SEIU's Chavista Legal Team Cribs from Obama, Threatens Broadcasters

According to this letter obtained by TPM, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is threatening television stations broadcasting this anti-card check advertisement produced by the Employee Freedom Action Committee. In the letter (viewable here), SEIU lawyer Dora V. Chen tells stations in Arkansas and Nebraska that they should "immediately cease airing this false and deceitful advertisement." Says Ms. Chen, "political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities'"—i.e., airing third party political advertisements television stations are not bound by the First Amendment—reminding station executives that they are under "no legal obligation to air the advertisement" but it they do the affiliate "bears responsibility for its content." If the Chavista implications of these threats are still unclear, the SEIU puts it in sharper relief, obliquely threatening the station's broadcast licenses:

As a broadcast licensee, you 'must assume responsibility for all material which is broadcast through [your] facilities' and therefore have a duty to 'protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.' Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising' may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'

Such threats are nothing new to SEIU lawyers. The union's legal team sent an almost identical letter to NBC in May after it ran a (paid) infomercial by a group advocating free markets solutions in health care. When Barack Obama's general councel during the 2008 campaign, Robert F. Bauer, sent a letter to a Pennsylvania television station running an NRA, it used identical language. ("Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising' may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility")

The offending card check ad:

Comments

[kilroy]

That's a decent ad.

[Anonymous]

"Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising' may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility'"

Sincerely,

Ministry of Information

[Crusader Rabbit]

I think I worked for that guy in the Musicians' Union.

[EJM]

According to this letter obtained by TPM...

To add insult to injury, it looks like it's a form letter (see, for example, the salutation "Dear Station Manager" and the use of "KTHV-TV", even though the legal call sign is KTHV [without the "-TV" suffix]).

Assuming that they're only going after stations in Nebraska and Arkansas right now, why couldn't they produce individual letters? After all, there aren't that many relevant DMAs to cover--even if you include ones primarily from neighboring states (e.g., Memphis, Shreveport/Texarkana, Monroe/El Dorado, Sioux City, and Cheyenne/Scottsbluff).

[The Extispicator]

What happened to the good ol' days when they just went to the office, shoved all of the contents off the desk and broke a kneecap or 2?

[TheZeitgeist]

If I were a Democratic strategist, I would seriously get people on the horn to warn them about stuff like this.

Between Card-Check, Cap'n'Take, Public Unhealth, and the complete abrogation of all the civil-liberty commitments, the Democrats are going to get throttled in 2010.

It really is shaping up to be a good chance for a third party. Maybe not the Libertarian party per se, but some critter with an analog of libertarian tenets.

[EJM]

It's even worse than I thought: The letter actually says, "Your news network is running an advertisement...". Apparently, they're recycling old protest letters.

[R C Dean]

Pretty much what I would expect from the bloody-knuckles crowd that put Obama in office.

[Anonymous]

the Democrats are going to get throttled in 2010

You're assuming the electorate doesn't favor fascism.

[Steven Hall]

Health Care Bill 'Delayed Indefinitely'

House Democrats' health care bill has been delayed indefinitely as leaders continue negotiations with fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Committee chairmen had planned to release their bill on Friday and begin marking it up on Monday, but notices were sent out this morning noting that both the release and markup would be delayed.

More at:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/36666-1.html

[Rhywun]

I'd hazard a guess that about 75% of the advertising I see on television is false and/or misleading. Big whoop.

[SpongePaul]

well that was more truthful than most of billy mays and shamwow guys commercials.

[Steve Smith]

What's the big deal? Unions have free speech rights, too, and objecting to false ads like the one shown here is certainly protected by the First Amendment.

[jsh]

So if a liberal tells a lie in an advertisement to get my vote (if it has no cash value, why bother making it illegal for me to sell it?), I can sue for fraud?

[LibertyMark]

The unions are not simply "objecting to false ads" as Mr Smith asserts, which of course would be protected by the First Amendment.

They are threatening to bring down the power of the government upon their targets, in order to use force to silence speech they don't agree with.

However, the problem is not the union, it's with a government that has the power to shut down broadcasters. Just like when liberals complain about the bad actions of a big corporation, the problem is rarely the corp, it's the government.

The problem is always the government.

[jtuf]

Radio broadcasting is very threatening to liberals. Voice recognition software is no where near as effective as text search algorithms. That makes eliminating "false" information much more difficult.

[Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.]

Just wanted to point out the reason that both letters use the same language: it's mostly a quote from a case from the DC circuit court of appeals. Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

It's pretty good language. I can see why they used it.

[Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.]

LibertyMark @ 4:26

That's not quite true. In many contexts, false or misleading speech receives no first amendment protection.

[alan]

The Extispicator | July 10, 2009, 3:48pm | #
What happened to the good ol' days when they just went to the office, shoved all of the contents off the desk and broke a kneecap or 2?

Where are the Pinkertons to do a little union busting when you need them.

[Paul]

Was it RC Dean who said, in a thread some moons ago: (paraphrasing)

Free speech to the liberal is my unamplified voice, within earshot of others.

Yep, it was RC Dean, right here.

Thank you Mr Dean.

[hmm]

Fuck unions. Fuck SEIU, Fuck UAW, FUCK in the ass with a chainsaw IBEW.

Sincerely,
hmmm

[Paul]

That's not quite true. In many contexts, false or misleading speech receives no first amendment protection.

Good point, so why then is any political speech receiving any first amendment protection?

And no, that's not a snark. Seriously, answer the question. I could make a reasonable argument that 80% of all political speech (and I'm being very, very generous here) is, by any reasonable definition, false and misleading.

[Management Guy]

"Steve Smith | July 10, 2009, 4:12pm | #

What's the big deal? Unions have free speech rights, too, and objecting to false ads like the one shown here is certainly protected by the First Amendment."

Hey shithead, what was false about that ad? Looked pretty accurate to me. The only thing they left out was faking workers comp injuries and beating the shit out of productive workers who "mess up the quota."

[One Of Tony\'s Reason Rubes]

"Fuck unions. Fuck SEIU, Fuck UAW, FUCK in the ass with a chainsaw IBEW."

Damn right. There is an Indian restaurant about a block from my office that is scheduled to open soon, which is great because I love Indian food.

Anyway, yesterday morning as I passed by, it was being picketed for not using union labeor and all I could think was WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE???

Here's a start-up business coming on-line during a deep recession. When it's completed, it will provide both jobs and Indian food.

But these union assholes don't care about that. They're only concern is that they're not getting a piece of the construction action.

Damn all unions to hell, I say.

[LibertarianBlue]

I find it amusing when anti-union conservatives try to think they can be tough guys against them. What they fail to realize is that most union members are very in favor of the 2nd Amendment. My father a Vietnam Vet and an IBEW memeber, whenever he goes to a Union meeting carries his gun because of wannabe tough guys like Hmmm who think they are big and bad.

It you people want to direct your anger I suggest look at the corrupt union leadership. Since 9 times out of 10 the average union worker wants to work and be left alone.

[hmm]

Unions have free speech rights...

Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. You failed before you even got to your point.

[libertymike]

LibertarianBlue-

Sounds like your father is the guy with the problem-does he think he is all tough just because he was a union guy and a vet? Stunted spiritual development issues?

[libertymike]

A real man does not do the following:

1. public sector employment, particularly the uniformed variety.

2. unions.

3. ever vote for a democrat or a republican.

[Paul]

A real man does not do the following:

1. public sector employment, particularly the uniformed variety.

2. unions.

3. ever vote for a democrat or a republican.

I pass the first two, so I guess I'm a bit of a 3/4 man.

[libertymike]

Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.-

In contravention of the plain meaning of the first and ninth amendments.

[Paul]

I see none of our lawyerly members have answered this question yet.

[Pro Libertate]

Paul,

Working from memory, I believe the difference is that the government can't regulate most "false, misleading, or deceptive" speech unless it is commercial speech. There are exceptions to that--defamation, trademark infringement, perjury--but I think that's generally correct.

Interestingly, one of the first important moves by the Obama FTC was to can the Mirror-Image Doctrine, which had heretofore protected "advertising claims that promote the sale of books and other publications if the advertising claims merely reflect the opinion of the author or quote the contents of the publication." Previously, the doctrine was considered necessary for First Amendment reasons and reflected a general trend away from treating commercial speech as "lesser" speech; however, the FTC apparently no longer thinks so, in part out of frustration in dealing with huckster Kevin Trudeau, and in part for a distaste for all things commercial.

[libertymike]

Paul-

I fail as well-as my first presidential vote was cast in favor of Reagan.

[hmm]

It you people want to direct your anger I suggest look at the corrupt union leadershipelected by the union employees over and over and over again.

fixed

My father a Vietnam Vet and an IBEW memeber, whenever he goes to a Union meeting carries his gun because of wannabe tough guys like Hmmm who think they are big and bad.

My wife had to be an IBEW member to work in television. What in the fuck do guns have to do with useless unions? (strawman?) Things got so bad with the IBEW when they wanted to get into an open shop here in STL that the president of the union actually reduced my wife to tears on night after interrupting our dinner to pressure her to help turn the shop union and threaten her ability to work anywhere else here. Most union workers want theirs and more. The idea that they are owed something is so pervasive it is almost comical.

My father a Vietnam Vet and an IBEW memeber, whenever he goes to a Union meeting carries his gun because of wannabe tough guys like Hmmm who think they are big and bad.

Again what in the hell do guns have to do with unions being worthless? If he carries a gun from the fear of people who can't stand unions then your father is a moron and caricature of all that is wrong with union members.

Just so you know this "tough guy" drove down to the union headquarters arriving 10 minutes after I told the president I was on the way to discuss his threats and treatment of my wife. He wasn't there. Maybe he should have carried a gun like pops. Then we could have compared CCW guns after I informed him such threats and treatment of my wife was never going to happen again. (it never happened again anyway)

Maybe pops should grow a pair and leave the gun in the sock drawer.
Fuck unions.

[libertymike]

Pro Lib-

Lawyers take an oath to support and uphold the constitution, too. Should not the entirety of the bar rise in unison to denounce the commercial speech doctrine for the fraud that it is? Like, the plain meaning of the amendment admits of no exception, "common sense" or otherwise? Like there is no exception for "commercial speech" or that the courts have the right to refuse to accord equal protection to commercial speech?

I find that the vast majoirty of lawyers are fundametnally ignorant of the following:

1. Natural rights philosophy.

2. Why so many cities in the east are named Camden or Wilkes.

3. Colonial history.

4. The writs of assistance cases.

5. The lives of Franklin, Henry, Jefferson, J. Adams, S. Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Hancock, Washington et al.

6. The Declaration of Independence.

7. Locke.

8. Coke.

9. That the US is not a democracy.

10. The constitution does not give the judiciary the right to regulate the practice of law.

[libertymike]

hmm-

Well done. Bravo.

[Pro Libertate]

Shoot, I'd be happy if we'd all just recognize that the Constitution sets out specifically enumerated and limited powers for the government.

[LibertarianBlue]

Hmmm here was your earlier comment

"Fuck unions. Fuck SEIU, Fuck UAW, FUCK in the ass with a chainsaw IBEW

My post was in response to your cute little outburst. As for your story I thought we Libertarians believed in judging others as individuals not as collectivists like conservatives and liberals do.

libertymike

Cute little snark, did lonewacko teach you that one?

[John G from California]

The SEIU is a thuggish organization. The more transparency that is shined on this crew the less people will like.

[Phil]

The SEIU's letter would make for a great news story in itself. Were I the station manager I would devote a lot of time and attention to this letter and the SEIU's stance --- and would broadcast the Employee Freedom Action Committee's anti-card check advertisement any number of times in support of of the story.

"I find it amusing when anti-union conservatives try to think they can be tough guys against them. What they fail to realize is that most union members are very in favor of the 2nd Amendment"

Of course. All criminals do too.

[Mike]

You know for certain that an institution is terminally ill when it resorts to intimidation as a matter of course. A little backbone on the part of "we the people" is all that is needed now.

[hmm]

You don't need to remind me of my earlier comment. I wrote the damn thing. I clearly understood what you were commenting on. You on the other hand seem to think the condemnation of a practice or a an idea like unions is a commentary on the individuals. Did you miss the part where I said my wife had to be IBEW or is your reading comprehension selective? I judged your father per the actions you said he took. I didn't lay into you for the fucking retarded attempt to garner sympathy or legitimacy for your argument by mentioning he was a Vietnam vet. So yes I judged your pops to be a fucking moron for carrying a gun because he is afraid some mean guy is going to call bullshit on unions. I will go ahead and judge you for being a dipshit for a pathetic attempt to gain support for an argument by drawing comparisons to completely random shit that people respect like Veitnam vets and the 2nd. I will further call you a dipshit for not being able to understand that condemning the actions of union organizations is far from a condemnation of all their members. At least not a complete condemnation per the individual, the individuals are responsible for electing and allowing the morons to continue.

I will further say that the majority of union labor that I have dealt with is exactly as I stated before. If it quacks it's a duck. If it demands more through collective bargaining than it's members are worth it's an asshole union.

So again, fuck unions.

[alan]

LibertarianBlue,
I remember you. You are the guy who thought he had something he could teach me about the Southland. You are kind of simple, aren't you?

[kcom]

The gold standard for creepiness in this regard was set by the Barack Obama Truth Squad in Missouri during the last election where public officials (prosecutors and sheriffs) were running around defending Obama and taking it upon themselves to declare whether campaign ads were being truthful or not. I still can't believe it happened and I still can't believe it didn't raise a huge, reverberating stink. This is just one more example of Obama and his people crossing the line and attempting to restrict the freedom of people who oppose him. It's another chip they'd like to take out of the wall that separates political power (and police power, in the case of Missouri) from speech rights.

[hmm]

The truth group is a group in MO were long time Obama supporters. He's had a liberal cult following in STL for a long time.

[hmm]

omg I can't type. sorry.

[Richard Blaine]

"It you people want to direct your anger I suggest look at the corrupt union leadership. Since 9 times out of 10 the average union worker wants to work and be left alone."

Then fix your own house. Until then, your whining is meaningless.

"You're assuming the electorate doesn't favor fascism."

The electorate favors selling itself into serfdom. Notice that word 'freedom' was not uttered even once during the campaign by either O or McCain.

[MNG]

Like the Rams?

[bobby b]

Didn't O say something like "Taxes Are Freedom"?

In German, if I remember correctly?

[hmm]

Like the Rams?

More like the Rams and the Blues.

At least the Blues are fun to watch.

[Zelsdorf Ragshaft III]

I think it is time to put the hurt on these bastards. I wonder if they are katana proof.

[Not a Libertarian but You Migh]

"I find that the vast majority of lawyers are fundamentally ignorant of the following:

.
.
.
8. Coke."

Now C'mon, that is totally unfair.

I am sure a majority of lawyers are perfectly familiar with coke.

[Pink Pig]

OK, I watched the commercial. What possible objection can there be? What law is it supposed to violate? Obviously, none. Perhaps it is time to start drawing up a list of the people who really need to be silenced. (Of course, "silenced" means just that, exactly what the perpetrators of this atrocious suit are trying to do -- courtesy is no longer an option.)

[Not a Libertarian but You Migh]

Just as an aside (that fits within the thread narrative)

Turner Classic Movies is tonight have having a Karl Malden retrospective

http://www.tcm.com/index.jsp

Right now (as of 9:00 EDT)

"On the Waterfront"

[Richard Blaine]

"In German, if I remember correctly?"

I don't recall that. Maybe he was speaking Austrian.

[B]

"What's the big deal? Unions have free speech rights, too, and objecting to false ads like the one shown here is certainly protected by the First Amendment."

Christ, you are a fucking retard. You remind me of the assholes on college campuses who claim preventing people from speaking or stealing newspapers is a legitimate exercise of their First Amendment rights.
And exactly how is this ad false, fuckwad? Christ the only way it may be untruthful is that it doesn't imply forcefully enought that unions are full of thugs who use intimidation to silence critics and get their way.

"The electorate favors selling itself into serfdom. Notice that word 'freedom' was not uttered even once during the campaign by either O or McCain."

I am pretty sure the part about freedom in the above quote is pure bullshit.

[B]

"So again, fuck unions."

And a hearty A-fucking-men for that sentiment.

[Chaz706]

It really is shaping up to be a good chance for a third party. Maybe not the Libertarian party per se, but some critter with an analog of libertarian tenets.

TheZeitgeist | July 10, 2009, 3:48pm | #

I wish we had the Goldwater party.

Fiscally conservative to a T, Pro Liberty, leave social issues to the people living in the States.

I think it's something we can mostly agree with most of the time. For one, I think it's the best we can have without abrogating liberty (or failing to protect it).

[B]

The most amazing part of the whole union debate is that the assholes who run these fucking unions, and the politicians who enable them, can't seem to get it through their thick fucking skulls that when 95% of the private sector workforce does not belong to a fucking union, it probably means that most people have a pretty dismal fucking view of you already, and don't take too kindly to assholes trying to find ways to force people to join.

[Chuck Roast]

"I am pretty sure the part about freedom in the above quote is pure bullsh*t."

Citations and links, if you would be so kind. Or perhaps that's too much too ask of someone who hurls that kind of vulgarism.

While I don't pretend to have been in attendance at every stump speech and coffee klatch of the six year run up to 2008, neither do I remember either candidate espousing the concept of freedom. (Yeah, the Paulians, but seriously...)

After a Google search, the only pre-election quote I can find from Obama mentioning "freedom" is when he discusses the Orwellian named "Freedom of Choice" bill. Nothing to do with freedom, of course. As debated above. I do seem to remember that the word "freedom" focus-grouped poorly for the dems.

Since inauguration, he's called for religious freedom for Middle Eastern Muslims and freedom for Africa and Russia. Nothing for the good old USA. Google returns many hits for Obama vs. freedom. (We expected different from the man who refused to wear a flag pin or say the pledge?)

As for McCain, who has devoted his entire political career to out Democrat-ing the Democrats, he too is a womb-to-the-tomb big government collectivist. His policies were carbon copies of Obamas. He never had a chance, and is unworthy of review.

Your turn.

[GoCon]

Judy, While you are certainly right that unions also relish the right to freedom of speech. They are free to defend their bill anytime they want. They could consider the workers paying their dues annually. They could work as a single force to improve work place conditions and safety.

They are free discuss any issue they like, at any time! What they don't have the right to is threaten and coerce to get their way. They can take them to court and they will lose. It really is a Freedom of Speech issue. And unions want to silence people!

[Sean W. Malone]

GoCon - I would argue, however, that the very nature of their bill is stifling freedom of association, which of course, is part of the first amendment as well. Of course... That's been basically Union 101 forever.

[JB]

Fuck unions and fuck anyone who is in a union.

Look for the union label and avoid that product.

[MNG]

"when 95% of the private sector workforce does not belong to a fucking union, it probably means that most people have a pretty dismal fucking view of you already, and don't take too kindly to assholes trying to find ways to force people to join."

Or, it could mean that someone is pushing or scaring them into not joining unions.

No matter who does the poll when people are asked if they want to join a union the % that say yes is higher than the % that are in unions, so clearly there is some obstacle going on here...

[Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.]

Paul --

"Good point, so why then is any political speech receiving any first amendment protection?"

Also a good point. Perhaps I spoke too broadly. As another pointed out, its generally only in the commercial speech context that false speech receives no protection at all. False speech in other contexts, however, may leave one open to the tort of libel or slander, even if you're a politician. Also, I think you'd actually have difficulty *proving* that most of what politicians say is a lie or falsehood. I'd suggest that most of what they say is "mere puffery," and not actionable, to draw an analogy to the commercial sphere.

In this context, however, the thrust of the union's argument is that broadcasting something they (allegedly) know or should know to be false might impact thee broadcaster's license. Frankly, I don't have the first clue if that's true or not, but it does have a certain ring of truthiness.

[Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.]

hmm --

"Groups do not have rights."

You're thinking too broadly. "Groups" in this context means a union, i.e., a legally incorporated group. Corporations are legal persons, and I don't see why a union shouldn't also possess a right to free speech.

[Jonathan D. Henry, Esq.]

Libertymike --

"In contravention of the plain meaning of the first and ninth amendments."

I will very politely suggest that if you think the language of these amendments is "plain," then you have not read them very closely.

"Should not the entirety of the bar rise in unison to denounce the commercial speech doctrine for the fraud that it is?"

No, we should instead try to change it on a case-by-case basis through the slow and painstaking process of overturning established precedent. It is a very difficult task, and unlikely to succeed.

"Like, the plain meaning of the amendment admits of no exception, "common sense" or otherwise?"

From whence stems my right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede? My rights only extend so far as they do not intrude on the rights of others, and others have a right to not be harmed by my speech, or actions. It should be legal to burn a flag, but not someone else's flag.

"Like there is no exception for "commercial speech" or that the courts have the right to refuse to accord equal protection to commercial speech?"

I actually agree entirely with you there. I think the commercial speech doctrine is nonsense.

"I find that the vast majoirty of lawyers are fundametnally ignorant of the following:"

I find that the vast majority of non-lawyers are fundamentally ignorant of the fact that 99.99% of lawyers will never practice in the area of constitutional law, excepting in the criminal context.

The law is a very mundane thing. It's a lot of paperwork, and very little blood and guts and fire-eating.

"1. Natural rights philosophy."

First, this generally has nothing to do with what most lawyers do, so why should they know it? Why do I need to know natural rights philosophy to defend a slip-and-fall?

Second, I suspect that most constitutional lawyers are versed in the subject, but, unfortunately, the doctrine is usually irrelevant for one reason or another.

"2. Why so many cities in the east are named Camden or Wilkes."

I confess to not having a clue as to what you're referencing.

"3. Colonial history."

This will be relevant in .000000001% of all cases, ever.

"4. The writs of assistance cases."

See 3, supra.

"5. The lives of Franklin, Henry, Jefferson, J. Adams, S. Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Hancock, Washington et al."

See 3, supra.

Would you care to explain why Franklin's french mistress is relevant to, say, whether or not the Second Amendment should be incorporated against the states?

"6. The Declaration of Independence."

See 3, supra.

Also, seriously? You think there are lawyers that don't know the Declaration of Independence? Really?

"7. Locke."

See 3, supra.

"8. Coke."

What?

"9. That the US is not a democracy."

See 3, supra.

Also, every lawyer has been through conlaw and probably knows far more about checks and balances than he needs to.

"10. The constitution does not give the judiciary the right to regulate the practice of law."

The federal judiciary doesn't regulate the practice of law so why would the constitution say anything about it? The state judiciaries regulates their respective state bars on the theory that the courts get to say who may appear before it. If you think that should be different, I suspect that you are in opposition to several hundred years of common law.

Now if you'll excuse me, back to work.

[Dan Mage]

I agree that threatening broadcasters with legal action for the content of political advertising is wrong.

However, again, I see libertarians doing everything they can to reinforce the worst public misconceptions and stereotypes here.

The strongest arguments against libertarianism really are always made by people claiming to be libertarians.

[Brad Morrison]

Ho, hum. A 527 group creates and buys airtime to broadcast a message that uses offending stereotypes to define the opposition in harsh terms. The ad does nothing more than to attack, i.e., it asserts only that the opposition is wrong. No claims are made about what the group stands for, or even who belongs to the group.

Further, the message is clearly designed to reinforce existing beliefs, rather than to convince or persuade.

Congratulations, my fellow Americans. We are reacting just as the message's designers hoped--whether we think the ad is "right on," or "a disgrace," or anywhere in between. Never mind that the message does not add value, or that it reinforces bigoted stereotypes. Everyone knows that it's all about getting attention, anyway.

We're mad as Hell, and we're not going to take it any more. Rave on, everyone. Give in to the emotional release. Forget your own responsibilities and let the satisfaction that you're right and someone else is wrong sweep you away.

Just don't be disappointed when we don't seem to be making any progress because we're too busy arguing. Always remember: Problems are THEIR fault. WE are right, THEY are WRONG. They're all alike, and they'll never, ever change. WE, on the other hand, are smart and we are constantly discovering new and interesting facts... about THEM.

Take careful note: The polarization of the electorate may look like a harmless short-term ploy for election/re-election, but it's really a long-term ploy for exploitation and profits.

But hey, don't let me keep you from your socio-political porn. We now return you to your regularly scheduled polemic programming. Get some snacks, kick back, and enjoy discovering what ELSE is wrong with the world and how the people you've learned to dislike are responsible.

[Dienekes]

For those who think that the electorate is ripe for a third party, you are right.

We are at an interesting time that would have been unimaginable following the Ross Perot debacle of 92.

However, with the GOP in a shambles and rationale Dems beginning to wonder what they got themselves into, it is possible that, were a viable third party to be formed there could be enough interest to drive a giant path right through the middle.

If a party could be formed that has libertarian ideals, stays away from playing bedroom politics (gays, abortion, etc), there could be enough momentum built to take better than half of the Republicans and a good third or more of the Dems. Leave the two parties to the radical fringes on both sides (Christian Right and Lunatic Left).

The problem is, libertarians (or those with libertarian ideals) do not have a George Soros to fund the beginnings of a coalition of groups and there is no leadership or money.

The Left has the unions, enviros, et al., and the right has the preachers (the NRA could be moved away from the GOP).

Just some thoughts...

[Dienekes]

P.S. For 'hmmm' (above). If that is how you feel about unions, go to 1-888-NO-UNION.COM and join the S.H.I.E.L.D. Network. Do something other than blurt out 'f*** unions.'

[jason]

The magis of obama is going to end and now the current adminstration have to do some things in this matter.