YCQM - September 9, 2012 - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

YCQM - September 9, 2012

>> FROM VERMONT'S MOST TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE, NEWS MAKERS. THIS IS "YOU CAN QUOTE ME."

>> NEWS MAKER IS JACK MCMULLEN. THE REPUBLICAN IS RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST THE INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT.

>> MR. JACK MCMULLEN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON.

>> BEFORE WE GET TO THE INTERVIEW, FIRST LET'S WATCH A BACKGROUND REPORT ON JACK MCMULLEN.

>> HIS STANDOUT POLITICAL MOMENT ISN'T ONE HE'S MOST PROUD OF. MOST VERMONTERS WILL REMEMBER HIM FOR LOSING THE SENATE PRIMARY IN 1998 TO HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT FRED TUTTLE. HAR VAD GRAD FAILED TO CORRECTLY ANSWER HOW MANY TEETH A COW HAD. NOW HE'S BACK TO SHAKE IT OFF AND ENTER A NEW RACE, THIS TIME FOR VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> MY APPROACH TO THIS OFFICE WOULD BE OPEN MINDED, NON IDEOLOGICAL AND BUSINESS-LIKE.

>> JACK MCMULLEN WORKS AT THE CAMBRIDGE MERIDIAN GROUP, A MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM IN BURLINGTON. HE RAN FOR SENATE AND LOST IN 2004 AGAINST PATRICK LEAHY. HE HAS AN MBA AND LAW DEGREE FROM HARVARD WHERE HE ALSO TAUGHT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HE'S BEEN TRYING TO ENTER VERMONT POLITICS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. AS AN ATTORNEY, HE THINKS HE'LL FIND SOME SUCCESS IN THE A.G. RACE.

>> I HAVE A BUSINESS BACKGROUND AS WELL AS A LAW BACKGROUND SO THAT DISTINGUISHES ME FROM THE TWO DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN THE RACE.

>> HE'S ALSO THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE VERMONT BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH MEANS HE COULDN'T ARGUE CASES IF ELECTED. HE'S CURRENTLY PURSUING ACCEPTANCE INTO THE ASSOCIATION.

>> THAT APPLICATION PROCESS IS LENGTHY. THERE'S A -- BUT I'M IN THE PROCESS OF DOING IT.

>> JACK MCMULLEN SAYS HIS PRIORITY AS A.G. WOULD BE CRACKING DOWN ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE. HE WANTS TO COLLABORATE WITH ALL 14 STATES' ATTORNEYS TO IMPLEMENT AN APPROACH FOR FIRST TIME OFFENDERS. HE'S CRITICAL OF THE OTHERS FOR THEIR HANDLING OF ONE ISSUE HE HOPES TO BRING TO THE FOREFRONT OF HIS FALL CAMPAIGN.

>> BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN HAVE SOMETHING TO ANSWER FOR FOR BURLINGTON TELECOM WHICH IS OUTRAGE.

>> HE SAID THEY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION ON IT. HE SAYS HE DISAGREES WITH THE POLICIES MORE THAN DONOVAN'S AND HOPES TO FACE THEM IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO BE KNOWN AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A POLITICAL FLOP.

>> JACK MCMULLEN, YOU'RE HERE NOW, RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. YOU NOW KNOW WHO YOUR OPPONENT IS. WE ALL KNOW THAT IT WILL BE DEMOCRAT BILL SURRELL. WHY THIS OFFICE NOW? SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK YOU HAVE RUN TWICE BEFORE. WHY RUN NOW? WHY RUN FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL?

>> THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR A DECADE AND A HALF NOW AND I LIKE IT IN VERMONT BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY AMERICA WAS MAYBE 100 YEARS AGO OR HAS BEEN AND IT'S TRADITIONALLY LOW CRIME STATE, LESS THAN -- IT'S USUALLY 49TH POSITION ROUGHLY BUT LATELY, WE'VE HAD QUITE A SURGE IN DRUG USE AND CRIME AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHILE HE'S DONE GOOD WORK IN THE AREAS HE'S CHOSEN TO FOCUS ON, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND THOSE ARE IMPORTANT AREAS, HE HASN'T REALLY STRESSED CRIME AND THE LESSONS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS IS IF YOU NIP THIS KIND OF PROBLEM IN THE BUD, YOU'RE MUCH BETTER OFF. I FELT THAT ALSO AFTER 15 YEARS, IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A TOP TO BOTTOM REVIEW OF THIS OFFICE FROM A BUSINESS-LIKE PERSPECTIVE SINCE I HAVE A BUSINESS BACKGROUND. FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I THOUGHT I COULD MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.

>> YOU MADE THE WAR ON DRUGS, IF YOU WILL, A SORT OF TOP PRIORITY IN YOUR CAMPAIGN. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO FIGHT DRUG CRIMES?

>> WELL, I WOULDN'T HAVE THE WAR ON DRUGS AS MY WAY OF DESCRIBING IT BUT DRUGS AND CRIME, I HAVE A TWO TIERED APPROACH AND A THIRD ELEMENT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. FIRST TIER DEALS WITH VIOLENT CRIMINALS, DRUG DEALERS, YOU KNOW, REPEAT OFFENDERS AND OUT OF STATE CRIMINALS WHO COME TO THE STATE TO HAVE A GOOD TIME. FOR THEM, I ENVISION FORMING A TASK FORCE THAT WAS ALLUDED TO IN THE INTERVIEW WHERE I WOULD HOPE TO DEAL WITH ALL 14 STATES' ATTORNEYS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE JUDICIARY. TO WORK OUT A STATEWIDE APPROACH TO THIS PROBLEM. RIGHT NOW GIVEN THE WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM, HE DOES OCCASIONAL CRIMINAL WORK, HIGH PROFILE MURDER TRIALS, THAT KIND OF THING, BUT THESE SORTS OF ISSUES ARE LEFT TO THE STATES' ATTORNEY SO WE HAVE 14 DIFFERENT STANDARDS, 14 DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND REALLY, WE HAVE A STATEWIDE PROBLEM. I WOULD DEAL WITH THAT AND HOPEFULLY ARREST, CONVICT AND GET THESE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET.

>> HOW, THOUGH? WHAT WOULD YOU -- I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT DECRIMINALIZING SMALL AMOUNTS, YOU BROUGHT UP OUT OF STATERS, A LOT OF THE DRUG PROBLEM IS BEING FUELLED BY OUT OF STATE DRUGS COMING IN. HOW WOULD YOU TACKLE THAT?

>> OKAY. THAT GETS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF MY APPROACH. SO THE HARD CORE PEOPLE GET TREATED VIGOROUSLY. BUT THERE ARE THE YOUNG OFFENDERS WHO ARE NOT VIOLENT AND MAYBE EARLY IN THEIR PATH DOWN THE WRONG STREET IN LIFE. FOR THEM, AN INTERVIEW I HAD WITH MAPLE LEAF FARM WAS INSTRUCTIVE AND SO THAT STUDY THAT THEY DID WAS A THREE-YEAR STUDY. TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE, BOTH IN THEIR 20'S, EARLY IN ADULT LIFE AND NON VIOLENT OFFENDERS. ONE GROUP STRAIGHT TO TREAT MANY. THE OTHER GROUP TO JAIL FOR 60 DAYS AND THENMENT -- THEN TREATMENT. 70% REMAINED UNSTRAIGHTENED OUT. THE SECOND GROUP, ONLY 30%. MAYBE THE CRIMINAL RECORD OR MAKING IT HARD TO GET A JOB OR GOING TO THE MILITARY, WHATEVER. BUT I LEARNED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, TOO, THAT A DAY IN PRISON COSTS ABOUT $150 WHILE A DAY IN TREATMENT COSTS $90 AND JUST TODAY IN MY PRESS CONFERENCE, I LEARNED THAT ACCORDING TO MAPLE LEAF FARM, THE RETURN ON THE DOLLAR SPENT IN TREATMENT IS $11. SO WE HAVE A SITUATION IN PART TWO WHERE THE DECRIMINALIZATION AND DIRECT TREATMENT WOULD DECLOG THE JAILS TO SOME DEGREE AND WOULD BENEFIT THE OFFENDER, OF COURSE, BUT EVEN MORE SO, SOCIETY BECAUSE IF YOU PUT A PERSON BACK ON THE RIGHT PATH IN LIFE, AND THEY BECOME TAXPAYERS INSTEAD OF REPEAT OFFENDERS AND DRAIN ON THE PUBLIC TREASURY. THAT'S STEP TWO. AS FAR AS OUT OF STATE GOES, I HAVE ANOTHER IDEA WHICH I GOT FROM THE HEAD OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN BENNINGTON WHO SEES A LOT OF CRIMINALS FROM NEW YORK. THE PROBLEM HERE IS WE ARREST THEM, WE CONVICT THEM, PUT THEM IN OUR JAIL AND THEN IF THEY'RE ON PROBATION OR PAROLE WHICH MANY GET, THEY HAVE TO STAY IN OUR JURISDICTION. THESE ARE THE WORST OFFENDERS. THEY'RE HARD CORE CRIMINALS SO THEY'RE VERY LIKELY TO REOFFEND. SO MY IDEA IS TO TALK WITH THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND WORK OUT A DEAL WHERE IF WE ARREST THEIR GUYS IN OUR JURISDICTION AND CONVICT THEM, THEY SERVE TIME IN THE HOME JURISDICTION AND LIKEWISE, OUR PEOPLE IN OUR JURISDICTION. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE WAYS.

>> WHY WOULD THEY AGREE TO THAT?

>> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE ASK THEM BUT --

>> YOU THINK THEY WOULD?

>> I THINK THEY WOULD. WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE WRONG PATH IN OUR STATE AND THEN GO TO ADJOINING STATES TO COMMIT CRIME.

>> LOGISTICAL CHALLENGE WOULD THERE BE WITH THAT KIND OF A POLICY?

>> I'M TOLD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OR ONE OF HIS PEOPLE THAT THE FEDS HAVE SUCH A POLICY AND THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING INFORMAL THAT DOESN'T GET USED VERY OFTEN. I THINK IT'S WORTH EXPLORING BECAUSE THEN, THE BURDEN OF HOUSING THESE -- THERE'S 200 OF THEM IN NEWPORT PRISON RIGHT NOW AROUND AND WE'RE FUNDING THAT AND ALSO THEY'RE GETTING INVOLVED IN GANG BANGING UP THERE. THEY BRING THAT INTO THE COMMUNITY. WE DON'T NEED THAT.

>> YOU'VE BEEN BUSY CAMPAIGNING, COMING UP WITH POLICY IDEAS AND I'M SURE YOU'VE NOTICED A LOT OF ATTENTION WAS SPENT ON THIS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BATTLE. YOU NOW DO HAVE A CHALLENGER. IT WILL BE THE INCUMBENT. LET'S LISTEN TO THEM REACT TO THE NEWS OF BILL'S WIN.

>> ONLY OFFERED MY CONGRATULATIONS. I OFFERED MY COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL ON HIS RE-ELECTION BID THIS NOVEMBER. THIS WAS A HARD FOUGHT CAMPAIGN.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE FUN. IT'S GOING TO BE FUN NOT TO BE IN A PRIMARY AND TO BE ABLE TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN DEFINING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ME AND MY OPPONENT AND I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS FALL RACE.

>> SO BILL SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE FUN.

>> WELL, I THINK IT WILL BE CIVIL. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH FUN IT WILL BE FOR HIM BUT I INTEND TO RAISE THE ISSUES HE'S ALLUDED TO OR WAS ALLUDED TO IN THE PIECE THAT YOU SHARED AT THE BEGINNING. FIRST OF ALL, THE CRIME. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PRIORITY ONE AT THIS POINT. IF WE CAN NIP THIS PROBLEM IN THE BUD BY APPLYING A BUSINESS-LIKE APPROACH THAT WOULD SEGMENT OUR APPLICATION OF RESOURCES TO THE OFFENDERS THAT ARE CAUSING THE MOST PAIN IN VERMONT, WE CAN RESTORE OUR STATE TO ITS TRADITIONAL LOW CRIME STATUS AND THEN, OF COURSE, BURLINGTON TELECOM. HOW COULD YOU EXPLICITLY VIOLATE FOR THREE YEARS THE CHARTER GAVE YOU, WORRIED ABOUT THE USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY? ULTIMATELY IT WAS COMPETING WITH COMCAST, FAIRLY VIGOROUS TIGER IN THE COMPETITIVE WORLD. JUST DO THAT ON YOUR OWN, NOT EVEN NOTIFYING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEN NOTHING HAPPENS.

>> SO WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE -- WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN BURLINGTON TELECOM?

>> I THINK THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PERSONALLY.

>> WHAT ACTION?

>> WELL, AT A MINIMUM, WE COULD HAVE GONE FOR CIVIL OVERSIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, BRING AN ACTION TO HAVE THE CITY'S TREASURY MONITORED BY A STATE OFFICIAL. JOHN WAS ABLE TO DIVERT $17 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS WITHOUT ANYBODY REALLY KNOWING, MAYBE THE MAYOR KNEW BUT NOBODY ELSE KNEW. THE WAY IT GOT DISCOVERED WAS BY THE BURLINGTON FREE PRESS ASKING SOME QUESTIONS AND THEY FILE THE REPORT IN 2009 THAT SHOWED THE DIVERSION IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ IT. SO CIVIL OVERSIGHT. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY MALFEASANCE POSSIBLY RISING TO THE CRIMINAL ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATION. LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY. IF THE PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD SAID WE RECEIVED YOUR APPLICATION FOR A 10% RATE INCREASE BUT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE 2% AND GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER SAID WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR ADVICE BUT WE'RE STICKING WITH 10%, WOULD THAT BE NON ACTIONABLE? NO. CLEARLY NOT, RIGHT? WHAT IS THIS? IT'S NOT AN ADVISORY BODY. IT'S A REGULATORY BODY. SO I THINK THE MESSAGE IT SENDS IS A TERRIBLE MESSAGE. CITY OFFICIALS NOW THINK, WELL, AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T STEAL THE MONEY THEMSELVES WHICH THEY DIDN'T, NOBODY IS ALLEGING THAT, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS.

>> WOULD YOU READDRESS THE BURLINGTON TELECOM ISSUE? WOULD YOU BRING THAT BACK UP?

>> I WOULD IF I -- IF I'M ELECTED I MIGHT INTOO -- LOOK INTO THE ISSUE

>> WE HAVE CRIME,

>> WELCOME BACK. WE'RE TALKING WITH JACK MCMULLEN, THE REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE WILL FACE THE INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT THIS NOVEMBER.

>> AND JACK MCMULLEN, YOU'VE BEEN CRITICAL OF BILL AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES HE'S BROUGHT. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

>> WELL, WHAT DISTINGUISHES ME FROM BILL IS THAT I HAVE A BUSINESS BACKGROUND SO THAT SUGGESTS GETTING AHEAD OF PROBLEMS RATHER THAN PICKING UP THE PIECES AFTER THEY HAPPEN OR AFTER THE INCIDENT HAPPENED. SO I WOULD HAVE BEEN PROACTIVE WITH THE LEGISLATURE. THEY WERE BUSY VENTURING TO PASS. I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE POLICY GUYS BUT IF YOU WANT MY ADVICE AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I WOULD SUGGEST SUGGESTING THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION 20%. IT WOULD GET 80% OF WHAT YOU WOULD AND YOU WON'T HAVE THE HASSLES.

>> LAWMAKERS MAY NOT TAKE THAT ADVICE. DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND LOOKS LIKE THEY MAY CONTINUE TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. WE'LL FIND OUT IN NOVEMBER. WHAT IF YOU'RE ELECTED, YOU GIVE THEM ADVICE ON SOMETHING AND YOU SAY, LOOK. LET'S DO THIS. 80%, 20%, GET A GOOD COMPROMISE AND THEY SAY, NO. WE'LL PASS THE 100% PLAN. WOULD YOU THEN DEFEND A LAW THAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD NOT PASS LEGAL MUSTER?

>> WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS MAINTAINED HE HAD TO. I THINK IT'S AN ELECTIVE OFFICE, INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED FROM THE LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNOR AND MY VIEW IS UNLESS SOMEBODY SHOWS ME A STATUTE OTHERWISE, IT'S IN MY DISCRETION WHETHER I DEFEND THE LAW OR NOT. ESPECIALLY IF I'D GIVEN ADVICE AHEAD OF TIME. I'M NOT ONE FOR EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY. SO IF I HAD ADVISED THEM AND THEY IGNORED IT AND IT CAME BACK TO ME, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD DEFEND THEM.

>> AS YOU KNOW, I MAY HAVE HAD TO DEFEND THEM AT THE TRIAL LEVEL BUT BEYOND THAT, I DON'T THINK I WOULD.

>> SPEAKING OF THAT, THERE'S AN APPEAL WITH VERMONT YANKEE. IF ELECTED WOULD YOU CONTINUE WITH THAT APPEAL?

>> I HAVE A NUANCED APPROACH TO THAT. LET ME LAY IT OUT FOR YOU. AS I SAID, THE A.G. SHOP IS NOT A POLICY SHOP. WHETHER I WOULD KEEP YANKEE OPEN OR NOT IS NOT FOR ME TO SAY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. PETER RAN ON SHUTTING IT DOWN AND HE GOT ELECTED SO WE SHOULD DEFER HIS VIEW. MY JOB IS TO ADVISE HIM AFTER HE BROUGHT THE LAWSUIT OR AFTER THE LEGISLATURE DID TO TAKE ON VERMONT YANKEE ON A SAFETY THESIS. THE FEDERAL JUDGE LOOKED AT THAT AND HE CONCLUDED SAFETY WAS THE PRIME CAUSE OF ACTION.

>> OF COURSE, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ARGUE IT WASN'T, THAT IT WAS MORE ABOUT ECONOMICS.

>> THAT'S NOW BUT LET ME GO BACK TO LAW SCHOOL 101. IF IT'S NOT IN THE RECORD BELOW, IT CAN'T BE VIEWED BY THE COURT ABOVE ON APPEAL. SO IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IN THE TRIAL, THEY REALLY CAN'T RAISE IT NOW IN THIS LAWSUIT. SO THAT'S WHAT LEGAL ADVICE COMES IN. I WOULD SAY TO THEM, YOU KNOW, PETER, I KNOW WHAT YOUR POLICY OBJECTIVE IS AND THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO SAY BUT MY JOB IS TO ADD ADVISE YOU ON THE LAW. MY JUDGMENT AND OTHER PEOPLE'S JUDGMENT, THIS IS A LOSING APPEAL. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT SYMBOLICALLY, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT GIVEN THE POSITION YOU TOOK IN YOUR RACE FOR GOVERNOR BUT I'M THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. MY ADVICE TO YOU IS LET US PULL THIS APPEAL. SAFETY IS YOUR CONCERN, IF TRANSPARENCY IS YOUR CONCERN, LET'S GO TO ENERGY WITH THESE OBJECTIVES AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE FOUR TO EIGHT MILLION TAXPAYER MONEY HIRING EXPERTS TO TAKE THIS CASE ON. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY VIEW OF VERMONT YANKEE.

>> YOU ENVISION THEN NEGOTIATING IN SOME WAY AND KEEP THE PLANT GOING.

>> WELL, AVOID THE APPEAL, I WOULDN'T LOSE. THE PLANT IS GOING AS IT IS. IT WILL KEEP GOING WHETHER I PULL THE APPEAL OR I ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD. THAT'S MY POINT. I'M NOT REALLY COMMENTING ON WHETHER THE PLANT SHOULD STAY OPEN. I'M JUST JUDGING THE PROSPECTS OF THIS APPEAL AND I KNOW THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL IS COMMITTED TO TAKING THIS APPEAL RIGHT UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. I THINK THAT'S UNWISE AND I'VE SAID THAT ON THE TRAIL AND I'LL SAY IT HERE. AND I WOULD GET WITH PETER SHERMAN. I WOULDN'T GO FREELANCING. PETER, TELL ME YOUR LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENERGY GIVE YOU IF IT'S GOING TO STAY OPEN UNTIL YOU COME UP WITH ANOTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU PROMISED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

>> IF YOU HAVE LEARNED IN THE PAST, THEY RARELY THROW OUT INCUMBENTS. YOU HAD EXPERIENCE IN THAT WITH 2004 WITH THE SENATOR LEAHY. A LOT OF POLITICAL ANALYSTS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS CONTEST AND SAID YOU'RE REALLY FACING AN UPHILL BATTLE AGAINST THE INCUMBENT. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN WIN THIS TIME?

>> WELL, I AGREE WITH THEIR ASSESSMENT. IT IS A TOUGH STATE FOR REPUBLICAN IN GENERAL. I THINK I'M A FAIRLY MODERATE REPUBLICAN. THAT MAY UP THE ODDS A LITTLE BIT FOR ME. WHAT MAKES ME FEEL I HAVE A GOOD SHOT? I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THOUGHT IT WAS, ALTHOUGH A SIGNIFICANT SEGMENT THOUGHT IT WAS A TIME FOR A CHANGE. I DON'T THINK HE'S FOCUSED ON THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY WHICH I'VE SAID IS CRIME AND NIPPING THAT IN THE BUD SO -- AND WHEN I'M OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, I DON'T HEAR ABOUT MY -- I DON'T THINK THE WARRANTY WAS PROPERLY REPRESENTED. I HEAR, YOU KNOW, ALL MY NEIGHBORS ARE BROKEN INTO IN SMALL TOWNS SO I'M HEARING THAT. I'M NOT HEARING THAT IN THE ONE OCCASION I HAD TO BE WITH THE TWO OF THESE GENTLEMEN BEFORE THE PRIMARY. BILL HAS HIS RECORD ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND IT WAS A GOOD DEFENSE BUT HE REALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS THE CRIMINAL THING EXCEPT TO SAY HE'S NOT TOTALLY ABSENT FROM IT, HIGH PROFILE MOTOR CASES GET HIS ATTENTION SOMETIMES.

>> DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT TRY TO APPEAL TO SOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WHO IN THIS PRIMARY VOTED AGAINST HIM AND HE WON BY ABOUT 600 OR SO VOTES?

>> I HOPE THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BE OPEN TO MY WAY OF THINKING. I'M IN AGREEMENT ON A NUMBER OF THINGS HE'S PROPOSED. FOR EXAMPLE, TREATMENT FOR NON VIOLENT OFFENDERS, HIS COMMUNITY PROGRAM THAT HE HAS WHICH HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL AND HIS FOCUS ON CRIME. ALL OF THOSE THINGS I'M IN AGREEMENT ON. I'M IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE STANCE ON BURLINGTON TELECOM THAT HE TOOK A PASS ON. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE HAD HE BEEN MY OPPONENT.

>> WELL, KRISTIN BROUGHT UP YOUR PRIOR RUNS AND SUZIE OUTLINED THAT IN HER STORY. THE PRIMARY AGAINST FRED TUTTLE OBVIOUSLY MADE HIM A CELEBRITY. THERE WAS THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WERE YOU OUT OF TOUCH WITH VERMONTER SNZ -- VERMONTERS?

>> FIRST OF ALL, IT'S FUNNY. LET'S FACE IT, RIGHT? IT WAS GOOD. I KNEW A LOT MORE BACK THEN ABOUT LAW AND BUSINESS THAN I DID ABOUT FARMING. I THINK I KNOW A LITTLE MORE ABOUT FARMING NOW BUT HERE'S THE THING. THAT WAS SUCH AN INTERESTING AND HUMAN INTEREST STORY THAT WHEN YOU BLEW IT UP, PEOPLE THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY. THEY WERE VERY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT IT WAS 15 YEARS AGO. AT THE TIME WHEN THAT WAS THE ISSUE, IT WAS A GOOD WAY OF ILLUSTRATING THAT I WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE THAN TRYING TO WIN A SENATE SEAT AND THE PREDICTION WAS, I WOULD GO PACKING BACK TO WHERE I CAME FROM AFTER THAT RACE. I'M HERE 15 YEARS LATER SO I THINK THAT I'M NOT. I DON'T FEEL I'M OUT OF TOUCH WITH WHAT'S ON THE MINDS OF VERMONTERS. THAT'S WHY I'M RUNNING AND THAT'S WHY I PICK CRIME AS THE ISSUE.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU OR WHAT ARE YOU DOING DIFFERENTLY?

>> DIFFERENTLY THAN I DID THEN?

>> YEAH.

>> I THINK TIME HEALS A LOT OF IT IF I CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. OBVIOUSLY I LIKE -- I HAVE AN AFFECTION FOR VERMONT. I WOULDN'T BE HERE IF I DIDN'T. MY WORK IS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. I WORK WITH HIGH TECH VENTURED BACK COMPANYIES ALONG THE BOARD. THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY CAN BUY IN VERMONT. THEY DON'T HAVE BUSINESS HERE. THEY THINK I WOULD BE A GOOD PUBLIC SERVANT SO THEY'RE HELPING ME. I COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE ANY NUMBER OF OTHER PLACES. I CHOSE TO LIVE HERE. I'VE MADE A LIFE HERE. I HAVE FRIENDS HERE SO I THINK I EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TITS ON A COW NOW.

>> HOW MANY?

>> FOUR.

>> OKAY. WE CLEARED THAT UP. ONE OF THE ISSUES IS YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF VERMONT BAR. YOU SAY IF ELECTED YOU COULDN'T TRY CASES.

>> LET ME CLARIFY. I COULD APPLY AS A MEMBER OF THREE OTHER BARS TO HAVE TEMPORARY PRIVILEGES IN VERMONT. MANY LAWYERS DO THAT. BUT LET'S FACE IT. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JOB, YOU DON'T SEE HIM IN COURT VERY OFTEN.

>> I DID SEE HIM AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

>> HE'S BEEN ACTIVE IN APPEALS. THAT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF -- I COULD TAKE AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT. I'M A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL BAR. SO THE QUESTION IS, WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW BILL IN A CRIMINAL COURT? I DON'T THINK HE PURSUES THOSE CASES. HIS PEOPLE DO. IN FACT, THE TIME I SAW THEM WHEN THE THREE OF US WERE TOGETHER, HE MADE THE POINT, HE HIRES STALLIONS AND HE LETS THEM RUN. IT'S A MANAGEMENT JOB. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. OF COURSE, I AM AN ATTORNEY. I'VE TAUGHT ATTORNEYS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL SO I THINK I'M CERTAINLY QUALIFIED. YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT VERMONT UNTIL JUST LAST YEAR HAD AN APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BAR. YOU HAVE TO FIND A LAW FIRM TO APPRENTICE FOR THREE MONTHS. I DID THAT. I BEGAN THE PROCESS. BUT MY WORK TOOK ME ELSEWHERE AND I DIDN'T COMPLETE THAT. THIS IS SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO. I WISH I HAD NOW. BUT THE POINT IS NOW YOU CAN APPLY AS A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING FROM ANOTHER BAR, NEW YORK IS A VERY HIGH REFERENCE BAR AND I'M A MEMBER THERE. AND IT'S A MATTER OF COMPLETING THE PAPERWORK SO IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT, I EXPECT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE VERMONT BAR IN A FEW MONTHS.

>> NOVEMBER ELECTIONS ARE FAST APPROACHING. WHAT'S YOUR PLAN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ASKED THAT QUESTION AND IT'S THE TRICKIEST QUESTION FOR A CANDIDATE. YOU DON'T WANT TO TIP YOUR HAND TO THE OTHER CANDIDATE. BUT I PLAN AN AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN INVOLVING TV AND RADIO. HOW MUCH OF THAT I WILL DEFER FOR NOW BUT OTHERWISE, BILL WILL KNOW AND HE ISN'T GOING TO TELL ME HOW MUCH HE'S PLANNING, EITHER.

>> IS THIS COMING FROM YOUR OWN WALLET?

>> IT'S COMING FROM THE SOURCES I'M RAISING MONEY FROM NOW WHICH ARE MY C.E.O. AND BOARD DIRECTOR FRIENDS AND BUSINESS. I'VE JUST PUT OUT MY FIRST FUNDRAISER TO SIGNIFICANT VERMONT OWNERS AND NEXT WEEK OR WITHIN THE NEXT 10 DAYS, I EXPECT TO BE SENDING OUT A GENERAL SOLICITATION TO VERMONT OWNERS.

>> WHEN DO YOU HOPE TO DEBATE BILL AND HOW MANY DEBATES ARE YOU HOPING FOR?

>> I DIDN'T THINK TO RAISE THAT IN MY PRESS CONFERENCE UNFORTUNATELY BUT I'M HOPING FOR FIVE DEBATES. THAT MAY BE A LOT.

>> HE HAS AN URGENT CALL RIGHT NOW.

>> MAYBE IT'S BILL SAYING, YES.

>> YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU WERE HOPING FOR FIVE DEBATES. HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE CAMPAIGN? HAVE YOU HEARD BACK ON THAT AT ALL? EVERYTHING IS MOVING VERY QUICKLY, I'M SURE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. I DIDN'T KNOW WHO MY OPPONENT WOULD BE UNTIL ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO BUT I INTEND TO. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE FIVE WOULD BE AN OPTIMISTIC NUMBER GIVEN WE HAVE A GOVERNOR'S RACE, A PRESIDENTIAL RACE BUT I EXPECT MULTIPLE DEBATES. AFTER 15 DEBATES AMONG THE TWO DEMOCRATS, IT SEEMS TO ME THE VOTERS HAVE BEEN PRIMED TO HEAR WHAT THE REPUBLICAN HAS TO SAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. JUST A FEW SECONDS LEFT. IF YOU COULD FINISH THE SENTENCE, YOU KNOW, MY CAMPAIGN WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IF --

>> IF THE VOTERS ACCEPT ME AS AN OPEN MINDED, NON PART SON, BUSINESS-LIKE CANDIDATE WHICH IS WHAT I'M RUNNING ON.

>> JACK MCMULLEN RUNNING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOW THAT WE KNOW THE TWO WILL BE RUNNING, WE PLAN TO HAVE YOU BOTH BACK ON "YOU CAN QUOTE ME" FOR ONE OF THOSE DEBATES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.