I'm not too surprised at this, but it'll be a tough general election for him if labor issues are a big factor. Plus, in the past some significant unions have supported Specter over Democrats. I'd bet that won't happen in 2010.

One can only hope for Senator Specter to change his mind rather than go into what will surely be his last Senate campaign as a virtual captive of the right-wing pigmies he has so long dispised.
Matt Thomas

It is a shame that he would do this to try to please those that are chastising him for voting for the stimulus. It is also a shame that he is using the false claims that has been the backbone of the arguments against this bill. The fact that they keep saying that this gets rid of the secret ballot election is absurd and completely false. It is also unbelievable that they would act like majority sign-up is some alien concept that labor unions just created. The fact is that majority sign-up has been used for decades. Somewhere along the way it was made that it was the employer, not the workers, who got to decide the route the employees had to take to form a union. This bill restores the workers right to choose either secret ballot or majority sign-up. Senator Specter should be ashamed of himself for turning his back on the working people of Pennsylvania, the same people who have supported him all these years.

This is merely another predictable display of Specter's weather-vane method of decision-making, which usually occurs on or around even-numbered years. In this particular cycle, Arlen has the threatening spectre (pun very much intended) of Toomey watching his every move and evaluating his every vote. Specter's flip on card-check has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. In fact, Specter publicly announced his support for this very same measure early last year. I'm glad Specter "changed his mind", mind you, as this measure is truly one of worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in years. It essentially legalizes worker harassment and, in many cases, intimidation, all in the name of furthering the cause of "union brotherhood".

Now, before the catcalls rain down from my friends here on KP, let me say that half of my family are or were union members, and most of them oppose this proposal. They obviously support the right to organize, as I do, but the right of "free" organization is paramount, and that requires balloting down in secret. It's interesting to note the disconnect between union leadership (accountable for the collection of union dues) and the rank-and-file, who seem apprehensive at best and hostile at worst to this proposal.

With Specter, his new position on card-check wasn't found in principle, but guided by politics. He's trying to give himself at least a fighting chance against Toomey next year in the primary. Even if Specter somehow survives yet again (not likely, by my estimation), many of the unions that have supported him in the past won't be there again (even if he did stand by his earlier support of card-check). The Dems will probably nominate a solid fund-raiser from the southeast, and the lion's share of labor money and politically-potent endorsements from that region will go to that candidate. I believe the labor head-fake with Specter was all about getting him to vote "yea" on card-check. They would've left him high and dry in November regardless. I'm glad Arlen didn't bite, although the vote hasn't been taken yet. I'll believe the "no" when I see it.

Sorry Gentleman, you are just not correct in your estimation of free organization. It is not free when one side has all the power. Again, card check is in use today and always has been. It is a democratic way of majority rules. And again, under the Free Choice Act employees can STILL, I repeat, STILL choose a secret ballot election if they prefer that way. The bill simply takes the decision from the hands of the employer and gives it to the worker. If you are worried about "worker harassment" and "intimidation" you would support this bill, because the current system allows companies to terrorize employees who try to form a union. Just look at the Wal-Mart case in Jacksonville, Texas or the Smithfield case in Tar Heel, NC. Also do some research on the ratio of complaints filed against union officials vs companies during organizing campaigns. It would also benefit you to actually talk to people who have recently tried to organize. People are being harassed, intimidated and even fired everyday for simply talking about a union to a co-worker. The opposition has twisted the aregument away from what it really is. What the argument is about is power. Companies have it and do not want to give it up. This bill evens the playing field for workers who want to form a union, bottom line.

Stan -

I'm not sure that you've actually read the proposed legislation. Under the current EFCA as drafted, if half of the workforce at a particular site sign a unionization card, the "secret ballot" process is waived and a new union is automatically recognized at that site. There is nothing in the proposed EFCA concerning said workers having a "choice" once the 50% signature threshold has been reached. Now, if union organizers fail to reach the 50% signature threshold, but more than 30% of workers at a site sign unionization cards, then the secret ballot still applies. Essentially, if 20% more workers at a site can be, shall we say, "encouraged" to sign a unionization proposal, the secret ballot is out and the union is in. In my opinion, that is flat-out wrong.

Again, I grew up with union members. I'm not unsympathetic to worker grievances, and I've seen firsthand some of the intimidation tactics by employers that you've spoke of in your post. However, when the shoe is placed on the other foot, and it's union organizers intimating workers into signing a card, I believe you're too quick to make a moral equivalence. Please don't tell me unions are above such practices, as I've seen those firsthand as well.

As I said before, I believe in the right to organize, based upon free association. If enough workers sign a unionization proposal, hold a secret ballot election and let every worker at that site vote, free of intimidation by either side. You seem to believe the passage of EFCA will "even the playing field", and you're correct in your assertion that EFCA is "about power". This bill does nothing but empower unions and their organizers to bolster their ranks by virtually whatever means necessary, even if it means hounding workers on the street or at their front doors (yes, there are actual cases of this - don't tell me there aren't).

Is it easy to form a union at a workplace? No. However, is it worth sacrificing the private ballot process to achieve unionization? I don't believe it is. Only 50% of the voices in a workplace are heard, while 100% would be affected by what they say (or, in many cases, by what they are forced to say). Keep the secret ballot.

I have a copy of the bill and have read it several times. I have also applied it to the current NLRA as described in the bill. If you only read the bill, I can see where you may get confused. Once again you are incorrect. The language, when added to the NLRA, only adds the option and does nothing to the secret ballot language. Your reasoning is just not based in fact. You are stuck in the blurred nonsense of this bill and perceived wrongdoings of union organizers. I have also seen first hand intimidation of workers by their employer and have also seen organizers pushing for a signed card. The difference is if you go against what your employer says your livelihood is placed in jeopardy. If you tell a pushy organizer to leave you lose nothing.
I agree that it would be great to live in a perfect world with a free of intimidation election, but welcome to reality. That simply does not exist. Free Choice will even the playing field. It gives power to the working man of this country, not unions. They have the decision to sign, not organizers. As far as "bolstering their ranks", what is wrong with more union members in this country. It is a fact that union density directly correlates to a strong economy. As for your fear of organizers, I do not know what to tell you. I base my decisions on what is best for me and my family, not what an annoying organizer says or does.
Once again, apply the language to the NLRA. You will see that the secret ballot doesn't go anywhere. Card check or majority sign up is used now and has been used since the dawn of unions. It is the democratic way that majority rules. You say 50% speaking for 100%, well, it's just the same as an election won by a small margin.
A few facts for you: During organizing drives, 30% of employers illegally fire pro-union workers, 82% hire union busting consultants and 91% force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors. When faced with this much intimidation, they have no choice.
Since 2003, over half a million workers have formed unions through majority sign-up.
During NLRB secret ballot elections, 46% of workers complained from pressure from management while only 14% of workers felt pressure during majority sign-up campaigns.
If you support the working class of this country you would support this, the first real pro-labor bill to come in quite some time.

To the gentleman...
I will refrain from further "pissing into the wind" in what would be a futile struggle to convince a confirmed union-hater that his arguments are so lame and bogus that they only serve to embarrass all who subscribe to Keystone Politics, save yourself.
Stan has already gone well beyond the pale in what has been a heroic but clearly vain effort.
I only beg that you further save us your following fictional arguments:
"I'm not unsympathetic to worker grievances"
"I've seen those (union intimidation tactics) firsthand as well."
One can never know what is in your own mind in In terms of any sympathy (or lack of it) towards working people.
One can, however, challenge you to produce documented examples of where union organizers have threatened, coerced or intimidated workers into signing union authorization cards, including hounding workers on the street... "as I've seen those firsthand as well." (to quote you).
In line with the foregoing, kindly allow this challenge for you to produce said documentation...not a cut and paste from the employer-funded "right to work" lobby or the Chamber of Commerce or the Manufacturers Association but from your own personal knowledge and experience, as you so claim.
You're on...
Matt Thomas

Matt (cc Stan) -

Yes, please refrain from further pissing into the wind - your responses reek too much as it is.

Moving on, I'm always fascinated by your ability to challenge another point of view by attacking the messenger, not the message. I notice that you didn't actually take a position on the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the item at hand. Furthermore, you didn't exactly explain why my view of the legislation was incorrect. Do you believe in a secret ballot for union organization elections? Instead, all we learned from your valued input was that I'm a "confirmed union hater" that embarrasses Keystone Politics with his "lame and bogus" arguments. How profound. C'mon, Matt - show a little pride in your work.

Now, apparently I need to begin forwarding documentation to you in order for my arguments to be considered valid. Unfortunately, my credibility on KP won't rocket into the stratosphere today, because I cannot produce written and/or photographic evidence of my personal experience with union organizers. I can only tell you that, as a teenager, I worked in a small grocery chain outside of Pittsburgh that was non-union, and some of the local labor-affiliated "organizers" made a habit of coming around and pestering the employees of this store and others to unionize, or "sign on with them", as they used to put it. They would, on occasion, stand in the parking lot where some of the store employees would park and "greet" them at their vehicles, and I did hear a few stories about these organizers showing up at the front doors of store management (admittedly, I didn't witness this firsthand).

That was the personal experience that I referenced in my earlier post, Matt. I find it hard to believe that union intimidation is an alien concept to you. Now, I realize that it is imperative for you to shoot down the very concept of intimidation, as this is key in the passage of EFCA. If the 50% signature threshold can be reached without the check of a secret ballot, union organizers simply have to overcome one challenge, not two, and every signature on that card will be considered precious. You are kidding yourself if you believe some organizers won't utilize tactics that would be considered extremely annoying at best and harassment at worst.

I don't know about you, Matt, but I believe it is within the realm of possibility to sympathize with unions and their grievances and oppose card-check. Apparently about 3/4 of union members (NOT union executives - there is a HUGE difference there) agree with me, as most of the union rank and file want to see the secret ballot process kept for organization purposes (and yes Matt, I will document this poll for you). I guess my question to you (besides where you stand on EFCA and why) would be: does being "pro-union" mean standing in lockstep with each and every union initiative that comes down the pike, or supporting a bill because some union boss bestows his or her blessing on it? If this is the case, I suppose the 35%-40% of union members that regularly vote Republican aren't true members of the "brotherhood", no?

Gentleman, your argument is based on what ifs and one experience you had with one union, not the facts of the bill. Research the ratio of complaints filed against companies vs. complaints filed against union organizers. If you do so you will see that your argument is weak and this bill finally gives workers a chance to avoid the intimidation of their employer during a unionizing effort. And again, "card check" is used now and has been for decades. It is nothing to be afraid of.

To the gentleman...
I am only moved to challenge the messenger when the messenger is not on message.
Kindly forgive me...but you do appear at times so dreadfully lacking in simple common sense that my wife, after reading one of your responses, remarked "He is so dumb I could cry."
Nevertheless, you now manage to accuse me of not taking a position on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) ?
Forgive me once again, but someone needs to tell you that anyone blessed with the intellectual capacity needed to read a supermarket tabloid or comprehend the content of a child's 3rd grade reader could not help but presuppose my strong support for the EFCA.
Do I see a secret ballot election as an ideal means to sanction a union's certification?
Of course... I fully support such a democratic process...one that is directly in line with the EFCA itself, which clearly mandates that 30% of the employees can legally force a secret ballot election to be conducted by an official Board Agent from the regional NLRB.
You need to sit down...read through the legislation and do some research as Stan recommends.
The EFCA will only set aside the current practice where an employer (who is not an employee or part of a bargaining unit) can nevertheless interfere with this democratic process and by himself and or through a hired lawyer, force an election that few, if any, employees may wish to participate in.
Within the insuing 6 to 8 weeks delay until that same election takes place (assuming there are not yet further delays (commonly orchestrated by the employer's lawyers) this same employer has free reign to:
(1) Order line supervisors to frighten and intimidate employees by way of rumors of a plant shutdown in the event the union wins.
(2) Schedule mandatory meetings during paid working hours where a literally captive audience of all employees are subjected to anti-union rhetoric by the employer or by hired professional union-busting consultants.
(3) Use his status as a business and community power broker to influence and weight the local print media against the union.
(4) Constantly remind employees...that as their employer, he provides the work...and the workforce its paychecks and thus, their only means to a livelihood and the support of their families.
As an analogy, try to imagine a situation where presidential candidate "X" has both the economic power and the legal means to force millions of voters to attend his own political party's rallies where they will be subjected to propaganda that only supports the agenda of the same candidate "X"
One can find this exact same undemocratic senario in Stalin's Soviet Union as well as in Hitler's Third Reich.
Whatever our political differences, (and this regrettable trashing of each other) you and I both live in America and we surely equally value our freedom of choice without reservation or interference from those who may disagree with what we believe in... or what we stand for ...or what we wish to be a part of.
Again, whatever our individual feelings on this subject, do working people in America deserve any less freedom of choice than we ourselves would surely demand?
Matt Thomas

Matt, your "candidate X" analogy is an excellent way to show people (some who just do not get it) just how unfair the current system is. Very nice.

Stan,
In terms of some people "who just do not get it" I am reminded of Aquinas, who so mourned those hapless individuals who somehow manage to cling to (in his own words) an "invincible ignorance" that neither reason, logic nor argument could ever overcome.
Matt Thomas

Stan -

My position on the EFCA is based upon the fact that...I've actually read the content of the bill. You continue to raise the point that "card check" has been used for decades in unionizing efforts, which is a correct assertion. However, in refererence to the EFCA, this is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, union organization efforts have used card signatures for quite some time, but in conjunction with and not as a substitute for, a secret ballot election after the required percentage of signatures had been gathered.

You (as well as my good friend Matt) seem keen on waving the bright red flag of employer intimidation as a rallying point for EFCA. Yes, this certainly does occur, as I've stated previously, at a higher rate than labor intimidation does. I suppose my question to you would be: this is a valid justification for eliminating the protection of the secret ballot for every nonunionized worker across the country ? Your basic argument in favor of EFCA can essentially be boiled down to this: the rights of all nonunionized workers must be sacrificed as a penance for the sins committed by some employers who went through the unionization process. This is the crux of your entire case here.

Yes, employers can intimidate employees during unionization. Yes, employers can delay a unionization vote for several months. Yes, employers can (and sometimes do) utilize dirty tactics to stave off unionization (including unjustified or sketchy terminations). I suppose we just have a philosophical disagreement here, but I simply do not see the elimination of the secret ballot protection as a morally justified solution to those issues. Hypothetically speaking, once word of a unionization effort spread, employers could still intimidate or pressure employees to not sign on with the union. The same underhanded tactics by managment could still be used, same as always. The only difference would be that the voice of EVERY worker at that site wouldn't legally need to be heard before the decisions of half determined all their respective fates. In regard to management's tactics, strengthen the existing anti-harassment statutes already on the books, or scrap the existing laws and create new penalties for worker intimidation in unionization efforts.

For me, Stan, that is the bottom line. If I were a member of a workforce, caught in the midst of a unionization effort, I would want my voice to be heard. I wouldn't want my future to rest on somebody else's decision (perhaps rash or forced)to sign his or her name on a card. Again, this is what I believe you fail to appreciate here. You seem so focused on rectifying the ills of management that you appear more than willing to toss the rights of half the workers at a site under the unionization bus.

Matt (my good friend...) -

I've met very few individuals in my life that have the ability to meander their way through an argument and ultimately say absolutely nothing new. At least Stan saves everybody some time and cuts straight to the point.

You both essentially make identical cases; namely, that the sins of management must be rectified through the elimination of the secret ballot requirement for unionization. You claim that you wholeheartedly support the secret ballot in principle; however, it seems that you are more than willing to waver on this in practice.

The entire stated objective of the proponents of EFCA is to make the unionization process "easier". Apparently the only route to this goal that the EFCA's cheerleaders could devise was shutting out the opinions of half the employees at a job site. Yes, the bill does state that once the organizers have gotten the signatures of 50% of workers at site, 30% can still force a vote on the measure, but it is difficult to imagine this happening if EFCA is enacted.You and I both know that, once the vote requirement for unionization is out, it is likely never to be heard from again. You apparently would call this development in labor relations "progress".

As with Stan, I suppose we have a philosophical diffrerence on this. You ran through a litany of management complaints in your response, and as I told Stan, those indeed occur at workplaces across the country. I never claimed they don't. However, in my opinion, this is hardly justification to "streamline" the unionization process by playing a numbers game and cutting out the voices of half the employees at a workplace. Do your all-too-common Stalin and Hitler analogies come to mind here, Matt?

In addition, your candidate "X" scenario doesn't seem appropriate here. All EFCA would do, to borrow your flawed analysis, would be to transfer whatever perceived power candidate "X" (management) has to candidate "Y" (union organizers and like-minded employees), while freezing out candidate "Z" (the other 50% of people that work at that site). There is a third guy in this race that you conveniently forget about.

Oh, by the way - I always knew that you supported EFCA. I just wanted to actually force you to make a case for it. I got pretty much what I expected (i.e., Hitler, Stalin, the juvenile Jon Stewart-ish "he is so dumb I could cry", the smoregasbord of proper English prose cloaking wobbly substance).

Or, put another way, just another post from Matt Thomas.

Dear gentleman...
You still do not get it but with your blinders still intact, you managed to stumble across the key issue here by your inane comment that "There is a third guy in this race."
That's it dummy...your "third guy" (the employer) has no right to be in your so-called "race" to begin with. He is not part of the bargaining unit and as the guy who can hire and fire, he never will be.
Thus, as an outsider, why should he have the right to interfere with any worker's decision as to whether or not to join a union or vote for union representation?
IT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.
Does this employer have any role at all?
Of course...he fulfills an important role, for once a union is duly certified at a workplace, he is then obligated to "bargain in good faith" with its designated representatives.
This does not mean this same employer is legally obligated to agree to and/or sign on to a collective bargaining agreement (contract) that includes terms (affecting wages, hours and working conditions) that he does not agree with.
In such an event, the union can pursue any one of several strategies, including further bargaining with the employer on issues that may allow him to agree on revised terms, or in a last resort, asking the firm's union workforce to sanction a work stoppage (strike).
That's your 1 & 1 education for today pal....got it all straight now?
Matt Thomas

Matt -

You write very well, but your reading skills are a bit questionable. The "third guy" in my hypothetical situation were the employees who would get no say in unionization under EFCA. However, in your apparent crusade against any individual that wears a "manager" name tag at a workplace, you played a little shell game and made management the odd party out in all of this. In fact, you believe management has "no right" to be involved at all, aside from sitting quietly while labor organizers go about their merry way, pulling up his or her business by it's roots. I find it almost humorous that, in your "collective bargaining" scenario, management should merely sit idly by as labor lawyers and union organizers completely reshape his or her business, with ZERO input from the individuals that actually built the thing? However, as you said, it's simply "none of their business". Their "business" is "none of their business".
Talk about someone wearing ideological "blinders"...

Again, my personal loyalties do not rest entirely with management, as I've experienced employer intimidation firsthand (as well as the union variety). However, I must say that your contempt for management is very thinly veiled, Matt. Your "gotcha" mentality on this issue is plainly apparent. I'm not even convinced that you have the best intentions for ALL employees at a site in mind here either, as you've steadfastly refused to address the fact that half the voices at a workplace would not be heard under the proposed EFCA. One could almost hear you mutter "to Hell with them - we have the number we need" in regards to organization.

If your support of EFCA rests in the principle of "standing up for workers" Matt, then stand up for ALL workers and keep the secret ballot, which is the ONLY way the voice of each and every worker is heard during an organizing effort. There is really no other way around this point. However, if in your heart of hearts, EFCA is just a way to "stick it" to management (some of whom - I hope you're sitting down here, Matt - may actually be DECENT PEOPLE just trying to run small or medium-sized businesses), then you're willingness to chuck the secret ballot makes perfect sense. Your passion isn't rooted in principle, Matt - it's mere politics then. You're playing a numbers game, and once you hit 50% - game over. You win. It just so happens that, under the new rules of your "game", half the players will never come off the bench. You seem perfectly fine with that. In your ideologically-driven world, labor would "win", business would "lose". "Workers of the world, unite!"

Oh, there is that Soviet thing again...

To the gentleman...
Your quote: "The third guy in my hypothetical situation were the employees who would get no say in unionization under EFCA."
Now how might this possibly come about since certification of the union can only be realized by way of a card check of employee signatures verified by the NLRB, or through a secret ballot election.
Or perhaps you are opposed to a vote by the majority...or does democracy itself trouble you?
In line with your above preposterous remark one can only find that such a response is not only anti-union, but appears to be a desparate ploy by one who now attempts (with little success) to hide his true antipathy and hostility toward all of those who actually work for a living and have the boldness to demand fair compensation for that work they perform.
Your further quote: "...my personal loyalties do not rest entirely with management."
Please save us from this fantasy that you are somehow in support of unions and working people.
I would suggest that you are neither...I would further suggest that you are either seriously challenged in your thinking on this issue or perhaps nothing more than a shill for management's opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.
I would finally suggest that you now run along to peddle your poisonous anti-worker agenda where it may be more welcome, such as the right wing fringe's Limbaugh or Hannity shows or wherever you might find a gathering of blacklegs and scabs.
Try looking under a big rock.
Matt Thomas

Matt -

I've been trying to hold this in ever since this thread started, but it's much too difficult to contain myself any longer...

HAHA!

Was that last post actually serious? Please tell me you had someone else type that for you? Oh, the desperation is evident, my friend. As an FYI, I too "work for a living" (I'm always fascinated by those, particularly on the left, who categorize their political opposites has people who "never put in an honest day's work"). My loyalties do not rest entirely with management - I have the audacity to believe that both management and workers deserve fair treatment in the collective bargaining process. Forgive me for not adopting your "us against them" mindset, Matt.

As for your "analysis" of my hypothetical, I believe you understand perfectly well what I'm getting at. However, you're simply refusing to acknowledge the issue at hand, which is the preservation of the secret ballot. Once again, for your benefit, the "third guy" in my scenario represents the employees that, UNDER THE NEW EFCA, neither sign the unionization card OR receive a vote under the now non-existent secret ballot. Ergo, they are completely shut out of the process.

Oh, your "opposed to the vote of the majority" tripe was particularly rich, considering that under EFCA, the "vote of the majority" would be represented by a set of signatures on a card with no actual ballots being cast. Yes, Matt - this perversion of "democracy" would indeed "trouble me".

Lastly, please keep the insults coming. In a single thread, you've hit me with Hitler, Stalin, Limbaugh, Hannity...Lord knows what tomorrow will bring! I enjoy sitting back and getting a healthy laugh as your credibility self-destructs.

KP is more than capable of handling my opinions, as I've enjoyed some very good give-and-take with many contributors over the years. I really can't say this has been one of them. Political insecurity is a bitch, isn't it Matt?

Dear Gentleman...
It was not my intention that you should enjoy this particular exchange for I am well aware that the truth is often painful to accept.
I had only hoped that you might learn something and would be candid enough to publically confess your ignorance which would then allow you to move on to a higher plain of enlightenment.
Nevertheless, among your many rambling comments is one that does interest me:
(quote) "...please keep the insults coming. In a single thread, you've hit me with Hitler, Stalin, Limbaugh, Hannity..."
Were you suggesting that any percieved association with Limbaugh and Hannity is insulting to yourself?
Was that perhaps a Freudian-driven stumble?
Finally, I do type out my own responses but you need to take better care as to who may have access to your computer.
Our family cat, Johnny, has on occasion typed out text nearly as meaningless as that you force us to suffer.
Matt Thomas

Matt -

I'll give you a "C" on the insult-meter today. Not bad, although you've done better. I do think your cat bore the brunt of it today though - poor Johnny. Cats are actually very intelligent creatures - I'm almost certain he has run circles around you on many occasions, both physically and psychologically.

Oh - and FYI - I don't listen to Limbaugh and don't particularly care for Hannity. Most of the conservatives I know are independent thinkers. Utilizing an analogy that you would most likely employ: "We all aren't like footsoldiers in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany". I realize Rush in definitely en vogue amongst the left these days (I'm sure he's enjoying the ratings bump), but comparing all of your political adversaries with a singular figure in the conservative movement that you happen to despise says much more about your ideology than theirs, Matt.

Keep trying though, bud. Someday - perhaps SOMEDAY - I'll "publicly confess my ignorance" and transcend onto your "higher plane of enlightenment", where yourself and other great liberal minds will detoxify me of my rotten and Satan-esque conservative value system and initiate me as the newest member of the great "revolution".

Or, I just might remain on my current "plane", beer in hand and dog at my feet, continuing to call it as I see it.

Yeah - I like that much better.

Yes, Johnny, (one of our two cats) does run circles around me although I like to think he is a bit less intelligent than myself unless focused on what he considers a priority in which case he will out perform me in both his agility and skill if not in pure animal intelligence.
By the way, your comment: "I don't listen to Limbaugh and don't particularly care for Hannity. Most of the conservatives I know are independent thinkers."
This same comment by you apparently has our Johnny a bit confused.
While wanting to take your word here, my most intelligent cat would like to know why so many of your opinions are in perfect synergy with those of both Limbaugh and Hannity?
Johnny would like to have you further explain just how you can claim that most of these conservatives are independent thinkers.
Johnny wishes to know why it is that so many of these same "independent thinkers" willingly describe themselves as "ditto-heads" and thus as near-mindless sycophants for their Rush Limbaugh?
Note: I noticed in reading over my previous posting that the word "plane" was mis-spelled by me as "plain".
I regret this error and further wish to freely and publically confess my ignorance in terms of the proper useage of syntax.
Matt Thomas

Johnny -

Can you ask Matt how exactly is it that he knows my opinions "are in perfect synergy" with Limbaugh and Hannity if he doesn't regularly tune in to their shows himself? Or, is Matt just presuming to know the opinions of Limbaugh and Hannity on each and every issue from the outset? Between you and I, Johnny, I think your pal Matt is a bit of a closet Sean fan - you may want to inspect your house for Hannity wall posters or signed photos.

I hate to keep you away from your scratching post and mouse-chasing, Johnny, but could you also ask Matt if he personally knows any self-described "conservatives", and if so, how many spout off nothing but the talking points of Limbaugh or Hannity?

Now Johnny, if Matt answers "Yes, I do" and "All of them" to the above questions (which I expect, frankly), then could you please do me a favor? Could you tell Matt that anytime he would like an honest debate with an independent-minded, Limbaugh/Hannity-free conservative, there is one that regularly checks in here at KP.