In a decision based on neither theory advanced in the debate here several months ago, Judge Sessions has ruled that Pollina is entitled to receive contributions up to $2,000.

I haven’t seen the decision yet, but the Free Press reports that the court ruled that announcing and raising funds as a Progressive qualified him to accept contributions for both the primary and general election ($1,000 each) despite not actually filing for the Progressive primary.  I’ll be interested to see the details of decision.  If the logic is taken at face value, a candidate wouldn’t even have to ever file at all to qualify for the $2,000 contribution limit.

The ruling also appears to open the door for a major party candidate to continue to accept contributions for the “primary” long after the actual primary.  Federal rules aren’t watertight by any means, but you do have to identify enough expenses that, at least in theory, were for the primary in order to use that portion of your total limit.  You also have to return general election contributions if you don’t make it past the primary.  Note in particular the first sentence of this excerpt from the FEC candidate guide:

A candidate is entitled to an election limit only if he or she seeks office in that election. Thus, a candidate who loses the primary (or otherwise does not participate in the general election) does not have a separate limit for the general. If a candidate accepts contributions for the general election before the primary is held and loses the primary (or does not otherwise participate in the general election), the candidate’s principal campaign committee must return the general election contributions

within 60 days of the primary.

the national Repub committee takes on Obama and ACORN.

The newest distraction du jour from the Republican Party side of politics is the non-existent but still well publicized “voter fraud” and other claimed (and unsubstantiated much less proven) voter registration transgressions on the part of ACORN … and Barack Obama who is apparently ACORN’s newest best friend (couple of years ago it was John McCain … click here ***sigh***).

So off we go to the GOP’s exposure of Obama and his nefarious connections to ACORN:

Obama’s Campaign “Paid More Than $800,000” To ACORN For Get-Out-The Vote Efforts; The Campaign Originally “Misrepresented” The Group’s Work To The FEC.  “U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.  An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in ‘get-out-the-vote’ projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.”

(GOP page)

Okay, Obama’s campaign mislabeled the activities it paid an “offshoot” of ACORN … gotcha’ there!

The Chicago ACORN Received Grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) From The Woods Fund. (Donors Forum Website, ifs.donorsforum.org, Accessed 6/10/08)

*  NOTE: From 1993 To 2002, Barack Obama Served On The Board Of Directors For The Woods Fund.

(GOP page)

Damn, now we find out Obama served on the board of an organization that describes its grants thusly

The Woods Fund of Chicago typically awards $3.4 million in grants annually in four program areas: community organizing, public policy, the intersection of community organizing and public policy and arts and culture. Our grants lists reflect our continued commitment to giving voice to less-advantaged individuals and communities as they attempt to work diligently to achieve greater participatory democracy, especially in underserved, underresourced communities to reduce poverty and enable work.

(Woods Fund web page)

Son-of-a-bitch … gotcha’ again, Obama!

Obama Was Part Of Team Of Lawyers Who Represented ACORN In A Suit Against The State Of Illinois. “Obama was part of a team of attorneys who represented the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in 1995 for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters.”

(GOP page)

Can you believe this crap? Now we find out Obama, as an attorney, was working with community organizers in an attempt to force Illinois into following federal election laws! FREAKIN’ DESPICABLE! Yet one more gotcha’ against Obama.

Obama Directed Project Vote And Later Taught Classes For “Future Leaders Identified By ACORN And The Centers For New Horizons.” “He [Obama] says he is drawn to politics, despite its superficialities, as a means to advance his real passion and calling: community organization. … In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history. Credited with helping elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate, the registration drive, aimed primarily at African-Americans, added an estimated 125,000 voters to the voter rolls–even more than were registered during Harold Washington’s mayoral campaigns. ‘It’s a power thing,’ said the brochures and radio commercials. … Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.”

(GOP page)

Got that? Obama “took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history.” What an anti-American asshole this guy is!

And Obama’s final transgression?

“[A]CORN’s political action committee endorsed Barack Obama for President. … The endorsement reflects a belief that Obama – who worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago – understands that change must come from the ground-up, as part of a working coalition, rather than from position papers.”

(GOP page)

ACORN endorsed Obama because, like ACORN, Obama believes people are empowered to do the right thing when one works from the grassroots level up. That, “my friends”, is most definitely NOT what America is about … we really, really gotta stop this guy!

****heavy, heavy, heavy sigh****

I don’t know if the knotheads at the GOP understand what a pro-Obama site they’re operating, but after reading those things … well, Obama really does seem pretty damned decent.

Here's the second part of last Friday's interview I had with Peter Welch. Part 3 will be out Friday.

JD: It seems that as one looks at the political struggles through history, there always seems to be some sort of tipping point. There's this conventional wisdom that we've had to deal with since Reagan, at least, the whole “government is always the enemy” thing. Do you see – there's this thing, I like to call it “free market fundamentalism” in that it's completely faith-based…

PW: That's a great phrase… They've totally, completely, and utterly failed. Those free-market fundamentalists are now coming hat in hand to the government.

JD: Yeah, like a corporate socialism…

PW: …asking to be rescued.

JD: Any time it seems we look at any regulation, it's “Wahh!!! Free market, free market!” How do you see this changing the game, if we have, well, a Democratic President, huge majorities.. are we getting to a situation where you can finally throw this up in their face, and say, “No, there is no free market like that anymore”? Does this give you the leverage that you need, are you even thinking about that at this point?

PW: I am thinking about it. I'm thinking about it a lot. You know, the American people are going to make a big decision this year, and I think a major part of it will be to choose to have a government that's much more activist and on the side of smaller business and average Americans. And that requires an activist role for government, one that's been rejected.

Here's an example. You know, I'm in these oversight hearings, you know these trillions of dollars on derivatives? All of these securities… trillions of dollars of business. You know how many people we had in the enforcement follow-up division of the SEC? One under George Bush. One person. Okay? On the Consumer Product Safety Commission? You may remember that story about the Chinese toys? Lead paint? Millions and millions of toys being imported here, and they're subject to inspection. You know how many inspectors we have in that organization?

JD: One?

PW: One. Bush had contempt, utter contempt for government. He didn't care about being competent, as we saw with Katrina. He actually wasn't even willing to be competent about policies he cares about, like the war.

JD: As I was listening to him speak today, I kept thinking, “This guy is so in over his head, it's not even funny.”

PW: Yes. So, we've gotta restore that and revive it. We have to have consumer protections, in protecting us against bad products, protecting us from the predatory conduct of Wall Street, protecting us against the unbridled arbitrary power of the credit card companies. One thing after another requires and activist response and I believe the American people are seeing the price of a free check.

JD: That leads me kind of where I wanted to go next, and that's… when I was out in Denver, I spent a day down at Civic Center Park where the protests were going on… did you read the book that Markos [Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos] gave you [Taking on the System]?

PW: I started to, it's amazing, actually.

JD: One thing in it that made sense to me… he talked about how some protest methods are a bit outmoded or outdated in today's environment, and I've always thought, in today's day and age, where we've been fighting this conservative infrastructure that's been in place since, I dunno, Goldwater? Watergate? You know, the Heritage Foundation and those other right-wing think tanks, that we're in a war of information and ideas, more than anything else. Controlling the narrative.

PW: Right.

JD: And we're fighting this entrenched idea, and by no means do I believe all Americans believe this, but this entrenched idea that you know, you're on your own, you know what I mean? And the frustration and the cynicism is likened to battered wife syndrome with the Democrats.

I'm looking for your thoughts on this… it seems like even since the Dems have taken over the House, you know, we've gotten the FISA capitulation, the war's still going on, we didn't get the renewal on the ban on offshore drilling, Leahy came in there in 2006 saying “Bush should be terrified!”, and Bush doesn't exactly look like he's shakin' in his drawers about anything, because he just ignores the rule of law, and there's little, if any, follow-up.

I'm just curious, how, we have a President who, I often like to say is about as popular as a spring-thaw dog turd on a warm late March Vermont morning, and what we just don't understand, especially those of us not in the Democratic Party but definitely on the left end of the spectrum, is time and time again, this letdown. Again and again. It usually starts out with Pelosi saying something really tough and strong, ant then it gets watered down more and more. The Republicans have been effective, simply by sticking to their guns. Maybe it's a lot harder to get liberals to all agree on something, and I think there's something to that, but what is it that keeps the Democrats from playing that hardball consistently?

PW: Well, I think it's two things. First of all, the Republican philosophy, the Washington Republican philosophy has been to basically to tear down government, okay, under the guise of talking about the individual, but do everything that helps the powerful individuals.

JD: But they wrap it up in a little mantle of populism.

PW: They wrapped it up like that, yeah. And so, they're anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation, and there's a certain simplicity and appeal to that. The reality is none of us like being regulated. The bloggers don't like it. It's a very diffuse process. So there's a lot to not like about it, especially when government can obviously overregulate, or it can overtax, so there's been a simplicity. And then, when the economy's been juiced up on the steroids of this credit bubble, then it can look like things are going fine. So shareholders who see their IRA's are going up don't get that upset about what's going on with some corporate executive ripoff pay. But we are now seeing the inevitable consequence of this “you're on your own” approach, with hollowing out of government and deregulation, so I think people have a different point of view on it now. I think the challenge for the Democrats is to focus on practical economic policies to start helping them.

The other thing that's tough is, of course, the way our government works under the Constitution. It's a very conservative document, the Constitution, because it makes accomplishing something extremely hard. So in the House, we actually have a working majority. And leaving FISA aside for a moment, I'll come back to that, on the economic agenda, you know, we've passed pretty progressive legislation. We've passed legislation to get rid of tax breaks for the oil companies, but it dies in the Senate. Passed economic stimulus, dies in the Senate. We passed price negotiation on prescription drugs, dies in the Senate. We rolled back these special premiums for the insurance companies on these Medicare advantage programs, dies in the Senate.

So, a lot of people who are citizens look at this and say “What's Washington doing?” They don't say “What's the House doing?” or “What's Peter doing?” They say “They're all the same”. So that's just something that I have to labor under, but the Senate doesn't have a rules committee, and they have a filibuster, so it's very slow to move and conservative, and the President's got the veto power.

JD: But still, maybe this might change, but I've had this feeling over the last two years that the Republicans are still in charge of things, and I'm not alone in that sentiment. The blogger Atrios recently said something that was kinda snarky the other day, “The Democrats sucked as a minority party. They suck even more as a majority party.”, and I think there's a lot of people that can relate to that.

PW: Sure.

JD: Because, it's still, even though Bush is sitting there with his deer-in-the-headlights look, to many of us, it doesn't feel like the Dems are running the show. The Republicans are still calling the shots. I mean, the Jay Rockefeller thing, with FISA, again. I mean, you have something in the Senate, the GOP stomps their feet, and it gets stopped. And I know, you're not in the Senate, but in general, there seems to be this timidity that our side seems to have that the Republicans don't. I think a lot of people, even without party affiliation want to support Democrats, but they see that, and…

PW: Well, I understand that, and a lot of times people will express to me their frustration with what's happened and I'll sit down and explain what I've done, and they're okay with that. And I share the frustration with them that it dies in the Senate, but when you have a filibuster that's been institutionalized so you don't even have to go through the ordeal of standing up and debating until you fall asleep… Any Senator can say they're going to filibuster, and it takes 60 votes to overcome that.

You know, a lot of us on the House side really wish that the Senate would really make someone who says they're gonna filibuster, actually make 'em do it. Make 'em stand up there for three or four days.

JD: Can they?

PW: Yes, that's the Senate.

JD: Well, then why don't they?

PW: I don't have the answer to that question. I mean, you gotta ask the Senators that.

JD: Personal hunch? Gut feeling?

PW: I really don't know. I mean, on the House side… You know we got great Senators, with Bernie and Patrick, but the institution is very, very slow. And on the House side, there's often frustration that our legislation doesn't even get taken up. The filibuster's a rule. It's not a Constitutional provision. In the Senate, it's amazing. You know, in the House, if somebody wants to propose an amendment, they have to get permission from the Rules Committee. And it's got to be germane, in other words, it's got to be relevant to the particular bill, so if it's a highway bill, you can't come in with an amendment on healthcare, let's say. It's got to be related to the highway project.

Well, I favor that, because it allows you to get work done. And it allows, I think, voters to have more accountability, because when I vote, there's much more clarity on what I'm voting on. It's more specific, so you get to know, yes or no, where I stand on that.

JD: Yes or no?

PW: Yes or no, yea or nay.

JD: Yes or no?

(laughter in the background)

JD: I was making a reference about your meeting in Barre last winter. We'll get to that in a bit.

PW: Oh, right….thanks. That's funny.

But in the Senate, any Senator can put a hold on the bill, any Senator can make as many amendments as they want on any bill, and they can make them on any subject, so if they want to make a healthcare amendment on a highway bill, they can do it. It's the rules.

JD: And the House doesn't have this..

PW: Free-for-all…

JD: …this mechanism to just bring things to a grinding halt if they wanted to.

PW: That's right, and I actually think that the majority has to rule, and people have to get some clarity about where we stand as individual legislators on the major questions of the day, and if they don't like what the House or Senate is doing, they can replace the members.

JD: Let's talk for a minute about the bipartisanship that we hear tossed around so much. When I look at the extremists that control the Republican party right now, I don't really want to compromise with them. I know there's the reality of the numbers and everything like that, but it seems so often that instead of, especially on things not of massive urgency, like FISA…we could have let the provisions expire.

PW: Fine with me, as you know.

JD: Exactly. And, I'm just kind of at a loss, with the messaging,and the feigned outrage of the Republicans, they're the master of the feigned outrage. They'll get out when something goes down, they'll have a press conference, next thing you know, it's all over the news. We're seeing it a little more but we're generally not seeing that kind of thing coming from the other side of the aisle, and there's a lot of frustration out there because of it.

PW: For me, it's about, “How do you get things done?” So, if I can work with somebody to get something done, I do. It's that simple. You know, I actually reached out to some Republicans to try to get them to agree to my stabilization fund on the bailout. The Republicans came up with this so-called “insurance plan” that was not workable, because they didn't have a way to pay for it. But the idea of it was similar to my notion of the stabilization fund paid for by the financial services industry to get us through this crisis. So I went over to some Republicans, and I said, “Look, this idea is really very similar in concept to the insurance proposal, whadya think?”

And I got a lot of them who were quite interested. Now, ultimately it was unsuccessful because by this point it was totally politicized and even if some members wanted to work with me, their leadership wanted a different agenda. So, for me, it's a pragmatic thing, just like it would be if, you know, I lived in a town and we're trying to figure out how to get uniforms for the kids on the baseball team, and here's a bunch of parents with different points of view, but you want to solve a problem, so you work with people on the same page to get things done.

JD: But do you think…I remember early on, one of the big criticisms of Obama being the “kumbaya candidate” and all that stuff… Issues like single-payer healthcare, for example. I don't know of too many Republicans that are going to support something like that.

PW: No.

JD: Well, how do you sit at the table with those people, then? Do you reach a point where their ideas are so antithetical to progress that… how do you do that?

PW: Well, there were a lot of people in the Vermont legislature and there are a lot of people in Congress who I just never get to common ground with. But, it's a case-by-case situation.

Down in Washington, there's been a lot of, like your phrase, free-market fundamentalism, and it just gets in the way of making any practical progress. Folks that believe that are against any solution that includes government. And, obviously, there's not much common ground there, so for me it's kind of a case-by-case kind of approach, you know? And it's really about – take your issue, like on regulation: I really think we have to be regulating the financial services industry. I think we should be putting much more limits on credit card companies and what they can do. Well, if somebody starts out and is flat out against doing anything, well, there's just no common ground. On the other hand, if they have some concrete proposals, and they say, “you know, the way you're doing this, can we do it this way? And here's why.” I listen to that. And if there's some way to essentially achieve the underlying purpose that I set out, but in a way that's somewhat different, and that can get more support, there's some political benefit to doing that.

JD: The compromise.

PW: Well, there's a difference between compromising principles and compromising on tactics, or specific means by which you accomplish a given goal.

Jim Douglas ought to be eminently beatable this year. Sure, he’s the incumbent, and Vermonters rarely boot incumbents. But he has a weak record to run on (his main TV ad touts his milktoast economic plan, which clearly indicates his lack of ideas), early polling indicated surprisingly high negatives for him, he’s presided over the Vermont Yankee mess, he preaches the same conservative orthodoxy that’s fallen into complete disrepute — and now the Democrats are steamrolling toward an epic victory across the country.

Obama’s got double-digit leads in a lot of polls, and Republicans are abandoning McCain in droves. (Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh asked Sarah Palin about her future political plans, implicitly conceding the election.) The Dems might get a super-majority in the US Senate: not only are they going to pick off the low-hanging fruit like John Sununu The Lesser, but they might ring up red-state wins over the likes of Liddy Dole, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, and the guy warming Trent Lott’s seat. Hell, a damn comedian is poised to cut down Norm Coleman. (Yes, I know Franken is a liberal commentator and activist of note; but he’s had to overcome all the stupid things he said and did in his life as an entertainer.)

Meanwhile, here in liberal ol’ Vermont, we can’t lay a glove on Jim Douglas?  

We shouldn’t have to be desperately hoping for a three-way split — we should be counting the hours till Jim’s concession speech. If Douglas does win this year, I imagine the Dem and Prog leadership will blame Vermont’s track record of rewarding incumbency. In fact, they will have absolutely blown an historic opportunity to shut the GOP out of power once and for all.

(Let me make sure to spread the blame equally. Pollina has run a disorganized, underfunded, and generally pointless campaign. He had the chance to take the honorable way out by running for Lite-Gov on a tacit “unity ticket,” but his ego was too damn big for that, yessir. Then he abandons his party on filing deadline day for reasons that have never been adequately explained or explored. Pollina has, in short, jumped the shark. And no, I don’t believe that outlier poll that puts him in second place, not for a minute.)

Odum’s “Open Thread” post cited rumors that prominent Dems are staying away from Tom Costello in order to keep their options open for 2010. I wonder if some of the same thing isn’t going on with Symington; how active are other top Dems in campaigning and fundraising for Gaye? If any Democrat is slacking off or actively undermining this campaign for the sake of some potential personal edge in the future, then s/he is a complete and utter hack who should be banned by the party from consideration for any higher office anytime in the future.

Do I sound angry, incensed, frustrated? To quote a certain Miss Wasilla, you betcha.  

If you're a regular GMD reader, you probably don't spend too much time with the Obama haters. Thankfully, neither do I. Sure, we read about them in TPM, with their yells of “Terrorist” and “Kill him”, but they don't seem to rear their ugly heads around here too much.

I just got exposed to them, not exactly in person, but in enough of a dose to get a real sense of their vicious attitude. Over at Facebook they have a group called Anti-Obama and Damn Proud of It, and these people will give you a view of every backwards, misinformed, bigoted attitude you could ever hope to see.

For example, one of the first things you see is a joke about Obama being assassinated after he's inaugurated. No kidding. Then, if you delve into the discussion boards, you can find such highly relevant discussions as the one speculating about whether Obama is the antichrist. And they're not kidding about it.

 You can see repeated claims that Obama supporters think he's the Messiah., more than anyone's fair share of ridiculous posts rehashing minor slips of the tongue, and a rich and plentiful supply of posts making liberal mention of his middle name, his claimed religious background, his claimed racial background, mocking the very idea of racism in the United States; oh yeah, and unfounded questions about whether he was actually born in the United States.

There is one young guy named Rishi who has posted a large number of pro-Obama stories, and I just friended him to support what he's doing.

You might want to jump over there and see what it's like. It's pretty annoying to read, but on the other hand, this is really all they have, and these people are the best and the brightest among the Obama haters. In other words, they're totally out of ideas.