Category Archives: local/regional

Stupid, stupid- goddamn stupid!

Is it possible to become totally desensitized to ‘stupid’?  If so, at least here in New England I think we could blame the Republican Governor of Maine-our own regional Trump-ist.lerump

What I am ranting about is the latest crazy-talk from Gov. Paul LePage (R).  LePage wants to jail local political opponents!

He said Thursday that two leaders of a referendum on raising the minimum wage in Maine should be jailed, echoing comments by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump about jailing his political rival.

Long before Trump splatted onto our national political windshield, Paul LePage was New England’s notable governor dunderhead. In a long, long list of stupid declarations he has called for the return of the guillotine; blamed illegal immigrants for a spike in hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and HIV; and challenged a newspaper reporter to duel.

But it seems with Donald Trump on the national scene, an “un-shackled” LePage may be reaching peak stupid. Only last week, before he called for jailing opponents, he suggested the US had descended into anarchy and that:

Said LePage: “…we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we’ve had eight years of a president — he’s an autocrat.”

At some point does the ‘stupid’ become so common it is dangerous and toxic to democracy? The saying once was “As Maine goes, so goes the nation,” but we don’t have to follow.

Randy Brock goes negative … again

Well, with just a couple weeks left until Election Day, Republican candidate for Lt. Governor Randy Brock has gone negative. In two 60 second radio ads Brock is questioning the character of his opponent, David Zuckerman, and wonders ominously whether he should be “a heartbeat away from being governor.”

When asked: “With issue differences, why go after character?” today on VPR’s Vermont Edition Brock defended his negative ads against Zuckerman, saying: The election is about character, who you trust — and adds, “Character is the core issue.” thatrandycharacter

But you know,speaking of character Randy Brock has done this negative bit before and still come up short and lost.

Running for governor in 2012 against Peter Shumlin, behind in the polls Brock went negative in a series of TV ads.  From 2012: With less than a week until voters head to the polls, Republican Randy Brock has broken out the political knives with a new television ad that insinuates lies and corruption by incumbent Democrat Peter Shumlin. And back then fellow-Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, nothing short of aghast, had to flop down on his fainting couch about Brock’s attack. Said Scott in 2012:

“…[Brock’s] spot was “unlike anything I’ve seen from a campaign perspective here in Vermont.” randybrockbear2

Fast forward to now — and Brock is at it again.

So it  bears asking: what does this willingness to repeatedly resort to negative ads at the last minute of his latest campaign say about Randy Brock’s character?

What has Corey Parent got that Carol Breuer wants?

What interest does a family of gay marriage opposition activists in Massachusetts have in heavily funding one Franklin County Republican House member’s campaigns, in particular?

I was taken aback the first time a billboard-size banner for local Republican senate candidate Dustin Degree popped up near the access road to I-89 in St. Albans. When an equally gigantic banner for Republican House candidate Corey Parent joined it, I must confess I almost veered off the road! Phil Scott’s banner at the same location is roughly one-third the size!

Now I know where some of the money is coming from.

When this story first came to my attention more than a week ago, I decided to do a little additional digging to try and put some flesh on the bones before setting the question before GMD readers.

I am honestly stumped.

According to records, one Carol Breuer of Winchester Massachusetts, and her husband Tom Breuer, appear to have given my St. Albans City Representative, Corey Parent, the princely sum of $8,000. in campaign contributions since 2013.

In the notorious world of quid-pro-quo (gleefully played like a fiddle by Donald J. Trump), one must ask what exactly they expect to get in return for their considerable investment?

Several Franklin County Republican candidates received support form the Breuers in 2013-2014, including Larry Fiske (Franklin 7) who was also remembered in 2016. His total in contributions from the Breuers for both campaigns has run to $4,000., with only $1,000. so far in 2016.

In 2013-2014 Tom Breuer also gave $4,000. each in contributions to Franklin County Senators Norm McAllister and Dustin Degree among a host of statewide Republican candidates including Phil Scott who netted a relatively modest total of $4,000. for 2014 and 2016 combined.

Though they seem to be Massachusetts based, the Breuers appear to have acquired a property in Stowe in 2013, and have contributed heavily to Vermont Republicans ever since. Whereas most candidates get only one bite of the Breuer apple, Parent is one of the very few in 2016 to get $1,000. from Carol and then another $1,000. from Tom.

Other “big winners” from the Breuer bankroll have been Robert L. Bancroft (Chittenden 8-3) $7,000. since 2013; Scott L. Beck (Caledonia 3) $6,250 since 2013; and Warren Van Wyck (Addison 3) $6,000. since 2013). Details of all contributions are available on the Secretary of State’s website, if you have a lot of time to kill.

Overall, the Breuers have invested more in Parent ($8,000.) than in any other individual candidate. As a constituent, this has definitely provoked my interest.

These seem extraordinarily high figures for what are essentially out-of-state, individual contributions to a House race representing relatively few constituents.

In July and August of 2016, the Breuers also contributed $8,000. to Commonsense Leadership, a PAC heavily weighted with tobacco and pharmaceutical industry interests.

Commonsense recently ran afoul of Vermont campaign finance law, as detailed in Seven Days on March 18, by Paul Heinz

There is an intolerant tinge to the money that comes from the Breuers and we must wonder what they are peddling this time. http://bluemassgroup.com/2008/09/gang-of-three-state-republicans-get-funding-from-bigoted-group/

The Breuers have supported the Massachusetts Independent Political Action Committee for Working Families, (MIPAC) and the Family Research Council Political Action Committee, identified in 2010 as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center https:// www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council.

Carol Breuer has also given generously to the infamous Family Research Council Action PAC.

All of these entities have focussed on undermining the rights of the LGBTQ community.

I, for one, would appreciate a much more in-depth examination by the media of where the big money that is invading our local races is coming from.

One has to ask why a Massachusetts-based family with such a negative political agenda has chosen to focus so much of their financial support on my legislative representative, and why he has chosen to accept it.

*(Here again is the link that the SS office gave me to campaign finance filings from 2014: https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/campaign-finance/search-previous-years-reports/ post-2009-report-search.aspx )

Calling Doctor Dean

The frequency and blatancy of Donald Trump’s lies seem to be increasing under the pressures of the campaign. Sometimes the effect is so bizarre that one is tempted to think that Trump has a little internal Trump, a voice inside his head perhaps, that compels him irresistibly against his, or at least his handlers’ best judgement.

The Nile may be a river in Egypt, but Donald seems to have denial hardwired into every fiber of his being.   Take these Trumpian recollections just around the debate:

.  He didn’t sniff throughout the debate. It was a bad microphone, which he has alternately claimed didn’t carry his voice because it was too short, or was so sensitive that it created the illusion that he was sniffing. Which is it?

.  A truly record breaking audience heard him clearly respond to a Clinton statement that perhaps he never pays federal income tax, “That makes me smart.” The very next day, he vehemently denied making any such statement.

This, in addition to the numerous documented lies he told during the debate, and the body count on his lies in general (roughly 70% of his statements), allow even amateur psychologists to venture a guess that his disaffection for the truth may be pathological.

He lies even about unimportant things, like the sniffing. He lies unstrategically, like a child, to protect his vanity; even when the truth is undeniably evident to all but his most loyal supporters.

Like the Emperor parading in his birthday suit, he has grown accustomed to sycophants indulging him in whatever fantasy flatters him most.

Watching a series of blonde female handlers, like Stepford wives, try to justify his whoppers makes the experience that much more surreal.

I am not a journalist, nor a doctor; I am nevertheless possessed of ordinary powers of observation. As it did to Dr. Howard Dean, it occurred to me, after about the twelfth sniff Sunday night, that Mr. Trump does indeed exhibit the signs of a cokehead.

After all, we have only his word that he never drinks or does drugs; and how good has that word proven to be?

Something is toodling around in that noggin of his, causing him to drift into the imaginary rather too frequently for a Presidential candidate.

If not coke, may I suggest (from an amateur standpoint, of course) that Mr. Trump’s “id” may be a fully formed second personality, wedded to the idea of an alternative reality?

He may well be a loving husband and father and a functional business person in the workaday world.

Much of the time, that second personality may be content to sit in the passenger seat as Trump’s ego struts its stuff; but when overcome by excitement or anxiety or a challenge to his manhood, it takes the wheel like a reckless child, driving the bus straight over the cliff.

Think of all those whacky conspiracy theories he’s flirted with or fully embraced. He has even created a conspiracy myth about general media bias to answer the evidence that lies in decades of his own recorded words.

Is that not worthy of scrutiny for clinical paranoia?

Mr. Trump is a whole different kind of candidate for President who refuses to be held to the standards of the past.  He has absolutely no record of public service and refuses to open his personal records to satisfy basic questions of competency and trustworthiness.  Ordinarily, that would be enough to raise an alarm among middle America, but his skill as a snake-charmer seems to have precluded that native caution.

“Gentlemen’s agreements” and custom must be replaced with definite rules regarding what standards candidates for the highest office in the land must satisfy in a timely manner.

These should certainly include financial records of their taxes and the taxes of any entities with which they are formally associated; and detailed medical records covering at least a decade. The rules should also require a psychological evaluation by an independent practitioner acceptable to both parties.

If the two parties survive to another general election (and I say that with only half a winking smile), it behooves them both to make this happen.

Endorsement Season!

Like so many others, I have been spellbound for too long by the train wreck on the national campaign stage.  ‘Time for a cup-half-full moment, as we note some of the great endorsements netted by a few deserving folks.

Since it could be argued that this is the year of Bernie Sanders, perhaps the best endorsements of the 2016 campaign season flow from his celebrated hands.  Of course, Bernie reserves his stamp of approval in state races for the few, the proud:  the Progressives!

He has bestowed this blessing on Dave Zuckerman for Lieutenant Governor; auditor Doug Hoffer for reelection; Senate candidates Anthony Pollina (Washington) and Chris Pearson (Chittenden); and House candidates: Jill Charbonneau (Chittenden 1); Mari Cordes (Addison 4); Celene Colburn (Chittenden 6-4); Diana Gonzalez (Chittenden 6-7); Susan Davis (Orange1); Robin Chestnut-Tangerman (Rutland-Bennington); Mollie Burke (Brattleboro); Sandy Haas (Rochester); and my good friend Cindy Weed, who is once again standing for the House in Franklin 7.

If I missed anyone, please chime in in the comments. I put this list together a little hastily as I wanted to be sure to get it up on GMD in a somewhat more timely manner than has lately been my habit.

Vermont Conservation Voters (VCV) has released their full roster of statewide endorsements, just in time for early voting which began today, and a couple of Bernie’s picks are in that lineup, as well.

Making the VCV “Team” are Sue Minter for Governor, Dave Zuckerman for Lieutenant Governor, Jim Condos for Auditor Secretary of State, T.J. Donovan for Attorney General, and Doug Hoffer for Auditor.

Anyone familiar with the sustainability mission of Vermont Conservation Voters will not be the least bit surprised by their picks.

“Vermont Conservation Voters is pleased to endorse a slate of statewide candidates with strong environmental values, all of whom are committed to ensuring the state continues working toward healthy drinking water for all Vermonters, clean lakes and rivers, climate action, sustainable communities, and other environmental priorities,” said Lauren Hierl, Political Director for Vermont Conservation Voters.

It may surprise some that the VCV has declined to endorse for Treasure, but also consistent with their mission is the obligation to occasionally withhold the ‘carrot’ as well as the ‘stick:”

“VCV is not endorsing a candidate in the Treasurer’s race this year. While VCV appreciates Treasurer Beth Pearce’s work on issues such as water quality funding and energy efficiency investments, the organization is hoping to see more leadership from the Treasurer’s office on divesting the state’s pension investment portfolio from fossil fuels”.

Congratulations to all the above, and good luck in the coming fray.

The VTGOP is hair today

It’s “all business in the front and party in the back” that’s a description of the classic mullet hair cut,famous in the 1970’s and 80’s, infamous by the 1990’s. And now with 20,000  votes for Trump  in the primary the Vermont Republicans needed a general election strategy to cope with Trump for President in a blue state. So,by intent, or by accident the VTGOP has styled itself a political “mullet”cut.vtgopelephaint1

At the presentable front of the “mullet”, gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott has denounced Trump and pledged to write in Jim Douglas for president rather than the party nominee (Scott picked the “Donald Duck for President” ploy). So he isn’t brave enough to totally disown Trump’s deplorable basket of views and  vote for Clinton, as many well known national Republicans are doing.

Randy Brock, the VTGOP candidate for Lt. Governor had supported John Kasich for President and denounced Donald Trump, but as far as I know, remains mostly mum on a write-in Douglas presidential vote — or one for Clinton.

Meanwhile on the backside of the VTGOP “mullet” you can find caucus leader Don Turner in the Vermont House of Representatives joining other Vermont Trump supporters, including Darcie Johnston (Johnston ran Randy Brock’s 2012 gubernatorial campaign). Turner boldly declares: “I am not afraid to say that I’m going to vote for Donald Trump,”  He does add the thoroughly meaningless comment that he will not endorse Trump for president. So,Don Turner isn’t afraid to vote for him, but curiously is afraid of endorsing the man.

So, “Dude! Check out the VTGOP’s hair style! Equivocation in the front, Trump supporters in the back!!” Or maybe it’s not a mullet at all, just a bad GOP comb over.

And coming next week: birtherism goes local: Was Phil Scott born in Vermont? Of course I am not endorsing this ridiculous question, but since people are talking and questions are being asked …!

The climate around Phil Scott

scottbalanceRepublican Phil Scott is doing his bit for the party to promote carbon tax hysterics on climate change this week.

One of his many recent tweets,(Team Scott must not have heard that marketing studies show that after three tweets,engagement dramatically decreases.) a “news” story from Vermontwatchdog.org  warns of an alleged carbon tax apocalypse.

Vermont Watchdog is the local franchise mouthpiece of the Franklin Center for Government, a nationwide organization said to be at the forefront of right-wing efforts to thwart action on climate change and blur the distinction between statehouse reporting and political advocacy.scottwatch

Watchdog dutifully prints a Vermont Republican Federal Elections Committee  ad in part of the article, but if you peel away the hysterics, the gist of the piece is centered on a series of  VPIRG’s proposals. Their proposal to fight climate change (and yes, Phil it is real) suggests a series of tax changes, instituting a global warming impact tax (carbon tax), starting an energy investment fund, and also energy rebates and tax cuts.

But this post isn’t exactly about the complicated carbon tax issue, but rather the policy crowd Scott runs with to get elected — his “in crowd.” The Vermont Watchdog is actually a “local” outlet, but also funded by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a 501c3 non-profit. Much of its funding is reported to be fueled with money from various hard right sources including the infamous Koch Brothers’ climate-change-denying organization.

Former Reuters chief White House correspondent Gene Gibbons didn’t mince his words in a 2010 report on the Franklin Center:

“For the most part, the people in charge of these would-be watchdog operations are political hacks out to subvert journalism in their quest to grab and keep power using whatever means they have to do so.”

The keynote speaker at a Franklin Center Watchdog.org  training session in 2012 was none other than right-wing  provocateur and ACORN “sting” artist James O’Keefe

So,what was it, only a couple weeks or more ago that Scott actually made it clear…well sort of that he thought climate change science was real ?

And now he is tweeting support for Koch Brothers-sponsored  “news” stories about climate issues.This doesn’t exactly fit with his own claims that his view “evolved.” Lie down with Big Carbon, get up covered in soot.

Phil Scott wants a Tiger Team of his own

Once upon a time, Governor Douglas had nine Tiger Teams, and now Phil Scott wants one of his own. If you’re thinking these are bad kung-fu action movies, you’re off the mark; instead they’re teams of officials created to prowl through state government, supposedly looking for inefficiencies and ways to save money. I don’t remember if the nine Douglas Tiger Teams ever actually accomplished anything, but Phil Scott says he will form a very similar group. scottstigerteam

I know this because of his crowing on twitter that he is “…the only candidate w/ a plan to modernization [sic] State Govt.” These declarations of his seem to occur at surprisingly regular intervals — but that’s what Twitter is for, I guess.

Scott says: “On the first day I am Governor, I will sign an executive order creating the Government Modernization & Efficiency Team (GMET).” And I can’t begin to guess why on day one. You know, god save-our-souls and have mercy on the state of Vermont if he doesn’t get to this on his FIRST freakin’ DAY, should he become governor! I wonder: is Phil liable to forget to do this if he waits a day or two?

Anyway, Scott’s proposed GME Team will be overseen by Vermont’s Chief Information Officer. According to the campaign website, the team’s areas of interest include: increasing operational efficiency, accounting improvements for IT projects, consolidating and streamlining and/or automate services (layoffs?) to name a few.

But like the Douglas Tiger Teams of yore, Phil’s GME Team may prove a handy cover for a little Republican budget slash n’ burn “In addition to the limits we would impose on budget growth, our goal will be to reduce the current operational cost of every agency and department by one cent for every dollar currently spent, in my first year in office.  This could generate as much as $55 million in savings.”

One of the Douglas’ Tiger Team so called “savings,” highlighted in his 2010 budget address, was a proposal to cap certain types of ER visits funded through Medicaid. This Medicaid “savings” (along with earlier proposed cuts to mental healthcare providers’ salaries) were heavily criticized because advocates said it would have made it harder for Vermonters in need to get proper health care.

Scott’s GME Team proposal gives little hint at any specific cuts, but it sure looks like his version of the Tiger Team will be wearing the same stripes as ones from the Douglas era.

What and when they knew: the shadow over Degree and Parent

Election day is nearing and Franklin County voters must decide whether or not it is important for them to have representatives in Montpelier who are at least minimally aware of potentially dangerous or compromising situations close at hand.

So far, we have not had the privilege of hearing substantive accounts from either Dustin Degree or Corey Parent of their day-to-day interactions with Norm McAllister and his teenaged “intern.”

It is a troubling gap.

Mr. Degree appears to have been an intimate of Mr. McAllister, who has himself implied that Mr. Degree knows far more about him and the situation with the teenager than anyone else; and Corey Parent has said in a sworn deposition that he often drove the teenager to and from Montpelier. Furthermore, the “intern” herself has testified that she devoted time to working both for Mr. McAllister’s and Mr. Degree’s election.

While no one would accuse either Degree or Parent of being complicit with Mr. McAllister’s alleged crimes, to accept that they were wholly unaware of the unhealthy relationship is to also accept that both gentlemen are singularly lacking in curiosity and intuition; two things that would seem fairly important to the offices that they currently hold.

Their inability in such close proximity to appreciate the real danger to the young girl (or even a hint of impropriety) represents a failure by Degree, at the very least, and possibly Parent as well, to uphold the sworn obligation to protect their constituents.

If I were a Franklin County Republican, I would be taking a second look at the Democrats in this election cycle, because all of the incumbent Republicans must share some guilt for allowing McAllister to run rampant over their party and failing to protect the best interests of the county.

Phil Scott’s key answer

I’ve read and heard one of the keys to the Phil Scott vision for the state’s future is increasing the number of 25-45 year-olds who live in Vermont. Now Scott doesn’t supply many specifics for meeting his goal and enticing this age group to Vermont, but in comments to the Burlington Free Press he indicated he believes helping a company feel more confident by way of various tax incentives should be a big part of it – or maybe that’s the key to all his plans.

But there are other solutions to this puzzle. And here are samplings from a short list (lifted from here ) of policy suggestions that might realistically incentivize the desired demographic (and other age groups) Scott claims he wants to woo to the Green Mountain state:

a) Offer a higher wage. Yes, yes, wages are so 20th century, but The Kids Today have a strange affinity for them. Maybe it’s nostalgia. […]

b) Good health insurance. […] Silly Kids Today.

c) Retirement benefits. […] They’ve been told their whole lives that Social Security just won’t be there for them so they need an alternative. Blame whoever keeps telling them that (shhh!!!!).

d) On the job training. […]

e)Job Security. The Kids Today would like some assurances that their jobs might be around a few months hence. […]

Oh, but implementing any of those would take a bit of leadership, and Scott’s business buddies would squawk a lot. Philand the millennials

But let’s be fair to Scott’s key solution – business-friendly tax policy – it might be just the thing 25-45 year-olds are into.

And I am probably not alone in recalling those times long ago, when we were still young, meeting up with friends on a Saturday afternoon and making plans to head out on the town that evening, in search of a little “business certainty, a tax incentive” or if we got really lucky “a tax exemption.”