Another Christine O'Donnell parody, the musical "You're NOT Me." Thank goodness someone finally sang it.

Open thread below....

Jarvis Cocker's band of Brit-poppers collaborated on this song with Scottish composer Patrick Doyle for the soundtrack to the movie Great Expectations. This is one I never get tired of.

PS Our sister site Newstalgia has for its mid-week concert Ravel Piano Concerto for Left Hand played by The Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra With Alexandre Tharaud. Gorgeous.

School Prayer. Separation of Church and State. Religious freedom. Worshiping a God of your understanding or no God of your understanding. All those phrases were tossed into a political stew and brought to a boil in June 1962 when the Supreme Court heard the first of what were to be many cases regarding to controversy of prayer in the classroom.

We're led to believe the concept of praying in the classroom was something around since the beginning of our country, but that's not the case. The Engel vs. Vitale case before the Supreme Court was about a piece of legislation passed in 1951 by a New York State School board, inserting a prayer to be given before class. Much as the origins of the "Under God" phrase in our pledge of allegiance, it was something that came about as the direct result of the Cold War in the late 1940's and early 1950's and not before.

But it was assumed this was always the case, and when a suit was filed questioning its legality, it set off a firestorm throughout the country that only a ruling from the Supreme Court could settle in a 6-1 decision. Opinions were sharply divided, with an inordinate number of pundits and "experts" weighing in. Even legal scholars were brought in to assess the significance of the case.

Eugene V. Rostow (Dean of Yale University Law School): “After all, the Pilgrims and many other people came to this country in order to escape religion imposed upon them or pressed upon them by the State. The memory of their principles has been revived for us in recent years by the political activity of religious groups in many areas of our national life, in education and censorship and elsewhere. In that perspective, the court’s action in the Engle case is a call for wise forbearance on our part. A call to all of us to avoid a controversy which is so deep in our constitutional tradition and which has added nothing but misery, both to ancient and to modern history. The case came to the Supreme Court as cases normally do. Ever since the War there has been a bubbling up around the country, of issues concerning religion in the public schools. Some of those controversies have come into the lower courts, both state and federal. They’ve been pressed. The Supreme Court waited, as it normally, to see whether the controversy was really acute enough to require its intervention.”

Needless to say, it set into motion a number of similar cases throughout the 1960s (and beyond) where the question of school prayer was argued.

But Engel vs. Vitale was the first one to get the ball rolling.

Evidently John Boehner thinks this election is in the bag already, since he's promising plum committee slots to GOP candidates in embattled districts.

Two Republican House candidates in the last day have announced that House Minority Leader John Boehner has promised them valuable committee assignments.

Rep. Charles Djou of Hawaii was promised a seat on the Appropriations Committee and Vicky Hartzler, running against Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), was promised a spot on the panel that oversees the military.

What other promises has Boehner made, I wonder? I think Michele Bachmann was making noise about wanting the chairmanship of the Financial Services committee awhile back. She should have to answer now about whether that promise was made. Gingrich certainly seemed to say that back in 2009, anyway.

I think Republicans may be counting their chickens before they come home to roost. Or something.

Keith Olbermann talked to Sen. Clair McCaskill about the need to pass the Disclose Act after seeing the flood of anonymous corporate donations coming in for Republicans during this mid-term election cycle. I'm quite sure neither Karl Rove or Ed Gillespie would like to see this bill passed. They want to keep their corporate funders anonymous so we've got no idea who is backing their candidates. Heaven forbid the public might give those campaign ads the scrutiny they deserve if they were allowed to know who's paying for them.

McCaskill Signs on to Bill to Require Corporations to Disclose Campaign Donations:

In response to January's unprecedented Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that struck down longstanding limitations on campaign contributions from special interests, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday signed on to co-sponsor legislation that would force corporations to be transparent about their now unfettered political donations and further ban political contributions from foreign corporations and government contractors. The Citizens United decision overturned the law banning independent political ads sponsored by private corporations and unions.

"If special interests are pouring money into political campaigns we need to at least make sure we know where the money is coming from and who is behind the curtain," McCaskill said.

The legislation, introduced by Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), would require corporations, unions and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and be held accountable for any ads they sponsor. It would also ban contributions from foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance.

Specifically, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (or DISCLOSE) Act would bring more accountability and transparency to corporate campaign contributions by:

• Banning contributions from foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance.

• Requiring the head of any organization sponsoring an ad to appear during the ad - similar to the way that political candidates for federal office must appear in their campaign ads. For special interest ads that are funded by multiple organizations, the top five donors would have to be identified as sponsors during the advertisement.

• Requiring corporations and advocacy groups to track political contributions through transparent accounts and to report any donations over $1000 and expenditures from these accounts to the Federal Election Commission and to the public within 24 hours. If an organization chooses not to set up these accounts, all of their donors, even those who aren't political, would have to be made public.

• Guaranteeing that candidates can purchase air time at the lowest possible rate in the same media markets where attack ads are aired, strengthening a candidate's ability to respond to corporate interests' attacks.

• Prohibiting corporations from coordinating political activities with candidates. A similar ban already exists for public entities and unions.

For a more complete summary of the bill click here.

On October 12th, big donors laid down some very, very big money to defeat Democratic Senate candidates. While it's not a surprise, the size of the expenditures was eye-opening, even to someone like me who thinks she's seen it all. They are at least ten times the usual amount spent on ads three weeks out. Combined with today's news that the US Chamber of Commerce has taken in at least $885,000 from foreign corporations, I fear our democratic process is forever corrupt and irreparably tainted with the smell of global agendas.

From the FEC near real-time report on independent expenditures:

AMERICAN CROSSROADS - C00487363

1. Opposes Candidate: Michael F. Bennet (S0CO00211)
Office Sought: Senate, Colorado District
Payee: Crossroads Media LLC
Date Expended = 10/12/2010 Amount Expended = $770144.20
Purpose: TV/Media Placement

2. Opposes Candidate: Michael F. Bennet (S0CO00211)
Office Sought: Senate, Colorado District
Payee: McCarthy Marcus Hennings Ltd.
Date Expended = 10/12/2010 Amount Expended = $14899.00
Purpose: TV/Media Production

Continue reading »

Earlier this year I posted a story about a mind numbing political conversation I had with some of my conservative friends and relatives. No matter what I said, and no matter how much we agreed on certain issues, I was always dismissed as being "too far left." I had lunch with some of those same relatives earlier this week and as expected, politics took center stage in our conversation -- and I'm happy to report some progress!

We decided to meet at a local restaurant and right off the bat, I knew things were going to be interesting. My youngest, and most under-informed cousin pulled up in his ginormous SUV adorned with FIRE PELOSI stickers on both the front and back bumpers, and the sound of Rush Limbaugh's voice blasting from the open windows. You see, he has friends in the military and listens to Limbaugh so he knows everything there is to know about politics, the economy, war and social issues. Oh, and he's 21 and earns just under $22k a year. We'll call him cousin #1.

We were seated at a table and before the server could even introduce herself, cousin #1 looked across at me and said "So, what do you think 'bout your glory boy Obama now?" I knew it was coming and was prepared for battle, but before I could get a word out, cousin #2 jumped in and said "He's still a hell of a lot better than Bush and THANK GOD McCain and Palin didn't win!" And it was on like Donkey Kong. I just sat and smiled because the cousin who came to my defense was the first one to call me a "leftist" in our last conversation. He (and his wife) had finally seen the light and now realize how toxic the GOP and their media are to our nation. I was shocked at how their conversion to the truth was so strong that they even chided corporatist Democrats like Ben Nelson! Can I get an AMEN?

To be perfectly honest, I didn't really participate in the conversation all that much. I didn't have to. The two cousins sparred for the better part of the meal and I sat and nodded my head - when I wasn't defending my new "leftist" cousin. Cousin #1 left the restaurant looking defeated and confused, albeit better informed than when he walked in. He conceded nothing, but was forced to admit that the Republican party had turned into a bunch of far right wing extremists and probably more extreme than he was comfortable with.

It was nice to finally be vindicated by two family members who were at one time, rabid Fox News watching Republicans. It took me years, but it was well worth the fight. If any of you need to vent about Republican friends, family or co-workers, please use this thread to get it off your chest!

The most appealing things about the Dean tenure's 50 state strategy was the idea that you never know what might happen in any campaign so it was best to be prepared and at least nominally support candidates everywhere just in case the brilliant electoral prognosticators in DC might not always know ahead of time who is and isn't "unelectable." (I can't help but think that if these people were so damned good at picking winners, we wouldn't find ourselves on the brink of electoral disaster quite as often as we do.) So, it's been left to the progressive netroots and grassroots to try to give some of these candidates a little support to make up for the fact that the party refuses to even spend a penny to help them out. (In fact, they pretend they've never heard of them when publicly asked about it.)

Aside from the important work of spreading the good word and building movement politics for the long term, sometimes, unexpected things happen. For instance, Blue America candidate Billy Kennedy, who is challenging the intellectually challenged Virginia Foxx in NC-05, may just pull this thing out, despite the fact that the DCCC has behaved as if the loony Republican is impossible to beat. In fact, the major newspaper of the district, the Winston-Salem Journal, which normally endorses Republicans, came out for Kennedy this past week-end and made a very good case for his election:

U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from Watauga County, has not achieved any great accomplishments for the residents of the 5th Congressional District, and has angered and embarrassed many with her sometimes wild statements that seem designed to provoke. It’s time for a fresh, progressive voice in the 5th District. We believe that Democrat Billy Kennedy, a Watauga farmer and carpenter who says he’ll work to reverse the high rate of unemployment in the district, is that voice. He’s the best candidate in the Nov. 2 election for the 5th District.

“I’d like to make Congress work,” Kennedy, 52, recently told the Journal. “I believe with the bickering going on, they’re not solving problems.”

We endorsed Foxx, 67, in the Republican primary as she ran against an opponent less qualified than Kennedy. Her constituent service is strong, we noted, and we’ve occasionally praised her on this page, as when she sponsored a bill that tweaked the federal tax code so that troops stationed overseas can invest their income in individual retirement accounts.

While fiscal conservatism is good, Foxx, who is finishing her third term, has been too tight with the federal purse strings. For example, she does not support the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act, which would allocate $75 million over the next five years to preserve land along the parkway. Foxx has said she’d normally support such a measure, but not in the current economic times. But the parkway, a major cash cow of the state’s tourism industry, brings in more money in a single year-- $2.1 billion dollars, through 17 million visitors-- than the cost of the entire act. U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican who also touts fiscal conservatism, realized that when he crossed the aisle to sponsor the protection act with Sen. Kay Hagan.

Then there are Foxx’ statements, which reflect a viewpoint far to the right of many of her constituents. Foxx, a former college educator and graduate of UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Greensboro, said on the House floor in January that the federal government “should not be funding education.”

Last November, she said on the floor that “I believe that the greatest fear that we all should have ... to our freedom comes from this room, this very room, and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax-increase bill masquerading as a health-care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.” (In July of 2009, she had said the Republican version of the health-care plan is “pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”)

In April 2009, she suggested to students at North Surry High School that tobacco was no worse than Mountain Dew. That same month, she said on the House floor that it was a “hoax” that Matthew Shepard’s 1998 killing in Wyoming had anything to do with him being gay.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow talked to Democratic pollster Celinda Lake about the Democrats' strategy for the mid-term elections: using the emerging scandal around anonymous corporate donors pouring money into Republican coffers as a campaign issue. Lake explained to Maddow why -- contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom -- this is a good issue for Democrats to run on.

LAKE: This is an issue that is a good October surprise for the Democrats and the progressives. It’s a way of really raising the fundamental question about whose side you're on. It ties into an economic narrative. We’ve had a hard time getting off the ground. In twenty-two congressional districts where the Chamber is running its ads with foreign money, 184,000 jobs have been outsourced to many of these very same foreign corporations.

These people aren’t putting up their money for nothing. What are they buying? And this isn’t free speech, it’s bought speech and the public has a right to know who’s trying to buy their candidates.

As they both noted, this message is going to resonate in blue-collar districts where the Democrats are having the most trouble, and it keeps the message simple: Whose side are you on?

Naturally, Mark Halperin doesn't think the Democrats should be running on this issue. From Hardball earlier the same evening, here's Chris Matthews, Mark Halperin and Richard Wolffe discussing why everything is doom and gloom for Democrats in the midterm elections. Halperin of course thinks the Democrats should not be "engaging in strictly assassination of Republicans" or going after the Chamber of Commerce and their foreign donors and instead President Obama should be telling the country what he wants to do next.

Why that's some winning issue when he knows full well the Republicans will just obstruct anything he tries to get passed and then claim Democrats are incapable of governing is beyond me. I think the last thing the Democrats should be doing is taking any political advice from Mark Halperin.

Here's a prime example of the inside the Beltway common wisdom Rachel was talking about from Matthews and company.

I've been waiting for some Randroid slimeball to write a column defending the rampant, systematic foreclosure fraud we're currently witnessing and thankfully Stephen Meister at the New York Post gives us more than we could have ever dreamed of. Witness him dutifully humping the legs of his corporate masters:

If Democrats get their way, we'll soon have a nationwide freeze on home foreclosures -- imposing vast new losses on mortgage lenders and taxpayers, sidelining panicked homebuyers and pushing off a housing-market recovery for years. You can thank bullying politicians, from President Obama on down to most state attorneys general.

I have yet to see news of a single borrower coming forward to say the bank foreclosed on his home when he wasn't in default on his mortgage.

Then you pretty much haven't been looking, jackass. This guy got foreclosed on even though he'd paid for his entire house in cash. This woman, meanwhile, watched in horror as thugs hired by her bank broke into her house to change the locks even though her house hadn't even been foreclosed on. There plenty more stories like those two. You just have to, you know, learn how to use the magic of Google News to find them.

Yet millions of pending foreclosures will now be halted. This is a massive overreaction to technical faults in affidavits.

And what "technical faults" did the banks make, you ask? Well let's start out with some of these:

In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in "foreclosure expert" jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn't define the word "affidavit." Others didn't know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers' accusations about document fraud.

And then add on some of these:

Continue reading »