"These people have way too much time on their hands."

Exactly. Which is why we need to go back to a part-time legislature. 4 months out of the year, tops. Which means they'd all have to get A REGULAR JOB.

I somewhat object to the use of the word "progressive" for these people. First, they aren't interested in progress, they are interested in reverting to failed systems- socialism and communism. Secondly, they are using the word progressive to cover their true nature - liberals. "Liberal" is a label they avoid like the plague because of the well-justified negative connotations it has.

Call them what they are - liberals.

This sort of crapola is precisely why we have the 1st Amendment. When government can control how candidates get their message out, they can in fact control the election.

Once the camel gets his nose under the tent, it becomes quite impossible to stop the whole camel from entering.

"Progressive"

They keep using that word. They don't understand the concept.

I don't think it'll be that much longer before the plaintive 'Progressive' cry of 'That's just not fair!' and a call for more regulation of what's supposedly not fair is met with a fist to the teeth, either metaphorical or actual.

'Fair' means something works (or doesn't work) for BOTH sides equally. If something isn't fair, then the disadvantaged needs to figure out a way to cope with the difficulty.

This isn't to say that 'fair' is always unreasonable - far from it. Something like the Americas with Disabilities Act is fair in that it requires common-sense accomodations for the handicapped - but a call for removal of all stairways and replacement with wheelchair navigatable ramps in every building, public or private, in the interests of 'fairness' would be met with scorn and resistance.

Not everything is fair, or can be made fair, or even SHOULD be fair.

It's not 'fair' that Tiger Woods should be able to play golf much better than I. On the other hand, I've got a wonderful marriage, and he doesn't.

It's not 'fair' that my boss makes more money than I do. On the other hand, he's got a hell of a lot of things on his plate, and keeps sufficient balls in the air without dropping them that he'd qualify as a top-rank juggler. I don't - and don't want them.

So 'fair' can be pretty damn subjective at times. But more and more it seems like 'fair' for 'progressives' is whatever gives them an advantage or keeps someone from doing what THEY think shouldn't be done.

So candidates are supposed to put disclosures on all twitters or texts. WTF? How long until we the people are not supposed to twitter or blog about political issues or candidates without disclosure statements?

Screw that.

Disclosure: My opinions are my own, and I approve of this message.

Do the right thing and you have nothing to fear.
It's that simple but obviously not possible in the advancement of communism.

Free speech aside, it's too bad campaigns can't be limited to something like 90 days before an election. As it is now campaigns start a year before congressional elections and two years before presidential elections. The public gets so conditioned to the constant campaigning that campaigns need to grow loader and more in your face to get any attention. It's such a turn off that most people tune it out and don't even vote.

Liberal, liberal, liberal..;

Your right Brett... I feel all negative now.

Apparently those idjits don't realize there are only 140 characters allowed in a tweet, which pretty much guarantees they could get the disclosure in and...nothing else at all.

In some cases, of course, that would be a very good thing. Maybe they aren't so dumb...