If this is supposed to be sneaky, it's the worst-kept secret on the planet.

Maybe the clue is in your statement about "which group in this country swings the most weight politically". But how do you reconcile the assertion that unions have a lot of political power with declining union membership and influence? And if unions wield so much power, why did Republicans have a stranglehold on Washington for so long? Look at the results. Too many contradictions in your assertions.

I didn't make an assertion. I pointed out hard numbers. You can take that or leave it. Unless your contention is that levels of political donations have no relationship to political power, in which case we can start at square one.

The Republicans had a "stranglehold" on Washington for exactly six years, with a Republican president and a Republican congress. The rest of the time?

The union article shows anything but the "times being ripe for a revival." What the unions are doing is trolling the bottom levels of the job market, looking to siphon dues off of people who can barely get by as it is. Their cash is drying up, and that's pretty much what they're concerned with. It's the only reason they're going after Wal-Mart. And yet, they can still manage to pump a few million a year into Democratic coffers.