Commentary

Madden: Balint pandemic platform mimics PAC’s

by Liam Madden

Balint’s money isn’t the story.

People who are paying attention to Vermont politics are by now aware that a single, cryptocurrency tycoon was responsible for funding the majority of Becca Balint’s ads in the primary—over $1 million worth.

To be fair to Becca Balint, she is telling the truth in saying she can’t stop these folks from spending money on her behalf. And I’d go even further in extending the benefit of the doubt to Balint, to say that I believe her when she says she would work to change the system to prevent this kind of dark money’s influence on elections.

Liam Madden (with wife) campaign photo

But I’d still like to take a moment to reflect on some of the aspects of this story that are easily overlooked. 

1. Becca Balint explicitly claimed never to seek PAC/lobbyist money, but she did meet with the crypto-funded PAC “Protecting Our Future” and others. It’s a bit difficult for me to reconcile why she would, you know, just casually meet with a PAC, with no intention of courting them for their money.

2. While that PAC endorsed her, its leaders and those close to them funneled most of their money through the LGBTQ PAC that would provide much better plausible deniability and PR cover.

3. The language of the “Protecting Our Future PAC” policy positions ended up, nearly verbatim, on Balint’s website as her own policy position. Most notably, to call for independent oversight over labs studying pandemic causing pathogens.

4. While #2 & #3 is well covered by Vermont media, what I haven’t heard yet mentioned is that this position screams of a perspective that is deeply concerned with how pandemics are leaked from sanctioned biolabs. It is a reasonable concern to have, given that, according to USA Today’s long-term coverage, this is a commonly experienced risk of these labs. 

More controversially, the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) release of Anthony Fauci’s records reveal that his team sought to cover the tracks of NIH funding the lab in Wuhan. Also, the records requests reveal his team’s efforts to write obfuscatory scientific papers to take public scrutiny away from their role in risky research.

Columbia University professor Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was put in charge of a Lancet Medical Journal investigation to sort out the legitimacy of the possibility of a lab leak. His team initially found the claims unsupported. Sachs, however, has since come out, acknowledging that the team of Fauci’s high-level confidants misled him, and that he now believes that a lab leak is the most plausible explanation for the origins of SARS-CoV2.

My point is that the policy in question is, well, good policy. It would help prevent the REAL risk of lab-leaked pandemic pathogens. BUT—one little but—Becca Balint has never been too vocally concerned about this risk before, publicly anyway. She has, on the contrary, been an unquestioning champion of whatever the CDC and health authorities have told the public to do and believe. That’s the part of the story the press has thus far missed. Senator Balint now has a contradiction to contend with. It will be interesting to see what sort of verbal gymnastics—eh hem—justifications she will offer.

How can we can trust the health policy judgment of someone who will parrot every pronouncement of the same authorities who clearly bent over backwards to deceive Professor Sachs (and the American public) by obscuring their role in the sloppy practices performing extremely dangerous gain of function research on deadly viruses? 

It is Senator Balint’s lack of skepticism for these authorities—except when there’s a PAC funding on the line—that is the real story here. It’s not seeking their support (which she did); despite saying she wouldn’t (which she did);  it’s not receiving their support (which she did);  it’s not even having them write her policy (which she did). The most egregious part of this saga—to me—is that this policy is something that was inconvenient to support before. It was politically expensive, so Balint hadn’t the courage to breathe a peep about it—until it paid. 

But there is a little more to discuss. First of all, I’m left wondering, why didn’t these crypto millionaires support Molly Gray? She would have been likely to support the commonsense policies they advocate, I think. Even I support these policies. Begging the question … why is it worth so much to these guys to influence a race where every candidate is in agreement with the purported issue at hand? It seems wiser to invest in a race where your money would actually matter. So what real agenda is the pandemic policy a fig leaf for?

That, I don’t know. But it brings us to another point, which is that asking these questions is dangerous. Why? Balint’s campaign manager, Natalie Silver commented, “Molly Gray is very close to saying, you know, ‘We don’t want a gay agenda.”

That’s the sickening thing to me about identity politics. Whenever valid critique of a person is levied, instead of debating the critique, identity fundamentalists often reflexively resort to ad hominem accusations of bigotry to deflect the real concern. 

It reminds me how these tactics were used against people who would call Hillary Clinton out on her Goldman Sachs speeches and years of pro-corporate, warlike policies. Instead of addressing these concerns on their substance, it was often easier to call her critics woman-hating misogynists. And now, when we wonder why so much spending for Balint is coming from non-Vermont oligarchs, or why all of the funding of this crypto-baron is being funneled through a LGBTQ advocacy group, we risk being smeared as homophobic trans-haters…

This PAC issue is not just about the spending. It’s about what it is revealing about the Balint team’s worldview—which is that her skepticism of those who wield power can be withheld, and that race, gender, and sexual identity can be weaponized —when it’s politically convenient.–

The author is a Bellows Falls resident and political independent who won and then accepted the Republican nomination for the U.S. House.

Categories: Commentary

7 replies »

  1. I was at the GOP meeting after the primaries. So was Liam. Liam ran as a “republican” then , on his OWN website , declared that the two party system is a sham.

    Liam lied to many of us at that meeting and , changed his views on issues …on the fly.

    He publicly stated that he is NOT a republican and , we cannot as a Party support Him or 99% of the things he stands for esp his desire to meditate around plants while transferring his sexual energies . ( Straight from HIS website)

    I put forth Erica Redic , the independent candidate, as OUR alternate to Liam’s mentally unstable views on issues that concern us.

    • The Republican Party in Vermont needs to get a life, for Liam is the least of your problems when one factors in the murder machine’s very own Phil Scott, as the local globalist peon pushing Pfizers death vax and destroying small business while letting Walmart stay open.

      The issue of this election is whether or not we are going to be able to eat and if we can stop Biden’s push for World War III, now against Russia, funding Nazi’s in the Ukraine, and wanting a fight with China.,,,something Liz Cheney yearns for..along with Democratic Party hypocrites here in Vermont.

    • Scott,

      You’re getting the order wrong. I ran in the GOP primaries, AND THE ENTIRE TIME, said I was an independent proposing profound change to the two party system – In every public event, in every debate, and in front and center on my website. You are the one making shit up by suggesting that I was not consistent and made up stuff on the fly.

      The only thing I changed was my election strategy, not my stance on any issue. And I changed my election strategy because I learned the rules better. It is not a crime, nor is it unethical, to win an election and to keep the competitive advantage that it confers. If you want Balint to win, I urge you to keep pushing the unelectable Redic.

  2. Indeed “Bought Becca”‘s money is not the story…its the tip of the iceberg of grandstanding hypocrisy demonstrated by the picture of wind bag Bernie…
    The deeper story, is Bought Becca’s agenda which plays right into the hands of Davos Elites who pushed the whole lockdown scams, the vaccine scams, and now World War III.
    ‘Bought Becca” will certainly be funding the Nazi’s in the Ukraine for perpetual war, while hiding her hate behind a rainbow flag…as the euthanasia project marches on.
    Got Food, Got Gas, Got a Future!….join the Army and get a sex change operation! Religion is the opium of the people, so free heroin shoot up stations is what Bought Becca will bring to Vermont…No Binary Pronouns allowed!

    • Oh isn’t that a bit harsh…I mean we live in Vermont…I am sure that Ms. Balint will introduce legislation for PAC reform once she gets elected.
      And why are you getting so worked up…the “Russians Are Coming” you know, I mean they did steal the election in 2016, why I am for certain that the Vermont Republican Party believes that and so should you. Why I think you need a social worker to help you with your distress, maybe you have some gender issues yourself. And if you need food assistance we do have food shelves in Vermont you know, it shows we care!

Leave a Reply