@Greg, any chance we can convince you to start a blog, maybe part of PuffHo or Daily Kostic? You post nothing but drivel that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. By starting your own blog all you need to do is post a link and we can all ignore your pointless cr^p easier.

I'm curious to see if anyone has conducted a socio-economic study of the women (and their partners) who opt for a "2 minus 1" abortion. Before anyone calls me a racist, or any other similarly derogatory name. I'd wager a half year's pay that the vast majority are rich, white and liberal.

@Gary (4:07 PM), In the old days Dr Hunter S Thompson called it "Gonzo Journalism", today the AP calls it "Accountability Journalism"; same reporting style, just a new name.

If you continuously throw 'stuff' against your opponents, and eventually one speck sticks somewhere, then the Professional Left within the media will cut loose like the world will end tomorrow. If they cannot build that minuscule seedling into a full-blown garden obscuring the real problems facing Middle America then they know the Donks lose the Senate for sure, and maybe the White House as well. All politics today requires the art of innuendo and smear. Ms Wasserman-Schulz is doing exactly what she is responsible for. In the mean time we all know that POTUS actually is a card-carrying member of CPUSA! Both sides have people who whether officially or unofficially, their primary responsibility is to sling the stuff, as much and and...

Four possible in the small "l" libertarian field with potential (slim to none - but still potential: Ron Paul (getting a bit old and has excess baggage not of his own creation - White Supremacists anyone?), Rand Paul (not quite enough experience in the Senate - will establish correlation between Barry's minimal time with Rand's), Gary Johnson (an up and comer without enough name recognition yet, and a potential descendant to Ron Paul), and the one with possibly the best chance : Herman Cain (despite serving as Chair of a Regional Fed Reserve).

@Sandy, the fact that a multi-million number of hits mention white supremacists or holocaust supporters only means that they think that Dr Paul's ideas might conform to theirs. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT DR PAUL AGREES WITH THEM! In fact, of the 1st 3 pages I see lots of references to white supremacist/holocaust deniers supporting Dr Paul, but not 1 where Dr Paul comes even close to agreeing with them. Good attempts at smear, though. Google is a wonderful thing, but since the Web has no gatekeepers not everything comes even close to being true.

Obviously, Mr Medved has a hard time remembering the day before yesterday unless something great happened that totally supports his personal biases.

I guess the part that upsets me most is that the Radical Feminists pushing these agendas against everyday behavior (yes, some is vile and almost infantile) insist on playing the "minority victimhood" card when every study published by peer-reviewed journals on higher education show categorically that females are,on average, over 52% of the student population at the university level. This is a great reason to bring back requirements for math classes in order to get one's diploma - how else do these protesters equate "minority" with a greater than 50% population?

Right Mac, the Unions are also interested in productivity: what is the minimum productivity needed for the maximum benefit. Oh, I'm not bashing most rank and file members - they are representative of the general electorate, mostly unaware of the politics that goes into negotiations. I am bashing those activists and Union leaders who will use any and all techniques they can conceive of to win (which will almost *always* hurt the children in the long run).

You're arguing macro vs micro level here. Sure, the illegal working on a construction site is paid way less to stage cinder blocks or transport 2x4s from here to there (or whatever job you care to mention - including skilled positions like masons or steam-fitters) than the lowest paid union worker hired to do the same job (the same applies for non-union projects - the differences are less though). Why wouldn't the contractor make the sound economic decision that does, indeed, lower wages on average at that jobsite. But... compared to what "the average construction worker earns in the State of..." that reduction counts for considerably less. And at the National level.... Or total economic impact across all employment, included...