Sep 24 2009

Someone Stealing My Lines?

Published by at 8:52 am under All General Discussions

I have been writing about the Political Industrial Complex for a some time now. Since I first used and defined the term last September I have used it in many posts to define the elitist who run this country and show how they are opposing the average America people who this country is all about, culminating in this post yesterday.

So imagine my surprise when I see a not so clever variant to this term on RCP today:

The Partisan Industrial Complex is overwhelming American politics. From the partisan media to the modern campaign, an entire industry flourishes on polarization. Partisanship earns and spends billions annually.

I also have noted on many occasions that the Political Industrial Complex is swelling the ranks of us independents – a theme also touched on in the RCP article:

Even as partisanship increasingly defines the American political system, the electorate has become less partisan in recent decades. Independents have swelled to record levels, last seen in the early 1990s. But Washington is more divided than any time since at least the Second World War.

It seems to me the article is in line with my observations, therefore I enjoy the company in the choir. I hope this is just a case of great minds thinking alike. But if my posts did set the seed of thought here, I would very much like the recognition.

BTW, The article does a great job in identifying the major elements of the failed Political Industrial Complex I proposed be dismantled ASAP.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “Someone Stealing My Lines?”

  1. ama055131 says:

    I read the article the other day and wondered if you really knew how many people read your posts. Personally AJ I would take it as a complement, just keep doing what you do best you make us better for it.

  2. ivehadit says:

    I like your title better, AJ. I personally am sick of the word partisan.

    On another note, did you see the headlines today? The world “currency” issue, Acorn suing the whistleblowers (sucking up their money in legal fees and trying to intimidate anyone else!), obama’s speeches at the useless UN, Pelosi moving further left on healthcare, Afghanistan…argh.

    I’ve got news for these sick radicals: THEY may have victim/defeatist DNA but WE DO NOT. We are fighters for what we love and we have only begun. This country has taken on enemies much worse and have conquered them. We will succeed again. Paging Eliot Ness…

  3. WWS says:

    1) you’re right, Political-Industrial complex is much more accurate and a good modification on Eisenhower’s classic warning against the military-industrial complex.

    The reuse of your line is just like a lot of the crappy muzak you hear in malls these days – it’s just different enough from the original to make them free and clear of any infringement claims. But it’s close enough so that you know what it used to be. And of course the hacked copy is never as good.

    2) this lawsuit is hilarious – it’s the best thing that’s ever happened to Breitbart, Giles, and O’Keefe. Oh, it will be a pain – but this is *catastrophic* for the dems, who need this issue off the table right now. Instead, it’s now a 3 ring circus that Acorn will lose miserably.

    3) Kim Jong Il called. He said this was over the top.

  4. crosspatch says:

    I told you so.

    Some time last year the Congress passed regulations that would allow offshore drilling. I mentioned at the time that I thought it was a farce and once the new congress was seated, they would reverse that position.

    WASHINGTON – The Senate on Wednesday voted against an attempt by Republicans to keep in place a plan by the Bush administration to allow oil and gas drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

    The 56-42 vote killed a proposal by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would have blocked the Obama administration from pursuing its own policy on offshore drilling.

    Can we please get these jokers out of office ASAP?

  5. BarbaraS says:

    I would hope that the lawyers Breitbart and company hire look into why acorn is listed as plaintiff in this suit. There has to be some sneaky reason. Democrats being what they are. Otherwise it doesn’t make legal sense. Acorn is the entity these two employees should be suing also since they fired these idiots.

  6. daniel ortega says:

    Why do you think that Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll has shown
    some rebound in Obama’s approval rating? It was -5 today. A few weeks
    ago it was around -10.

    I can’t figure he’s done anything to make life better for anyone?

    Please explain it.

  7. WWS says:

    This lawsuit is so much fun to take apart – it’s almost a shame it won’t last long. OR CAN IT??? (we only dare to hope)

    From Leon Wolfe, an attorney posting at Redstate:

    “The suit alleges that Andrew Breitbart, working in concert with O’Keefe and Giles, intercepted an “oral communication” using an electronic device, which would indeed be a violation of the act. The problem, however, is that the statute specifically defines “oral communication” in section 10-401(2)(i) as: “any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.”

    The problem for ACORN is that, as a matter of law, the employees at ACORN had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said to members of the public who entered their offices. As made clear by Katz v. United States and its progeny (made applicable specifically to the Maryland Wiretap Act by cases such as Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)), “What a person exposes knowingly to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

    Get that? The conversations in question were knowingly exposed in a place of business to two customers who walked in off the streets. There is and can be absolutely no expectation of privacy for the ACORN employees in question. As such, the conversations are not “private conversations” under the Maryland Wiretap Act as a matter of law. I found all this in a matter of 15 minutes on Lexis. I’m sure another 15 (which I don’t have) will find numerous directly applicable precedents under Katz that are completely factually indistinguishable from the present case. In other words, this case is so totally without legal merit the very filing of it is almost sanctionable. And putting “they had a reasonable expectation of privacy” in the complaint is not enough for this claim to survive summary dismissal; the court does not have to accept conclusory statements and legal conclusions.”

  8. WWS says:

    And yet another way to legally destroy the Acorn lawsuit (and one which should have caused any lawyer with even the least bit of sense or ethics to have left this one alone)

    § 5-807. SLAPP suits. (a) “SLAPP suit” defined.- In this section, “SLAPP suit” means a strategic lawsuit against public participation. (b) Nature.- A lawsuit is a SLAPP suit if it is: (1) Brought in bad faith against a party who has communicated with a federal, State, or local government body or the public at large to report on, comment on, rule on, challenge, oppose, or in any other way exercise rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article 10, Article 13, or Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights regarding any matter within the authority of a government body; (2) Materially related to the defendant’s communication; and (3) Intended to inhibit the exercise of rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article 10, Article 13, or Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. (c) Scope of immunity.- A defendant in a SLAPP suit is not civilly liable for communicating with a federal, State, or local government body or the public at large, if the defendant, without constitutional malice, reports on, comments on, rules on, challenges, opposes, or in any other way exercises rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article 10, Article 13, or Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights regarding any matter within the authority of a government body. (d) Remedies of defendant.- A defendant in an alleged SLAPP suit may move to: (1) Dismiss the alleged SLAPP suit, in which case the court shall hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss as soon as practicable; or (2) Stay all court proceedings until the matter about which the defendant communicated to the government body or the public at large is resolved. (e) Applicability.- This section: (1) Is applicable to SLAPP suits notwithstanding any other law or rule; and
    (2) Does not diminish any equitable or legal right or remedy otherwise available to a defendant in a SLAPP suit.

  9. Terrye says:


    There is a lot of movement in those numbers for no real reason, I think some of it is just normal. For instance, after Obama did his big push on health care the numbers went up 5 points in 5 days, and then they dropped 6 in one day.

  10. Terrye says:

    For instance if you look at Obama’s average is 50.6. Look at the last few days, he has a picked up a couple of points on Rasmussen, but it is still within the margin of error from the last poll.