vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.08.2007

Lofin' over to N.H.

Bill Lofy, the behind-the-scenes communications consultant to House Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, will be leaving Vermont for the 2008 election season to work on the New Hampshire Democratic campaign for U.S. Senate.

Lofy, who used to work for the late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, sees it as going back to his roots to work on a senatorial race. His mission is to see to the unseating of Republican Sen. John Sununu. Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is running against Sununu, a rematch of the 2002 race that will be a hot one with lots of money and lots of fire.

Lofy ran the Democratic coordinated campaign here in Vermont last election, the one where they were more coordinated than usual. He is a political junkie and when you're that kind of person, you seize the job that makes your blood flow. Lofy was going to work for Symington and Shumlin, paid by their PACS, again next legislative session until this job found him.

He said he'll be back to Vermont when the campaign is over, though. His wife is on maternity leave from her teaching job here and will resume teaching next fall.

So where does that leave Symington and Shumlin? They'll have one less experienced political person to bounce strategy off and coordinate the Democratic caucus. But publicly, the two leaders will be their same selves. Lofy may have been their adviser, but when Symington speaks, it's Symington's voice and ultimately her style that she speaks with. Same with Shumlin.

The two, in some ways, couldn't be more different. Symington ponders, Shumlin shoots from the hip. How Lofy managed to advise both of them is a mystery to me.

One of these days over in the New Hampshire, Lofy's going to run into another political junkie with Vermont in his blood. Politically, Lofy and Jim Barnett, who's running John McCain's presidential campaign there, couldn't be much more different, but they have the same love of the game.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:10 AM |

Comments:

"One of these days over in the New Hampshire, Lofy's going to run into another political junkie with Vermont in his blood."

Vermont in his blood?

Jim Barnett was born and raised in Vermont. Lofy is no Vermonter. Just another carpetbagger.

Does anyone realize that the majority of our legislature is comprised of people that are not native Vermonters? It is sad to see the Vermont I grew up with flushed down the toilet at the hands of Lofy's political machine.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:21 AM, November 08, 2007

True. People who moved to Vermont from away are carpetbaggers and shouldn't be involved with Vermont politics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:24 AM, November 08, 2007

"True. People who moved to Vermont from away are carpetbaggers and shouldn't be involved with Vermont politics."

You mean like Jim Douglas ??

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:24 AM, November 08, 2007

and Randy Brock?
or Rob Roper?

How about the GOP members of the House and Senate?

Or does this "rule" only apply to Democrats?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:31 AM, November 08, 2007

"People who moved to Vermont from away are carpetbaggers and shouldn't be involved with Vermont politics."

What an assinine reply!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:43 AM, November 08, 2007

True carpetbaggers run for office when they don't really live here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:01 PM, November 08, 2007

Jim Douglas had an out of state drivers licence when he was first elected to office in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:20 PM, November 08, 2007

"How about the GOP members of the House and Senate?

Or does this "rule" only apply to Democrats?"

Who said anything about there being a "rule"? It's just an observation of the legislature AS A WHOLE, and a sad commentary on how Vermont has changed.

But since YOU ARE counting, why don't you have a look at the proportion of House and Senate Republicans and Democrats that have their roots in Vermont. You have to admit that it's pretty clear which camp the natives live in.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:59 PM, November 08, 2007

It's true that Republicans care about native Vermonters more than the Democrats and their friends the "Progressives"

Democrats are mostly from out of state -- it's a real shame because thoes people should be voting back in their own home states.

If you moved her 5 minutes ago or 30 years ago makes no difference. Have your trophy house here in Vermont if you want, just vote back at your real home.

Not being rude or unreasonable ... just asking that you respect our state and it's "traditions"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:08 PM, November 08, 2007

"just asking that you respect our state and it's "traditions..."

I don't know, I've met a lot of "native" Vermonters (not Abernaki, by the way) who aren't living in a bubble like yourself. They understand that it's 2007 and not 1907.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:31 PM, November 08, 2007

So, I moved here in the mid 50s as a child, and have lived the rest of my life in VT --- I attended K - 12 school in Vt, and I attended and graduated from UVM, married here and had a child here, i.e. I have lived my entire adult life in VT.

Are you saying I should not be allowed to serve in elected office (local or state) or even worse maybe not even vote?

Your comments make me think you oppose democracy?!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:35 PM, November 08, 2007

We're getting off topic. The real issue is the nasty, partisan, machine politics that out of state political hacks like Bill Lofy, etc. have brought to this state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:55 PM, November 08, 2007

This actually becomes an important issue when you look at other indicators that are skewed between native and non-native Vermonters -- e.g., income, education, employment, region, etc. By dismissing the issue as anti-carpetbagging, these legitimate issues have successfully been pooh-poohed under the rug (or the carpet). It is no surprise that Vermont has one of the widest divergences between the haves and have-nots -- and guess which group (native or non-native) predominantly occupies the haves. And if you want to know why this is little reported, guess which category most reporters fall into....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:55 PM, November 08, 2007

The really nasty partisan politics actually went to a new level in 1994 when the GOP and the "contract with america" took over the majority in Congress.

I'm not saying the Dems were blameless - but clearly rhetoric was raised a notch in 1994.

Then again the rhetoric went even higher in 2004 with Karl Rove, Swift Boat Veterans, etc.

Clearly both parties could do a better job - but the partisan bickering has really alienated folks on both sides.

You can't be serious that Lofy brought this up -- It was because of Vt bred and born Neale Lunderville and Jim Barnett along with political hack Jason Gibbs, that the Dems brought in Bill Lofy. Tose 3 political hacks (Lunderville, Barnet, Gibbs) have turned Gov Douglas into the most partisan political Governor in Vt's history!

The four of them can deliberately twist truth into falsehoods and misinformation without batting an eyelash.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:20 PM, November 08, 2007

Most of the people who work for the largest employers in Vermont - IBM, National Life, UVM, FAHC, GE Health Systems (formerly IDX), etc. - moved to Vermont from out of state.

If you want to see what a state of rural native Vermonters would look like, cross Lake Champlain and take a look at Essex County or Clinton County, NY.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:21 PM, November 08, 2007

"I don't know, I've met a lot of "native" Vermonters (not Abernaki, by the way) who aren't living in a bubble like yourself. They understand that it's 2007 and not 1907."

You are right. The OP has bought into the whole flatlander BS.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:21 PM, November 08, 2007

"Most of the people who work for the largest employers in Vermont - IBM, National Life, UVM, FAHC, GE Health Systems (formerly IDX), etc. - moved to Vermont from out of state.

If you want to see what a state of rural native Vermonters would look like, cross Lake Champlain and take a look at Essex County or Clinton County, NY."

Which is so ironic given the outcry for VT to attract new business from other states.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:24 PM, November 08, 2007

"If you moved her 5 minutes ago or 30 years ago makes no difference. Have your trophy house here in Vermont if you want, just vote back at your real home."

Wow. I assume you don't work for the Chamber of Commerce. How long does it take to become so bitter?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:25 PM, November 08, 2007

Gibbs, Lunderville and Barnett couldn't form a complete sentence or thought between them. Don't give them too much credit. They're little boys playing in a grown-ups world. Put them outside the friendly confines of Vermont (evidence McCain's tanking in NH) and they are squat--and they'd end up eating a lot of knuckles.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:27 PM, November 08, 2007

Hey very interesting -- if you check the bios on Vt House members, you find that Vt Born Dems outnumber Vt Born GOPs.

And let's see, for statewides,

Sen Leahy - D - b. VT
Sen Sanders - I - b. NY
Rep Welch - D - b. MA
Gov Douglas - R - b. MA
Lt Gov Dubie - R - b. VT
Treas. Spaulding - D - b. DC
Sec State Markowitz - D - b. NY
Auditor Salmon - D - b. VT
AG Sorrell - D - b. VT

Ds - 3 VT - 3 other states (50%)
Rs - 1 VT - 1 other state (50%)

SO what does this all prove?

That the above isolationists use heresay to promote their cause!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:27 PM, November 08, 2007

"Hey very interesting -- if you check the bios on Vt House members, you find that Vt Born Dems outnumber Vt Born GOPs."

There are only 49 Republicans out of 150 Reps and only 7 Republicans out of 30 Senators. Duh - of course there are more VT born Dems than VT born GOPs. But look at the ratios. Only 2 GOP senators are from out of state, while all 3 (Democratic) sentators from Windsor county are from New York!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:33 PM, November 08, 2007

And Douglas is from out of state too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:41 PM, November 08, 2007

Look. This isnt anti-democracy. Everyone can vote. Just if you are from out of state, vote back at your real home.

Our Vermont bread politicians care more about the state and do more for the people.

Everybody gets to vote but not everybody can come in and hijack oru ballet box. Our democracy has been ruined by the out of staters who come in and change everyting increase taxes and drive jobs away.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:44 PM, November 08, 2007

People have a right to vote and run for office where they live. It's those who live elsewhere and run anyway who are the problem.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:50 PM, November 08, 2007

...and then move away.

It's no coincidence that the places with the most transient populations are the Democratic strongholds in this state.

Compare Burlington and Brattleboro with the Northeast Kingdom.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:53 PM, November 08, 2007

"Our democracy has been ruined by the out of staters who come in and change everyting increase taxes and drive jobs away"

Jesus. Get on some prozac already. Your paranoia is troubling (and your spelling isn't great either).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:54 PM, November 08, 2007

Actually, VT had excellent job growth in the `90s while that flatlander Howard Dean was Governor. A large portion of the job losses have come while Jim Douglas (another flatlander) has been governor.

So what's your point again?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:59 PM, November 08, 2007

the point is that this isn't a test environment for people from away to come in and experement with.

I'm all in favor of health care for everybody and civil unions and whatever elst the gays want to do. I don't care about your new education funding methods ... that's fine by me.

But why do you have to come here to do it? Why not do it back in your home state? Just leave us out of it and let us live how we want to.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:08 PM, November 08, 2007

"let us live how we want to."

I don't have any problem with you living under a rock.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:21 PM, November 08, 2007

"Actually, VT had excellent job growth in the `90s while that flatlander Howard Dean was Governor. A large portion of the job losses have come while Jim Douglas (another flatlander) has been governor."

Please back-up your statement with data.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:24 PM, November 08, 2007

Doug is going to have a little difficulty coming up with the data to support his statements.

STATEMENT: "A large portion of the job losses have come while Jim Douglas (another flatlander) has been governor"

FACT: 9,900 new jobs have been created during Jim Douglas's term.

SOURCE: http://www.vtlmi.info/ces.cfm

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:00 PM, November 08, 2007

My comment regarding the different indicators and their correlation with native born status was not a suggestion that somehow non-natives should be denied a right to participate. Of course not. But it is undeniable that the policies advanced by non-natives over the last quarter century have assisted the sectors of the economy and the regions of the state favored/occupied by non-natives. That's just reality -- whether good or bad I will leave to each of you. But one cannot discuss that reality without being mischaracterized as a xenophobic buffoon who wants "flatlanders" to go to hell. Thus, non-natives Democrats avoid any substantive discussion pointing out that, in this state, the Democrats are the party of affluent out-of-staters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:00 PM, November 08, 2007

And the Republicans are the hard working in staters?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 PM, November 08, 2007

What would the state budget look like without Chittenden County? What would the state look like if you subtracted the economic contributions by newcomer entrepreneurs? I don't have any facts but I have my hunches.

Do you really think Vermont was better off economically compared with other states in the mid-1950's before the great migration?

(And by the way, you natives elected one of the most radical politicians ever to Congress in 1958, and then you elected Phil Hoff, all long before the migration of all these left wingers to fill jobs at IBM).

Now, just when we are trying to attract bright young people to Vermont to build their lives and start companies and fill vacant technical jobs, why are screaming loud and clear that you can come but you will never belong?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:40 PM, November 08, 2007

You should move to the deep South, where the preservation of self-initiated rights still exist. Things are tough all over, and not everyone is going to agree on every subject, no matter what state you choose to live in. What you want to form is more commonly known as a cult or commune. People who all believe in one way of thinking or living. You may surround yourself with people who listen to your woes about flatlanders and "their issues" but get outside that tiny circle, even with more native Vermonters, and not everyone is going to agree. You'll be crushed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:43 PM, November 08, 2007

"You should move to the deep South..."

In the Deep South, those who spewed this type of nonsense and hatred used to hang around with their friends wearing white sheets and hoods.

I can't believe what I am reading here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:51 PM, November 08, 2007

Just who are those native Vermonters?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:15 PM, November 08, 2007

Pete Shumlin is a native Vermonter!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:29 PM, November 08, 2007

Someone needs to get their facts right -- there are 7 GOP State Senators -- 3 born in Vt and the rest outside. Doyle was born in NY and has served 18 2-yr terms.

Coppenrath - MA
Doyle - NY
Snelling - PA
Illuzzi - VT
Maynard - CT
Mullin - VT
Scott - VT

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:37 PM, November 08, 2007

Still waiting for Doug Hoffer to give us the data to support his BS claim.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:41 PM, November 08, 2007

"FACT: 9,900 new jobs have been created during Jim Douglas's term."

First, that's close but not accurate. From Jan. 2003 (Douglas' inauguration) through Sept. 2007 (latest data available), we've had a net increase of 10,800 jobs (rather than 9,900; seasonally adjusted).

However, I assume the Gov. would rather not take credit for the additional 2,100 state gov't. jobs (being a fiscal conservative and all); or the extra 500 local gov't. jobs).

So let's stick with the private sector. There are 8,500 more private sector jobs today than in Jan. 2003 (we lost some federal jobs during that period). That's an average of 149 net new private sector jobs per month.

From Sept. `91 through Sept. `00 (just before the last recession), the median number of net new private sector jobs per year was 4,989 (416 per month).

We lost 3,800 jobs during the recession but the bounce back from `03 to `04 replaced them plus 600 more. Since then, we've had three years of anemic job growth averaging 105 jobs per month.

So during the `90s, the number of net new jobs per year was 4,989. Since the bounce back from the recession, the number of net new jobs per year has been 1,267. Not good.

Vermont's rate of private sector job growth has been lower then the U.S. rate for the last 3 years (and the U.S. rate is nothing to brag about). Since September 2004, U.S. private sector jobs have grown 5.3% while Vermont's rate was 1.5%.

And we've lost 2,700 manufacturing jobs during Douglas' tenure (which was what I was referring to actually; should have been clearer).

But what of the new jobs? From the 1st quarter of `03 to the 1st quarter of `07, we gained 5,892 net new "non-farm" payroll jobs (the CES - "covered employment", which we both referred to, does not give the same detail as the QCEW - "nonfarm payroll"). Of those 5,892 net new jobs, 2,380 (40%) were in "Social Assistance" (private sector, not gov't.). The avg. wage for this sector in 2006 was $16,888. The avg. wage for the 2,057 manufacturing jobs lost during that period was $47,706. Not a good tradeoff.

So what can we say about Jim = Jobs? Not much.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:42 PM, November 08, 2007

Doug, you seem to be avoiding the point, which was that you made the following false statement:

"A large portion of the job losses have come while Jim Douglas (another flatlander) has been governor."

Which you seem to have back-tracked on now that you actually went back and looked up the data (vs. doing a Shumlin-shoot-from-the-hip move).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 PM, November 08, 2007

BTW - I was only responding to the (absurd) discussion about the supposed evil influence of flatlanders on VT.

As I've said before, Jim Douglas is not directly responsible for the huge negative changes in the economy that are evident all over the country. But I don't think his policies are helping.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:16 PM, November 08, 2007

For those political junkies who are intrigued to know what proportion of the Vermont House is made up of native Vermonters - here you go:

Democrats - 32 (34% of their caucus)
Progressives - 2 (33% of their caucus)
Republicans - 29 (59% of their caucus)
Independents - 1 (50%)

A few editorial notes:

1. There are 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat who were born across the river in New Hampshire, but clearly grew up in Vermont. These people are not included.

2. Just about every Democrat on the Green Mountain Daily sh*tlist happens to be native Vermonter (the Franklin County contingent + Jon Anderson).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:21 PM, November 08, 2007

Give me a break. I've commented on the job situation many times here and elsewhere and have been very consistent. I this case, I was in a hurry and mispoke (see the post above).

Does that change the facts as presented? Of course not. Jim Douglas' record on jobs is terrible. The facts are clear.

So enjoy your moment but don't get too excited, things are not good and they're not getting better.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 PM, November 08, 2007

"I this case, I was in a hurry and mispoke (see the post above)."

Thank you for admitting that you offered a false statement as fact. For that reason, I will remain skeptical when reading published material that you funnel through PAI, for it is clear that you have a political bias.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:37 PM, November 08, 2007

"Jim Douglas' record on jobs is terrible. The facts are clear."

Mr. Hoffer:

If this is the case, how do you explain his electoral victories? People tend to vote their pocketbooks, don't they? Didn't you and Scudder hold a big press conference telling everyone how terrible the job situation in Vermont was right before the election? Why didn't a majority of Vermonters agree and vote Douglas out of office?

If I recall, the big layoffs at IBM came under the previous governor. How would you characterize Governor Dean's record on jobs?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:52 PM, November 08, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

How often is your analysis charactarized by errors when you are
"in a hurry"?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:59 PM, November 08, 2007

Goodness, you guys are really sad.

I just provided data showing how the VT job situation is terrible and all you can do is gloat about a few misplaced words. Do you even care about the labor market or are you more interested in sliming me (or PAI)?

Please provide evidence that ANYTHING I've published is not accurate.

And as for Dean's record on jobs, I'm not here to boost Howad Dean. Indeed, the whole point is that he presided over a growing economy while Douglas is stuck with the dregs. In truth, neither one had ANY influence over the outcome.

I await your response to the data.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:08 PM, November 08, 2007

"Please provide evidence that ANYTHING I've published is not accurate"

Yes, this piece that you published was not accurate:

"A large portion of the job losses have come while Jim Douglas (another flatlander) has been governor."

I intend to review all the other data you provided and will comment. However, given the clear political bias that you inject into your work, I expect that I'll have to spend more time scrutinizing the source data.

Sorry, I'm just an ignorant Vermont woodchuck, so it takes me longer to read through this stuff. I hope you understand. Oh - by the way - where are are you from Doug? Did you happen to look at the data that was posted up above about the composition of the legislature?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 PM, November 08, 2007

"I was in a hurry and mispoke (see the post above)."

But nevertheless, I am always right.

Doug, stop talking for a while and start listening. To people other than your pals at the Peace and Justice Center. Then you won't be in a hurry and make mistatements that you represent in sanctimonious fashion as fact.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 PM, November 08, 2007

"I just provided data showing how the VT job situation is terrible."

Isn't this exactly what you and your pals have been criticizing the Governor for saying?

Can't have it both ways.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:18 PM, November 08, 2007

"I intend to review all the other data you provided and will comment. "

I look forward to your review of my posts. Do you intend to read actual published material or just what has appeared on this blog? If the former, I'll be happy to provide URLs for material available online.

As for where I'm from, I might tell you that after you tell me your name. Fair's fair.

And BTW - I could care less where people are from (including Jim Douglas). People (and ideas) should be judged based on their merits, not where they were born or raised. The xenophobia expressed on the blog is very troubling. It's a short step from hating "flatlanders" to hating people of color or Jews or Muslims or gay people. Think about it.

"Then you won't be in a hurry and make mistatements that you represent in sanctimonious fashion as fact."

Still awaiting your response to the government data on the labor market. At least the other guy is willing to do some work. What about you?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:53 PM, November 08, 2007

"The xenophobia expressed on the blog is very troubling. It's a short step from hating "flatlanders" to hating people of color or Jews or Muslims or gay people. Think about it."

I wouldn't call it xenophobia. It is certainly not about hating "flatlanders". I wouldn't even think of calling someone a flatlander (unless it was a friend, and in jest).

I agree with you that we should judge people on their merits. However, I have witnessed a disturbing trend in Vermont, whereby people come into the state and try to impose their ideals without any regard for the people who have deep roots here. More to the point, people who have been here many generations find it very distrubing that the rest of the nation judges "vermonters" based on the outlandish behavior and statements of people who, quite frankly, are not vermonters. All I ask is that you give that some consideration.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 PM, November 08, 2007

"I just provided data showing how the VT job situation is terrible."

Isn't this exactly what you and your pals have been criticizing the Governor for saying?

Can't have it both ways.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 PM, November 08, 2007

"I agree with you that we should judge people on their merits. However, I have witnessed a disturbing trend in Vermont, whereby people come into the state and try to impose their ideals without any regard for the people who have deep roots here. More to the point, people who have been here many generations find it very distrubing that the rest of the nation judges "vermonters" based on the outlandish behavior and statements of people who, quite frankly, are not vermonters. All I ask is that you give that some consideration."

Sadly, lots of people try to "impose their ideals" on others, including natives.

But I suspect that most newcomers are just regular folks who move here, get a job, buy a home, raise a family, and participate in our democratic processes. Like the natives, they express themselves and pursue their self-interest.

Are they "different" Sure. But some try to fit in and learn from their neighbors who were here before.

But what does it mean to have "deep roots here"? I'm trying to understand what you mean by the idea of a "Vermonter". How many years does it take? How many generations? Where do we draw the line? And is it healthy to even try?

As for how the nation views VT, I'm just not as concerned as you appear to be. And I'm not sure what you mean by "outlandish behavior and statements". And are you really sure that native Vermonters aren't just as capable of "outlandish behavior and statements" as those from elsewhere? And isn't it possible that some of the behavior and statements of natives appear as outlandish to newcomers?

Personally, I have great respect for those who have maintained a family presence in the same area for generations. They should be valued and their views given appropriate weight.

But when it comes to elections and making laws, everyone who lives here and is subject to them should be accorded the same consideration. If not, we would have some sort of two tiered system (like the old British system with natives replacing landed gentry).

Change is difficult and often troubling. But it's not just VT. Imagine being a native Floridian and seeing what has become of that state in the last 50 years. Or how about an old family of fisherman (persons?) from Nantucket? And so on.

These are tough issues. Thanks for your thoughts.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 PM, November 08, 2007

Maybe Symington and Shumlin can hire Snarkyboy as their new PR guy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:00 PM, November 08, 2007

"I just provided data showing how the VT job situation is terrible."

Mr. Hoffer:

You've made this statement several times now, but I think reasonable people could conclude it's a pretty subjective one based on a selective reading of the data.

As I asked earlier, if this is the case, how do you explain Douglas' electoral victories, particularly in the last election? You did hold a press conference with Scudder Parker making the same charge, didn't you? Why didn't a majority of Vermonters agree and vote Douglas out of office?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:26 PM, November 08, 2007

Lofy should stay - Symington should go.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:59 PM, November 08, 2007

People should not move here and tell families who've lived here for generations that they should not hunt.

People should not move here and demand that the state suddenly adopt their attitudes on marriage.

People should not move here and demand that families who've lived here for generations pay exorbitant property taxes so that the newcomers' school can be "improved" to have all the bells and whistles that the school did in the state that they moved here from.

People should not move here and then decide that the farm next store is dirty and smelly and loud and must cease operations.

People should not move here and build estates and mcmansions but decide that Vermont should not have wind turbines because it will disturb their view (but that ski areas are perfectly ok).

It's not a question of being a flatlander. It's a question of moving here and then having the arrogance to start telling the people who've lived here for years how we should live our lives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:31 AM, November 09, 2007

Right on! Think it's bad now? Wait until the leftists get homo marriage forced on the state. Then see what moves here!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:25 AM, November 09, 2007

I have to add that the "xenophobia" described above, not to defend it, is not a one-way thing. "Flatlanders" so-called are resented by native Vermonters for the good reason that they behave as though their superiority is a given. Witness the many comments like "I live in Vermont ; I like Vermonters" after some very condescending statements about native Vermonters. Notice the distinction between living here and being a Vermonter. This person lives among Vermonters and tolerates them but is not in his view a Vermonter.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:44 AM, November 09, 2007

How about the comment on one of the other posts that the only reason Vermont has a higher education rate in the 90's than it did in the 70's is because of people who have moved here? That might also bring out a little "xenophobia."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:52 AM, November 09, 2007

Now that Lofy is gone, does that mean that Gay Symington is Speaker of the House again?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:58 AM, November 09, 2007

Nice shift of topic.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:04 AM, November 09, 2007

"People should not move here and tell families who've lived here for generations that they should not hunt."

I agree.

"People should not move here and demand that the state suddenly adopt their attitudes on marriage."

This one is complicated. These views have been evolving for years and involve matters of civil rights. Plus, those who seek civil unions aren't looking to interfere with your rights; simply to get equal rights.

"People should not move here and demand that families who've lived here for generations pay exorbitant property taxes so that the newcomers' school can be "improved" to have all the bells and whistles that the school did in the state that they moved here from."

This too is a tough one. I'm not sure locals are opposed to better schools. They keep voting for the budgets and I can't believe every town in VT now has a majority of outsiders. And I'm not sure what you mean by "bells and whistles".

"People should not move here and then decide that the farm next store is dirty and smelly and loud and must cease operations."

I agree.

People should not move here and build estates and mcmansions but decide that Vermont should not have wind turbines because it will disturb their view (but that ski areas are perfectly ok).

I agree.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:15 AM, November 09, 2007

"For those political junkies who are intrigued to know what proportion of the Vermont House is made up of native Vermonters - here you go:

Democrats - 32 (34% of their caucus)
Progressives - 2 (33% of their caucus)
Republicans - 29 (59% of their caucus)
Independents - 1 (50%)

A few editorial notes:

1. There are 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat who were born across the river in New Hampshire, but clearly grew up in Vermont. These people are not included.

2. Just about every Democrat on the Green Mountain Daily sh*tlist happens to be native Vermonter (the Franklin County contingent + Jon Anderson)."

Why are Vermonters so under-represented by the Democratic party?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 AM, November 09, 2007

"You've made this statement several times now, but I think reasonable people could conclude it's a pretty subjective one based on a selective reading of the data."

There's nothing "subjective" about the data. Job growth is very slow and has been for three years. Period. If you have data that says otherwise, please provide it.

"As I asked earlier, if this is the case, how do you explain Douglas' electoral victories, particularly in the last election? You did hold a press conference with Scudder Parker making the same charge, didn't you? Why didn't a majority of Vermonters agree and vote Douglas out of office?"

First, elections turn on lots of factors and I can't say why people vote the way they do. Personally, I don't think the Dems talked about jobs enough during the campaign. It is interesting, however, that Vermonters gave the Dems larger majorities in both houses (that's dozens of elections, rather than just one). And they elected a new Dem auditor as well. So it was a mixed bag.

Second, I did not hold a press conference with Scudder. I did do some research for and stand with representatives of Working Vermont, which represents AFL-CIO, VSEA, NEA, UPVT, and other unions.

Finally, it was not a "charge". It was - and is - a recitation of the facts. All of your efforts to characterize it as "biased" or "subjective" cannot change the facts. Check the state's labor market information site and see for yourself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:48 AM, November 09, 2007

Don't you think that AFL-CIO, VSEA, NEA, UPVT, and other unions are part of the problem why Vermont has such a poor image in the eyes of business?

After all, no business wantsto get to move somewhere where a union is likely to take over and run them into the ground.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:57 AM, November 09, 2007

Doug, You have far more credibility because you are willing to put your name on your responses.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:01 AM, November 09, 2007

Hoffer's credibility was shot to pieces when he was busted for making a false statement in an earlier post.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 AM, November 09, 2007

"So where does that leave Symington and Shumlin? They'll have one less experienced political person to bounce strategy off and coordinate the Democratic caucus."

I guess they'll have to fall back on Cynthia Browning for PR advice.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:32 AM, November 09, 2007

"People should not move here and tell families who've lived here for generations that they should not hunt."

That's a loaded question. If you're talking about posted signs, etc then property rights have always trumped hunting rights and even the constitution is written that way: "except bounded property and in seasonable times". Irregardless of a person's origin, if they own property and pay taxes, they have property rights and those property rights trump hunting rights.

Being multigenerational doesn't exclude you from following and respecting the constitution.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:48 AM, November 09, 2007

Shocker! Freyne has a picture of Pollina front and center and where else is he? AT A COFFEE PLACE AGAIN! I don't want a governor who isn't used to working. Although, he would be good at hosting coffees.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:49 AM, November 09, 2007

Hey Bauer, "irregardless" isn't a word.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 AM, November 09, 2007

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:04 AM, November 09, 2007

Quote Webster, "Use regardless instead."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:28 AM, November 09, 2007

Quote Webster, "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:08 PM, November 09, 2007

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (4th ed.):

"Irregardless. Should be regardless. The error results from failure
to see the negative in -less and from a desire to get it in as a
prefix, suggested by such words as irregular, irresponsible, and
perhaps especially, irrespective."

This is consistent with Webster's advice to use “regardless” instead.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:19 PM, November 09, 2007

Is Shumlinless a word?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:20 PM, November 09, 2007

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless

1. irregardless
75 up, 12 down

Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffx "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude asshole will correct you.

Wife: "Irregardless is not a word, dummy"
Husband: "Kiss my ass bitch! I'm still going to the strip club tonight!"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:24 PM, November 09, 2007

2. irregardless
48 up, 5 down

For those who are language challenged and obtuse, irregardless means really, really, regardless.

Irregardless of your opinion, the facts show that you are so wrong, Dude.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:25 PM, November 09, 2007

"Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing"

uhhh, casual as in a blog, dude?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:28 PM, November 09, 2007

Well, I'll weigh in as one who dislikes the word "irregardless".

I think it makes people sound a bit ignorant.

Yes, it is a blog, but you should still try to express yourself clearly and intelligently.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:50 PM, November 09, 2007

Shumlin is a native born Vermonter!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:00 PM, November 09, 2007

insightfull.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:23 PM, November 09, 2007

Wow, 3 people, 87 posts. Amazing. What coffee shops are you all sitting in?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, November 09, 2007

Perhaps the same one Pollina frequents?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:30 PM, November 09, 2007

We are actually sitting in the VT GOP party headquarters in Newark, New Jersey.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:33 PM, November 09, 2007

Yeah, Gaye Symington's home state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:54 PM, November 09, 2007

Maybe she could go back!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:08 PM, November 09, 2007

Looks like Pollina is going to run for Governor - bring it on!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:09 PM, November 09, 2007

"Finally, it was not a "charge". It was - and is - a recitation of the facts. All of your efforts to characterize it as "biased" or "subjective" cannot change the facts."

Mr. Hoffer:

You've been extremely vociferous in your insistence that you are not an advocate, but an "independent analyst" who just presents the "facts" and rejects any suggestion that your opinions and conclusions are shaped by your personal politics, or who pays for your "research" and "analysis."

How do you explain John Odum, former Democratic Party state treasurer, Democratic Party activist, and operator of the Democratic blog "Green Mountain Daily" characterizing you in the following terms?

"The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.

And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting."

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9793E36455A03323A3A27A550CCAE07E?diaryId=1833

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:05 AM, November 10, 2007

Anyone who gets called out for special praise by the rude, intolerant Odum should be viewed with suspicion. Odum's only one step removed from Colby.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:27 AM, November 10, 2007

Can anyone with half a brain not realize that Hoffer is no more than a hired gun for the far left in Vermont? Cooked books, misleading data, "facts" that are not facts, and on and on. He is as corrupt as the dims/progs in this state and will take money from them to advance their terrible causes. Wouldn't you love to see him debate John McClaughry sometime?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:25 AM, November 10, 2007

"We are actually sitting in the VT GOP party headquarters in Newark, New Jersey."

Proportion of Vermont House reps that are native Vermonters --

Democrats - 32 (34% of their caucus)
Progressives - 2 (33% of their caucus)
Republicans - 29 (59% of their caucus)
Independents - 1 (50%)

the numbers speak for themselves!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:20 AM, November 10, 2007

"the numbers speak for themselves!"

Right on. It says it all.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:08 AM, November 10, 2007

Again, your efforts to ignore the data and focus on the messenger indicates your real interest: confuse people and avoid the truth.

First, I don't know John Odum, have never met, spoken with, or communicated with him (or with anyone else about him). Like you, he is free to write what he wants. I have no control over that. Therefore, I don't need to "explain" it. Couldn't if I tried.

Second - and again - I am an independent analyst because I have numerous clients (including some for profit businesses) and am not affiliated with one organization.

As for the Democratic party, if memory serves, I have done only one job for them / it in over 14 years of self-employment (and it wasn't much either). Have some Democrats sometimes made use of my work? Sure. That's the point of doing public policy work - to get it out there for anyone to use. Frankly, I wish they would use it more often.

Furthermore, I've never said I wasn't an advocate. The process is participatory and we are supposed to get involved and try to shape public policy. That's what Art Woolf & John McClaughry do as well. And that's as it should be.

But the suggestion that the data I present (on my own or on behalf of clients) is somehow tainted because of my personal views is just silly. The facts are not subjective, although one can make choices about what questions to ask and answer (which is why I often disagree with Art & John). But the conclusions we reach are our own.

BTW - Art Woolf's Tiger Blog and the Ethan Allen Institute characterize themselves as "non-partisan" and "independent". Do you ask them where they get their funding? Do you really think they are "non-partisan" and "idependent"? Personally, I don't care. It's the substance that matters, not the labels.

Now, having dispensed with all that, are you prepared to address the facts presented earlier about the VT job situation over the last few years? The data is from the state's Dept. of Labor. Check it out and tell me if it's wrong. If not, then let's talk about that instead of your obsession with me.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:09 AM, November 10, 2007

"Thanks for explaining the obvious" is not a putdown?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 AM, November 10, 2007

"We are actually sitting in the VT GOP party headquarters in Newark, New Jersey."

Actually, the Speaker of the House is more likely to have her HQ in Jersey. She doesn't even know the geography of Vermont, as evidenced by her op-ed in today's Free Press:

"On driving her car out of the driveway under the shadow of Haystack Mountain, I wondered how she would respond to the situation she faced."

Quaint, but Haystack Mountain is in Windham County. Symington was referring to a mountain in West Pawlet (not in Windham County, and thank God for that).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 AM, November 10, 2007

"Furthermore, I've never said I wasn't an advocate. . . It's the substance that matters, not the labels."

Then stop shitting on studies or analyses you don't like based on who put them out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:21 AM, November 10, 2007

I don't know how long Symington has lived in Vermont, but Rob Roper has been here less than 10 years. Shouldn't that concern all the Repubs who worry about liberals from out of state running things?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 AM, November 10, 2007

Get rid of Symington.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:43 PM, November 10, 2007

That would require impeachment, and our legislature only deals with the impeachment of federal office holders.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:39 PM, November 10, 2007

Roper when he was the Ex Director of FreedomWorks and now again as the Ex Dir of VT GOP has always twisted the truth to fit his needs.

Todays Op Ed, Roper says those Dems held a Cindy Sheehan day - unfortunately it was Senate GOP Committee who scheduled Sheehan.

Jim Douglas does the same thing - whne the house proposed a gas tax 2 years ago, it was House Trans chaired by GOP Rep Westman who brought it forward.

Roper, Lunderville, Barnet, Gibbs and even Douglas have never been very accurate with the truth - we just don't have a very good press corps to push Douglas Admin and GOP to be truthful.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:20 PM, November 10, 2007

"Todays Op Ed, Roper says those Dems held a Cindy Sheehan day - unfortunately it was Senate GOP Committee who scheduled Sheehan."

Senate GOP Committee? What are you talking about??!! You're either from Mars or Brattleboro, because there is no such thing as a "Senate GOP Committee".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:26 PM, November 10, 2007

Republican VInce Illusi is responsible for bringing Sheehan to the statehouse.

He chairs the committee that invited her to speak at the statehouse.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:36 PM, November 10, 2007

There's no such thing as a Senate GOP Committee. Please recheck your facts and get back to us with the truth.

How ironic, given the point you were trying to make.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:52 PM, November 10, 2007

There's no such thing as a Senate GOP Committee. Please recheck your facts and get back to us with the truth.

How ironic, given the point you were trying to make.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:52 PM, November 10, 2007

Symington has been in Vermont 20 years and before that in upstate New York.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:25 PM, November 10, 2007

And Roeper has been here for 7 years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:07 PM, November 10, 2007

"I am an independent analyst because I have numerous clients (including some for profit businesses) and am not affiliated with one organization."

Mr. Hoffer:

Fine, whatever you say. Call yourself whatever you like. But when I see ultra-liberal, "progressive" Democrats like John Odum referring to you glowingly as a "hard core, progressive policy wonk," it's hard not conclude that you are just that.

I don't dispute your facts, it's the conclusions you draw from them that I think are subjective. That's okay, you're entitled to your opinions. But they are just that, opinions. Because you can marshal facts that appear to support them doesn't change that other people who hold different views can reach different conclusions from the same set of facts.

People who don't share your "progressive" viewpoint can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions. But for them to evaluate whether your conclusions are valid, or "independent," don't they need to know the prism that you're viewing the facts through?

I wouldn't dispute calling Ethan Allen a "conservative" or "free market" think tank. Would you dispute calling the Public Assets Institute a "progressive" or "liberal" think tank?

And with respect to Art Woolf, he's an academic; you can quibble about his slant but he has a professorship in economics. His blog can be characterized in the same vein as the Ethan Allen Institute.

I'm not trying to "confuse" anyone. I just think readers of this blog ought to be able to evaluate the statements made here based on an informed position. You use your "expertise" to lend credibility to your conclusions and to undermine the credibility of others' conclusions. Fine. People should know the details of that expertise, and potential biases, and can decide for themselves whether to give your opinions any more credence than those who simply express an opinion anonymously.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:04 PM, November 10, 2007

Never trust facts. They are used by liberals to get in the way and to prevent us from winning arguments.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 PM, November 10, 2007

"Never trust facts. They are used by liberals to get in the way and to prevent us from winning arguments."

Always trust the facts. Just look carefully at people like Doug Hoffer and Bill Lofy who distort the facts into an argument that supports their ideology.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:12 PM, November 10, 2007

Hear, Hear.

Indeed, beware of ANYONE who states that conclusions to be drawn from a set of facts or data are consistent with his or her ideological beliefs, whether those beliefs are left wing or right wing.

Hoffer acts like he is 100% neutral and the data lead inevitably to the conclusions he likes (bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, etc.), but that is false. His conclusions are just as much informed by the bias he brings to the table as, say, John Mclaughry's are.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:23 PM, November 10, 2007

"Symington has been in Vermont 20 years and before that in upstate New York."

Symington doesn't even know where Haystack Mountain is, as she made clear in her oped in yesterday's free press.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:47 AM, November 11, 2007

"I don't dispute your facts, it's the conclusions you draw from them that I think are subjective. That's okay, you're entitled to your opinions."

Thank you.

However, it is not my "opinion" that VT job growth has been anemic for the last few years. It is a fact.

That is what we should be talking about.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:19 AM, November 11, 2007

I'l bet a lot of native Vermonters don't know where Haystack Mountain is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:55 AM, November 11, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

Maybe that is what we "should" be talking about, but THIS thread was about Mr. Lofy, Mr. Barnett and Ms. Symington, Mr. Shumlin and Vermont Democratic and Republican politics.
whose post is a diversion from the topic?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:24 AM, November 11, 2007

Like others, I addressed THIS thread several times until someone else (once again) made me the subject. I then responded. How come you're not cricizing the other guy(s) as well? You could just as easily have addressed your comments to ALL those who are off topic. Curious.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:02 AM, November 11, 2007

Me bad -- In my haste to type out the blog post, Ileft out teh word chair.

It was a GOP Senate Committee Chair who was responsible for scheduling Cindy Sheehan - OK!

If you want to crucify me for a typo, have at it!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:02 AM, November 11, 2007

I commented to you Mr. Hoffer because you were the only one who pointed out what we "should" be discussing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:26 AM, November 11, 2007

"I'll bet a lot of native Vermonters don't know where Haystack Mountain is."

A lot of Vermonters haven't been Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives for the last several years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:06 PM, November 11, 2007

We need a new speaker!

Pollina for Governor!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:37 PM, November 11, 2007

A lot of Vermonters can't afford to pay for an out of state spin doctor who can't even get his Vermont geography right for the Speaker!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 PM, November 11, 2007

Pollina for nothing. That's what he's best at.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:42 PM, November 11, 2007

Taxpayers don't pay Lofy's salary.

Taxpayers DO pay the salaries of Douglas's spindoctors -- to the tun of a million dollars a year!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:51 AM, November 12, 2007

Exactly. That's why the state RIF should begin right there.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:52 AM, November 12, 2007

Let's RIF Shumlin and Symington.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:12 PM, November 12, 2007

You can't RIF them; you have to run against them and defeat them.

Surely you must see that the amount of money spent on PR people for the governor is way out of proportion to the size of the state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:33 PM, November 12, 2007

If you can't RIF, then IMPEACH! That is the Vermont way now, right?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:14 PM, November 12, 2007

Don't you think the money spent on PR for the governor is outrageous?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, November 12, 2007

"Don't you think the money spent on PR for the governor is outrageous?"

Yes

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:23 PM, November 12, 2007

No, at least the Governor is hiring real Vermonters. I feel better about that than the Democrats hiring some out of state political hack paid for with political contributions.

The difference is that the Governor's people are working for Vermont. Lofy has been working for whoever pays the bill.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:41 PM, November 12, 2007

No, the Governor's people are working for the Vermont GOP ... but they are getting paid for by taxpayers.

That's not right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:49 PM, November 12, 2007

Most of Douglas's taxpayer supported spoksmen are not real Vermonters. With the exception of Ansen Tebbets, they are all transplants.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:02 PM, November 12, 2007

It's hard to see this being an issue that resonates with anybody but political junkies. Weren't these all positions that were created or authorized during Howard Dean's tenure?

And the money is nothing in the grand scheme of a what, $4 billion budget?

A quick check of Arkansas' website shows their Governor has 3 PR people; the Ed Dept. has a Communications Department of 5; Department of Human Services 2; Department of Workforce Services 1; Secretary of State 2; Dept. of Corrections 1; Development Finance Authority 1; Dept. of Environmental Quality 2; Game and Fish 1 (at least); Dept. of Health 2; Highway and Transportation Dept. 5; National Guard 1; Motor Vehicle Commission 1; etc.

I don't think raising this issue was the best advice Lofy ever gave to the Democratic leadership.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:14 PM, November 12, 2007

Bill Lofy would have been wise to give Symington a lesson on Vermont geography.

Oh - that's right. He's just another flatlander.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:58 PM, November 12, 2007

"Weren't these all positions that were created or authorized during Howard Dean's tenure?"

No, they were not. 90% of them are new positions created by Douglas.

It's hard to figure why Douglas needs so many taxpayer funded spin doctors.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:59 PM, November 12, 2007

Rob Roeper and Jim Douglas -- just another couple of flatlanders.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:00 PM, November 12, 2007

So we're supposed to take our lead from Arkansas?!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:47 PM, November 12, 2007

Rob Roeper and Jim Douglas -- just another couple of flatlanders.

Yep. Just like Bernie.

At least when Jim wanted a political career he began by running for state rep. Not like Bernie, who ran for Gov. in his very first race after moving here from Brooklyn.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:47 AM, November 13, 2007

"So we're supposed to take our lead from Arkansas?!"

Didn't we elect a President from there? Aren't we actively considering electing Hillary ...previously from Arkansas?

I think for good or bad we have taken our lead from Arkansas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:48 AM, November 13, 2007

Has nothing to do with the million dollars a year the Vermont taxpayers pay for Jim Douglas's spin doctors.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:45 AM, November 13, 2007

What will be interesting is to see if the Governor considers these PR jobs "critical" as the criteria for position elimination in the governor's JOB CUTS!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:55 AM, November 13, 2007

I think Douglas has to cut a half million dollars from his own staff. I think the legislature told him he had to do that last year. These PR people would seem like logical subtractions.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:04 AM, November 13, 2007

There aren't any job cuts planned; they're just not filling vacancies as they open when people leave or retire.

There's a difference.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:43 PM, November 13, 2007

Maybe there's a difference in your mind, but I do think the executive branch was instructed to downsize by a quarter to a half million. These, I think, would be cuts, unless Mr. Douglas is going to wait until his own folks start retiring, but, in his case, I think he is mandated to cut some of his own pork.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:12 PM, November 13, 2007

But those are position cuts. The people whose positions will be eliminated are currently doing work and providing services. Once they're gone, not all of that work can necessarily be absorbed by other staff. It is likely to mean cuts in services.

What services are the Governor's PR staffers performing for the people of VT?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:18 PM, November 13, 2007

Doug is absolutely right on this one - there is no case for argument!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:25 PM, November 13, 2007

Cuts in services? BOO-HOO! How about if people got off their lazy butts and started doing things for themselves? Oh, wait! I forgot, Vermont is now run by dims/progs that have been telling people for over 20 years now that government will do everything for you! Douglas should DOUBLE the reduction in state "employees" just for openers!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:22 PM, November 13, 2007

"What services are the Governor's PR staffers performing for the people of VT?"

If Douglas is serious about cuts, he needs to inventory all his staff. At the very least, he needs to reduce the PR overhead.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:07 PM, November 13, 2007

For sure, PR people should go unless they are bringing business into the state somehow. But that's peanuts compared to some of the other totally useless employees; Get rid of politically correct but useless departments such as Human Rights and Commission on Women and save over half a million annually; dump the Joint fiscal Committee and save close to another million; and for the most useless of all, imagine the millions saved by dumping the entire Agency of Natural Resources; the list is endless, but of course, all the pols in Montpelier have gotten their girlfriends, worthless kids, and election-supporters jobs here and there, so of course nothing will happen!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, November 13, 2007

Bubba,

To your point, below is a comment from a recent article on how the Progs really view jobs in VT.

They REALLY need a greater role in Montpelier. Interesting huh.

http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2007/11/vermont-progres.html#more

"The reasoning being, “why do we need new jobs, we just need the existing jobs to pay more.” Ellen from Pittford so much as said “I don’t think we should get jobs in here at all.” Then “we don’t need young people [either]” The sentiment apparently being that Vermonters can make do and don’t need outside workers, smart economists, or big businesses to help. These exchanges and several others about outsourced jobs, Chinese imports, and the tourism industry clearly demonstrated that protectionism is at the core of the party’s ideology."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:00 PM, November 13, 2007

"But those are position cuts. The people whose positions will be eliminated are currently doing work and providing services. Once they're gone, not all of that work can necessarily be absorbed by other staff. It is likely to mean cuts in services."

This is absolute, 100% pure and total speculation. The loss of a bureaucratic job may not make a dime's worth of difference in the delivery of services. And you have no idea which jobs in particular will not be re-filled.

You're just making sh** up. There are undeniably jobs that, if eliminated, would not affect productivity.

This just shows that you absolutely, reflexively LOVE government jobs, no matter what, Douggie, and want people to be on the government payroll.

"If someone is on the government payroll, they MUST be performing a vital service that none of us could possibly want to live without. -Yours truly, Doug Hoffer."

Nonsense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:53 PM, November 13, 2007

"The loss of a bureaucratic job may not make a dime's worth of difference in the delivery of services."

What exactly is a "bureaucratic job"? Is that any job performing a service you don't approve of? And if so, does that make the worker unworthy of respect? If you have a problem with state services, say so. But there's no need to denigrate all state employees. Disgraceful.

"There are undeniably jobs that, if eliminated, would not affect productivity."

Please name the job that if eliminated would not affect productivity (other than the Governor's PR hacks).

I never said all gov't. services are "vital". I simply said that the loss of positions "is likely to mean a cut in services". Period.

I wish you could step outside yourself for just a minute and read your own posts. Your anger makes it impossible to take you seriously. And your continuing need to focus on me suggests that you are terribly threatened by anyone who dares to take a position contrary to yours.

You're not debating; you're just yelling.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:17 PM, November 13, 2007

"Name a job that if eliminated would not affect productivity"? Where does one START! For a small sample, how does the Gov's Commission on the status of Women or the Human Rights Commission affect productivity??? And most of the ANR ADVERSELY affect productivity!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:04 AM, November 14, 2007

Gov Douglas' Close Advisors Staff, or - the Douglas Jobs Program,
or - Douglas Re-e;lection Team!

Gov Douglas(ADM)-- $150,051
Mike Smith (ADM)-- $135,803
Tim Hayward (ADM)-- $129,251
Neale Lunderville(AOT)-- $121,700Michael Bertrand (ADMIN)-- $97,344
Betsy Bishop (ADM)-- $93,974
Susanne Young (ADM)-- $93,974
Linda McIntire (ADM)-- $90,396

Neal is added because he left state gov't for Boston - and came back when Gov DoesLess could offer him a FT job kissing up to Sen Mazza for the Gov.
==================================

And for average Vermont workers?

Average salary for:

corrections officer -- $28,000
parole officer -- $30,000
state trooper -- $35,000
dmv employee -- $29,000
caseworker -- $30,000
=================================

Then of course there are the Governor's appointees - Secretaries and Commissioners

Rob Hofmann (DOC) -- $103,729
George Crombie (ANR) -- $109,990
Cynthia Laware (AHS) -- $128,169
Stephen Dale (DCF)-- $106,017
Roger Allbee (AGR) -- $115,148
Gerry Myers (BGS) -- $94,057
Paul Thabault (BISHCA) -- $101,108
Patrick Flood (DAIL) -- $98,009
Richard Cate (Ed) -- $126,921
Jeff Wennberg (DEC) -- $89,398
Sharon Moffate (DOH) -- $104,220
David Herlihy (HR) -- $83,366
Thomas Murray (DII) -- $90,396
P. Moulton Powden -- $98,820

And, of course, there are the 14-16 PR staff members making a combined total of approx $800,000.

Remind me of where the waste in Gov't workers is?

I think it is not the front line workers serving Vermonters - but rather the back room political hacks serving Gov DoesLess.
==================================

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:41 AM, November 14, 2007

You are correct that our cops, highway workers, and many others are underpaid; but to blame Douglas for the Human Rights or Status of Women or ANR or even PR flacks, etc. is foolish. Can you picture the gnashing of teeth, the blubbering, and the hate mail from the bleeding hearts or lady-libbers if any of these positions were eliminated? And as soon as the next dim was elected, they would all be back in spades!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 AM, November 14, 2007

"I never said all gov't. services are "vital". I simply said that the loss of positions" is likely to mean a cut in services". Period."

Yes, Doug, and that's the point. You have absolutely no evidence that a cut in positions will affect the delivery of services. Will cutting the janitorial staff at a state office building mean that someone won't get their driver's license or welfare check? No. But you just go out there and say that it will. So you're statement is unfounded speculation. God knows why you'd be willing to make this completely unfounded assumption.

It appears it's because you're absolutely in love with government.

I don't dislike government. I'm just not willing to engage in your unfounded assumption that a cut of state positions will lead to a reduction in state services. Nor am I willing to accept the assumption that every state service currently being done is necessary or desirable. You, apparently, have never seen a government job you didn't like.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:00 PM, November 14, 2007

Job cuts will lead to reduced services. If you don't believe so, please send some of what you're smoking my way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:03 PM, November 14, 2007

"It appears it's because you're absolutely in love with government."

I guess you haven't been paying attention. I criticize state government all the time. I think a lot of money is wasted. But the problem is not the workers on the line, but the policies.

BTW - It isn't really necessary to make such sweeping generalizations (often false) in order to make a point. But I guess your real goal is to just attack, regardless of the facts. Such tactics do not usually persuade people that you are a reasonable person.

"I'm just not willing to engage in your unfounded assumption that a cut of state positions will lead to a reduction in state services."

YOU claim it's unfounded. That doesn't make it unfounded. Why not check with some of the people who have been screwed by the job cuts a few years ago in the Dept. of Labor? The field offices (which are intended to help people find jobs - including those laid off) have been "reorganized". That is, some offices closed, reduced hours of operation, fewer staff trying to cover a lot more ground, etc. Gee, I guess there may actually be a reason to think position cuts may hurt service delivery after all.

"Will cutting the janitorial staff at a state office building mean that someone won't get their driver's license or welfare check?"

Interesting choice on both counts. First, I expect you have no idea what the workload is for janitors or whether we have enough of them now. Second, you are implying that state offices don't really need to be that clean. Nice message to workers and customers (should really help morale & productivity). Third, you only mentioned DMV and those pesky "welfare" offices. What about the State Police barracks? Or the Dept. of Economic Development (where they try to impress business owners)? Or the State Capital (where Vermonters and visitors should be proud not disappointed that it's not clean). Or what about when you stop at highway rest area? Clean is a subjective thing after all isn't it? And finally, it's also interesting that your first thought was janitors rather than more highly paid employees.

"You, apparently, have never seen a government job you didn't like."

Actually, you don't know a damn thing about me. For example, while serving as a commissioner at the Burlington Electric Dept., we hired a new general manager with specific instructions to reduce staff. It was our view that the Dept. had gotten fat over time. It was not my desire to hurt workers but my primary obligation was to rate payers (the citizens & businesses of Burlington).

So keep trying to put words in my mouth if that gives you satisfaction, but I don't think you're impressing anyone.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:54 PM, November 14, 2007

Don't pay any attention to what Roper says Doug. He's just trying to stick his head a little further up Douglas's behind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:09 PM, November 14, 2007

All this complaining about Douglas and the Democrats't even have a candidate - hard to get too worked up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:29 PM, November 14, 2007

"But I guess your real goal is to just attack"

Anyone who challenges you, you feel attacked.

You're insecure.

You still haven't done anything to show that an unspecified cut in positions leads to a cut in services.

"First, I expect you have no idea what the workload is for janitors or whether we have enough of them now."

And you do?

"Second, you are implying that state offices don't really need to be that clean. Nice."

This is just silly. I never said or implied any such thing. Again, you assume that a reduction in janitorial staff means that an office building won't be "that clean." Another unfounded assumption by you.

Your full of unfounded assumptions against any reduction of the government payroll.

"Actually, you don't know a damn thing about me."

We know a lot about how you think because all you do is blog.

"It was not my desire to hurt workers but my primary obligation was to rate payers."

So, it's okay for you to cut workers, but nobody else can do it. You're a hypocrite.

r unfoundedassumption that

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:54 PM, November 14, 2007