Monthly Archives: November 2014

That online petition: color me unimpressed

1 Reply

One of the lesser products of our gubernatorial overtime period is an online petition seeking the election of Scott Milne by the Vermont Legislature. The petition was organized by persons unknown of the conservative persuasion (see below) and posted — ironically — through the petition posting service on MoveOn.org, an organization seeking to promote “progressive political change.”

Anyone can use its service, and that’s where our persons unknown have put up their petition. In spite of the distinctly liberal company they’re keeping.

I say “persons unknown” because the petitioner is identified only as C.A.C.M. I don’t recognize the acronym, and MoveOn doesn’t provide any further information. (Any relation to t.A.T.u.?) MoveOn does offer the opportunity to send an email to C.A.C.M., and I did so on Monday, asking them to identify themselves.

Haven’t gotten an answer. Somehow, I don’t think I will. Need I comment on the irony in a movement claiming to represent the voice of the people hiding behind an obscure acronym?

(If I hear from someone at C.A.C.M., I’ll be happy to strike the above comment and report on its identity.)

The petition has drawn a bit of attention in the media, first from VPR and today from VTDigger. Both stories refer to the petition having been signed by “thousands.”

That’s technically true; as of 7 p.m. on November 11, there were 3,152 electronic signatures. When VPR posted its story last Friday, the total was about 2,500. But while “thousands” is correct on the bare fact, I’d argue that it’s misleading. When I see “thousands,” I think a lot more than two or three thousand. To say “thousands” in the headline gives the petition drive a bit too much credit.

Even by the diminutive standards of the Vermont electorate, 3,000 isn’t really an overwhelming response. And to judge by the comments appended by signers, the petition’s appeal is obviously to the dead-ender, hard-core anti-Shumlin part of the electorate. There’s no reason that this petition should have any effect whatsoever on the process going forward.

One more thing. In order to sign the petition, you have to provide your name, email address, and physical address. The small print below the petition box says:

By signing, you agree to receive email messages from MoveOn.org Civic Action and MoveOn.org Political Action. You may unsubscribe at any time.

So all these disgruntled conservatives are handing over their contact information to one of our country’s leading progressive groups. I hope they’re ready for the progressive email messages they’re about to start receiving.

Mikey Pom-Poms does the Big Balls Dance*

1 Reply

*See demo here. 

Mike Townsend, Burlington Free Press Executive Editor and Gannett Cheerleader-in-Chief, is feeling a little braggy today. He’s repeatedly taken to Twitter to praise the work of his own staffers, throw shade on other media.

A bit of overcompensation, perhaps, for all the criticism that’s come his way since the departures of the Freeploid’s two Statehouse reporters plus at least three other reporters in recent weeks.

Are staffers expected to accept fulsome praise in compensation for persistent job insecurity and ever-tougher productivity demands? Maybe so, because Townsend was also quick to lavish Tweetpraise on reporter April Burbank, who pulled the hard duty of Burlington School Board coverage.

Mikey follows that up with another Tweetbumpf, at which point old buddy Shay Totten chimes in.

Screen Shot 2014-11-11 at 8.00.54 PM

And then, a bit later, a bizarre and condescending slap at competitors unnamed:

Screen Shot 2014-11-11 at 8.02.14 PM

I can’t explain that last one. Maybe Townsend had a mild stroke?

In all my years in media, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a case of Bunched Knickers Syndrome as bad as the one that’s circulating around the Free Press newsroom. This outburst of braggadocio is unbecoming the chief of a reputable news operation. Here’s a hint, Mike: let your work speak for itself.

Also, despite this outbreak of Big Balls Dance, the diminution of the Free Press is already obvious. Since Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen left, the Free Press’ coverage of the ongoing state election mess has largely depended on the Associated Press. Hardly any original coverage at all.

And really, it’s perfectly understandable: your resources are dwindling, so why not deploy them in your core market — Chittenden County? Just don’t expect us to notice that Statehouse coverage has already fallen largely off the map as a day-to-day matter.

Big Balls Tweets may impress the suits at Gannett. It doesn’t impress those of us who see the product every day.

Signs of hubris in the VTGOP

Leave a reply

Vermont Republicans gained significant ground in last week’s election. But when you get right down to it, they’ve still got a long, long way to go. They didn’t field serious candidates for most of the statewide offices; they made nice gains in the legislature, but remain on the short end of big Dem/Prog majorities. They made progress on the back-office stuff, but they remain heavily out-organized and out-fundraised by the Dems.

And whatever made Scott Milne a serious contender in spite of a deeply flawed campaign with virtually no resources, well, can you bottle it and spray it on the next guy? Nope. I don’t think anyone really knows why Milne made such a strong showing, and I doubt it’s replicable.

My point is, the Republicans still have serious work to do. The VTGOP is not yet a serious contender — not statewide, not in the legislature. And already, there are signs that this whiff of success is going to their heads.

The most obvious sign is their eager acceptance of Milne’s reasoning for continuing the campaign into the legislature. Or should I say “Milne’s reasonings,” since he has a number of them on offer.

There’s the “ideological majority” notion, that lumps all of Dan Feliciano’s votes in with Milne’s, plus (I guess) most of Emily Peyton’s and Cris Ericson’s and Peter Diamondstone’s to, somehow, get Milne to 50% plus 1.

There’s the “incumbent rejection” idea: since most voters rejected the incumbent, that means the second-place finisher really won. In spite of the fact that more voters rejected Milne than rejected Governor Shumlin.

Then there’s the “legislative district” argument, which says that Milne won more districts than Shumlin and therefore demonstrated broader support. Which is obvious nonsense because many of Milne’s wins came in districts heavy on real estate and light on population.

And finally, we have the “there really isn’t a precedent” argument, in which Milne cites the handful of counter-precedents he can find — all of them emitting a fishy odor. The problem is, there really is a precedent, a very solid one; and when it hasn’t been honored, things have gone haywire.

In football, they say if you have two quarterbacks, you really have none. Well, Scott Milne has four arguments, but really has none. He’s throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

Among the people seeing through this are the two most popular Republicans in Vermont: Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and former Gov. Jim Douglas. Both have said that if it comes to the legislature, the top vote-getter should be elected. Here’s Douglas on VPR:

“It would seem to me unlikely that that would be a useful strategy and perhaps he should consider what Doug Racine and others have done historically which is to acknowledge the result and come back and fight another day,” said Douglas.

In 2002, Racine lost to Douglas by about 5,800 votes but since neither candidate won a majority, the vote went to the Legislature. Racine told lawmakers to vote for Douglas because he was the top vote getter.

… “It would seem to me that the good will that he’s accrued during the last several days ought to be preserved,” said Douglas.

I can kinda understand why Milne is sowing seeds of doubt; he came incredibly close to winning, which, in a way, must be harder to accept than losing decisively. (Gollum!) What’s harder to accept is that top Republicans like Don Turner and Joe Benning are grabbing at this logical apparition. Do they not, in Jim Douglas’ words, risk losing “the good will that [has been] accrued”? I think they do.

As they also do with their immediate call for repeal of Vermont Health Connect in favor of the federal exchange. They offer this as a serious proposal, but as VTDigger’s Morgan True reports, they haven’t worked out any of the details. Like how we’d make good all the premium assistance the working poor and middle class receive thanks to Vermont having its own exchange. Turner’s got a kinda-sorta plan for that, but he clearly hasn’t thought it through.

So why pull a half-baked cake out of the oven? The obvious answer is, to try to capitalize on the election results. And because the hubris is strong in the VTGOP right now.

Turner goes so far as to insist that VHC might need repeal even if it’s up and running when the legislature reconvenes.

Hmm, yeah, kill something that’s finally working after all the investment of money, time, and toil? Don’t think so.

The Republicans would do well to consider the letter and the spirit of Jim Douglas’ advice. Don’t get over your skis. Don’t, in the words of Gov. Shumlin, get too far out in front of the troops.

In renewing the war against health care reform, and in promoting the idea that the legislature should elect the second-place candidate, the Republicans show early signs of turning into the balls-to-the-wall ideologues we all love to hate in the national GOP. By now they should know that’s a recipe for disaster in Vermont. And it’s the opposite of Phil Scott’s alleged vision for a broader, more inclusive party.

A little diplomacy, a little statesmanship, might seem like a step backward right now. But it’s the best thing for the longer-term prosperity of the Vermont Republican Party.

A coward’s defense

Leave a reply

Had a little Tweetfight this afternoon with rabbit-eared Freeploid functionary Adam Silverman. I actually came in on the middle of Silverman defending his employer in the face of some critical Tweets from others. Long story.

Anyway, Silverman Tweeted that he was “done taking the BS.” By which he apparently meant the “social media” chatter about the Burlington Free Press “abandoning Statehouse coverage.” Which was the subject of a red-assed Editor’s Note from Mike Townsend, previously dissected in this space. 

Let’s pick it up here, with a question from former Seven Days staffer Andy Bromage and Silverman’s reply.

There were a couple more rounds of this, Bromage asking for specifics and Silverman offering nothing but generalities.

Since I’m part of the social media crowd that’s been slamming Silverman’s employer, I chimed in, pointing out that I’d never claimed the Freeps was “abandoning” the Statehouse, but that they were clearly cutting back. This is what ensued:

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 5.32.17 PM

Aww, too bad. He “didn’t catalogue it.” So he can’t give a single specific incident. Which means he can deny that any specific outlet was guilty of a false claim, even as he tars us all with his broad brush.

How journalistic.

As for blaming Heintz for fueling “numerous tweets, FB posts, etc.,” well, that’s worse than blaming the Freeploid for the godawful crap that appears in its Comments section. “Worse” because the Freeploid has some curatorial oversight of its Comments, while Heintz has absolutely no control over what’s said elsewhere on social media.

Besides that, Silverman also fails to specify what was “inaccurate” in Paul Heintz’ reporting. Paul’s written a whole bunch of pieces on the Free Press in recent months. But let’s take the single assertion that Michael Townsend was most upset about: that the Free Press was “abandoning Montpelier.” Here’s what Heintz wrote in his piece on the departures of the Free Press’ entire Statehouse bureau: 

It’s unclear whether the paper will maintain a presence in the Statehouse. Tim Johnson, a 16-year veteran of the Free Press who was laid off last Thursday, told Seven Days on Saturday, “There’s not going to be a city hall beat. There’s not going to be a Statehouse beat. There’s not going to be an education beat.”

Heintz didn’t say the Free Press would stop covering the Statehouse. He didn’t even claim the Free Press was shutting down its bureau. He questioned “whether the paper will maintain a presence in the Statehouse,” meaning a consistent daily “presence” by a dedicated reporter or reporters. He then quoted former reporter Tim Johnson saying “There’s not going to be a Statehouse beat,” which is true. The Statehouse and state government will be under the purview of a “transparency/watchdog” team with numerous other responsibilities.

In that passage regarding Statehouse coverage, Heintz was absolutely on the mark. And if his past reporting has been inaccurate in any way, then Townsend only has himself to blame, because he has steadfastly refused to speak to Heintz.

I can understand why knickers are so tightly bunched at the Freeploid these days. They’ve lost a shitload of talent, they’re having to reinvent the newsroom on orders from above, and they are besieged by criticism. Those who remain at the Free Press are almost certainly working harder than they ever have before.

I can also understand why Silverman is so motivated to defend his employer, since he was one of the Golden Four who were exempted from the “demeaning and degrading” reinterviewing process.

But in doing so, he abandoned the tenets of journalism. He and his boss made general criticisms, failed to provide any examples or evidence, and used their lack of evidence as a defense against counterattack.

A phony “crisis of conscience”

Leave a reply

So I stopped at my mailbox this morning and picked up my copy of the Times Argus.

And there, splashed across the front page, was a writeup of the latest twists and turns of the trumped-up “controversy” over a potential Legislative vote for Governor. 

The article is entitled “A Crisis of Conscience?”

Well, at least it was framed as a question, not as a statement of fact.

Because the answer to the question is a clear, unambigious “No.” There is no crisis, and this is not a matter of conscience. Or, shall we say, deciding whether to ratify the election of Peter Shumlin is not a matter of conscience.

What is a matter of conscience is whether Republican lawmakers are going to jump on board this Bandwagon of Convenience devised by second-place finisher Scott Milne and abrogate 150+ years of precedent to cast their votes for Milne.

And here I thought the Republicans considered themselves the true guardians of the Vermont Way.

Atop the Times Argus’ front page spread were photos of Milne and Shumlin. The caption next to the Milne shot says “Republican Scott Milne won the most districts in the state with 62.”

I've got just the idea for you! Low mileage, runs good, new battery & tires. Don't mind the rust.

I’ve got just the idea for you! Low mileage, runs good, new battery & tires. Don’t mind the rust.

This statement is at the core of Milne’s argument. He won more legislative districts, or more counties if you prefer, than Shumlin, and this shows his broader appeal.

Well, fiddlesticks. As is the case every election, the Democrat rolled up big majorities in the more populated areas of the state, while the Republican won in most rural areas. If you look at the Secretary of State’s election map, you’ll see that there is more red than blue. Of course, some of those districts that went for Milne contain more moose than people, but it looks impressive on the map.

And unfortunately for Milne’s argument, we do have this principle of “one person, one vote.” Vermont’s old system of electing one Representative from each community (one for Burlington, one for Glastenbury) was ruled unconstitutional in 1964. Milne’s argument is cut from the same unconstitutional cloth.

The article itself lists the 43 Democratic lawmakers who face this alleged “crisis of conscience.” Their districts cast more votes for Milne than Shumlin, so (the article asks) should they stick with their man, or support the wishes of their constituents without regard to the wider picture?

Based on Vermont history, this is a phony dilemma. Virtually every time this question has arisen, it’s been answered the same way: the person with the most votes wins. And on those few times when the legislature failed to honor this precedent, there was something shady going on, or there were profound repercussions after the fact. Or both.

The 1976 Lieutenant Governor’s race, Milne’s favorite, had some of both. Plurality winner John Alden was known by many to be under criminal investigation when the legislature voted for the second-place finisher, T. Garry Buckley. Also, there was controversy at the time over the fact that Buckley had actively lobbied for lawmakers’ votes. That controversy was one big reason why his own Republican Party turned against him in 1978 and opted for Peter Smith for Lieutenant Governor.

Scott MIlne can go ahead with his little game, because freedom of speech. And opportunistic Republican leaders can go on supporting his quest even though they know they’re in the wrong, and they know that MIlne will lose in the legislature. They’re just trying to sow a little mayhem and create a fake political argument that Governor Shumlin’s next term is somehow illegitimate.

Just as, I suppose, Jim Douglas’ first term was illegitimate because he failed to win even 45% of the popular vote. And, by extension, his entire eight years in office were illegitimate because if he hadn’t won that first election, it’s doubtful that he would ever have been elected Governor.

The only conscience involved here is the conscience of the Republican Party. They know that precedent is on Governor Shumlin’s side. Many of them voted Shumlin’s way in 2010, when he failed to win 50% of the popular vote. But they are grasping at a straw of opportunity instead of hewing to the Vermont Way.

It’s understandable. But it’s also crass, opportunistic, and unconscionable.

There are only two questions in play, neither of which constitute a “crisis” because they are easily answered.

1. Did Peter Shumlin get the most votes?

We are 99% sure the answer is “Yes.” We’ll be 99.9% sure after the results are certified Wednesday morning. We’d be 100% sure if a recount confirms the official result.

2. Does Vermont have a clear and consistent precedent for dealing with this situation?

That answer is an obvious “Yes,” Republican gamesmanship notwithstanding.

Case closed.

Shumlin may have lost the center, but the worst damage was on his left

Leave a reply

Much of the post-election analysis has concluded that Governor Shumlin’s extremely narrow apparent victory is a repudiation of his more progressive policies (esp. health care) and that, in response, he’ll have to move toward the center.

There’s some truth in that. On health care, for instance, I really believe he’s got to get Vermont Health Connect up and running before he can expect anybody to support any kind of single-payer plan.

It'll take more than free food to win back the base.

It’ll take more than free food to win back the base.

However, there’s ample evidence in the unofficial election returns for a very different analysis: the Governor would have sailed to an easy re-election if he hadn’t lost the left wing. There were sizable numbers of liberal voters who (1) stayed home or (2) cast protest votes for Scott Milne, Dan Feliciano, or a write-in. (They felt safe doing so because Milne was such a weak candidate, ha ha, that nobody felt the need to cast a defensive vote for Shumlin.)

As for #1, turnout hit an all-time record low. ‘Nuff said. Conservative voters were motivated, liberal voters were uninspired. The rest of this post will explore #2.

Previously, I cited the vast difference between Shumlin’s vote total and Congressman Peter Welch’s. In the final unofficial results (posted Saturday on the Secretary of State’s website), Welch received a total of 123,349 votes.

Shumlin got 89,509.

That’s a difference of nearly 34,000 votes. To put it another way, more than one-quarter of all Welch voters did not vote for Peter Shumlin.

That’s a stunning figure. But wait, there’s more.

I checked Shumlin’s totals in four Democrat-friendly state Senate districts: Bennington, Windham, Orange, and Washington.

In the Bennington district, Gov. Shumlin got 6,522 votes. He badly trailed Dem incumbent Dick Sears, who got 7,965 votes. That’s over 1400 Sears supporters who did not vote for the Governor.

In the solid blue Windham Senate district, the Governor’s home turf, he was outpolled by Sen. Jeanette White, the top vote-getter for two Senate seats, by a margin of 7777 to 6758.

More than a thousand votes lost, in the county he’s lived almost his entire life.

In Orange County’s Senate district, Shumlin trailed incumbent Democrat Mark MacDonald by 561 votes — MacDonald’s 3797 to Shumlin’s 3236. Which was virtually identical to MacDonald’s margin of victory over his Republican opponent, Bob Frenier.

In fact, if Frenier had equalled Scott Milne’s total and MacDonald had equalled Shumlin’s, the Senate seat would have flipped to the Republicans. So a sizeable number of Orange County voters split their tickets, opting for the Milne/MacDonald combo platter.

In the three-seat Washington County district, Shumlin drew 9,173 votes. That’s almost 2,000 behind top Democrat Ann Cummings (11,167) and 1300 behind Prog/Dem Anthony Pollina (10,474).

Reminder: The Prog/Dem Pollina was, by far, the most liberal of the Senatorial candidates in Washington County. He was believed to be vulnerable to a strong challenge from Republican Pat McDonald. In the end, Pollina was re-elected by a substantial margin.

Governor Shumlin trailed Anthony Pollina, ardent supporter of single-payer health care and higher taxes on the wealthy, by 1300 votes. Those numbers undercut the dominant narrative, that this election’s message was to go slow and move to the center. Pollina ain’t moving to nobody’s center.

Add those four districts, and Governor Shumlin lost more than 5,000 votes compared to the top Democratic Senate candidates.

In short, if the Governor had simply held onto his base, nobody would be talking about a Scott Milne squeaker.

In addition to all these numbers, I can tell you that every liberal I’ve heard from since Tuesday has told me stories about diehard Democratic voters who simply could not bring themselves to vote for Shumlin. That’s anecdotal evidence, but there’s a lot of it around.

I’m sure the Governor lost plenty of votes in the center. But he shouldn’t take this election as a mandate to shy away from progressive policies, and Republicans should be cautious about claiming 2014 as a mandate for them. This election was less about ideology than it was about disappointment in and distrust of Governor Shumlin.

The left wing of the Democratic Party has had its doubts about Shumlin from day one. He was seen as more of an opportunist, a triangulator, than other Democratic contenders in 2010. He placated the left by touting his opposition to Vermont Yankee and promising an all-out push for single-payer health care. During his two terms in office, he has done little to earn the respect of the left, and done much to forfeit their trust. His 2013 push to cut the Earned Income Tax Credit was seen as a betrayal on the left, as was his continual opposition to any sort of tax hikes on top earners. The awful performance of Vermont Health Connect is a mortal threat to single-payer.

If he wants to make a comeback, establish a legacy for his governorship, and perhaps try to run for a Congressional seat one day, he would be well advised to make peace with Vermont liberals instead of turning himself into Phil Scott Lite.

p.s. Yeah, I know, there are lots of liberals who already see him as Phil Scott Lite. Particularly “lite” on the perceived honesty and integrity of our Lieutenant Governor. 

We have our answer: Don Turner is a hypocritical opportunist

1 Reply

Or “opportunistic hypocrite,” take your choice.

To reset the stage, House Minority Leader Don Turner yesterday said he would vote for Scott Milne for Governor if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of a century and a half of precedent that lawmakers ought to opt for the top vote-getter instead of, as the Burlington Free Press charitably put it, being “free to vote their consciences.”

"Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of 'conscience.'"

“Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of ‘conscience.'”

To which I can only say, if their consciences lead them to any other conclusion than Peter Shumlin, then either they’re not listening closely enough to that still small voice, or their consciences are on the fritz.

Anyway, I speculated on how Mr. Turner had voted the last time this very question was before the legislature. Well, the answer comes to us courtesy of Terri Hallenbeck, soon to be late of the Burlington Free Press.

Turner acknowledged that’s a different stance than after the 2010 election, when the Legislature ratified Shumlin’s election over Republican Brian Dubie after Shumlin had a plurality but less than 50 percent of the public vote. That year, lawmakers also ratified the results of Republican Phil Scott, who received the most votes but less than 50 percent of the total for lieutenant governor.

Which means that virtually every lawmaker (including Don Turner) presumably voted against his/her political interests, and in favor of established precedent, at least once. Republicans ratified a Democrat, and Democrats ratified a Republican. It’s worked both ways over time. But now, Turner is pulling a brand-new rationalization out of his butt because it suits him politically.

Gee, I thought Republicans were the guardians of traditional Vermont values.

Or, as somebody who was on the short end of this Vermont tradition put it:

Doug Racine, a Democrat who lost the 2002 governor’s race to Republican Jim Douglas in a campaign that was also decided by the Legislature, said Democratic legislators told him at the time they felt compelled to vote for Douglas, who received the most votes in the election. “For a lot of legislators and for Vermonters it became about fair play,” Racine said.

Perhaps “fair play” is out the window for Republicans who suddenly see an unexpected opportunity to grab the biggest prize. In other words, they’re a whole bunch of Gollums.

p.s. We’re starting to get a glimpse at the future of a clickbait-oriented, post-Remsen-and-Hallenbeck Freeploid. Its coverage of Friday’s important developments consisted of two short articles from the Associated Press. Plus, those stories were pretty much buried on the Freeploid’s website, while more pressing matters — the LL Bean grand opening, a ladybug-infested house, a moose shooting — were given due prominence.

And the crudification of the Burlington Free Press is only just beginning.

Maybe Vermont Republicans have forgotten how to handle success?

2 Replies

Confusing little presser the Republicans held at the Statehouse Friday. Confusing in a couple of fundamental ways. They’re already well on their way to a fatal overdose of hubris; they’re toying with an ill-considered attempt to grab the governorship, or at least undercut Peter Shumlin; and they still don’t know what the hell to do with Scott Milne.

I wasn’t there, but I’ve been told that Milne was actually in attendance, but wasn’t invited to speak.* Indeed, even as they slapped each others’ backs over a relative handful of legislative victories, they “didn’t mention Milne until prompted by reporters,” according to VTDigger’s Laura Krantz.

*Note: Per the Comments below, multiple attendees say that Milne was not present. I’ll accept their word for it.

They “didn’t mention Milne,” the man who might still become their leader, not to mention the state’s.

What… the… hell.

Also, even as they were ignoring the Miracle Man, they were boldly announcing their plans for legislation to dump Vermont Health Connect.

(Let me just pause and note what a Boehnerian idea that is: promising a bill to kill a Democratic reform, a bill they know will never pass, just for the sake of some political posturing.)

Uh, fellows, d’ya think maybe it’d be a good idea if you’d, oh, consult Scott Milne before you make your big plans? Especially since some of you, at least, are going to do what you can to overthrow historical precedent and install him as our next governor?

Presumably, if legislative Republicans get their way, it ought to be Scott Milne setting the agenda, not them. But what do I know.

In fact, according to Seven Days’ Mark Davis, there’s been virtually no communication between Milne and top Republicans since Tuesday. Or before Tuesday, either, since they gave him damn little help during the campaign, believing (like everybody else) that he was a radioactive loser.

As for overthrowing historical precedent, take a bow, top House Republican Don Turner and top Senate Republican Joe Benning. Both of them indicated that they would vote for Milne if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of 161 years of precedent that says the legislature always installs the top vote-getter, whether it’s a Republican (Jim Douglas, 2002) or a Democrat (Peter Shumlin, 2010).

And as I wrote earlier, the last time the #2 vote-getter was installed as governor, it was the result of a dirty backroom political deal between the #2 and #3 parties to take down #1. Kinda like if the Democrats and Progressives united to block a Republican who’d won a plurality. So I don’t think the stolen election of 1853 is the kind of precedent anyone should want to emulate.

While we’re on the subject, Mr. Turner: when the governorship was decided by the legislature in 2010, did you vote for Peter Shumlin? If so, you are a hypocrite and an opportunist.

On the other hand, there was the current top Republican officeholder in the state, Phil Scott, saying that he’d obey precedent and vote for Shumlin if he had to choose. Leadership, boys.

Milne and Turner and Benning have devised a new interpretation of the legislature’s role, by saying that each lawmaker should follow the electoral results in his or her district. Which is a brand-new idea that happens to coincide with their own short-term interests. Statesmanship, boys.

Tuesday was the first taste of victory the Republicans have enjoyed in quite a long time. It’s been more than a decade since they gained seats in the legislature, and six since they won the governorship. This sudden burst of success must be terribly disorienting. It’s obviously gone to their heads, and not in a good way.

Hopefully they can regain their balance and learn to use their hard-won scraps of political power in a positive way.

Mikey Pom-Poms has a sad

4 Replies

Boy oh boy, us bloggers and Tweeters must have really gotten under Michael Townsend’s skin. Because normally, he and the other denizens of the Burlington Free Press like to pretend that no other news outlets actually exist. Except when another outlet screws up.

I can explain everything.

I can explain everything.

But today, the Freeploid’s Executive Editor and Chief Gannett Cheerleader sent out a burst of self-pitying defensiveness under the title “Editor explains changes at FreePressMedia.”

Which is a first in itself: Townsend feeling the need to explain things. Collars a bit tight? Knickers in a twist? Not enough oxygen in the Freeploid’s seventh-floor digs?

The first thing I need to do is correct misinformation swirling around on social media as we go through a significant staff reorganization.

Oh, those nasty evil denizens of Social Media!

Hey wait, isn’t the Freeploid — er, sorry, FreePressMedia — in the midst of a headlong dive into social media-driven journalismism? I guess “social media” is a good thing except when it rises up to bite you in the ass.

He then denies “rumors and speculation that we are abandoning coverage in Montpelier.”

I don’t think anybody said you were, Mike. We just pointed out that you were shuttering your Statehouse bureau and lost your two Statehouse reporters when you told them they wouldn’t be covering the Statehouse anymore. See the difference?

I’m sure you will continue to cover the Statehouse. You’ll send a crew down from Burlington whenever you think there’s a sufficiently clickbaity story. But I’m equally sure you won’t have anyone there on a daily basis, and that will affect the quantity and quality of your coverage.

And this is an undeniable fact: the Burlington Free Press has de-emphasized Statehouse news over the past couple of years at least, concentrating more of its resources on its home base of Chittenden County. I’ve been expecting the departure of Terri Hallenbeck and/or Nancy Remsen for quite a while, because it’s obvious that the Free Press is publishing a lot less Statehouse news than it used to.

The Burlington Free Press used to be the number-one source for state political and policy news. It isn’t anymore, and it’s about to get significantly worse.

As Townsend says himself in his little counterattack, Statehouse coverage will come from an “accountability/watchdog” team whose responsiblities will be at “the regional and state levels.” They’ll have a lot of ground to cover, and only part of their effort will go to state-level news.

Indeed, considering the Freeploid’s stated focus on arts, culture and food, and its lack of dedicated Statehouse/political reporters, you could say that its new nickname ought to be “Seven Days Lite.” After all, Seven Days still has a full-time reporter on state politics and policy.

For those keeping score, that’s Plucky Weekly 1, Established Daily 0.

And meanwhile, the Freeploid’s Chief Content Whore — er, I mean, “business reporter” — Dan D’Ambrosio is spending his day reporting on the grand opening of the LL Bean store in Burlington. Five days after my Sunday Freeploid came wrapped in a plastic advertisement for the grand opening of the LL Bean store in Burlington.

Plastic: an ironic medium for a retailer with a green, outdoorsy image.

(Come to think of it, the plastic Bean Bag was an unsightly, almost illegible washed-out gray-and-white. Bean really got its money’s worth there.)

I guess I’m supposed to think the wall-to-wall coverage of a major advertiser is a coincidence. And continue to think so when I get my morning paper tomorrow and find a big fat article on the grand opening of the LL Bean Store in Burlington on the front page.

Much of Townsend’s column is devoted to explaining the changing media environment and the need of newspapers — sorry, media companies — to evolve. I sympathize. I get it. I don’t expect the status quo.

What irks me, though, and makes me critical of the Free Press in a way that I’m not of, say, the equally diminished Times Argus, is the following:

— A big part of the Free Press’ financial trouble arises from the fact that its profits are siphoned off to satiate Gannett investors.

— As I’ve said before, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Free Press continues to occupy a dominant position in Vermont’s media landscape. As long as it does, there’s a lot less space for other sources to emerge and grow.

— The inhumane process that Free Press workers had to go through. Re-interviewing for their own jobs. Jobs “offered purely based on numerical ratings,” as Townsend himself put it.

In the words of Number Six, “I am not a number — I am a free man!”

— And, worst of all, the clickbait-driven approach to journalism, which extends so far as to require staff to rewrite stories after they’re published to goose the pageviews.

I can tell how much the criticism has gotten to Townsend, because he actually went so far as to name the reporters who’ve departed the Free Press. This is never, ever done in the media: you don’t want to give your audience any reason to miss the people who have gone.

But there, in print, are shout-outs to Sam Hemingway, Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen.

(He didn’t mention Lynn Monty, who refused to go through the “demeaning and degrading” process of re-interviewing, or Tim Johnson, who simply failed to post a high enough number.)

I can’t really blame Michael Townsend. Part of his job is to take Gannett’s chicken shit and convince us it’s chicken salad. But he is fair game for criticism, and his response fundamentally mischaracterizes the criticism.

Scott Milne takes it to the limit

Leave a reply

Before the election, when Scott Milne was sure he was going to lose, he was fully prepared to resume his humble life as a travel mogul and disgruntled developer. Indeed, his official schedule, as posted by his campaign last weekend, had him in travel industry-related meetings yesterday and today.

My precious…

My precious…

But now that he came sooooo close, he’s starting to act like Gollum chasing after the Ring. He’s digging for any possible justification to not only avoid conceding, but to grab the governorship in spite of historical precedent.

I’m not saying he should give up. Not yet. He is well within his rights to delay conceding for now. We can wait until next Wednesday, when the vote will be certified. After that, if the margin remains under two percentage points, he should call for a recount if he wants.

After that, he needs to stop. He should concede gracefully and get on with his life, content in the knowledge that he followed his own path and far exceeded anyone’s expectations. He has no business twisting logic and Vermont history to justify an attempt to usurp the process.

Since he still hasn’t publicly addressed the voters he claims to care so deeply about, all we have is a statement from his campaign:

“It’s clear that 54% of Vermonters want a new Governor, and a new path forward” according to Scott Milne, after reviewing preliminary numbers in what appears to be the closest race in Vermont history.

Yeah, well, as I’m not the first to point out, 55% of Vermonters didn’t want Scott Milne to be their Governor, so that dog won’t hunt. What else ya got?

“We are gathering information for the requirements of a recount and weighing whether that is in the best interest of the people of Vermont, and we are looking closely at the legislative districts across the state on a district by district basis to determine which candidate won the most counties and legislative districts” said Milne.

Oh, so now you’re makin’ shit up.

There’s nothing in the state constitution that tells lawmakers how to elect a governo, when that task befalls them. But more than a century and a half of precedent says the individual with the most votes is chosen governor.

To illustrate how much precedent there is, the last time it was flouted, the Whig Party was involved. And our Statehouse had yet to be built.

Not to mention that it was a pure case of political chicanery, in which two lesser parties struck a deal to screw the first-place finisher (the Whig, as it happens). So I don’t think Milne wants to invoke that as a precedent.

No, he has the 1976 contest for Lieutenant Governor in mind.

Lawmakers last bucked a plurality vote in 1976 – in the Lt. Governor’s race – like now, the plurality winner- John Alden- faced confirmation by a House and Senate controlled by his own party.

“If we move forward, I expect Peter Shumlin has a good likelihood of facing the same fate as John Alden, and I will be Vermont’s next Governor” according to Milne.

What Milne conveniently omits is that Alden was facing legal trouble at the time. Shortly after his non-election, he was indicted on fraud charges and later convicted. It’s believed that enough people in the Legislature knew about it, that the vote went against him to avoid a huge embarrassment. (And I do hope that when Milne says he expects Shumlin to face “the same fate as John Alden,” he doesn’t mean criminal conviction.)

So that’s not a convincing rationale either. Not to mention, there’s a hell of a big difference between electing a Lieutenant Governor and electing a Governor, with all due respect to buckets of warm spit.

There’s also the inconvenient fact that before the election, Milne said that “he would concede the race if Shumlin won a plurality, and hoped Shumlin would do the same if the situation were reversed.”

Now, he says that wasn’t a statement of his position, it was a “challenge” to Shumlin to follow the will of the voters. And since Shumlin didn’t embrace his “challenge,” then Milne gets to take it back.

To be fair to Milne, he’s just kinda spitballing at this point, which is consistent with his behavior during the campaign. He hasn’t actually taken any of the actions he’s threatening to take. Indeed, his bottom line is that he will wait until the election is certified next Wednesday and then decide on his next move.

At that point, if he’s still in second place, he should do the right thing and concede. As his running mate, Phil Scott, said today: