I don't usually blog about this kind of thing, but the Phoenix connection makes it irresistable.

There have been lots of questions about Bonner & Associates, a Republican outreach firm which apparently uses all kinds of shady tactics to do its clients' bidding. But this is a new one to me: FLS Connect.

According to Talking Points Memo,

Minnesota-based FLS Connect uses low-wage workers to make fund-raising calls for a bevy of prominent GOP clients. And many of those workers -- including those responsible for processing credit-card transactions -- have felony convictions, the former employees said.

Here's the Phoenix connection.

And many workers in the company's Phoenix office are ex-cons, who are paid not much more than minimum wage, lack benefits, and work in squalid conditions.
The claim that ex-felons have access to credit-card information was first made by former FLS employee Brian Jones in an interview last week with the website Politics in Minnesota (PIM). In response, FLS Connect co-founder Jeff Larson denied the charge to PIM.

But in interviews with TPMmuckraker, two other recent employees, Alicia Baca and David Childs, backed Jones up. And Jones himself, a former felon who was recently fired from FLS's Phoenix office, told us he stood by his claim. "He is just a liar," Jones, 37, said of Larson.

Baca, Childs, and Jones explained that when a donor agrees to contribute money by credit card, they're told that they'll be transferred to a supervisor to handle the transaction. But in fact, the three said, they're transferred to another FLS employee in the same room. That person has gone through only a cursory screening process, and in no way acts as a supervisor to the caller making the fundraising pitch. Indeed, they said, he generally earns less money than the fundraising caller.

Baca, 23, said she started working at FLS's Phoenix office in June 2008, making $10 an hour as a fundraiser. But because her numbers were below par, she was made a "validator" -- an employee who verifies credit-card information -- at which she earned $9 an hour. She said that because her boyfriend already worked at FLS when she applied, she was hired without even an interview, and no screening process. And when she became a validator, giving her access to credit-card information, no additional screening was conducted.

All three former employees described FLS's Phoenix office as a haven for ex-felons, in part because Arizona makes it difficult for people with criminal convictions to find jobs, and FLS has become well-known among the state's inmate population for its willingness to hire ex-cons. "My cell-mate from prison got out before me and told me" about the job, Jones said.

Jones and Baca both estimated independently that about 75 percent of employees in FLS's Phoenix office had felony convictions. Baca said she thought the majority of validators did. Said Jones: "It did surprise me that these are the people doing the fund-raising for the GOP."

Another strong article about tuition tax credits and STOs from Pat Kossan and Ronald J. Hansen at the Republic. It focuses on taxpayer-funded scholarship money going to families that don't fit most people's definitions of "needy," though it also mentions examples of families who are well within the normal definitions of need.

My favorite line is a paraphrase of an answer by Sen. Steve Yarbrough about whether his STO, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, gives money based on need.

Steve Yarbrough, who runs the group, uses committees to decide which students are awarded scholarships and how much. Most scholarships awarded by the committees are based primarily on need, he said. That need is relative, however.

Yes, Steve, need is relative. "I really need a larger yacht." "This Mercedes is falling apart. I need a new one."

Here's an example of what "need" looks like from another STO, Jewish Tuition Organization. It serves 6 private schools and only gives money to the neediest students. However, that covers 60% of the students in the schools -- 420 out of 700 -- and the average scholarship is $5,585. Since that's the average, the actual scholarships can go up and down from there.

I'm guessing 60% of the students in those schools don't fit my definition of "needy."

Remember, this is money that otherwise would be in the general fund helping us balance the budget. And in case you want to argue, "Yes, but otherwise those students would be in public school using state education dollars:

. . . an Arizona Republic analysis of private-school enrollment data, published last month, found that two of every three scholarships in 2007 likely went to students who would have attended private schools without the tax-credit aid.

And let's remember how Republicans sold tuition tax credit legislation when it was first proposed:

Arizona lawmakers created tuition tax-credit laws with the intent of helping low-income students attend private schools.

Arizona, we have a problem.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Conservatives would have you believe that they are the defenders of the Constitution. For many, this is bullshit.

In the days immediately following 9/11, many conservatives were quick to unquestioningly accept Dick Cheney's dark vision of the imperial presidency and the "unitary executive" theory under which neither coequal branch of the government had the power to check the executive branch during times of war. A cowardly Congress quickly abdicated its constitutional prerogatives and duties over war and spending to the president. Article III federal courts suddenly became deferential to overly broad presidential claims of national security and state secrets (with a few notable exceptions for which these judges were savaged by the conservative media). The principle of checks and balances of power between coequal branches of government was dismissed as a "quaint" notion that was outdated.

Civil liberties under the Bill of Rights were shredded by a president who declared that he was the "decider-in-chief" and that he alone could decide who is an "enemy combatant" (including U.S. citizens); order individuals detained indefinitely without charges or speedy trial, without access to legal counsel, the right to confront witnesses or to impeach evidence; subject that individual to repeated torture, and to transfer that individual from the jurisdiction of Article III federal courts by "extraordinary rendition" to disappear into black site Soviet-style Gulag prisons or those of foreign countries. The president ordered an unprecedented data mining spy program which sifts all electronic communications within the United States, including those of U.S. citizens. The USA Patriot Act, approved by a cowardly Congress, permitted "sneak peak" warrantless searches of homes, and national security letters for employment and financial records without presenting any evidence of reasonable cause to a court to obtain a warrant.

When Congress made feeble attempts to check the most egregious of these violations of the Constitution and civil liberties, e.g., torture, the president simply issued signing statements exempting the executive branch from the reach of the law. A cowardly Congress caved in to the executive branch by agreeing to military commissions under a legal process controlled by the executive branch rather than the judicial branch, and exempted telecommunications companies from civil liability for participating in the data mining spy programs and authorized the president's illegal spy program post hoc.

Anyone who objected to these gross violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was savagely attacked by the conservative media as "un-American" and a "traitor" guilty of "treason" against the United States, and of giving aid and comfort to terrorists and America's enemies. Republican members of Congress repeated these slanderous accusations on the floor of the House and Senate to be inserted into the Congressional Record.

Many conservatives defended all of the above abuses, and questioned the loyalty of anyone who dared to object.

On January 20, 2009, conservatives suddenly rediscovered the Constitution and claimed that they were the defenders of the Constitution. Again, bullshit.

President Obama had not yet completed his oath of office before conservative media began asserting that the Constitution was under assault from an illegitimate usurper of "their" entitlement to govern, this socialist/communist/marxist/fascist/nazi/all of the above, and they openly advocated for armed insurrection against the government of the United States. The Governor of the state of Texas openly advocated for the long discredited pre-civil war notions of "nullification" of federal law under the Tenth Amendment and the "right" to secede from the United States.

Many conservatives seek to preserve the dangerous authoritarian precedents established under the Bush-Cheney regime for the next Republican president, in furtherance of Dick Cheney's dark vision of the imperial presidency and the unitary executive theory (in particular, the Cheney family).

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that conservatives are apoplectic over Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement Friday that the United States will begin to return to its Constitutional principles and the rule of law, and will try terrorist suspects in Article III federal courts. Accused 9/11 Mastermind to Face Civilian Trial in N.Y. - NYTimes.com

“New York is not afraid of terrorists,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York. “Any suggestion that our prosecutors and our law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.”

According to a United States Department of Justice press release dated June 9, 2009, entitled "Fact Sheet: Prosecuting and Detaining Terror Suspects in the U.S. Criminal Justice System":

There are currently 216 inmates in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody who have a history of/or nexus to international terrorism. Sixty seven of these individuals were extradited to the United States for prosecution, while 149 were not extradited. Seventy two of these individuals are U.S. citizens (45 of them born in the United States, 27 of them naturalized). The "Supermax" facility in Florence, Colo. (ADX Florence), which is BOP’s most secure facility, houses 33 of these international terrorists. There has never been an escape from ADX Florence, and BOP has housed some of these international terrorists since the early 1990s. In addition to the ADX Florence, the BOP houses such individuals in the Communications Management Units at Terre Haute, Ind., and Marion, Ill., as well as in other facilities among different institutions around the country.

Among those convicted international terrorists currently serving sentences in BOP facilities are:

• Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• Ahmed Ressam, the Millenium Bomber
• Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
• Richard Reid, convicted of attempting to ignite a shoe bomb while on a flight from Paris to Miami carrying 184 passengers and 14 crewmembers
• Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate the U.S. President as well as attack and destroy civilian airliners
• Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring with al-Qaeda to hijack and crash planes into prominent U.S. buildings as part of the 9/11 attacks

* * *

In addition to those inmates with an international terrorism history or nexus, there are approximately 139 individuals in BOP custody who have a history of/or nexus to domestic terrorism. These individuals include:

• Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber
• Terry Nichols, convicted accomplice of Timothy McVeigh in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing

For those of you who have never seen the inside of a maximum security prison, let alone the "supermax" prison, let me tell you it is a sobering experience. Just catch an episode of Lockup: MSNBC's prison documentary series sometime from the comfort and safety of your living room. These prisoners are a greater threat to one another and to prison personnel than they are to the communities living near the prison. No one has ever escaped from the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. PolitiFact | No inmate has escaped from federal supermax prison

Senator John McCain issued this statement:

“I am extremely disappointed with the Obama Administration’s decision to try in U.S. civilian courts the Al-Qaeda terrorists who planned, supported, and conducted the September 11th attacks. These terrorists are not common criminals. They are war criminals, who committed acts of war against our citizens and those of dozens of other nations.

“Terrorists who have declared war against our country should be treated as war criminals and tried for their crimes through military tribunals...

“Today’s decision sends a mixed message about America’s resolve in the fight against terrorism. We are at war, and we must bring terrorists to justice in a manner consistent with the horrific acts of war they have committed.”

Senator Jon Kyl issued this statement:

“It’s an unnecessary risk to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks to downtown Manhattan.

“Past trials of terrorists have proven that our civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to handle international terrorism trials. As a result of the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the ‘Blind Sheik,’ al Qaeda obtained valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods, thereby making the job of fighting terrorists tougher. Military tribunals – which have been used by Presidents dating back to George Washington – are the most appropriate, and secure, forum to try those who commit acts of war against the United States.

“It is a constant amazement to me that there are some who seem more concerned about extending legal protections to terrorists than security protection to Americans.”

It is important to keep in mind that our senators actively supported every abuse of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the Bush-Cheney regime outlined in the introductory section above (John McCain's vacillation on objecting to torture notwithstanding). What both of our senators are saying in essence is that they have no faith in our Constitution, the rule of law, our federal judiciary or our justice system. They want terrorist suspects subjected to extra-judicial rules that will guarantee their conviction, perpetual detention or summary execution.

The point was framed nicely by Lawrence O'Donnell and Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, on Countdown Friday evening:

Lawrence O'Donnell: Aren't some of these critics succumbing to their fear of the terrorists, I mean aren't they now essentially afraid to fight the terrorists using our own rules, the things that we believe in, the things that we've successfully relied on as a society for a couple hundred years?

Jonathan Turley: That's was most distressing, you know this borders on constitutional defamation, these people saying that our laws cannot stand up to the task. You know this country has gone through crises that would have reduced other systems to a fine pumice. We've lasted. Our Constitution may not be as poetic as some, but it's designed to last. And it has done that. I can't understand why there's this crisis of faith and that's what these senators are showing. They are showing a crisis of faith in the Constitution. And I don't know why. Because the Constitution has been not the danger, not the risk to our liberties, it's been the thing that preserved it. And what is happening today is one of the most significant events in fighting terrorism. We've finally taken the high ground... I hope at the end of the day we will trust our legal system and our Constitution and have faith in the thing that defines us as a country.

Steve Benen of the Political Animal blog at The Washington Monthly expanded on this point:

BLINDED BY FEAR AND REACTIONARY PARTISANSHIP....When one cuts through the nonsense and poll-tested soundbites, the right's opposition to fair trials comes down to fear -- fear that our principles are aren't worth honoring, fear that our rule of law is somehow flawed, fear that radical thugs have acquired supernatural powers. It's just blinding, irrational fear.

But in the larger context, as Glenn Greenwald explained, there's an insulting pretext to conservatives' criticism.

[T]he Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

I'm also struck by the remarks of Jim Riches, whose son, a New York firefighter, died on 9/11. "Let them come to New York," said Riches, himself a retired deputy chief with the NYFD. "Let them get on trial. Let's do it the right way, for all the world to see what they're like. Let's go. It's been too long. Let's get some justice."

That this is even considered controversial is a dispiriting setback.

There is, of course, the ongoing debate to consider -- do conservatives believe their own rhetoric? It's occasionally difficult to tell. One could probably make a compelling argument that the same far-right voices throwing tantrums yesterday at the thought of fair trials know full well that the American system of justice is well equipped for legal proceedings like these. They're whining incessantly, the argument goes, because they hate the president. Yesterday had nothing to do with national security policy and everything to do with reactionary partisanship.

Alas, it's a scarier prospect, but it seems just as likely that the right accepts these attacks as true, and has rationalized their irrational fears as legitimate.

As you know if you've been reading this blog, I've had several bones to pick with the Goldwater Institute's studies comparing public and private school students in their knowledge of civics, tolerance of others and feelings about the schools they attend. (My criticism of the Civics study is here, and the criticism of the other two are combined in this post.) But here's one objection that never occurred to me until two faithful readers emailed me material that puts the polls themselves into question. (Hat tip to todd and to Eli Blake.)

It's possible the polling company, Strategic Vision LLC, simply made up the numbers in the surveys it gave to Matthew Ladner at G.I. which formed the basis of the three studies.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight believes Strategic Vision LLC concocts fraudulent surveys on a regular basis. In case you haven't heard of Silver, . . . If you're looking for the smartest guy in the room -- more specifically, in any room where statistics are the topic -- Ladner and I would be hanging around in dark corners looking confused and Silver would be standing in the spotlight with other stat heads gathered around listening to what he had to say.

In one of his many posts on Strategic Vision (I list all I could find at the end of the post), Silver looks at a survey Strategic Vision conducted in Oklahoma which asked the same 10 civics questions G.I. asked students in Arizona. It got equally dismal results, indicating that Oklahoma students, like those in Arizona, know very little about civics. Ladner was involved in setting up the Oklahoma survey and wrote about the results on the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs website.

Funny thing, though. Oklahoma state Rep. Ed Cannaday asked the same 10 questions of high school students using the same basic methodology, and his students appeared to be about 3 times more knowledgeable than the ones Strategic Vision surveyed. Cannaday, by the way, is a former teacher and school principal, so he knows a bit about education.

[Cannaday] arranged to have all the seniors in the 10 secondary schools in his district take the Strategic Vision/OCPA survey. Cannaday tried to replicate the Strategic Vision survey to the greatest extent possible. The same exact questions were used, and as in the case of the original survey, the answers were open-ended rather than multiple choice. The survey was administered to a total of 325 seniors, including special education students.

Ladner has responded to the allegations that Strategic Visions made up the numbers, saying he will look into them. "If I got snookered," he wrote, "I’ll own up to it, but the jury is still out."

As it happens, about 3 weeks ago, I asked Ladner if I could see copies of the actual Arizona survey results, and he was kind enough to fax me the two surveys used for all three Arizona studies -- one survey of public school students and another survey of private school students.

I'll do some of my own analysis of questionable aspects of the surveys after the jump. And at the end of this post, you'll find a long list of links from a number of sites concerning Strategic Vision's questionable integrity.

I'll leave it to Silver to do the subtle statistical analysis, which, I must admit, goes way over my head. But here's some of my own brute strength analysis of the student's answers to the survey questions.

On the survey, the students were asked 10 civics questions such as, "What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?" and "Who was the first President?". The questions are open ended, not multiple choice, so the students had no prompts as to the right answers. They either gave their best answer or said "I don't know."

One question asks, "What are the two major parties in the United States?" Before I give you the wrong answers the surveys received, or said they received, I want you to think of plausible wrong answers to the question.

Did you come up with "Communist and Democrat" or "Communist and Republican" as the two major parties in the U.S.? Neither did I. But the survey says 8% of private school students -- 108 students -- gave one of those two answers. The only other wrong answer on the private school survey was "Green and Socialist": 1% (7 students). No answers said any of the 4 possible combinations of "Green/Socialist and Republican/Democrat," although those seem to be more likely wrong answers. And there is no "other" in the responses, indicating the students either made one of those 3 wrong choices (9%), got the right answer (60%) or didn't know (31%). To me, that doesn't smell quite right.

The public school students' responses aren't broken down by the wrong answers. For some reason, the survey simply lists 12% as "Other." Why break down one set of answers and not the other? Again, it smells a bit fishy.

Interestingly, the Oklahoma survey cited by Nate Silver listed 10% as responding "Republican and Communist" to that question. Odd that Communists keep cropping up in high school students' answers. Commies aren't being used for political target practice much these days. Socialists and Nazis, yes, Communists, no.

"What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?" another question asked. Both private and public school students replied either "The Senate and the House" or "Don't know." What, no "Supreme Court" or "President" as an answer from any of the 2700 students surveyed? It doesn't seem likely to me.

"How many Justices are on the Supreme Court?" Every private school student guessed 6, 8, 10, 15 or "Don't know." Why not 7, 9 or 11-14? And you mean to tell me, not one private school students knew the right answer is 9? Really? Public school students had a more compact cluster of numbers -- 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 or "Don't know" -- meaning a few of them (10%) came up with 9. With 1,350 students in each group, I would expect to see every reasonable number represented in both samples, and at least a few of the kids in private school would have known there are 9 Supreme Court Justices.

For "We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?" not a single student in either group answered with an odd number. Both groups said 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or "Don't know." That implies that all students understand Senators serve for an even number of years. It's possible, I guess, but if the students are as clueless as the survey indicates, someone certainly would have guessed 5 or 7, you would think.

Open ended questions with a limited number of answers like this stretch the plausibility of this survey to the breaking poing for me. It would be interesting to see if Cannaday's test results had a similarly limited number of wrong answers.

Number crunchers among you will probably delight in watching Silver's mind at work as he deconstructs the data on these and other Strategic Vision LLC surveys in some of the links below. And for anyone interested, there's plenty of information you can understand without knowing statistics.

Links about Stategic Vision LLC and the Civics survey.

Did the Dog Eat the Data? (Pollster.com, 4/23/09)

Mourning Constitutional (Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, 9/1/09)

AAPOR Raises Objections to Actions by Atlanta-Based Strategic Vision LLC (American Association for Public Opinion Research, 9/23/09)

AAPOR "Raises Objections" to Strategic Vision's Non-Disclosure (Pollster.com, 9/23/09)

A Few More Questions for a Sketchy Pollster (FiveThirtyEight, 9/24/09)

Strategic Vision Polls Exhibit Unusual Patterns, Possibly Indicating Fraud (FiveThirtyEight, 9/25/09)

My thoughts on the Strategic Vision Controversy (Public Policy Polling, 9/25/09)

Embattled pollster defends methods (Politico 9/25/09)

Strategic Vision: Time for Transparency (Pollster.com, 9/26/09)

Are Oklahoma Students Really This Dumb? Or Is Strategic Vision Really This Stupid? (FiveThirtyEight, 9/26/09)

Comparison Study: Unusual Patterns in Strategic Vision Polling Data Remain Unexplained (FiveThirtyEight, 9/26/09)

Real Oklahoma Students Ace Citizenship Exam; Strategic Vision Survey Was Likely Fabricated (FiveThirtyEight, 11/8/09)

Civic Knowledge Polling Controversy (Jay P. Greene's Blog, 11/12/09)

Another update on the Imagine Schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which have been the subject of scathing investigative work by the Journal Gazette.

The dean of the Teachers College at Ball State University, the group that authorized the charter for Fort Wayne's Imagine schools, wrote an op ed in the paper discussing the situation. He commented that Ball State representatives visit the school on a regular basis and hold it accountable. He feels it has been doing an adequate job. But, he continued, information in the articles revealed a lack of local control, which has to be corrected.

As a charter authorizer, we can – and do – revoke charters for schools that fail to live up to their charters. Such final action, however, is taken only when other corrective measures have failed. We will continue to work with the Fort Wayne charter schools and their boards to help them achieve their missions. If, however, they fail to meet their responsibilities, we will take appropriate action, up to and including the revocation of charters.

In the same issue, the paper wrote an editorial praising Ball State's concern and its attempts to remedy the situation. The final two paragraphs should be taped to the wall of every school district and government agency with oversight over charter schools.

The local Imagine charter schools are not a philanthropist-funded project saving children from bad public schools, as some supporters would like everyone to believe. Taxpayers foot the bill, and they have the right to know how the money is spent.

As sponsor of the schools, Ball State holds most of the responsibility to protect taxpayers – a task the university now seems to have embraced.

Add another piece of evidence to the exhibit. When journalists do their homework and bring genuine problems to light, people in high places listen and, in many circumstances, act responsibly.

I'm participating in a panel on blogging this Monday, Nov. 16, 6:30pm, at the Saguaro Eastside Democrats meeting -- New Spirit Lutheran Church, 8701 E. Old Spanish Trail (northeast corner of Camino Seco).

Joining me will be some guy who goes by the nom de pixel of Tedski -- he has a blog whose name no one has tried to say aloud since sometime in the 19th century -- and Sandra Spangler, who runs the 26 Dems website.

The only competition for your viewing pleasure that night is the special screening of The Yes Men Fix The World at The Loft (7pm) featuring one of the Yes Men, Andy Bichlbaum, in a live appearance.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rhonda Bodfield at the Arizona Daily Star writes Political Notebook: Rep. Shadegg's health care speech goes viral:

U.S. Congressman John Shadegg was mocked by funnyman Jon Stewart and chastised by Bill O’Reilly for his floor speech against the health care reform bill when it came up for a vote last Saturday.

In a “What was he thinking?” moment that has been forever memorialized on YouTube, Shadegg held his chief of staff’s baby, Maddie Thompson, in his arms as he introduced her, “This is Maddie. Maddie believes in freedom. Maddie likes America because we have freedom here and Maddie believes in patient choice health care.”

* * *

“She asked to come here today to say she doesn’t want the government to take over health care because she wants to be able to keep her plan. You see, Maddie knows that if this bill passes it says that her mom’s health care goes away and won’t be around in five years.”

Here is The Daily Show segment "The Men Who Stare at Votes" - Jon Stewart goes after Shadegg's "fresh perspective" at 04:22 into the video. "Maddie also believes that if you shake your keys in front of her and then put them behind your back, the keys cease to exist. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to her. I'm just saying she doesn't yet have object permanence."

Stewart noted that moments later Rep. Pete Stark tried to up the ante by raising him two "tweens" and the presiding Speaker of the House had to admonish members of the House "not to use guests of the House as props" (adding "you f#?king idiots.")

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Men Who Stare at Votes
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Here is a clip that Rhonda missed from The Rachel Maddow Show Friday evening. In this "TMI" segment, Kent Jones does "getting to know Rep. John Shadegg." It ain't pretty (as we've told you here).

by David Safier

[Note: In classic blog fashion, Part 3 is at the top of the page with Parts 2 and 1 following. Scroll down if you want to read them in the order they were written.]

These days, state legislative business is videotaped and streamed on the web. It's one of those wonderful high tech features that were impossible a few years ago. Bring the government to the people! (or at least let them watch the sausage-making live on their computer screens.)

The first meeting of the House's tuition tax credit/STO task force was streamed, as usual. Wednesday's session, however, wasn't. I read different explanations in the Trib and the AZ Guardian. I'm putting my money on the Guardian's version getting nearer to the whole truth.

The Trib has a "D Said, R Said" version of the events. The Ds said it was a case of the Rs stopping the legislative process from being open and transparent. The Rs said Shapira, the chair of the task force, didn't file a request for a hearing room in time to get the camera there.

But the Guardian says the cameras and crew were actually ready.

The crews were ready to roll Thursday morning when word came down that they were forbidden to televise the show because the Democrats didn’t, umm, book the room – at least that’s the official version coming from the Ministry of Information.

Why did the Rs forbid the shooting? According to the Guardian:

The GA hears the real story is Republican leaders didn’t want to give Attorney General Terry Goddard’s folks an avenue to score political points on the boob-tube. . . . A representative with the attorney general’s office was scheduled to deliver a presentation and there was concern Goddard’s people would possibly bash the GOP-led Legislature that passed numerous bills expanding a program that is now under heavy scrutiny. 

I hear the Guardian filmed the meeting. I sent them an email to confirm and to ask that they put all, or salient parts, of the video on their website. It's the weekend, so I don't expect them to reply right away. Maybe I'll find out more Monday.

One of the people who testified at Wednesday's House task force on tuition tax credits and STOs was Ann-Eve Pedersen, one of the Tucsonans who have worked hard to uncover information about misuse of tuition tax credit funds and are trying to reform the system.

I talked with Pedersen this morning about her testimony. She read from a written statement, she told me. When she got to the part about Sen. Steve Yarbrough's STO, which looks a whole lot like a government-funded goldmine for the senator, Republican Rep. Rich Crandall interrupted. He cautioned her that Yarbrough's STO was not the focus of the hearing.

Pedersen continued, saying that, with taxpayers losing homes and jobs, they are unlikely to look kindly on Yarbrough enriching himself at taxpayer expense. She compared the situation to the Alt-Fuels scandal in the early 1990s where state funds were squandered and many legislators' reputations were badly tarnished. She suggested it's the legislature's duty to make sure that doesn't happen again. [Note: I wasn't around during the Alt-Fuels debacle, so I won't try to elaborate.]

Somewhere around that time, Crandall interrupted again. He was clearly upset, Pedersen said, shooting daggers at her with his eyes during her entire testimony. The shenanigans of Yarbrough's STO, well documented here as well as in the Republic and the Trib, are clearly a sore spot for Crandall.

Pedersen said this wasn't the first time she was interrupted by Crandall. When the House Education Committee was in Tucson awhile back, she stood to speak. Well before she reached her 3 minute time limit, when she was talking about how the draconian cuts being made to education were mobilizing all kinds of people who were appalled at what was happening and were ready to fight to save our schools, Crandall cut her off.

By the way, if I didn't get the interchange at the task force hearing exactly right, it's because I haven't been able to watch a video of the meeting. The reason? The Rs wouldn't allow it to be videotaped. More on that in Part 3.

An STO fund sweep? What an idea!

The House task force on tuition tax credits and STOs met Wednesday. This is the House group started by Ds, then joined by some Rs, not to be confused with the Senate committee started by Rs in response to earlier task force.

Both the Republic and the Trib covered the hearing. (If you only read the Star, I don't think you'd have an inkling it happened). My favorite idea that came out of it: If some School Tuition Organizations (STOs) can't figure out how to give away 90% of the tax credit money that flows in for scholarships, they should return the excess to the general fund. The amount going to the state would be in the millions, possibly the tens of millions.

Hey, R legislators, if you're willing to sweep funds from school districts along with other agencies and programs to help balance the budget, how about this money too? It makes sense to me. Even R. Rep Rich Crandall kinda agrees:

Mesa Republican Rich Crandall, who is also chairman of the House education committee, said he generally supports many of the recommendations, including the idea of sending some unspent funds to the state.

Crandall's wiggle word here is "some" as in "some unspent funds." "Some" can mean anything from 10 bucks to 99.9% of the leftover cash.

Some other recommendations that came out of the hearing:

• People who give tax credit money can't "recommend" who it goes to. Right now, lots of people "recommend" (which usually translates to "designate") the money goes to friends and family members (excluding their own children, which is illegal).
• Students receiving tax credit scholarships should have to come from families below a set income level. Right now, that's true for some of the STOs, but not all of them. Millionaires can get 100% of their children's tuitions paid for.
• STOs need to report their financial dealings in greater detail.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this segment of The Word entitled "The Money Shot," Stepen Colbert argues for the "lead standard" -- replacing the dollar with bullets, "backed by the irrational fear of Barack Obama."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The blockbuster movie premiere this weekend is the mother of all disaster movies, "2012." 2012 - Official Movie Site The producers of this movie clearly have spent way too much time watching the so-called History Channel and its Mega-Disasters and Apocolyptic prophecy programming (what is up with that?) The movie is loosely based upon the Mayan calendar ending on December 21, 2012, with Mega-Disaster special effects and a mysterious "Planet X (Nibiru)" thrown in for added effect.

On the Late Show with David Letterman the other night, Dave had this message from the Mayan people.

Just thinking here. I've written lots of posts about problems with Imagine Schools. Some have come from national reports and some has been based on my research into AZ DOE school funding reports and IRS tax records. I haven't received any criticism of what I've written.

It's not that I've got a big head and think everything I write deserves a response. It's just that, I often get comments from people involved in the schools I write about, usually to defend themselves against something I've written.

Anything that sits out there without being refuted takes on the aroma of truth after awhile, so if I've said anything that's incorrect, I would think people would want to correct my errors.

All this leads me to think I must be onto something. Unless I'm told otherwise, I'm going to assume  Imagine schools in Arizona suffer from the same problems as those in other states -- problems which have led to schools not being opened, journalistic investigations, questions and corrective actions from educational institutions and government agencies, and so on.

Please, someone let me know if I've got it wrong about this, or, for that matter, if I've got it right.

This is one of a series of posts, Peeking into Charter Schools. If you have information you wish to contribute, you can post comments or email me: safier@schooltales.net.

It makes me feel slightly dirty giving Sarah Palin any more ink pixels, but reading AP do a take-down on the "facts" in Palin's new book gives me a certain joy, and I want to share it with others. I get the sense the writer had as much fun writing it as I did reading it.

Read it if you're amused by this kind of thing. I know I am.

I'm not one to sympathize with Tom Horne, but I think the guy needs a friend, and a hug, about now. Not only do people like me snipe at him from the left, but the Sonoran Alliance tore him a big ol' new one on his right flank (That's gotta hurt!) in a very long post titled, Scandals, potential investigation, Education Department woes upend Horne campaign for AG.

How many ways does the writer dislike Horne? Let me count the ways. Horne told backers, anyone who made an $840 donation got special access. He got speeding tickets (including speeding in a school zone???) and missed court dates. He presides over a mismanaged and scandal-ridden Dept of Ed (the writer even cites one of my posts in this section). All of these incidents are spelled out in loving juicy detail.

And then the post ends with a list of 17 links for anyone interested in learning more.

Not a good day for the Ed Supe.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Josh Kalven posts this timely piece as Congress considers new regulations for Wall Street -- let's begin with the repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and return to the Glass-Steagall Act. (I have previously discussed this topic.) Ten Years After The Repeal Of Glass-Steagall:

This weeks mark ten years since the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. This piece of legislation repealed a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall, which segregated commercial and investment banks. By breaking down that wall, huge financial institutions were able to invest heavily in exotic "derivatives" that put the whole financial system -- not just their investors -- in peril.

We all know how that story ended.

Some in Congress saw it coming. At the time, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) warned, "I think we will in 10 years' time look back and say we should not have done this."  In a Washington Monthly op-ed, he foresaw a "financial conflagration" that would "make us nostalgic for the days of the $500 billion savings-and-loan collapse."

* * *

It's also worth noting that some of President Obama's own economic advisers support restoring Glass-Steagall. Former Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, for example:

"There are deep-seated, almost unmanageable, conflicts of interest with normal banking relationships -- individuals, businesses, investment management clients seeking credit, underwriting and unbiased advisory services," Volcker wrote in September congressional testimony. "I also think we have learned enough about the challenges and distractions for management posed by the risks and complexities of highly diversified activities."

Volcker's calls have gone unheeded, even by Obama, but Volcker recently picked up support from former Citigroup Chief Executive John Reed. In a letter to the New York Times, Reed supported Volcker's call to restore the Glass-Steagall protections.

This is one chorus than needs to grow much, much louder.

To learn more about the issue, check out the recent Frontline documentary "The Warning."

As Josh notes, the Obama administration's point man is not Paul Volcker (probably the smartest guy in the room), but Goldman Sachs alumni Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and many others. Time to make a team change, Mr. President.

The "malefactors of great wealth" as Teddy Roosevelt called them need to be constrained. No business should ever be too big to fail, or so big that it can control the government of the people of the United States.

Americans are looking to you, Mr. President, to demonstrate that you can be Franklin D. Roosevelt: Address announcing the second New Deal (October 31, 1936):

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Mr. President, you do not have the luxury of looking forward to your second administration, our circumstances require that you act now. You must demonstrate that you are the champion of working class Americans against the "malefactors of great wealth."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While I'm on the subject of full page ads in the Arizona Daily Star there is one today from NewsMax.com (a right-wing biased "news" mag that makes Faux News look like a legitimate news organization) promoting Sarah Palin's soon to be released book, "Going Rogue: an American Life," for the low, low price of $4.97 -- but wait, there's more! For this low, low price you also get the NewsMax report "Sarah Palin and the New Feminism" -- but wait, there's more! You also get a four month trial subscription to NewsMax magazine.

(Amazon.com lists the book at $20.99 - whoops! - it's already been marked down to the discount clearance bin price of $9.00 before the book is even officially released on November 17.)

If you actually read all of the above you may be officially pronounced brain dead.

This is how right-wing organizations drive pulp fiction from their conservative stars (the book is ghostwritten by Lynn Vincent Meet Sarah Palin's Ghostwriter - The Daily Beast and published by Rupert Murdoch-owned Harper Collins) to the top of the best seller list - a dubious honor that is not that hard to achieve when you count institutional buyers rather than individual purchasers. Newsmax Confirms It is Rigging Palin’s Book Sales It's a little secret the publishing industry doesn't want you to know.

Sarah Palin promises to "name names" on the McCain-Palin campaign of who done her wrong and why she is so much smarter than all of them. This could prove troublesome to John McCain. People should be upset and question his judgment and character in selecting this most unqualified individual to be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" had this old geezer been elected, simply because MacDaddy was willing to gamble on a roll of the dice to jumpstart his flagging campaign.

Palin will no doubt demonize the very media that is the life-giving sustenance of her very existence and the only reason why this loon's 15 minutes of fame are not mercifully over. The media villagers and Beltway bloviators are responsible for continuing to breath life into this Frankenstein media monster.

The Neocon Washington Post published a "teaser" review from a "leaked" copy of the book today With early leak, Sarah Palin's 'Going Rogue' is off and running ("leak" stories are always part of the promotional roll out - we know where the Washington Post resides within the firmament of the right-wing echo chamber):

In the book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," Palin contends that the McCain campaign stuck her with a $50,000 bill for the cost of her own vetting, botched the announcement of her teenage daughter's pregnancy, outfitted Palin with all those infamous costly ensembles, and shielded her from reporters. Even so, Palin goes on to belittle two famous interlocutors, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, according to the Associated Press, which found and purchased a copy of the book before its sale date.

Yaddy-yaddy-yadda, buy the book. No thanks.

Sarah Palin will have competition from two books that parody the title of her memoir. Sarah Palin: Going 'Rogue' or 'Rouge'?

Editors of The Nation are publishing a book on the same day titled Going Rouge: An American Nightmare, featuring a collection of Palin-bashing essays by contributors to the progressive magazine.

Julie Sigwart and political satirist Micheal Stinson are self-publishing Going Rouge: The Sarah Palin Rogue Coloring & Activity Book, which includes coloring pages with lipsticks and pigs, dress-up games featuring the Neiman Marcus RNC wardrobe, and other satirical fun.

I hear that Tina Fey has been booked to reprise her Sarah Palin role on SNL (from which the title of Sarah Palin's book is derived). Whom is parodying whom?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

h/tTedski at R-Cubed for the press release and graphic.

This fresh from the UFCW:

We are proud to report that a strike has been averted with Safeway, Fry’s and Smiths.

After 13 months of bargaining and a strike deadline just hours away, UFCW Local 99 and the grocery companies have agreed on a tentative new three-year contract.

In the coming weeks, you will have an opportunity to thoroughly review the tentative agreement and vote on your new contract.

Until then no details about the tentative agreement will be released.

We know that this had been a tense and difficult time for you and your families. It is because of your strength, your support and your united stand with your union that we were able to avert a strike and bring you a contract that you can work under with pride.

As the holiday season begins, we can all be grateful for the opportunity to work under a union contract that provides fair wages and benefits and dignity on the job.

Your union stands strong and proud with you. Thank you.

So who benefited from this potential labor strike? C'mon, think hard.

The lady in the back with your hand up. "The Arizona Daily Star?" Correct! Give the lady a grocery gift certificate.

The only entity to benefit financially from this potential labor strike was the Arizona Daily Star which accepted blood money from Safeway and Fry's to run full page ads seeking part-time replacement employees (or "scabs" in union jargon) over the past couple of weeks. This costs big bucks. The Star recently took a financial hit after losing some grocery-store inserts to a direct-mail outfit. 'Star' Buyout Rumors (updated): Layoffs on the Way? | Tucson Weekly

The editors of the Arizona Daily Star had the unmitigated gall to publish this editorial opinion today: All parties will suffer if grocery workers strike -- except, of course, for the Arizona Daily Star which benefited handsomely from advertising revenue. That takes some serious chutzpah.

So I am going to suggest to the Arizona Daily Star how it can wash its hands of this blood money and to help the hundreds, if not thousands of desperately unemployed people who applied for these part-time replacement jobs to no avail, not to mention the Star's own employees that it is in the process of summarily laying off:

Donate every dime of the advertising fees the Star accepted from Safeway and Fry's for these employment ads to local community food banks to help feed the unemployed during this holiday season. This may ease your guilty conscience (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt).

You can write a letter to the editor of the Arizona Daily Star at letters@azstarnet.com

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have already taken to task the allegedly 40 anti-abortion conservative Democrats who threatened to scuttle the House health care bill if they did not get a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) says it actually netted about 10 votes for the Dems' health care reform bill. In other words, if push came to shove, 30 of those Dems would have voted for the final bill even if the Stupak amendment weren't included in the bill. Stupak Bought Dems 10 Votes | Talking Points Memo Still enough to scuttle the bill given the 220-215 vote, with one Republican in favor.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment had 64 Democrats voting in favor, and 176 Republicans voting in favor, with Arizona's Rep. John Shadegg voting "present" in a failed strategy in which he could not convince even one of his colleagues to follow his lead; impressive (not).

Rumor has it that there are still pro-choice Republicans. They even have a PAC Republican Majority for Choice, and The WISH List, a group that supports pro-choice Republican women running for office. So where were they? Not a single Republican in Congress voted no on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

It turns out that the RNC has enjoyed a health insurance plan that provides coverage for elective abortion services since 1991. IOKIYAR: "it's OK if you are Republican."

This rank hypocrisy has caused RNC Chairman Michael Steele to reconsider the health insurance plan now that this uncomfortable fact has been made public. RNC to opt out of abortion coverage - Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com:

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

As of Thursday, the RNC’s plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

But rank-and-file Republicans said Thursday before the change was announced that the policy should – and would – be changed.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Amy Sullivan of the Swampland blog at Time magazine wrote about the fungibility argument that many pro-life groups and politicians have employed to oppose health reform. The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. You can debate about whether it makes sense to use this strict standard, but that's the argument.

As it happens, Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers "abortion services." A Focus spokeswoman confirmed the fact that the organization pays premiums to Principal, but declined to comment on whether that amounts to an indirect funding of abortion.

Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage--and I'm assuming it doesn't--the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions. If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well. Does Focus on the Family Fund Abortions? - Swampland - TIME.com

This attempt to ensnare all health insurance policies within this fungibility argument is a cowardly back-door attempt to severely restrict a woman's right to reproductive health insurance coverage even when it is paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. If Republicans and anti-abortion activists like Congressman Stupak want to further restrict access to abortion services in this country, they should demonstrate the courage to propose a stand-alone bill to address the issue directly, rather than this cowardly back-door attempt to sneak a measure into an appropriations bill.

The Hyde Amendment (1976) already prohibits federal funding for abortion services. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment's over-reaching attempt to expand this ban to all private health insurance plans by default should be stripped from the health care bill in conference committee.

UPDATE: I agree with Digby's immoderate proposal:

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)  [...]

I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.

And ban those television ads while you are at it, too!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

Democrats have been at this now since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. It takes a lot of practice to be able to fight with one another and to hold the party together.

You can't just throw together a bunch of angry people and expect to make a political movement or a political party out of them overnight. This isn't a job for the inexperienced or political novice. And that is what the upstart Tea Party conservatives are finding out.

Zachary Roth reports at TPM Muckraker Party Foul! Tea Partiers Eat Their Own In Bitter Internal Feud:

The Tea Party movement is being ripped apart by bitter internal rancor, highlighted by a lawsuit against a former leader, vituperative name-calling, and charges of financial mismanagement and corruption.

[B]oard members for the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) this week filed suit against Amy Kremer, a former TPP leader who fell out with the group over her involvement with a rival Tea Party faction, the Tea Party Express. And on Tuesday, a judge granted a preliminary injunction, ordering Kremer to return control of the TPP websites to the board, and to stop representing herself as a TPP spokeswoman.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the Tea Partiers' internecine strife. Emails obtained by TPMmuckraker detail how a rogue faction of Tea Party Patriots is lashing out at the board for going ahead with the suit against Kremer, and challenging the board's financial management, triggering a state of acrimony that appears serious enough to threaten the upstart movement's ability to continue to mount an effective grassroots challenge to the Obama agenda -- just days after the House passed the health-care-reform bill that the Tea Partiers view as socialism.

In an email to fellow TPPers sent Wednesday, Gerald Merits called the lawsuit "the single most insane act of self destruction I have witnessed since this country elected Obama," and asked "how much donor money is being spent of (sic) suing Amy?"

For the rest of the day, the email list was consumed with charges and counter charges. In response to Merits, Josh Parker, a supporter of the board, wrote: "Amy created a situation where TPP couldn't do anything BUT sue her, then she goes on with her poor me crap. She brings this on herself and all the rest of us."

At the root of the dispute is the acrimony between TPP and the Tea Party Express, a newer group formed by a team of GOP consultants. Many TPPers sees TPE as inauthentic, calling it the "Astoturf Express," and deriding it as a "Republican front organization."

* * *

Charges of lax book-keeping -- and worse -- appear to be breaking out across the Tea Party movement. In a separate email written Wednesday and obtained by TPMmuckraker, Matt Perdue, the president of a San Antonio Tea Party group, ripped into the group's treasurer, her husband, and their supporters for conducting a "mass redirection campaign," apparently to line their own pockets using Tea Party donations.

"Where has all this money gone?" asks Perdue. "If there is nothing wrong going on, why has there not been one single piece of paper produced to back up why people got checks, some for $3,000, $7,400+, $4,000, $10,400+??? Where is the documentation? Why isn't the cash deposited like it should be? Why did it take more than two weeks to deposit cash from the meetings?"

Meanwhile, other Tea Party factions are trying to distance themselves from the dispute between Kremer and TPP -- and position themselves to benefit. Darla Dawald, the leader of the Patriotic Resistance, a far-right grassroots group, wrote in a message on the TPP email list that her organization has "not supported any lawsuit or fighting ... but I felt obligated to inform our base what is happening so that you could make an educated decision about your support of the Group called the Tea Party Patriots." Dawald has been a key participant in the bus tour organized by the Tea Party Express -- an effort shunned by TPP.

And Eric Odom, the founder of the Tax Day Tea Party events, wrote in his own message that the acrimony "presents a dangerous situation for the movement as a whole," and urged TPPers to return to "defeating the socialist thugs who seek to destroy our country, not fellow patriots who seek to stop them." We reported that Odom this week launched a political action committee designed to channel Tea Party activism toward an electoral goal.

As Wednesday wore on, the TPP internal email list degenerated into name-calling, sarcasm, and personal attacks.

* * *

Some TPPers expressed concern that the acrimony could damage the movement if exposed. "Daily Kos and other left wing interest groups are going to love running with this story," wrote one.

Merits appeared to share that concern. "This will go public if we let it drag on long enough and if you don't think this will have a chilling effect on all Tea Party movements raising funds you are living in a world of fairy dust and gingerbread houses," he wrote. "Read my previous emails. If this goes on long enough, we all go down - NOT just TPP and TPE - ALL OF US."

What fun!