Sen. Reid cites Gruber: Bush lost credibility on health care in 2006

Warning: Bush Derangement Syndrome ahead.

In February 2006, Sen. “Dirty Harry” Reid cited MIT economist Jonathan Gruber in his attack on President George W. Bush’s Health Savings Accounts plan:

As President Bush travels to Ohio today to promote his misguided Health Savings Accounts, a new study released by MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber shows that HSAs will increase the number of uninsured by 600,000 Americans. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on the president’s loss of credibility on health care:

“It’s simply not credible for the president to say he’s serious about addressing the health care crisis when you look at his record and his policies. After designing a prescription drug plan that favors HMOs and drug companies over seniors and then botching its implementation, the president is now threatening seniors’ access to care with his budget cuts to Medicare. Democrats have offered a prescription for change to fix the Medicare drug bill; the president has ignored the problem.

“The president’s most recent recycled health care idea will make the health care crisis worse. His plans for Health Savings Accounts will increase the number of uninsured Americans, make health care more expensive for millions of Americans and do nothing to help the over 46 million Americans who don’t have health care coverage today. It’s just not credible to call it a solution. Democrats know that together, America can do better to cut health care costs and increase access to quality health care for all Americans.”

If I didn’t know better, I’d have to come to the conclusion Gruber was talking about Obamacare.

You can read Gruber’s full report at the Joyce Foundation and George Soros-funded (among others) leftwing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. pegged the Obama-Gruber deception in 2009

This is one of those times that everyone should have paid better attention to words of wisdom coming from the “Left”. Thinking only inside one’s political box is a very bad idea.

In March 2010, Jane Hamsher of fame posted “How the White House Used Gruber’s Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus” on none other than the Huffington Post, in which she timelined the Obama-Gruber lying lies re Obamacare.

Hamsher wrote about the Obama administration’s manufactured “feedback loop”:

Up until this point, most of the attention regarding the failure to disclose the connection between Jonathan Gruber and the White House has fallen on Gruber himself. Far more troubling, however, is the lack of disclosure on the part of the White House, the Senate, the DNC and other Democratic leaders who distributed Gruber’s work and cited it as independent validation of their proposals, orchestrating the appearance of broad consensus when in fact it was all part of the same effort.

The White House is placing a giant collective bet on Gruber’s “assumptions” to justify key portions of the Senate bill such as the “Cadillac tax,” which they allowed people to believe was independent verification. Now that we know that Gruber’s work was not that of an independent analyst but rather work performed as a contractor to the White House and paid for by taxpayers, and economists like Larry Mishel are raising serious questions about its validity, it should be made publicly available so others can judge its merits.

Gruber began negotiating a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services in February of 2009, for which he was ultimately paid $392,600. The contract called for Gruber to use his statistical model for evaluating alternatives “derived from the President’s health reform proposal.” It was not a research grant, but rather a consulting contract to advise the White House Office of Health Reform, headed by Obama’s health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, to “develop proposals” for health care reform.

Read the rest of Hamsher’s fine analysis here.

The Washington Times noted that was among liberals who were “appalled” by the Obama administration’s deception:

It wasn’t the Tea Partiers and conservative radio hosts who had the harshest things to say about Obamacare. Left-wing bloggers offered some of the sharpest attacks – and some of them made lots of sense.

From the beginning of the debate [in 2009], Jane Hamsher of the influential blog Firedoglake insisted that no reform without a public option would be acceptable. Her fetish for a public option was misguided, but some of her reasoning was solid.

The day after the bill passed, for instance, Ms. Hamsher wrote: “This bill fundamentally shifts the relationships of governance in order to achieve its objectives. .. We have empowered another quasi-governmental, ‘too big to fail’ industry with alarming nonchalance.” . . .

The claims made by the administration about the virtues of the health care bill are outright fabrications. As Marcy Wheeler has documented in her post entitled ‘Health Care and the Road to Neofeudalism,’ it does not control either insurance premiums or health care costs. Forcing 31 million people to buy a product they don’t want and can’t afford to use does not constitute health care reform.

She’s right, of course. The individual mandate that forces every American to purchase health insurance is an assault on liberty and clearly unconstitutional. It must be repealed [the Times wrote].

From liberals’ lips to Congress’s ears.

ICYMI: Obama’s Truth Team (aka Jonathan Gruber) celebrated 6th Anniversary of ‘Romneycare’

CNN reported on the Obama campaign’s April 12, 2012, “salute” to Romneycare’s 6th Anniversary:

“I helped Gov. Romney develop his health care reform or Romneycare, before going down to Washington to help President Obama develop his national version of that law,” says Jonathan Gruber a bright eyed MIT Health Consultant featured prominently in the video. The spot includes old footage of Romney thanking Gruber for his work on the Massachusetts health bill.

Gruber’s verdict: “The core of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare and what we did in Massachusetts are identical.”

On April 13, 2012, the Boston Globe reported:

The Obama campaign also released a video Thursday that chides Romney for inconsistent statements about health care reform, even as it praises his work on the state law.

The release of the three-minute video was timed to mark the six-year anniversary of Romney signing Massachusetts’ health care law.

The video features two men – Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist, and John McDonough, director of Harvard University’s Center for Public Health Leadership – who helped craft both Romney’s law and Obama’s law. Both vouch for similarities between the two and affirm Romney’s belief in 2006 that the Massachusetts version could serve as a national model.

“The core of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and what we did in Massachusetts are identical,” Gruber says in the video. “It was to President Obama’s credit that he said, ‘You know what, the policy might have been introduced on the right, but look, here’s something that really worked.'”

Just in case you missed viewing this video, here’s what the Obama “Truth Team” asked you to do:

“Join the Truth Team: April 12th is the anniversary of Romneycare.”

Lying Liars: Pelosi claims Gruber didn’t help write Obamacare; Gruber told PBS he did

Yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack firmly rebutted Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous press conference claim that Jonathan Gruber did not help to write the legislation we so-fondly call Obamacare.

McCormack cited from a 2009 entry on Pelosi’s own website.

Even better proof comes from a June 2012 interview Gruber gave PBS producer Michael Kirk for The Frontline:

Kirk: So now let’s do Obamacare. So a few years go by and what? Your phone rings again?

Gruber: So what happened is I had been working in a number of states, notably California. Some others had tried. And it was clear not much was going to happen without federal leadership.

And then Obama gets elected, and on his health advising team is a number of my friends from the Clinton administration who worked on health care reform round one. I like to think of it as sort of the preseason of what became the ultimate — I don’t want to demean the amazing amount of work that went into that, but these are veterans of those wars who were now on the Obama team saying: “Look, we have the opportunity to do what we were unable to do under Clinton and get this done. We think the Massachusetts model is the way to go. We would like you to come help the administration put the numbers together just like you did for Massachusetts.”

So I went down shortly after the election. I worked with the transition team to help put the numbers together for the administration. And then, essentially, most of 2009 I was really on loan from the administration to Congress, particularly the Senate Finance Committee, to help them put the numbers together on what became the finance committee bill, which really became Obamacare. Yeah, that’s what I did.

From the Obama Mandate God’s ears to yours.

Impeachable Offense: Better late than never, Krauthammer on executive amnesty

The ‘New York Times’, an unofficial member of the administration’s Politburo, is cheerleading Obama’s latest “plan” for illegal immigrants:

President Obama will ignore angry protests from Republicans and announce as soon as next week a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system that will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.

Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government’s 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

Leave it to Obama, and the ‘NYT’, to miss the significant fact that only Congress, as defined by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, has the constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

Charles Krauthammer, with whom I often agree, speaking on Fox News last night, said that executive amnesty would be an impeachable offense.

“Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense,” Krauthammer told [Megyn] Kelly.

“If the circumstances were different, if we were at the beginning of a presidency, if we hadn’t had years when the Congress has been supine and unresponsive at other grabs of their authority by the executive–like Obama unilaterally changing Obamacare after it was passed about 30 times with no response from the Congress–the same as Obama essentially re-writing some of the drug laws.

“This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases. For a case where you want to show mercy for an individual or two where it’s unusual incident, unusual circumstances and you say, okay, we’re going to give this person a pass. It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.”

In our 2013 book ‘Impeachable Offenses’, my co-author, Aaron Klein, and I wrote:

All the talk of future immigration reform ignores how President Obama has already overseen interagency departmental directives that have bypassed Congress and granted de facto amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Since taking office, the president has illegally, willfully, and deliberately been derelict of his duties as the chief executive while consistently usurping the constitutional authority vested with Congress to regulate immigration.

We also wrote:

There is no precedent in American history for a president or any other federal official to be impeached for granting mass amnesty to criminals and lawbreakers–which is what illegal immigrants are–or handing them the keys to the kingdom at the same time.

While there is no precedent, that does not mean that it could not happen. Sadly, Obama’s most recent promise to wave his magic wand is only one in a long line of such promises — and mostly symbolic. The horse long left the barn and has been happily grazing along the U.S. Southern Border — and nibbling out of taxpayer pockets — for years.

About Jonathan Gruber and his ‘stupid’ Americans

Perhaps you’d be interested to know where Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who claims to have been one of the Romneycare and Obamacare chief “architects”, picked up his nasty habit of referring to — three four times at last count — “stupid” Americans, and to the “stupidity of the American voter” in particular. (UPDATE: Videos continue to surface. Oh, and Obama knew the “Cadillac” plan was going to be a problem. And, well, there’s a dirty little secret about Massachusetts. Before long we’ll have a whole Gruber video library of sleeze.)

We need look no further than Gruber’s MIT professor, the late political scientist, Louis Menand III.

Upon Menand’s passing in February 2008, Gruber told the ‘Boston Globe':

Even among college professors and the politically passionate, Louis Menand III was notably unabashed.

“He would say in class, ‘There are two types of people: There are Democrats and there are stupid people,’ ” said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who once sat in Dr. Menand’s classes as a student.

Got that? Gruber learned from his MIT professor that, if you are not a Democrat, then you are a stupid person.

MIT also quoted Gruber:

Professor of Economics Jonathan Gruber SB ’87, a former student of Menand, said, “He was nothing less than an intellectual giant. Louis provided me with a moral compass for thinking about the world and policy issues in the world. There is no way I would be where I am today without his incredible influence. I will miss him dearly.”

The MIT memorial continued:

Outside of MIT, Menand was a consultant on higher education; a member the American Civil Liberties Union, where he served as vice-chair of the Academic Freedom Committee; and a member of the Massachusetts ACLU board.

An unabashed Democrat, Menand was an advocate for civil rights throughout his life. . . .

You have to wonder if Menand included even the “stupid people” in his civil rights pursuits.

Apparently Menand subscribed to the mindset of 19th century “Utopian Socialist”, John Stuart Mill, a hero to the New Left of the ’60s.*

Back to Gruber: Just in case you might think that Gruber and John Stuart Mill have nothing in common, you’d be wrong.

Like Gruber, John Stuart Mill reputedly had a fondness for hidden taxes.

BONUS: Another tidbit on Gruber surfaced during the months prior to the passage of Obamacare. James Soviero reported that

Before the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, Barack Obama assured voters he had, “a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums.” During heated debate over the controversial bill, the president pointed to “expert analysis” from Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, Jonathan Gruber, to support his claim.

Gruber’s role in the whole affair came under scrutiny because of some very lucrative deals he’d enjoyed with our federal government. Beginning in 2008, and through 2009, he’d received $566,310 from National Institutes of Health to study Medicare Part D. Mr. Gruber also got $392,600 in no-bid contracts from the Department of Health and Human Services….while he was making recommendations to Obama’s policy advisers.

While “studying” on the public’s dime, Gruber concluded the new law would save people money. Strongly criticizing an insurance industry’s report predicting premiums would jump, he insisted their predictions were deeply flawed. The MIT expert was certain payments would decline for both individuals and families, whether they received government subsidies or not. Insurance companies argued the federal mandates for minimal coverage were so overreaching, costs for the policies would have to be raised dramatically.

Now we find, from Mr. Gruber himself, that we paid close to one million bucks to get lousy information. Last year, Gruber was retained by several states to measure the affects of ObamaCare on their citizens. In a reversal of his previous position, he informed officials from those states, the price for premiums would sharply increase. He wrote, “After the application of tax subsidies, 59% of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31%.”

As long ago as January 2010, posters at the ‘Daily Kos’ were not amused:

Jonathan Gruber, who has been the biggest proponent of the excise tax, and was quoted extensively in several articles and linked to by other health care analyst bloggers to defend the excise tax, did not disclose that he was paid by the HHS to the tune of $297,600 in his recent and ongoing contract to provide technical assistance for evaluation options for national healthcare reform.

This contract apparently was a continuation of another contract he’d held for $95,000 from March 2009 to July 25, 2009 according to emptywheel.

So, for the entire year, he received $392,000 from HHS and did not disclose that at all in any of his articles, except in a December 24, 2009 article for the New England Journal of Medicine. You have to search really hard to find the form of disclosure on that article.

As ‘Daily Kos’ pointed out, not once in Gruber’s articles in the eight months prior did he disclose that he was on the HHS payroll. This included a 2009 article published in the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ that required full disclosure.

The liberal blog was also highly critical of the White House’s description of Gruber as an “objective voice on health care reform.” Read the rest of the article. Gruber’s, and the White House’s, dishonesty was/is overwhelming.

So, folks. We’ve all been had, even the Kos Kids. Again. Not only is all of this seemingly a big joke to Mr. Gruber, i.e. “stupid” American voters, it also has been a very lucrative one for him personally.

Note: See Todd Gitlin’s ‘The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage’ (page 124). Also see Aaron Klein/Brenda J. Elliott’s ‘The Manchurian President’ for the connection between the New Left/Students for a Democratic Society and ’60s’ radical Tom Hayden. Hayden — a “principal author of a new SDS manifesto,” according to A.J. Langguth (‘Our Vietnam’, page 356): “assessed America from the perspective of John Stuart Mill, Albert Camus and C. Wright Mills. . . .”

Less than 6 degrees of separation: Code Pink ‘fundraising partner’, the DNC, and George Soros

It looks like another tidbit in the daily progressive puzzle has slickly been tipped down the rabbit hole. By all appearances, Democracy In Action, Code Pink’s so-called “fundraising partner” in 2011, is MIA.

But is it?

I am referring to a 2011 article by Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft and Andrea Shea King (referenced here) that includes information about far-left “peace” organization Code Pink’s “involvement in the 2011 overthrow of the U.S. allied government of then President Hosni Mubarak.” Code Pink had issued an appeal for funding in conjunction with its “fundraising partner”, Democracy In Action.

But which Democracy In Action organization is it? There are a number of web sites that pop up with similar names.

A clue to the identity of the real Democracy In Action comes via Joanne Fritz, a contributor to’s “Nonprofit Charitable Orgs” section, in an undated graph writes:

    Some third party processors specialize in nonprofit credit card processing, have a centralized website that you can refer donors to, offer other services such as sending acknowledgment messages, and website pages that can be branded by your nonprofit. A branded site, however, does not mean that the donor’s credit card statement will carry the receiving nonprofit’s name. Nonprofits using third-party processors commonly include information on the acknowledgment message to the donor about what they will see on their statements.

    Popular third party processors in this category include Network for Good, which charges processing fees that range from 3% for its custom service to 4.75% for its basic service. Democracy in Action works with social change nonprofits to provide credit card processing and customer relationship management. Its fees are based on nonprofit clients’ number of supporters.

So. Guess who is on the Network for Good board of directors? Danica Remy, managing director of — wait. for. it. — the ‘Big Time Money Funnel’ itself, Tides!

    Danica Remy has been with Tides since 2003 and serves as Managing Director, previously overseeing the operations and governance functions across Tides Network which includes Tides Foundation, Tides Center and Tides Shared Spaces. Since 2008 she has been leading Tides Advocacy Fund.

The link to Democracy In Action, an info page on its own web site, takes you to a dead end.

However, it is clear from the blurb that Network for Good and Democracy In Action are not “fundraising partners” as much as they are two more clearinghouses for the anonymous redistribution of progressive funds.

Okay. Back to our search for the real DIA.

In case you have not guessed by now, like all good little progressive entities, Democracy In Action has changed since 2011 and morphed into Democracy Engine.

Wonder what Democracy Engine is all about? Short answer: Just more of the same with progressive elites at the helm.

    Democracy Engine helps organizations channel funds to candidates and causes — engaging their membership to effect real change. With simple and effective online tools, Democracy Engine provides a solution for anyone who donates, manages, tracks, raises or receives financial contributions on behalf of candidates, organizations, committees or causes. What’s more, Democracy Engine’s universal platform ensures that organizations won’t have to change fundraising systems as they shift focus between state, local and national elections.

    Democracy Engine integrates seamlessly with established fundraising and data management systems. Because the platform has been written with campaign finance regulations in mind, it allows organizations to focus less on internal administration and more on the business of raising money for the candidates and causes they support.

    Fundraisers who use Democracy Engine can be sure that they are getting the benefits of both cutting edge technology and an experienced legal team, which together act as a reliable and time-tested partner in managing the constantly changing world of campaign finance. In short, Democracy Engine provides an easy way for organizations to raise money for their endorsed candidates and causes.

Who are the progressive elites operating Democracy Engine?

The CEO is Jonathan Zucker, former “executive director for ActBlue, the nation’s largest source of funds for Democrats.” Before that?

    Zucker served as national director of operations for finance at the Democratic National Committee, where he was responsible for legal and compliance issues, vetting and data management for the DNC’s then record-breaking $100 million major-donor program in the 2004 election cycle. For more than a decade, Zucker has worked with a wide variety of progressive and Democratic organizations as a field organizer, fundraiser, administrator and attorney, including The Interfaith Alliance, Human Rights Campaign, Gill Foundation and the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to Discover the Networks, ActBlue

    Inspired by the grassroots fundraising network that Howard Dean assembled during his 2004 presidential bid, ActBlue (AB) is an Internet-based political action committee (PAC) that bundles and transmits contributions which individual donors earmark for various progressive candidates, political parties, PACs, and outside spending groups. … True to its mission, the ActBlue website enables visitors to easily and quickly contribute any sum of money, with the mere click of a computer mouse, to any Democratic candidate for federal office—as well as for many state offices. Partnering in this endeavor with Salsa Labs, AB has grown into the largest fundraising platform for Democratic Party candidates in America. … In the 2012 election cycle, AB raised $148,845,935 for Democratic recipients. From 2004 through 2012, the cumulative figure was approximately $280 million.

BAM! There you have it — there’s your six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Needing more elite progressive political connections? Here they come.

The Chief Technology Officer is Erik Pennebaker, whose Democracy Engine bio states

    Pennebaker brings more than 15 years of experience in systems engineering, Web hosting, computer programming, and systems and network administration to Democracy Engine. His experience with large-scale contribution processing, combined with his intimate understanding of complex data management for bundling operations, make him uniquely qualified to lead Democracy Engine’s technical development efforts.

    Pennebaker’s deep commitment to progressive politics and unparalleled knowledge of Web-based fundraising systems have combined to fuel his success working on a number of groundbreaking national political campaigns, including Hillary Clinton’s campaigns for Senate and president. During the 2008 election cycle, the system he created for then-Sen. Clinton was the online heart of her more than $221 million fundraising effort.

    After providing Web-based fundraising support for Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid, Pennebaker acted as lead developer on a contribution system that powered online donations to several 2006 Senate campaigns. He also oversaw Sen. Kerry’s multimillion dollar bundling operation for various Democratic candidates.

And he still maintains Al Gore’s national web site.

According to one source, Pennebaker has been with Democracy Engine since 2009.

Democracy Engine’s client list is the usual who’s who of progressive groups, to include the Democratic National Campaign Committee, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, and United Auto Workers. Technology companies providing support to Democracy Engine include Blue State Digital, which originated circa 2003/4 with the Howard Dean campaign, and has been long-associated with the Obama campaigns, and Salsa Labs.

According to the Wikipedia, Salsa Labs

    … was co-founded by April Pedersen and Chris Lundberg. Its formation was preceded by DemocracyInAction, a nonprofit organization Pedersen and Lundberg co-founded in 2004 to make online organizing, fundraising, and advocacy tools accessible to smaller nonprofits working to advance social, political, and environmental causes. … Salsa Labs claims that it supports “over 2,000 user groups’ relationships with over 40 million supporters, members, donors, activists, and fans all around the world.”

Pedersen’s LinkedIn bio is lengthy but includes one interesting item: she worked for three months in 1997 as an intern at the pro-Communist anti-American Institute for Policy Studies.

Lundberg, Salsa Lab’s CEO, left in October 2012. Prior to co-founding Democracy In Action, in 2007 Lundberg co-founded Wired for Change, a “consulting and technology services company serving over 400 political campaigns and hundreds of progressive organizations to develop the most innovative and effective online campaigns to encourage engagement, drive message, and promote change.” In January 2013, Pedersen and Lundberg started their third venture, Frakture.

In March 2010, Mark J. Fitzgibbons reported in the American Thinker on the possibly-astroturf Coffee Party and its connections with Democracy In Action, Wired for Change, and George Soros funding:

    The Coffee Party website says its 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status is pending with the IRS, which must approve some, but not all, tax-exempt activist entities. Any 501(c)(4) may engage in lobbying, so contributions to them are not deductible. The contribution landing page for the Coffee Party says that it partners with, a 501(c)(3) organization, meaning contributions to the latter are tax-deductible.

    The About Page for states that it gets funding from Open Society Institute, George Soros’s organization. Because contributions to 501(c)(3)s are tax-deductible, those funds may not be transferred to 501(c)(4)s, which are allowed to lobby. offers professional services the same or similar to what many for-profit companies provide and is described at as follows:

    DemocracyInAction is a nonprofit dedicated to leveraging the unique power of online communications for invigorating those committed to ecology, social justice and human rights. To a broad swath of these social change leaders, we provide cutting-edge e-advocacy tools for pennies on the dollar relative to the fees demanded by the private sector. In a word, we democratize e-activism, freeing practitioners to pour resources into mission and strategy.

    The most recent tax return for (its IRS Form 990) shows it gets far less in grants than it earns in program service revenue, which I believe are fees it charges to its progressive clients. is affiliated with for-profits Salsa Enterprise and Wired for Change. Wired for Change lists its “political organization” clients to include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and ACORN (and we thought ACORN wasn’t a political organization). Its candidate clients include Chuck Schumer and Jerry Brown.

“In other words,” Fitzgibbons noted, “these organizations are consultants playing in the big leagues.”


The no-longer-available March 2010 Coffee Party Fact Check once addressed the issue of George Soros’ involvement with the Coffee Party and Democracy In Action:

    Q: Is Coffee Party USA affiliated with billionaire George Soros, the founder Soros Fund Management and Open Society Institute?

    No. Democracy in Action is a vendor that licenses Internet technology for websites, including ours. Democracy in Action has received funding from Mr. Soros, but Coffee Party USA has not received any money from either the Open Society Institute or from Mr. Soros.

The integration of Salsa Labs from Democracy in Action to Democracy Engine was not without issues, however. The Democracy Engine FAQ tells the tale.

Also note that Democracy Engine appears unconnected to the Democracy in Action run by Eric Appleman.

A fall 2004 “sketch” of the John Kerry campaign bears the name of “Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action” at the bottom of the page. (Pennebaker is listed here as one of Kerry’s Internet Programmers.) Appleman launched the Democracy in Action web site on the 2000 presidential campaign in May 1998.

A 2008 disclaimer on the George Washington University web site states that

    DEMOCRACY IN ACTION is not an official project of the George Washington University and any errors and interpretations are the responsibility of the author, Eric M. Appleman. Mr. Appleman graduated from GWU with a degree in political communications and has focused on analyzing presidential campaigns since then. He has a particular interest in understanding what works and what does not in presidential campaigns and in visual aspects of political communication. DEMOCRACY IN ACTION is not connected to or part of any partisan or ideological group. The site is sponsored in part by GWU’s Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, but receives no funding from the Institute.

However, Appleman’s LinkedIn profile states that he has run Democracy in Action continuously since 1993 (not 1998) and he plans to continue his activities for the 2016 election.

There you have it. All (hopefully) of the pieces linking Code Pink with its “fundraising partner”, Democracy In Action — now known as Democracy Engine.

Next question: Are Code Pink and Democracy Engine still “partners”? Well, silly wabbit, of course they are!

. Code Pink Donations. Check!

. Support Syrian Women and Girls!. Check!

. International Women’s Day Delegation to Gaza. Check!

Check! Check! Check!