Senator Specter turns DEMOCRAT . . .

Yup, you read that correctly. Senator Arlen Specter dropped a political jaw-dropper today stating he will run for re-election as a DEMOCRAT.

Chris Cillizza is reporting the story over on his blog at the Washington Post. Politico is also reporting the breaking news as well as Sen. Specter's statement which reads:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans. (Politico.com)

This is big news. Why? Well, most people are quick to do the math:

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) + Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) = Filibuster Proof Majority (60 Democratic Senators).

At least, that's what it's supposed to mean. . . Well, I guess that's what it MIGHT mean depending on how sincere Specter's motives are. Yes, Senator Specter switched parties, but he won't automatically rubber-stamp a filibuster-proof majority for any Democratic initiative. Specter's statement makes it clear that his switch in party affiliation does not mean he'll vote the party-line. In fact, Specter even took time to reassert his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

However, this does raise the question as to whether he'll cast the 60th Democratic vote when it comes to other major initiatives. We'll have to wait and see.

How much of a difference will this make . . . Well, how much influence will Specter get from his constituents?

Message to PA Democratic voters: It's time you give your Senator a phone call.
Read more!

April 4, 1968

Watch CBS Videos Online

The following CBS report is from last year:


Watch CBS Videos Online
Read more!

NYCLU responds to Rockefeller Reforms

The New York Civil Liberties Union recently issued a press release in response to state legislative action aimed at reforming the controversial Rockefeller Drug Laws. You can read the entire press release, here.

via the NYCLU:

The New York Civil Liberties Union today applauded the State Legislature for passing historic reforms to New York State’s notoriously harsh and ineffective mandatory minimum drug sentencing scheme.

“These reforms are a major step toward ending a disastrous policy that has ruined lives, torn apart families and caused enormous racial inequities,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “Substance abuse is both a public health and a law enforcement issue and today, after 36 long years, New York will finally start treating it that way.”

However, the NCLU was careful to note that there's still work to be done.

continued from the NYCLU:

The NYCLU noted, for example, that the bill:

• Permits unreasonably harsh maximum sentences for low-level, non-violent drug offenses;

• Disqualifies from eligibility for treatment and rehabilitation individuals who may be most in need of such programs; and

• Retains a weight-based sentencing scheme that will mandate a long prison sentence for people who should be eligible for treatment.

“The bill restores an important measure of common sense and rationality to our drug laws,” [NYCLU Executive Director, Donna] Lieberman said. “But there is more work to be done in the future to restore fundamental justice and fairness to our criminal justice system.”

Read more!

Video of the Week: A song for black love

Please give it up for Ms. India.Arie and Musiq Soulchild. In a world of negativity . . . in a world that actively pits black men and black women against each other . . .

It's a welcomed sight to see two positive artists sing about BLACK LOVE!

Black love . . . Now, THAT's a revolutionary concept!


Read more!

Voting Rights Act remains under attack

There's another article in The Washington Post examining a recent challenge to the Voting Rights Act. In case you haven't heard, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act earlier this year. It's a highly controversial move as the Section 5 is seen by many (including myself) as a VERY IMPORTANT provision of the Voting Rights Act . . . in fact, one of the key provisions that actually gives teeth to the practice of ensuring equal voting rights.

I wrote about this subject over at Jack and Jill Politics. You can read my earlier post, there.

This is a big deal. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise. The reasons given for the challenge (e.g., "Scarlet Letter," social stigma) are very weak when juxtaposed with the very real consequences of removing Section 5 from the Voting Rights Act.

And here's the kicker . . .

via The Washington Post:

Board President Bill Ferguson acknowledges that the Justice Department has never denied any election-change request it has made -- the last was in 2004 -- and that the annualized cost to the district of complying is only $223. (Robert Barnes, reporting)(emphasis added)

Did you catch that???

See, Section 5 mandates preclearance for specific jurisdictions before they can make any changes to their election practices or procedures. It does not prevent a jurisdiction from actually changing said practices and procedures . . . NO, it simply requires that any proposals be screened by the U.S. Department of Justice before they take effect.

The very people challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act ADMIT that they have never been denied any election-change requests. Even more, the cost of compliance is "only $223."

WHERE ARE THE DAMAGES????? Where is the public policy concern or social injustice to legitimize such an attack on the foundation of our democratic principles?

How can the Court seriously consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act when the people challenging the provision can't even cite substantial damages that would even warrant the possibility of changing public policy?

And for what? The stigma of a scarlet letter? The fear of being perceived as a racist jurisdiction?

Fine . . . then EXTEND Section 5 preclearance to MORE JURISDICTIONS. It's very simple. Are we supposed to believe that these shenanigans only happen in the South? No. Just this past election we heard threats to use housing foreclosures as a means of purging voters (a move that would disproportionately impact the African-American community). These problems aren't limited to the South.

But that does NOT warrant the removal of Section 5 preclearance. It simply means we should seriously look at expanding the scope of its application.

DO NOT BE FOOLED! This is NOT about moving a polling place from a garage to a local elementary school. Attorneys are trained to seek sympathetic petitioners whenever they hope to change policy. It bolsters their arguments and provides an affective PR spin.

No, this case is about abolishing one of the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act . . . plain and simple. This is about affording jurisdictions the freedom to change their election practices and procedures whenever they want with no oversight from our United States Department of Justice.

And for what? A "scarlet letter"?

Sorry, but a "scarlet letter" does NOT outweigh my right to vote.

Read more!

White House Press Briefing: 3/30/09

Read more!

Our First Lady

First Lady Michelle Obama. . . the haters can't touch you.

Keep doin' your thing. . .

Keep making us PROUD!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more!

Blago indicted . . .

So Blago just got indicted on 16 counts. Just in time for the next media-hyped "controversy."

My only question. . . Despite being cleared of any criminal implications, will the media continue to play guilt-by-association when it comes to President Obama?

Memo to the mainstream media: Don't confuse republican talking points for credible journalism.
Read more!

White House Press Briefing: 3/27/09

Read more!

It's called the fringe RIGHT

And the hole they dig just keeps getting deeper and deeper . . .

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had a lot to say in a recent interview with Sean Hannity:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now, in all fairness to Ms. Bachmann (I really do try to be fair) it can be argued that she linked her call for revolution to the act of contacting one's representative at the very end of that interview (listen to a longer clip of the interview over at Talking Points Memo). Still, for reasons noted in the video clip, her language is reckless for a person with her power and influence as a United States Congresswoman.

I'm all for free speech. I'll defend free speech. But I take exception when such dangerous and careless rhetoric comes from our elected officials. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't have any power over me as an individual. I can always turn them off. However, the power entrusted to a member of Congress . . . the power to make law, influence and speak on behalf of a constituency should demand more care and responsibility than Rep. Bachmann exhibited in that interview.

I wondered which way Republicans might go after the 2008 Elections. Would they show some humility and realize that their ideas had grown stale, their political tactics too divisive? Or would they delude themselves into believing their own spin . . . blame the messenger rather than reevaluate the message.

It appears they've chosen the latter. That's right . . . they get louder and louder only to speak to a smaller and smaller constituency.

It's one thing for a radio host or tv pundit to go off the deep end. But when your elected officials co-sign that very same divisive rhetoric? When failed campaign slogans replace ideas? When you take your queue from the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? When you cow-tow to their audiences and openly promote fear and distrust of FELLOW AMERICAN citizens?

Well, it's safe to say you've been voted into the minority for a reason.

Keep digging guys . . . keep digging!
Read more!

Wow. We spend A LOT of money

Where is the money going? How much of this money gets reinvested into our neighborhoods? How much of our black dollars go to black business?

Seriously . . . just think of what $913 Billion could do for the black community.

Tell me what you think. . . What could $1 Trillion do for African-Americans?
Read more!

Shifting focus to Afghanistan . . .

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more!