to your local, ahem, library, and read it in the February 9 edition.)

For the last six-plus years, the Library has had a rather unusual two-headed leadership model. An Executive Director (Daniel Pudvah) responsible for finances, fundraising, and such. And a library Director (Robin Sales) responsible for day-to-day management. There are reasons to have this kind of structure, but I’d always wondered if it was really necessary in a smallish library like Kellogg-Hubbard.

Now, I’m wondering even more — about the original move, and its reversal.  

First of all, in retrospect, was it a mistake to adopt the structure in 2005? Did we get our money’s worth out of the extra burden of two directors? If so, why are we abandoning it? If not, why did it take six-plus years to figure this out?

There were two events that precipitated the move. One was Pudvah’s decision to take a new job with Radio Vermont/WDEV. He’d been in talks with WDEV since sometime in the fall, and in January he notified the library’s Board that he was leaving. The other event, as reported the Times Argus:

According to Sales, while she was out on maternity leave, the board of trustees hired a consultant to examine the leadership structure of the library.

The consultant recommended that the library do away with the dual director model and return to a single chief executive or head librarian.

…Board Secretary Marialisa Calta said the dual director model was “clunky,” and that the restructuring will streamline the organization and possibly save money.

One executive instead of two? I’ll bet it will “possibly” save money. But wait a minute: This all happened while Sales was on maternity leave? Yep.

When Sales returned, she learned of the restructuring and decided to resign. …[she] would have been required to apply for the new position.

“I was a little disenchanted by the process,” Sales said.

Well, yeah. An employer can get in hot water for taking away a woman’s job while she’s on maternity leave. If this wasn’t illegal, it was a skin-of-the-teeth, carefully-crafted procedure designed to meet the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Board President John Page, perhaps in a nod to any employment attorneys tuning in, was careful to note that Sales and Pudvah “resigned on their own free will.”

But while Pudvah resigned to take a new job, Sales is unemployed. She may have resigned on her own free will, but was she really given a choice?

How did all this play out? Which came first: the realization that the dual model was “clunky,” the hiring of the consultant, Pudvah’s pending departure? The Board isn’t saying.

Page declined to comment on when exactly the consultant was hired to look at the leadership structure, who the consultant was or when the restructuring recommendation was made.

“I;m not going to comment about that,” Page said, because it involves an “internal personnel matter.”  

Bullfeathers. The hiring of a consultant, the identity of the consultant, and the timing of the recommendation are only tangentially “personnel matters.”  

Unless, of course, it would make the Library look really bad. Or even make them vulnerable to a lawsuit from Sales. Say, for instance, it went like this: Pudvah let people know he was planning to leave. A consultant was hired, and produced a report that provided cover for the forced departure of Sales by effectively eliminating her job.

That’s a worst-case interpretation. But the lack of transparency by the Library Board lends itself to unfavorable interpretations.

Public institutions that use public funds have a responsibility to answer for their decisions to the public. The Kellogg-Hubbary Library Board is, so far, failing to meet this obligation.

In a story that, as far as I can tell, has gone unreported except by Vermont Digger, the University of Vermont’s Board of Trustees has chosen UVM’s next President. It happened at a Board meeting last weekend.

They’re not naming the name just yet; they have to negotiate a contract first. We won’t know Dan Fogel’s successor until late February, according to a UVM release. Negotiating on behalf of UVM will be the board’s Chair, Robert Cioffi.

(Who, FYI, is a native Vermonter who’s now a partner in a private equity firm* located in one of the tonier precincts of Connecticut. Gee, another one of them running something. There’s a surprise.)

Let’s hope they’ve made the right choice. UVM has, to put it mildly, a mixed track record in presidential selections. And to judge from the Vermont Digger account, it doesn’t look like the Board has learned very much from the Dan Fogel kerfuffle.

After the jump: big bucks, “modest revisions,” and octopus ink.

The Board also received a report (authored by, yep, Robert Cioffi) on the controversy over Fogel’s departure as President and the compensation package he received. The report highlighted concerns over the “corporatization” of UVM, but “without a clear definition of what this means.”

That’s actually a quote from the report. Really. If you don’t know what “corporatization” means, then how can you take effective steps to change it? And if you didn’t bother to define the term, how serious are you about reform?

On the subject of executive pay, which is certainly part of the concern over “corporatization,” the report basically stomped all over UVM’s critics. From VT Digger:

The report asserts a “widespread understanding” that salaries must be nationally competitive, but “tempered by some who believe that Vermont is unique and has different values, and should not be bound by the marketplace or a corporate culture.

There you go. Those who are critical of excessive compensation are depicted as “some who believe” in a warm fuzzy ideal of Vermont. And their concerns are obviously trumped by the “‘widespread understanding’ that salaries must be nationally competitive.”  

A brief aside: There are a lot of salaries at UVM that are not at all “nationally competitive.” This is also true, as it happens, at Dartmouth. Both institutions operate on the unspoken assumption that the area’s natural beauty and lifestyle options are powerful draws. And I’m talking about fairly high academic positions. But not for top executives, no way, nossir, nohow. They need money.

In response to said report, the Board adopted what VT Digger rightfully called “modest revisions” of university policy.

…new wording says that the president will not be eligible to receive outside compensation without prior board authorization. A sentence was also deleted, the requirement that the president inform the board of “all compensation paid or assignable to him/her in consideration of his appointment; regardless of the source of funds.”

Maybe I’m uninformed, but… (a) I don’t remember “outside compensation” being an issue in the Fogel case, and (b) if the president can’t receive outside compensation but doesn’t have to inform the board of “all compensation,” then how is the new policy supposed to be enforced?

So, given the concern by “some” over executive pay, what can we expect UVM to offer its new leader? VT Digger says…

Based on equity criteria for senior UVM administrators, the president’s starting salary is likely to be around $400,000. The dean of UVM’s Medical School made $431,000 in 2010. Fogel’s top pay, not including other forms of compensation, was $322,563.

Well. If my math is correct, the new President can expect a 24% raise over what (the obviously undercompensated) Dan Fogel received. How did he manage to put food on the table?

A little perspective from UVM professor, State Senator, and ace blogger Philip Baruth:

Baruth wrote that he sees no substantial change in the way a future president will be compensated.

The public “has a right to insist that a strong, clear, enforceable policy on compensation help to direct the Board in such matters,” he concludes.

The public may have “a right to insist,” but it sure seems like the insistence isn’t producing results. Instead of clarity, we’re getting another cloud of octopus ink. The report downplayed the concerns of UVM critics and apparently produced no meaningful reforms. The presidential salary is about to take another huge leap. And it’s being negotiated by a venture capitalist — whose industry is a leader in skyrocketing executive pay.

To quote John McCain, that’s not change you can believe in.

*Correction 2/13/12: A reader pointed out that Robert Cioffi is not a venture capitalist, as I originally described him, but a partner in a private equity firm. Venture capitalists invest in startup companies, often in high-tech; private equity firms invest in — or take over — existing companies. In our current political discourse, “venture capitalist” has become the default term. Mitt Romney, for example, is often referred to as a venture capitalist, when in fact he was in private equity. My apologies for the error, and my thanks to the reader for correcting it.

Oh looky here, a new hashtag has appeared on Twitter this afternoon — #kurtfacts. It’s the old Chuck Norris meme, except with Kurt Wright as the hero. Samples:

“Kurt Wright can blow bubbles with beef jerky.”

“Kurt Wright was born in a log cabin … that he built with his bare hands.”

“Kurt Wright has a bear skin rug in his living room its not dead it’s just afraid to move”

Hilarity, to be sure. Feel free to Tweet your own, preferably subversive, entries. (I just Tweeted “Kurt Wright has one freakishly large tooth. Named “Nigel.”) Or maybe start #wandafacts or #mirofacts.  

Bruce Lisman’s vanity proj– er, campaign stalking hors– er, public policy organization, Campaign for Vermont, continues to crank out opinion pieces, press releases, and radio advertisements. And while I appreciate CfV’s copious ad buys on my favorite radio station, WDEV, I must also note that its true character is coming into sharper focus.

For those just joining us, Lisman is a native Vermonter who made a fortune as a top executive for cratered Wall Street giant Bear Stearns. In retirement, he has returned home with the avowed goal of promoting the greater good of the Green Mountain State through a “nonpartisan” effort called Campaign for Vermont. Which, although it claims to be a broad-based coalition, seems to be centered entirely on Mr. Bruce Lisman. For instance #1: Bruce’s oddly unfocused smiling face appears on every webpage. For instance #2: CfV’s position statements, although supposedly a group effort, are entitled “The Lisman Perspective.”

There are many other indications that the CfV is (a) solidly Republican, and (b) an attempt to whitewash Lisman as a potential future candidate for office, in hopes of avoiding the fate of rich-guy flameouts Rich Tarrant and Jack McMullen. I outlined these signs in two mid-December diaries, “Lismania” and “Lismania II.”

So now, on to the latest, including a fourth word in the CfV nameplate, and two new (very obviously anti-Shumlin) radio ads.  

The Lisman campai– er, CfV, is going through a bit of an identity crisis these days. On its website, it calls itself “Campaign for Vermont.” But on its new radio ads, it goes by the name “Campaign for Vermont Prosperity.” Which is a better indication of the group’s priorities, equating improvement with economic growth.

Yes, certainly, we do need a strong economy. But when you make “prosperity” your clarion call, you’re declaring yourself in the conservative camp on issues like taxes, regulation, land use, environmental protection, and nuclear power.  

Next, there are Lisma– er, CfV’s two new radio ads, on the subjects of education funding and health care reform. And both are attacks on Governor Shumlin that sound exactly like Republican campaign ads.

On school funding, CfV asserts that “we will pay more in property taxes this year” because “Governor Shumlin has cut state support for education funding.” The truth: Shumlin’s budget does call for a reduction in state education funding, but (a) he hasn’t cut anything, that’s up to the Legislature, and (b) if the cut goes through, it’s up to local districts whether to raise property taxes or cut their own budgets. Now, in my opinion, Shumlin should balance his own budget without passing the buck to school boards. But Lisman’s assertion is untrue.

On health care, over a background of dramatic, ominous music, we are informed that the Governor intends to “severely limit our choices in health insurance coverage,” and that no other state in the country “would limit health insurance choices so dramatically.” That’s the worst possible way to frame Shumlin’s plan, of course. Those who support the effort take pride in Vermont’s leadership on health care reform. And the ad assumes that the health-insurance marketplace can be counted on to produce a wealth of wonderful options for Vermonters to choose from. Which is laughable, but it’s the basis of the Republican position on health care reform: let the free market do its work, and a thousand flowers shall bloom. Trouble is, the free market has a long and disappointing track record of producing crappy, expensive health plans full of loopholes.

But you won’t hear that from Bruce Lisman, stealth Republican. The more we see of the Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, the less it looks like the unbiased, nonpartisan, public-interest group it claims to be. I don’t see Lisman running for office this year; the timeline is too short. But I do expect him to run for Governor in 2014 if a Democrat (presumably Shumlin) occupies the office.

(One more little thing: the CfV website includes a list of links to Vermont media — print, radio, TV, online. The “online” list includes Vermont Digger as well as conservative outposts True North Reports, and Vermont Tiger. But not Green Mountain Daily. Gee, Bruce, that’s not very nonpartisan of you.)

Well, a few days ago I posted a diary about the Kurt Wright campaign slamming Miro Weinberger for seeking campaign cash from “Washington elites,” as opposed to soliciting only Vermont elites, which I guess is a purer form of filling the moneybags. (Weinberger netted $8,000 from a gathering of 70 “Washington elites,” many of whom had strong Vermont ties; that’s a decidedly non-elite average gift of $114.29.)

I pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of any Republican slamming an opponent on this subject, since the GOP is the Grand Champion of big-dollar, out-of-town fundraising.

So now, the Weinberger folks have felt compelled to strike back at Wright. And pardon me if I’m underwhelmed. The big scoop on Wright, per Andy Bromage on the Seven Days staff blog:

According to public campaign reports, Wright raised $850 from four out-of-state corporate political action committees for his 2010 campaign for state representative. He accepted $200 each from Pfizer PAC in New York City; Anheuser-Busch Co. PAC in Whitehouse Station, N.J.; and ENPAC (the corporate PAC for Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp.) in Jackson, Miss. He also accepted $250 from GlaxoSmith Kline PAC in Phoenix, Ariz.

The Weinberger campaign, which described its D.C. fundraiser as a gathering of Vermont “ex-pats” and family friends, dug up the same information and is now accusing Wright of hypocrisy.

Eight hundred and fifty dollars? Come on, Eileen. That’s a drop in anybody’s bucket. Does Weinberger really think this will help him win the mayoralty, when (non-felonious) fundraising brouhahas never seem to make any difference with the electorate?

(Now, on the theory that you should never let an attack go without a response, here’s how I would have addressed Wright’s original accusation: “We fought a tough five-way primary for the party’s nomination. We face an opponent with deep pockets and the support of some very wealthy people. So as part of our campaign effort, we reached out to fellow Vermonters and friends who happen to be living in Washington.” And leave it at that.)

Wright continued the pointless exercise by positing a difference between running for Mayor and running for the Legislature — outside money is okay for the latter but not for the former — and that’s absolute nonsense and he should stop it.

This whole thing was minuscule to begin with, and it just keeps getting smaller and smaller. It doesn’t help either man. They would be better served — and would look more like the kind of leader Burlington needs — by simply dropping the matter and getting back to the issues. If anybody is gaining anything from this, it’s Wanda Hines.

Oh, those wacky conservatives. Always good for a laugh. (It’s either that, or cry.) Two items, submitted for your consideration:

1. Bob McDonnell, pretty-boy Governor of Virginia, posits a creative new take on the Republicans’ economic argument. From Talking Points Memo:

“Look, I’m glad the economy is starting to recover, but I think it’s because of what Republican governors are doing in their states, not because of the president,” McDonnell said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Geez louise, the brass-plated balls on that guy. Look, Bob, I realize that if the economy continues to improve, the Republicans have absolutely no argument for replacing President Obama. But, really now. What you’re saying is that Obama deserves blame for anything bad that happens to the economy, and none of the credit for anything good. To be charitable, I could call that “magical thinking.” But to be honest, it’s completely illogical and two-faced.

And, as the TPM story points out, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the economy is doing better in red states than in blue. It’s simply not true.  

2. From the National Review’s website, NRO writer Daniel Foster whinges about the backlash against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”

Calm down there, Danny. Let me explain how the First Amendment works, in words I hope you can understand.

The Komen Foundation has a right to decide how it spends its money. Everyone else in the country has a right to react to that decision and decide where to give their money. Nobody held a gun to Nancy Brinker’s head, nobody held her puppy for ransom.  

Conservatives are so incredibly hypersensitive to criticism or counter-argument. They talk so tough, but when they get some pushback, they go crying to Mommy. Stop it, Daniel, you’re embarrassing yourself and your cause.  

This item came out several days ago, but I just noticed it and felt it should not be allowed to go by without comment.

So the Kurt Wright campaign is all upset because Miro Weinberger had a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., that netted $8,000. So notes Andy Bromage on the Seven Days staff blog.

Now the campaign of Republican candidate Kurt Wright is using his rival’s jaunt to D.C. to criticize Weinberger for being an “elitist” who is bringing “Washington politics” to a local Vermont race.

… “It’s a sad day for Burlington when you have someone who’s going to reach out to the type of politics that are in D.C.” said Dave Hartnett, a Democrat city councilor from Burlington’s New North End and campaign spokesman for Wright. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

Side note before we continue: Mr. Bromage, please don’t use “Democrat” as an adjective. That’s a Republican thing. The correct term is “Democratic.”

One thing I never, ever, ever need to hear is a Republican campaign complaining about money. Republicans have been the driving force in making politics more and more expensive, and not caring at all where the money comes from. In fact, they argue very strenuously that the source of campaign funds doesn’t influence their politics. Which is absurd, but it is their argument. So I don’t need to hear from a Republican campaign on the relative purity of one funding source as opposed to another.

(Unless Kurt Wright wants his fellow Republicans to forswear all that Koch Brothers money.)

Hartnett admits that Wright will have a very well-financed campaign — $40,000 or so — but that’s okay because he’s raising it the good old Vermont way: from the usual group of conservative moneybags. Angelo Pizzagalli, Ernie Pomerleau, Bruce Lisman, et al. Whereas Weinberger is taking money from Washingtonian elites. Er, sort of:

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy headlined the 70-person soiree, which took place at the home of his former chief of staff, Luke Albee. Co-hosting was Bob Rogan, U.S. Peter Welch’s chief of staff.

Weinberger spokesman Mike Kanarick noted that the attendees were “‘people who have connections to Vermont, deep affection for Vermont and Burlington’ or are Vermont ‘ex-pats’ living in D.C.” And aside from this D.C. fundraiser, there were 163 donations to the Weinberger campaign in January; 149 of them were from Vermont. Not bad, really.

Also, hmm, $8,000 from 70 people. That’s $114.29 per person. Not exactly elite-level giving.

So the “Washington elite” stuff is awfully thin gruel: is Pat Leahy really any more of an out-of-touch “elite” than Ray Pecor? It’s also tiresome on a tactical level; complaining about an opponent’s fundraising is kind of a kneejerk reaction, but it never seems to make any difference to voters. (I wish it did make a bit more difference, but it doesn’t.)

In short, it’s a tired, ineffectual, hypocritical wheeze.

And seriously, Andy Bromage, stop using “Democrat” as an adjective.