Totten delivers background on the new head of John McLaughry’s Ethan Allen Institute:

In 2005, Bornemann was fined $5000 by the Federal Elections Commission for taking part in a scheme to funnel $60,000 in campaign contributions to several top Republicans in 2002 while working for the Kansas-based Westar Energy. Those lawmakers included: Tom DeLay (R-TX), Joe Barton (R-TX), Billy Tauzin (R-LA), Sam Graves (R-MO) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

On his own, according to the FEC, Bornemann earmarked $10,400 to 17 different campaign committees.

According to the FEC complaint, Bornemann wrote an email to his client – Westar Energy – in 2002 that they needed to give money to top members of Congress, including $25,000 to a political action committee backed by DeLay, “to develop a significant and positive profile for the Company’s federal presence.”

Indeed.

Westar was fined $20,000, while two company officials were fined $8500 and $7000, respectively. Bornemann was the only other person fined.

Yick. Here’s a link to the full piece.

Expect lots of blogging fodder from this guy.

Geez. Way back when, I did a linkdump every week. That was a good thing. Why did I stop?

• Minor Heretic looks at advances in computing and wonders whether we are really heading towards a technological revolution as many predict, or to a resource and economically hardwired cul-de-sac.
• You have to check out the picture at Integral Psychosis of an anti health care reform protest in New Hampshire. Freaking hilarious.
• More pressure on Welch over the health care pledge. Ameridane would like to see him sign on the dotted line.
• NYAAAAAGH!
• Is Bill Simmon’s nightmare finally over, or is WCAX merely lulling him into a false sense of security? We’re with ya, man.

…and a non-blog postscript, there’s a Facebook group that wants to counter the creepy demonstration planned by the Westboro Baptist Church with a bake sale. Here’s the link. I have to say, I think being too close to that crowd would make me a little too nauseous to eat.

Barack Obama’s approval ratings took another slide last week in a Washington Post/ABC poll, but what analysts are starting to notice is that the downturn isn’t simply from independents, or people who think he isn’t Republican enough – he’s starting to lose approval from the left. Via Sargent:

The numbers tell the story: In three key cases where Obama has dropped significantly, he’s also dropped by sizable margins among Dems and liberals. Let’s take the major findings driving the discussion today, and compare them with his drop among Dems and libs:

* The WaPo poll found that “49 percent now express confidence that Obama will make the right decisions for the country, down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.”

On that question, among liberals, Obama has dropped a surprising 12 points, from 90% to 78%, in the same time period. Among Dems, he’s dropped eight points, from 90% to 82%.

Research 2000 polling for Daily Kos found similar results.

Paul Krugman’s related, widely-discussed op-ed suggests that health care is the catalyst for an explosion of progressive frustration with an administration that increasingly looks at its campaign rhetoric as expendable:

A backlash in the progressive base – which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory – has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

[…] On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat… Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

[…] So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked.

But you know how I really know this is getting serious? Here’s Baruth, whose August 16th piece is entitled “Obama Clearly Bagging Public Option; VDB Predicts Approval Rating Below 50% By Late September, And It’ll Be Very Well Deserved”:

Clearly the White House would like to signal that the battle on the Public Option has been fought and lost. Obama, Durbin, Sebelius, all of the Administration’s key health care types have moved publicly to the extremely minimal notion that anything that increases competition and coverage is Good. Anything at all. Which, we suppose, is Change, of an impoverished sort. But not Change We Can Believe In.

Philip was one of the earliest and strongest of Obama supporters. More than simply being supportive, he has (in my opinion) been drawn to the Obama phenomenon as a narrative (hey, he’s a novelist) – and its a compelling one on many levels. As such, this is a guy willing to give Obama a lot of slack.

Shorter version; if Baruth is pissed at Obama, our President has really started pushing his luck with the left.

Just got back from a week on Martha’s Vineyard last night (we had to clear some space for the Obamas) and am trying to get caught up on what I missed.

But the best thing in the paper this morning came from Dennis Jensen in regards to “Pete the Moose”. For those in southern Vermont who may have missed it, Raised by a human, “Pete” is a moose who lives on an elk farm used for “canned hunts” – you know, Dick Cheney style stuff. The state is concerned about the elk, deer and moose all penned together in the property against state law designed to protect wild populations from illness such as chronic wasting disease. The fate of the moose – which could lead to being put down – has become a mini cause celebre thanks to coverage from the Times Argus’s Sue Allen and subsequent promotional efforts by the farm owner (including, apparently, a Facebook page for “Pete”).

Jensen cuts through much of the nonsense in play:

The moose is being kept as a pet illegally. Col. David LeCours, the chief warden for the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, said that keeping the moose as a pet was illegal in Vermont. “You can’t keep any wild animals as a pet,” he said.

All of the formerly wild moose and deer in Dave Nelson’s elk farm, located in Irasburg, are being kept in an enclosure against state law.

Naming the moose does not change the fact that, while it has been tamed, it is still considered a wild creature.

[…] (Farm owner) Nelson holds canned hunts for these elk, some of which sport really impressive antlers. Some people – they will not be referred to here as “hunters” – shell out as much as $8,000 for a crack at a standing-still, fed-at-a-trough “trophy.” And he has opposed any move by Fish & Wildlife to have his moose and deer removed from his farm.

[…] The woes of the poor, the battered women, the number of young, unwanted kids looking for a home, elderly folks fading away in places no one wants to visit, American soldiers fighting and dying in two faraway wars. There are problems galore in our midst.

Yet we have 1,700 people (Facebook friends)  and counting who have nothing better to do but carry on about one should-be doomed “talking” moose – in captivity and in violation of the law – that could threaten a healthy herd of animals outside its domain.

I wonder where the concern over all of Nelson’s elk – fattened up to serve as nothing more than target practice and wall decorations for rich people – is. Let’s be serious – “Pete’s” champion is hardly a friend of the animal kingdom..

I’m gonna get it for this, both here and from my friends in the national blogosphere…

Three days ago, the online editors at the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website turned down a proposed piece about the passion gap between pro and anti health reformers in much of the country (not Vermont), instead asking me to “focus on the question of whether the left should get behind Obama’s plan, despite the fact that it falls short of their goals?”

Sure, I said. After all, since when do I turn down an opportunity to opine? And how often do I get to do it professionally (answer: not very)?

But I was dreading it because I knew where I would go, and I wasn’t ready to go there. Not yet. Nor was I, in any honest, direct assessment of that very specific question, willing to be cagey or deceptive – even strategically so. As such I was up until all hours with it, when I can usually knock out a blog piece in almost no time.

Anyway, have a read if you like: here’s the link. Then you can come back here and beat me up (or there… the Guardian site takes comments too).

I suppose the long and the short is that my bluff is being prematurely called. I didn’t plan it to be a bluff, but when you get right to it, I suppose I was fooling myself. Does that make me the worst, most self-sabotaging type of liberal? I honestly don’t know. You tell me.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2nd town meeting on health care reform on August 15, 2009 – this one in Arlington Vermont – was, unlike Arlington, devoid of protesters, and pro-reformers seemed to outnumber anti-reformers on the order of 7 or 8 to 1. As such, this video focuses on the content of the forum, rather than the scene on the edges. Video and audio can be sketchy, but Sanders providers a virtual primer for other legislators in how to address the issue. Do yourself a favor and watch the whole thing. Great stuff from Bernie.

As Julie indicated in the previous diary, pro-reformers outnumbered anti-reformers by 4 or 5 to 1 at Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) town hall style meeting on health care reform in Rutland. Throughout the event, a loud, small cadre of anti-reformers remained at the edge, occasionally annoying other participants. The video here focuses on them disproportionately, just because – c’mon – we’re all pretty curious, no?

This video probably could be about 3 minutes shorter, but it does have some key events and a few interviews of participants.

Things to watch for; the only time a police officer intervened, defusing a tense situation, the bizarre, angry denial that erupts when Sanders correctly informs a questioner that his taxes have gone down under Obama, and the Whitman’s Sampler of right wing issues championed by right wing protesters (we even hear creationism rearing its head in the final seconds).

For part 2, I’ll upload video from the Arlington event tomorrow. That event was also well attended, but did not include the half-hearted attempts at disruption that you see in this video. In fact, I daresay “pros” outnumbered “cons” at that event by something more like 8 or 9 to 1. As such, the Arlington video will be focused on elements of the content of the meeting.

Despite suggestions by some on this site that any negative reception to the Progressive Party’s letter (concerning the prospects of the Progs supporting one of the Democratic candidates for governor) is something I personally “spun” from thin air, it continues to be clear that others disagree. Why else have Martha Abbott and now Anthony Pollina clearly taken to damage control on the matter, after all?

Pollina appeared on Vermont Edition today (Friday) and clearly walked back a lot of the edge to the letter. Truthfully, he did a pretty good job and may have gone a long way toward hitting the reset button on much of this conversation.  

There was certainly a helping of standard Pollina fare (he commented that his photo-finish second place over Gaye Symington suggested he was “clearly more viable,” when its fairly obvious that their almost identical results showed pretty clearly that the two are equally non-viable). He also would not rule out running for the top spot again, and even went on a bit at the question, sounding a lot like he was making a campaign speech. More interesting, though, was his repeated floating of the notion of running for State Senate from Washington County. Fascinating, no? Maybe he reads this site after all. He was dismissive of Tim Ashe-style fusion candidacy, though, which presents challenges, but still…

But the big question was the letter, and Pollina walked the ultimatum and threat vibe way back, switching back to the language of diplomacy by describing the interactions thus far as the “beginnings of conversations” and the bullet list as “not the only issues.”

More significantly, he walked way back the failing grades Senators Racine and Bartlett were rewarded with, acknowledging that of the candidates, there “could be some folks that are better on some (issues) than on others” and that “opinions (among individual Progressives) will vary, person to person.” He also expressed explicit appreciation to Bartlett and Racine for reaching out, while admonishing Markowitz for her “bad attitude” of waiting to be invited, making it clear that no such invitation would be forthcoming.

Hard to say where this will go. Given that its sleepy-sleepy August, walking back this dust devil as well as Pollina did may cause the whole affair to largely disappear, whereas that wouldn’t have been the case if this had happened in the fall.

(This is a piece I almost sold elsewhere, but it got kicked back. Thought I’d post it here so it wouldn’t go to waste. It’s a little stiffer than my blog stuff, but it does have a point if you can slog therogh the stuff you already know as a GMD and new media reader…)

Much is being said among the online media of the superior job being done by “Tea party” conservatives in turning out for, and dominating, the so-called “town hall meetings” Congressional Democrats are holding with constituents over the pending health care reform plans. The left has been slow to respond or counter the dramatic displays of defiance that have crossed the line to outright scary on more than one occasion.

Criticisms of the liberal counter-insurgent machinery have become more frequent, in particular suggestions that “Organizing for America,” the unofficial grassroots army that evolved from the Obama Presidential campaign has been slow or inefficient in its response. Recent polls would seem to bear out the notion that the left is being out-hustled in the persuasion and power game.

Although the unions and grassroots organization have come to life, and the dynamics of the town hall meetings are beginning to turn, no amount of organizing is going to change the fundamental disadvantage the left has in this arena, at this time. Simply, that the right wing crowds have something to rally behind – their pent-up loathing of President Obama.

The left, on the other hand, not been given much to fight for, and seems to have less by the day. The resultant passion gap is cavernous and growing.

Obama campaigned, as did all the Democratic candidates for President, on health care reform and providing something approaching universal access. Among most of left that provides the energy for political action, full universal healthcare (more often than not via some sort of single payer construction) is the issue that supersedes almost all other issues. In the face of polls suggesting a general public more amenable than one might expect to such a notion, it has been difficult to walk back those goals and work to promote a package of insurance reforms that would include a Medicaid-like “public option” that Americans could afford to buy into.

But even that more modest goalpost is looking as though it may be too much for the administration, which is frustrating activists to no end. Over the last few weeks, liberals have witnessed a legislative process largely taken out of the hands of those lawmakers who share their goals and given more and more exclusively by the administration to Senator Finance Chair and conservative Democrat Max Baucus, who may have previously shined on those activists (myself among them) committed to a public option to line up early support for his efforts, but who clearly has no intention of passing anything even that robust.

And now comes further proof of a deal between the pharmaceutical companies, Baucus, and the Obama administration, to protect (and further) pharma’s profits under any reform plan in exchange for their political and financial support for the ultimate bill. All of which stands in contradiction to promises Obama made while electioneering.

The self-defeating consequences of this sort of backroom politics on turning out activists to carry and advance the message should be self-evident – a passion gap. The angry right wing crowds know what they’re fighting against at these town hall meetings, while increasingly, their left-wing counterparts are left to wonder from each day to the next what they’re supposed to be fighting for.

Update x2: Bob Kinzel sees Mark Johnson’s Martha Abbott and raises him one Anthony Pollina on VPR’s Vermont Edition tomorrow (Friday). The focus looks to be on the “three criteria” rather than the failing grade collectively and unceremoniously handed out to Susan Bartlett and Doug Racine. It’ll be interesting to see if he stays on that message.

Update: Mark Johnson asked all the right questions during his interview with Progressive Party Chair Martha Abbott. From Abbott’s tone, I’d say the collective what-were-they-thinking vibe that their action seems to have elicited from the political classes has reached her ear, as she sounds very much like she’s in damage control mode, waxing victimized by the Dems only briefly a couple times. She does a pretty good job, too, all things considered. Some questions still to ask, but I recommend listening to the full interview. It’s not too long (there are ads, though). Podcast widget is below.

As more news of the Progressive “review” (thumbs down) of candidates Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett, and associated electoral ultimatum (yet again) to the dreaded Democrats comes clearer, it’s looking even more unpleasant than I’d feared. In fact, it is being received as a full-on smackdown.

There’s no question of the immediate effects of the Progressives’ self-defeatingly premature rejection of Susan Bartlett and Doug Racine, and the accompanying ultimatum. First, they have, ironically empowered primary candidate Deb Markowitz. Rejecting Racine and Bartlett out of hand so quickly gives the whole affair a weird air. What looked like an exercise in bridge-building now, in hindsight, looks like Racine and Bartlett bending over with a “kick me” sign and the Progs happily taking advantage. At a glance, the Progressives would seem to have made Markowitz’s point for her – that Progs will be Progs and its not worth approaching them (maybe its even a little degrading). Fairly or no, it seems as though Racine and Bartlett thought they were walking into a diplomatic summit, while their hosts saw it more akin to a voluntary courtroom appearance.

Bartlett and Racine can still get a lot of mileage on the “at least we tried” argument if they play it right, but Progressives as a collective institution have, for now, removed themselves as a factor in the Democratic primary.

Which gets to the self-defeating angle. Why? Why now? Even if this was to be the Progs’ ultimate response, why not stretch it out a few months and use the attention and deference to build credibility and influence? If nothing else, it would’ve made their ultimate smackdown that much more effective when it did come. Instead, such impatience and rhetorically inartful dismissals of  the very Dems who showed them the respect they were looking for simply add another bit of evidence to the persistent narrative that the Progs only exist to knock down and belittle Dems whenever possible, however possible, and as often as possible.

As I’ve said on many occasions, I do think there’s truth to the idea that some Progressives get more fired up about Dem-bashing than anything or any issue, even to the point of cutting off their noses to spite their collective face at times. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that’s all that’s going on here, and a bigger mistake still to dismiss the Progressives or count them out of any hope of coalition-building after this ultimatum. That would still be cutting off our Democratic noses to spite our collective face (more after the flip).

Collectively, the Progressives behave very impulsively. Oh, I’m sure the denials will be forthcoming in the comments and will be sincere, but the history of collective Progressive political action is replete with impulsive action – even when, shall we say, that impulsive action is sometimes… er… chronologically deferred… meaning that an impulsive response is no less an impulsive response if you can make yourself hold off acting on it for a bit.

So my point is that this diss of Bartlett and Racine and the accompanying ultimatum strike me as typically impulsive. And although both Bartlett and Racine can’t afford not to back way off after being so roundly dismissed, all the campaigns should keep the back doors to discussion open, even while not making the mistake of being so trusting publicly. Rank and file, too, should double up on efforts to build bridges even as this institutional door has so roundly been closed. Believe it or not, there is still light shining through the cracks of the door we just saw slammed.

Very simply, when Progressives take a two-by-four to your head, it doesn’t mean the same thing as when anybody else does. That’s because, while you and I may see a two-by-four as a two-by-four, Progs sometimes think of it as a telephone. It just might not be as bad as it all sounds. It may be frustrating to put up with what sounds like a potentially abusive dynamic, but sometimes its simply practical. We in the rank and file – all of us, Dems and Progs alike – need to be smart enough to tell when our dear leaders are simply acting out in this way.

My point, then; to my fellow rank and file Dems, don’t give up the Progs yet. To rank and file Progs, don’t assume this rejection is gospel.

The dynamic this shows us, once again, is how the fractured left in this state so often mirrors itself. If the Democrats collectively have a problem with being too process-oriented, getting caught in the back and forth of negotiation and losing site of the big picture, the Progressives collectively are just as bad at being too goal-oriented, at times showing outright contempt for the process that makes up the straight line between the twin points of where-we-are and where-we-want-to-be.