Just like they are giving away the auto industry to Asia.  All the board roomies have golden parachutes, made up of scammed away pension and health plans, no problem for them.

McCaine take a stand on this issue?  Nope, he will talk about nuclear power.  Exposed as a huge financial disaster in this nuclear industry publication pointed out by falcon.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

It's hard to vote for Paul even as political strategery JMG.  He wants to cancel social security.  He is the epitomey of corporatarianism (corporate libertarianism...total liberty for corporations).

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Actually, he's not.  He'd be the first to take companies to court for their abuse of the commons.  Certainly with regards to most forms of pollution and probably even with regards to carbon emissions, though I can't say that I know his position on climate change these days.

Paul is a true small-responsible-government Republican -- what used to be known as a "Goldwater Republican" -- which is a rare bird nowadays.  JMG is right: he's a real thorn in the Republican's side, all the more so because many of their base remain loyal on the delusion that the Republican party is still the party of small government.  Putting Paul in contrast to the other contenders emphasizes the fact that this is no longer the case.

Meanwhile, I swear, if a candidate could get on the GOP primary ballot as "The Rotting Corpse of Ronald Reagan" he would win in a runaway.  Except for Fred Thompson of course, the (Barely) Ambulatory Rotting Corpse of Ronald Reagan Except Not as Well-Acted.

The 5% Project

If you live in Michigan and want to throw a wrench in the R works, vote for Romney. Mich. is his last shot, and as long as he's in the field is fractured and at war. If he sinks out of site, McCain's got it all locked up.

grist.org

Supporting Romney in Michigan only increases the chances that he'll pull a Clinton and actually win the thing (remember, Bill didn't win any of the early events).  And Romney would be more dangerous than McCain, methinks.

The 5% Project

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear ...

A few things should be immediately apparent:

1) McCain is by far the GOP's strongest candidate in the general election. (Rudy would be stronger, but he's not going to make it past South Carolina, much less to the nomination.) He trounces Hillary 49% to 38%, and beats Obama 46% to 43%. In fact, the only Democrat who beats him is none other than John Edwards, who decisively beats McCain 46% to 39%.

This is why it's a good idea for Michigan Democrats to engage once again in the time-honored tradition of crossover primary voting to vote for Romney and deny McCain a win in the Michigan primary: It blunts McCain's momentum, and convinces Romney to stay in the race at least through the South Carolina primary, which is a good thing as Romney will force McCain to spend money he doesn't have on him to spend. (And if Romney does win the nomination, he's much easier to beat, money or no money.)

2. John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. He is the only one who is not beaten outright by any Republican candidate: He ties with Giuliani at 44% each, but easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, the latter two by double-digit margins.

3. Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. She loses to every single Republican except Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and neither of those two gents is going to get the Republican nomination for president.

4. Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. He does much better against Rudy Giuliani than either Edwards or Clinton, beaing Giuliani 37% to 47%, yet against every other Republican, especially McCain and Romney, Edwards is the Democrat that does the best.

Of course, this is just one pollster, and though Rasmussen is probably the best of the lot, it behooves us to look at other polls to see if similar patterns obtain. Luckily for us, CNN has been doing nationwide head-to-head polling as well, and in their December polling, the same patterns manifest: Edwards is the strongest Dem, Hillary is the weakest, Obama is somewhere in between -- and John McCain is the GOP's strongest player. CNN's current January polling is somewhat kinder to Clinton, but it's also missing Edwards, so there's no way to see if the patterns still hold with him in the mix.

The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain. But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty. Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him. (Speaking of which: KingOneEye at DailyKos pointed out this morning how the NYT is ignoring a key result of its own poll on the race -- namely, that as more people get to know him, Edwards' favorability rating keeps going up.)

One picture of Fred in his swimming suit by the pool with his trophy wife would certainly clinch the election for the democrats were he the nominee.  Shudder...  oh the hideousness..ness.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I don't know Green, he sounds folksy, like he is on the side of we the people.  But deep down you know he would hand everything over to corporations, ports, highways, national parks, the military.. and so forth.  They do things so much better than government you know.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog