Recently conservatives have tried to–what? claim some reflected glory? tarnish a liberal icon?–change the debate by arguing that President Kennedy was really a conservative, that he would be a Republican if he were alive today, and blah, blah, blah.

Is there any substance to this claim?

In a word, no.

The argument depends in part on a misrepresentation of liberal ideas and in part on a misapplication of conservative ideas.

One example of the misrepresentation of liberal ideas is that because some conservatives claim that liberals are opposed to a strong military, or what they might call being “soft on defense”, they argue that anyone who favors a strong military and a strong defense is, ipso facto, a conservative. In fact, liberalism is not characterized by hostility to national defense, although many liberals are skeptical about excessive military spending or expansionist military activities. We have arrived at these positions in large part because of the disastrous effects of America’s imperialist activities in Vietnam, Iran, and many other parts of the world.

Second, because some conservatives believe that tax cuts are the solution to every situation they conclude that Kennedy’s support for a cut in the top marginal tax rate means that he must have been a conservative because only conservatives support tax cuts. The case can be made that the tax cut was actually a Keynesian measure, not what would later become known as supply side economics.

Was he on the left wing of the Democratic Party? No. Although he introduced civil rights legislation, his support for such legislation, and his willingness to commit political capital to get it passed fell far short of what was needed. It is impossible to know what he would have done if he had survived to serve two full terms, but the contrast between what he was willing to do and what Johnson was willing to do to get civil rights legislation passed is striking.

The particulars will change over time, but at the heart of Kennedy’s policy views was the recognition that government can be a force to reduce inequality and support civil rights, improve the lot of ordinary Americans, address the causes and effects of poverty, provide essential services to people who would not otherwise be able to obtain them, strengthen the economy, and help to spread justice, democracy, and peace around the world.

These ideas are anathema to today’s Republican Party and conservative movement, just as they were fifty years ago.  

North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood

Fort Worth police apologize for its role in federal survey

By Scott Gordon |  Wednesday, Nov 20, 2013

*all emphasis added

Fort Worth police initially said they could not immediately find any record of their officers being involved in the roadblock, but on Tuesday police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said that the department’s Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/loc…

Blood, spit and cops: Nationwide drug roadblocks raise eyebrows

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 12:10 PM EDT, Wed June 19, 2013

(CNN) — The roadblocks went up on a Friday at several points in two Alabama towns, about 40 miles on either side of Birmingham.

For the next two days, off-duty sheriff’s deputies in St. Clair County[..]flagged down motorists and steered them toward federal highway safety researchers. The researchers[..]asked them for breath, saliva and blood samples — offering them $10 for saliva and $50 to give blood.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/…

Yes, I know, it’s Texas – the most recent offender – and we do things differently here. But wait – surprise! Alabama is in on it also & yes we do things differently than them too. But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not Texas or Alabama — its the Feds.

This is a shocker — however I was surprised to learn:

It’s not just in Alabama. The roadblocks are part of a national study led by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is trying to determine how many drivers are on the road with drugs or alcohol in their systems. Similar roadblocks will be erected in dozens of communities across the nation this year, according to the agency.

It’s been going on for decades. Previous surveys date to the 1970s. The last one was run in 2007, and it included the collection of blood and saliva samples without apparent controversy, sheriff’s spokesmen in both Alabama counties said.

But this time, it’s happening as the Obama administration struggles to explain revelations that U.S. spy organizations have been tracking phone and Internet traffic. Against that backdrop, the NHTSA-backed roadblocks have led to complaints in Alabama about an intrusive federal government.

Personally I do not think what is taking place in the here & now has been going on for decades or we would have known about it. What I believe has been going on is the instituion of the random stopping of motorists at “roadblocks” & “checkpoints”. Nonetheless, it is clearly unconstitutional to stop or detain anyone without probable cause. I have heard even the so-called roadblocks & checkpoints are also, however the police are likely to stay under the radar of public outcry by doing it around holidays under the guise of “safety” which is still unnecessary as anyone showing signs of impairment can be stopped which is clearly probable cause.

Although I see this as a vast overreach of the federal government in particular as well as police in general, apparently because it’s supposedly “voluntary” they are able to sidestep this issue. And in the stories used for this diary some reported feeling that it wasn’t voluntary & also feeling coerced:

But Cope said it didn’t feel voluntary to her — despite signs saying it was.

“I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn’t let me and forced me into a parking spot,” she said.

Once parked, she couldn’t believe what she was asked next.

“They were asking for cheek swabs,” she said. “They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that.”

At the very least, she said, they wanted to test her breath for alcohol.

She said she felt trapped.

Looks like we are being conditioned to accept a police state where the question for questioning is “what do you have to hide”, rather than the real issue here: “what & why do you need to know”.

This represents nothing more than tyranny & is clear evidence of fascism.

“There are many ways that aspects of authoritarianism can creep into everyday society. Like the anecdote of the frog in the pot of boiling water; At first the small changes in water temperature seem moderate, and hardly noticeable. The danger is realized only after the frog experiences the heat that wasn’t apparent at the beginning – and by then it’s often too late, and it’s been boiled to death.”

http://www.redicecreations.com…

North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood

Fort Worth police apologize for its role in federal survey

By Scott Gordon |  Wednesday, Nov 20, 2013

*all emphasis added

Fort Worth police initially said they could not immediately find any record of their officers being involved in the roadblock, but on Tuesday police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said that the department’s Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/loc…

Blood, spit and cops: Nationwide drug roadblocks raise eyebrows

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 12:10 PM EDT, Wed June 19, 2013

(CNN) — The roadblocks went up on a Friday at several points in two Alabama towns, about 40 miles on either side of Birmingham.

For the next two days, off-duty sheriff’s deputies in St. Clair County[..]flagged down motorists and steered them toward federal highway safety researchers. The researchers[..]asked them for breath, saliva and blood samples — offering them $10 for saliva and $50 to give blood.

Yes, I know, it’s Texas – the most recent offender – and we do things differently here. But wait – surprise! Alabama is in on it also & yes we do things differently than them too. But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not Texas or Alabama — its the Feds.

This is a shocker — however I was surprised to learn:

It’s not just in Alabama. The roadblocks are part of a national study led by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is trying to determine how many drivers are on the road with drugs or alcohol in their systems. Similar roadblocks will be erected in dozens of communities across the nation this year, according to the agency.

It’s been going on for decades. Previous surveys date to the 1970s. The last one was run in 2007, and it included the collection of blood and saliva samples without apparent controversy, sheriff’s spokesmen in both Alabama counties said.

It is clearly unconstitutional to stop or detain anyone without probable cause. Although I see this as a vast overreach of the federal government as well as police in general, apparently because it’s supposedly “voluntary” they are able to sidestep these issues.

But this time, it’s happening as the Obama administration struggles to explain revelations that U.S. spy organizations have been tracking phone and Internet traffic. Against that backdrop, the NHTSA-backed roadblocks have led to complaints in Alabama about an intrusive federal government.

Looks like we are being conditioned to accept a police state where the question is “what do you have to hide”, rather than “what & why do you need to know”.

This represents nothing more than tyrranny & clear evidence of a fascism.

“There are many ways that aspects of authoritarianism can creep into everyday society. Like the anecdote of the frog in the pot of boiling water; At first the small changes in water temperature seem moderate, and hardly noticeable. The danger is realized only after the frog experiences the heat that wasn’t apparent at the beginning – and by then it’s often too late, and it’s been boiled to death.”

http://www.redicecreations.com…

This guy is the opposite of what we've been working for here: more and better Democrats.

Yeah, believe it or not, Hawaii State Representative Tom Brower is a Democrat, and his new hobby (he says he's done for now) is smashing the meager possessions of homeless people.

Lest you think he's a Johnny come lately to the issue, his legislative web page lists homelessness as his only legislative priority. His only mentioned homelessness initiative before this: a proposal to establish “safe zones”, where the authorities could drive (or should I say herd?) the homeless to keep them away from more attractive locations where the pretty people might see them.

As he said to the Hawaii Reporter:

 How can government continue using the same failed strategies to address homelessness? How is this different from the definition of ‘insanity’ (keep doing the same thing with the expectation of different results)?

As a legislator I understand first-hand that chronic homelessness does not offer easy solutions. The best place to start is often the simplest. . . . Being homeless should mean fewer options on where you can stay, not more.

 http://www.hawaiireporter.com/solving-hawaiis-homelessness-crisis

 You might guess from his statement about “the same failed strategies” that he has a record of supporting effective means for addressing homelessness, like providing housing, employment assistance, or mental health services for homeless people, but you will look in vain for any such suggestion.

 If you feel like giving this guy a call, here's his phone number: 808-586-8520. If I can find his home phone number I'll post that, too.

Try this: (808)941-4681. 

We’ve been living through some dark days for health care reform. Both here and in Washington, reports of glitchy websites, failures to connect, disappointed consumers, legislative unease, punditic portents of doom, plummeting poll numbers, the Ten Plagues of Egypt, and who knows what’s next.

Here in Vermont, Republicans are calling for a one-year delay (so they can hammer on a “failed” system in the next election), Dem and Prog lawmakers are publicly hedging their bets, and every Friday Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz puts people like Randy Brock and Darcie “Hack” Johnston in his “Winners” column because they’re making political hay over HCR’s troubled rollout. Governor Shumlin is endlessly reminded of his “nothing-burger” comment, later revised to “something-burger,” and I don’t know how we’ve gotten this far without some wise guy (Paul?) calling it a Whopper.

But while there have been problems, and it hasn’t gone nearly as smoothly as Obama or Shumlin would have hoped, I’m here to say it’s way, way too early for gloom. We’ve still got a few months at least; if this thing is working reasonably well by next spring, the glitches will soon be a distant memory. More and more people will enjoy the benefits of a more foolproof, more universal system. And the fact that Johnston won a news cycle or two in an off year will have no long-term impact whatsoever. (Kinda like the rest of her brilliant political career.)

And look: we’re starting to see reports from around the country — and here in Vermont (paywalled) — that exchange enrollments are taking off:

More people have submitted applications so far in November than in the entire month of October.

… “That doesn’t surprise me,” said Mark Larson, commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access.

“What I’m also noticing is that every week the number of applications started and submitted is larger than the week before,” he said.

So, between website glitches, a tsunami of negative media coverage, and people’s natural procrastination in the face of a new obligation, enrollment started out slow. That’s entirely to be expected.  

Nationally, the Washington Post Wonkblog points to a pair of stories (NY and LA Times) reporting dramatic increases in enrollment across the country:

This is what many health policy experts predicted: The rate of enrollment would grow throughout November and mid-December up until Dec. 15, the last day to purchase coverage that begins on Jan. 1. There would likely be a bit of a lull until late December and early January, followed by more sign-ups in February and especially March, the last month of the open enrollment period.

Our political media has the attention span of a caffeinated puppy. Whatever’s happening RIGHT NOW is crucial, history-making. In fact, the opposite is true: most of what’s happening right now will quickly be forgotten. (Especially by our political media, which is perpetually in search of The Next Crisis. Remember the intractable mess of Syria’s chemical weaponry and how it was threatening Obama’s legacy? Well, maybe you do, but David Gregory and his ilk don’t seem to*.)

*Speaking of whom, I remember seeing Gregory on TV at the height of that crisis insisting that diplomacy was not the solution. He said, yes he did, that even if diplomacy worked, it would be a defeat for American power and interests. God, what a tool.

Even in the short term, the impact of Obamacare’s troubles has been a lot less than the pundits try to tell you. Sure, his approval ratings have dropped by a few percentage points. After weeks of overwhelmingly negative media coverage, they were destined to drop. And if the exchanges continue to improve, so will Obama’s numbers. This “plunge” that supposedly imperils the rest of his second term will have been no more than a blip.

We should also not forget, as the media almost never reminds us, that health care reform was necessary because the old system left tens of millions uncovered and did nothing to rein in rising costs. And, as Talking Points Memo reminds us, reform was a huge challenge:

The Affordable Care Act is the biggest social services program to be implemented since the Great Society. It’s a grand experiment in whether, with a mix of incentives and regulations, the government can expand health coverage and reduce health care costs without eliminating the free market. It’s something that’s never been attempted before on this scale in American government.

Am I happy that there have been problems? No. Do I think problems were inevitable? Yep. Is there still a lot of work to be done? Of course. Will our present difficulties make any difference in the grand scheme of things, if Obamacare and Shummycare get off the ground in a reasonable amount of time? Not at all.

If that happens, it will matter not at all that Darcie Johnston made the “Winners” column once or twice. And Randy Brock’s insistence that Shummycare “does not work”?

Ash heap of history.  

The states of Oklahoma and Texas have revived one of the beloved traditions of the Civil Rights Movement in the sunny South: the segregation academy.

Back in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's many southern states responded to court integration orders by simply closing the offending institutions. If ordered to integrate their municipal swimming pools they closed the pools so that their beautiful white babies wouldn't have to play and swim with black children. Ordered to integrate their schools, they closed the public schools and established so-called private “academies”, colloquially known as seg academies, to skirt the legal effect of the court orders while continuing to deny educational opportunity to their black citizens. Now we hear, in the wake of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that some of the southern states are taking a lesson from their segregationist forbears.

Back then the enemy was racial desegregation, this year it's equal treatment for same sex couples.

OKLAHOMA CITY —- Oklahoma will stop processing all military spouse benefit applications at state-owned National Guard facilities rather than begin accepting the applications from same-sex spouses, Gov. Mary Fallin said Wednesday.

Fallin went on to recall the principles of “massive resistance” that was the rallying cry of southern racists in years gone by. “The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.“

 Other states in the proud Southern tradition who are refusing to provide same-sex benefits for their National Guard members include Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia.  

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks and our military response you can't go a day without seeing one more jingoistic appeal to “support our troops”, and this sentiment seems to be strongest in the hyper-militarized Deep South. One can't help thinking that it's ironic that these are the states that are in the forefront of denying benefits to the troops. 

The field of journalism is overrun with awards. If you can string a sentence together and hang around long enough, you’ll bag one o’ them suckers eventually. (See: George Will, Pulitzer.) But one thing is lacking: an award for the worst story of the year.

If there was such a thing in Vermont, we’d have our clubhouse leader for this year’s, mmmm, what shall we call it… Mark Smith Award (in honor of the retired Maximum Leader of the St. J Caledonian-Record, Vermont’s Worst Newspaper, yeah, that’s it)… Nancy Remsen of the Freeploid, for her complete clusterfrack of a story entitled “Political Affiliation Affects Message Reception on Government-Run Insurance.”

There’s so much awful in this story that I’m sure I’ll miss an item or two. But let’s start with the title*, which DUHHHHHH. Of course “political affiliation affects message reception.” Doesn’t it always? Hell, you’re a fool if you don’t consider the source. (Especially when the source is strongly partisan, and has an ideological stake in the issue under consideration.) But in the context of this article, the title means that some messages are unfairly maligned because of the messenger.

* And let’s not overlook the title’s crafty use of “government-run,” the conservatives’ description of choice for single-payer. Thumb on the scale much?

Aaaaaand your unfairly maligned messenger? None other than Wendy Wilton, stunningly unsuccessful Republican candidate for Treasurer, and author of at least two very different estimates of the additional cost of a single-payer health care system. There’s the one she trumpeted throughout the 2012 campaign, assigning a sky-high $3 billion-plus estimate that became the VTGOP’s rallying cry (for all the good it did them). And then there’s a second one which she released, much more quietly as far as I can tell, earlier this year, which pegged single-payer’s cost at about $2 billion.

Remsen ignores all that history, and focuses her attention solely on Wilton’s second estimate. Which, mirabile dictu, is in the same ballpark as the recently released Avalere study, commissioned by a coalition of business and health care institutions. And so, Remsen awarded the crown and scepter in Policy Wonk to Wilton, who accepted with all due fake humility:

“I’m just glad a little town treasurer with an Excel file and some spare time could come with the same number” as the well-paid consultant, Wilton said.

Gack.

After the jump: double and triple gack.  

…Despite her partisan history, Wilton said she didn’t set out to try to undercut Green Mountain Care. “I did the work because I was curious.”

Double gack.

Remsen then lists all the similarities between Wilton 2.0 and Avalere, which I guess proves WIlton’s credibility. Which “proves” the article’s thesis: Wilton was unfairly maligned due to her partisanship. Or, as her anti-reform crony puts it:

“If you are not on the go-along, get-along team, you are the evil stepsister,” said Darcie Johnston, another skeptic with strong Republican connections. The organization she founded – Vermonters for Health Care Freedom – also raised questions last winter about the cost estimate projected in the UMass study.

Oh, so now Johnston is another prophet without honor? Triple gack.

There’s a whole string of illogic running through this story. It completely accepts Avalere’s report as independent and untainted; as we pointed out last week, there are serious problems with that conclusion.

Avalere’s supposed impeccability is then used to “prove” Wilton’s. In the process, Remsen omits any mention of Wilton’s inconvenient 2012 misfire.

This, then, “proves” the thesis statement: “political affiliation affects message reception.” Which, as I said, needs no proof whatsoever. But the implication is that Wilton’s partisan background blinded us all to her wisdom. She is allowed to claim, unchallenged, that her own ideology had absolutely no effect on her estimates.

Which gives retroactive credence to the fundamental claim of Wilton’s 2012 campaign: that she was a policy expert with the training and experience to handle the Treasurer’s office. (When, in fact, the real policy expert was her opponent, Beth Pearce.)

Which is a nice step toward rehabilitating WIlton’s image for another run at treasurer.

All in all, Remsen and the Freeploid did a real solid for WIlton — if not for their readers. Inaccurate, illogical, uncritical, incomplete, misleading, and just plain weird. Ladies and gennum, your front-runner for the 2013 Mark Smith Award: Nancy Remsen, for “Political Affiliation Affects Message Reception on Government-Run Insurance.”  

OP-ED: Warning to taxpayers

ROSEMARIE JACKOWSKI, Bennington resident

Posted:   11/19/2013 01:00:00 AM EST

Congratulations to the citizens who spoke at the Select Board meeting on Monday, Nov. 11. The meeting was an impressive example of how democracy works.

There are remaining questions about the proposed anti-panhandler ordinance.

Will it violate the First Amendment? Any 8-year-old can Google “Panhandler laws and The First Amendment.” Anti panhandler laws have been tried and failed across the country.

A few unanswered questions about the proposed law.

1. If someone on Main Street asks: “Can you please help me? I need directions to the covered bridge.” Would that be a violation?

2. If someone on Main Street asks: “Can you please help me? I need a dollar.” Would that be a violation? If so, would that be profiling? Would that be victimizing someone because of socio/economic class? Would that be selective enforcement of the law?

3. Would holding a sign that said: “Need ride to Albany” be a violation? What about holding a sign that said: “Will work for food?”

4. If this law is adopted, would it put taxpayers at risk? What would be the likely result if the law was challenged in Court on Constitutional grounds? Will Bennington taxpayers be at risk if a Constitutional legal battle results?

The common belief is that there are “services” for all who are in need.

That is a myth.

Stigma prevents many who need help from asking. Beyond that, there are often so many loopholes that many in real need do not qualify. It is sometimes a “gotcha system,” lacking in privacy, and disrespecting the person asking for help.

Another misconception about the poor is that they are “inferior,” mentally ill, lazy, substance abusers. The stereotyping of any group leads to prejudice.

Many respectable citizens, especially here in Bennington, are just one medical/dental emergency away from economic disaster. A bumper sticker on one car in town says: “I don’t need therapy. I need money.”

Homelessness is an issue — so much so, that recently some were considering putting up a tent city in Bennington. Recently it was announced that a 59-unit Econo Lodge in Shelburne is being converted to house the homeless.

Instead of hiding them, they are being helped in Shelburne. Would that be a solution in other locations? The prejudice against the “lower class” is very clear. Some are poor through no fault of their own.

One of the leading causes of bankruptcy is the cost of medical care. A 2007 Harvard study showed that 60 percent of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. Seventy-five percent filing for bankruptcy had health care insurance. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people.

The bottom line is this. It appears that the law is under consideration because of a desire to make the poor invisible to tourists. One town officer was quoted in the news as saying that panhandlers create an “image” problem. Instead of hiding the poor, how about helping them.

A suggestion to the town leaders: Next time a panhandler asks for help, invite him out to lunch. Maybe you will have a new understanding of the causes of poverty and also make a new friend.

Rosemarie Jackowski is a Bennington resident.

Ah, the Ethan Allen Institute: stout defender against the onslaught of statist secular Satanic Soviet-style scams, scemes, subterfuges, and swindles. (I got a Thesaurus, yes I do.) Named in honor of the homegrown Vermont patriot, who rallied the Green Mountain Boys to drive New York carpetbaggers from our land. And, er, protect his own extensive land holdings, but let us not quibble.

The Institute that bears his name, and proudly carries the banner of Vermont independence and self-reliance, is a true homegrown success story.

Well, maybe not so much.

The Ethan Allen Institute, you see, is an affiliate of the State Policy Network, a web of state “think tanks” pushing identical far-right legislative agendas. All the SPN affiliates, including EAI, draw substantial funding from wealthy free-marketeers like the Koch Brothers. Given those facts, it’s fair to question whether EAI is pursuing a Vermont-centered agenda, or echoing the favored policies of its out-of-state paymasters. The New Yorker:

According to a new investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group, the think tanks are less free actors than a coördinated collection of corporate front groups-branch stores, so to speak-funded and steered by cash from undisclosed conservative and corporate players.

SPN President Tracie Sharp insists that its member nonprofits are “fiercely independent,” but The New Yorker reports otherwise, based on notes from Sharp’s presentation to the SPN annual meeting in September:

Sharp explained what she called The IKEA Model. She said that it starts with what she described as a “catalogue” showing “what success would look like.” Instead of pictures of furniture arranged in rooms, she said, S.P.N.’s catalogue displays visions of state policy projects that align with the group’s agenda. That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education. “The success we show is you guys,” she told the assembled state members. “Here’s how we win in your state.”

She continued that, as with IKEA, the SPN would provide “the raw materials” and “services,” and each state institution would choose the items it wants. Which doesn’t seem to leave much room for deviation from the SPN platform.

She also acknowledged that SPN’s agenda is shaped by its (often anonymous) donors:

“The grants are driven by donor intent,” she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, “the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.”

Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy on Sharp’s claims of independence:

“…in practical terms, the Center for Media and Democracy has documented how these groups have promoted … carbon-copy claims, identical language, and distorted statistics, differing only through the state label placed at the top of a particular report.” Far from being independent, “they are intensely subservient to the wishes of the most powerful few.”

And when you look at EAI’s agenda, as described by CMD, its cookie-cutter nature is abundantly clear: Privatization of public schools, climate change denialism, cutting corporate taxes and regulations, cutting public spending, opposing minimum wage laws, opposing health care reform. These are the issues, as CMD reports, that SPN affiliates are trumpeting nationwide.

Now, that might just be coincidence, or the confluence of like-minded people. But when you look at the money trail, the truth becomes clear: the Ethan Allen Institute gets a whole lot of money from the people and foundations behind SPN. If it depended solely on the charity of Vermonters, it would be a much smaller organization — if it existed at all.

The money trail isn’t easy to follow, and the figures are incomplete because nonprofits have very lax reporting requirements. But CMD has uncovered some telling numbers:

EAI’s total budget varies quite a bit, but it’s usually in the range of $170,000 to $250,000 a year. So when Donors Capital Fund kicks in $50,000 (as it did in 2010) or $63,400 (as it did in 2009) or when the South Carolina-based Roe Foundation  (founded by Thomas Roe, who was the founding chairman of SPN) kicks in 10 grand each and every year, it’s obvious that they have a lot of pull with EAI.

Donors Capital Fund, by the way, is basically a money-laundering outfit for wealthy conservative donors who don’t want to be publicly associated with their causes. According to the Bridge Project, a watchdog group that reports on right-wing political activity, Donors Capital Fund “is a philanthropic organization whose primary purpose is to protect the anonymity of its members.” Among DCF’s chief beneficiaries: the climate-denialist Heartland Institute, the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and the Federalist Society, a far-right law organization. And DCF provides the lion’s share of the State Policy Network’s funding.

This is the company that the Ethan Allen Institute is choosing to keep. Well, considering its bottom line, perhaps it has no real choice. But don’t think for a minute that EAI really has anything to do with, or any interest in, Vermont-specific issues or policies.

If so, then why would EAI draw such huge donations from all over America? Why would nonprofits based in Virginia, South Carolina, and California (The Jaquelin Hume Foundation) write four-, five- and even six-figure checks to a Vermont nonprofit?  

We don’t know exactly how much money EAI gets from out-of-state groups, because it doesn’t have to report donations in any detail. (It could, in the spirit of transparency, release the information on its own. I’m not holding my breath.) But from what we do know, EAI is pretty much a puppet organization, beholden to wealthy donors in other states. “He who pays the piper,” you know.

Which, it seems to me, is kinda-sorta exactly the opposite of Ethan Allen’s legacy, isn’t it?

In recent days, I’ve provided little bits of evidence that newly-minted VTGOP Chair David Sunderland — the guy who’s supposedly going to change the direction and tone of the party — is not, himself, at all moderate. I’ve also suggested that it wouldn’t be hard for someone in Vermont’s political media to do a little fact-checking. After all, Sunderland was in the Legislature from 2003-2008. During that time, he must have sponsored some bills, cast a lot of votes, given speeches, printed brochures, and raised campaign funds. Wouldn’t it be relevant, I thought, for news consumers to know the views and beliefs of the guy who now holds the top position in the state’s Republican Party?

Guess not, because if anybody’s gone digging, they haven’t seen fit to print or broadcast anything to speak of.  

Well, now we’ve got the goods — or at least some of them. Still out there somewhere, waiting to be uncovered: any speeches Sunderland might have made in the House or on the campaign trail during his five years under the Golden Dome; any campaign material he produced during his two runs for office; and any interesting names that might show up on his campaign finance reports.

But, thanks to a political wonk of my acquaintance with a lot of time on his/her hands, we can report some of the highlights of Sunderland’s legislative career. As you might expect, there’s no hint of moderation to be found. Indeed, Sunderland appears to be more conservative than then-Governor Jim Douglas on many issues. He was sometimes to the right of most Republicans in the House. In 2004 he got a 25% rating from the Vermont League of Conservation Voters, a measly 11% from VPIRG, and (of course) 100% from the state Chamber of Commerce. And he’s definitely got some toxic views on reproductive rights and other favored causes of the Christian Right.  

Speaking of which, Sunderland’s cause celebre was parental notification. He served in the Legislature for all or part of three sessions, and each time he introduced a bill requiring parental notification 48 hours before an “unemancipated minor” could have an abortion. Parental notification is the Right To Lifers’ fallback position in states where they know they can’t win passage of more serious restrictions.

A couple of other blots on Sunderland’s reproductive-rights escutcheon: He voted for a bill that would have imposed criminal penalties on doctors who performed abortions on a minor. And he supported a “women’s right to know bill,” which would have required women to undergo counseling before making a health decision. And we all know what that means.

And, in another sign of his Christianist leanings, he voted against a bill to add gender identity or expression to existing anti-discrimination laws.

Some other highlights and/or lowlights:

Health care: For a guy whose first press release as VTGOP Chair was an inaccurate attack on Governor Shumlin’s alleged plan to kill Medicare for Vermonters, Sunderland has a really bad record on health care reform. He sponsored a bill promulgating the free-marketeers’ favorite “reform” idea: opening Vermont’s health insurance market to policies sold in other states. In short, bringing all the benefits of credit-card deregulation to the healthcare sector.

He voted against funding for the Medicaid program and the office of Vermont health access. He opposed a bill to increase “transparency of prescription drug pricing and information,” which easily passed into law. According to Project Vote Smart, he voted against establishing Catamount Care in two separate session.

Education: Right out of the Ethan Allen Institute/ALEC playbook. He supported a bill to establish a school voucher program in Vermont. He sponsored a bill to force school-district consolidation: it would have set up 14-16 “supervisory unions.” The S.U. boards of education would have been in charge of negotiating teacher contracts. He sponsored a bill to create “a moment of silence in schools” — the Religious Right’s backdoor way of getting prayer in the public schools. And he was on the losing side on a bill to expand pre-K education.

Workers’ rights: In addition to the school consolidation bill that would have established S.U.-wide teacher contracts, Sunderland also sponsored a bill to reduce workers’ compensation benefits and require drug testing for all recipients. And he voted against a 2005 bill to raise the state minimum wage from $6.25 to $7.25.

Other:

— He supported a bill that would have sealed all records of internal police investigations.

— According to Project Vote Smart, he opposed a bill to establish same-day voter registration.

— He backed a bill to weaken Act 250 by increasing the minimum lot size triggering Act 250 review from 10 acres to 20.

This is just a sampling of David Sunderland’s public record. If anyone can point out instances of “moderation” in his legislative tenure, I’d love to hear it. From what I know of him so far, I’d have to say that not only is he not a moderate — he’s solidly in the right wing of the Republican Party. And he shows obvious signs of Moral Majority-ism, which definitely puts him out of Vermont’s mainstream.

Perhaps he can set all of this aside, and work toward a more inclusive VTGOP. But he’ll have to tamp down his own political views, including those that are faith-based. That’s a lot to ask of someone with opinions as strong as his.

It says something about the state of the VTGOP that this guy is the best the “moderates” could do. And it does, again, raise questions about how “moderate” they really are.