Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (37265)	9/21/2009 11:04:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You are exactly correct. People want sane centrism. The Obama / Pelosi Administration has created an opening for even Republicans to be relatively moderate without compromising on the fiscal conservatism that this country needs to survive. Hopefully, this ACORN thing will really resonate to all Americans, no matter their color. Did you notice how quickly Obama moved to throw his close allies at ACORN under the bus? The Clintons had a well deserved reputation for destroying those who became politically dangerous to them. Obama will find potential allies more aloof as people notice how casually he allows those closest to him to be destroyed.

To: KLP who wrote (37265)	9/29/2009 4:04:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Obama v. Bush, the Sequel Two gubernatorial races have taken on national significance.By WILLIAM MCGURN SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, 8:59 P.M. ET. While campaigning for president, Barack Obama arguably ran as much against George W. Bush as he did against John McCain. All across America, Candidate Obama hammered home his message. Mr. McCain represented "the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the past eight years." A vote for Mr. McCain was a vote for a "third Bush term." And far from being a maverick, Mr. McCain was in actuality a Bush "sidekick." Today we're back to the Obama v. Bush storyline. With one twist. In this election cycle, the Democrat tarring his opponent as a "Bush Republican" is running behind in the polls—while the Republican bashing his opponent as an "Obama Democrat" enjoys a lead. The two races are for the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia, states that Mr. Obama carried in the last election. In New Jersey, the incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, is running on the same anti-Bush message that worked so well for Democrats last year. But in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell has turned the tables by tying his opponent to Barack Obama. The received wisdom, of course, is that national politics have little to do with the choices voters make at the state and local level. Most press commentary reflects this wisdom, tut-tutting about candidates trying to use presidents to define their opponents. Whether or not the received wisdom is right, the candidates themselves obviously believe otherwise—or they wouldn't be doing it. In New Jersey, Republican challenger Chris Christie served as a U.S. attorney under President George W. Bush before receiving his party's nomination—and Gov. Corzine doesn't intend to let the voters of blue-state New Jersey forget it. A cruise through the Corzine campaign Web site shows press releases referring to Mr. Christie as "Bush Republican Chris Christie." One of many Bush-themed ads carries this tag-line: "Chris Christie—the same Bush policies that got us into this mess." And at a Corzine rally this past weekend, the Press of Atlantic City reports former Vice President Al Gore revving up the crowd with attacks suggesting that Mr. Christie represents "the George Bush wing of the Republican Party." Given the miserable state of New Jersey's economy, it's not surprising that Gov. Corzine would like to nationalize this election. In addition to the swipes at Mr. Bush for the state's woes, the governor has put up billboards showing him standing behind President Obama. Unfortunately the old Bush-bash doesn't seem to be working: the RealClearPolitics.com poll average shows Mr. Christie up by 6.6 points. Down in Virginia, meanwhile, it's the Republican candidate who's playing presidential tag. Mr. McDonnell surprised many people by trying his Democratic nominee, Creigh Deeds, to Mr. Obama. Mr. McDonnell has zeroed in on Mr. Obama's economic agenda and is hanging it around Mr. Deeds's neck. On issues from health care to card-check legislation for unions to cap and trade, Mr. McDonnell has been painting Mr. Deeds as an Obama tax-and-spend clone. This one appears to be more successful: the RPC average shows Mr. McDonnell's lead at 4.4 points. Though this is down from the double-digit advantage Mr. McDonnell held earlier, the decline has little to do with the Obama issue and more to do with an old college thesis that Democrats are using to paint Mr. McDonnell as a religious extremist. Mr. Deeds's discomfort shows in the pains he is taking to put some distance between himself and the president. Indeed, at a recent debate sponsored by the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Deeds was asked whether he saw himself as an Obama Democrat. He answered pointedly, "I'm a Creigh Deeds Democrat." It's a tricky dance for all. On the one hand, the White House wants Democrats to win these two governorships. On the other, it doesn't want to get so close to these two candidates that if they go down in flames, the president gets burned too. It makes for interesting politics. In Virginia, the White House took a hit when former Democratic Gov. Doug Wilder revealed that he had rejected a personal appeal from Mr. Obama to endorse Mr. Deeds. And here's how a recent New York Times piece described Team Obama's work in New Jersey: "Every TV ad that Mr. Corzine puts on the air is being screened by the president's team. The governor's aides are giving daily briefings to the White House. Mr. Obama's pollsters have taken over for Mr. Corzine's polling team, and White House operatives are on the ground for everything from internal strategy sessions to obscure pep rallies with Latino supporters." Each race is still too close to call. In the end, the experts may well be correct that the presidential factor will have little to do with the outcome of either contest. But with Mr. Obama's health-care bill stalled, and his popularity declining, you can bet the last thing the administration wants is to wake up the day after the election to stories suggesting that the Obama magic is gone. Write to MainStreet@wsj.com online.wsj.com

To: KLP who wrote (37265)	10/16/2009 2:27:06 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Creigh Deeds's Union Label Big Labor becomes a political liability in Virginia. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL OCTOBER 15, 2009, 9:55 P.M. ET. 'When I'm governor, you won't just have a friend in Richmond—you'll have a partner." So said Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds to union supporters on Oct. 3, 2008. The question for Mr. Deeds these days isn't when, but if. And if, as polls suggest, he fails to become governor of Virginia, that loss is shaping up to be as big a judgment on Big Labor as it is on the Democrat. Last year's Democratic victories marked a high in the political fortunes for unions. "Tonight does not simply turn a page but begins a new era for America," bragged SEIU President Andy Stern on election night. Heady on victory and political favors from a new administration, labor turned to replicating their Washington success across the country. Target No. 1: Virginia. The Old Dominion is the northernmost "right to work" state, and one of only two states that bar collective bargaining for state employees—issues that have long grated on organized labor. Mr. Obama's win here nonetheless gave unions reason to hope opinions had changed. This year's election meant a chance at another quick win. Better yet, the Democrat, Mr. Deeds, was a union man through and through. A Virginia victory would be a tactical and symbolic triumph, and pave the way into other union-skeptical states. It hasn't turned out that way. Virginia is instead offering evidence that the unions, in one short year, have overreached. Voters are growing uneasy, even angry, over the growing list of political favors showered on labor, and news of its unsavory connections with outfits like Acorn. Mr. Deeds's union ties are, if anything, proving a liability in his race against Republican Bob McDonnell. Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, and current Gov. Tim Kaine, both took union money, though were careful never to highlight the connection. Mr. Deeds didn't take that precaution. In an 18-year state legislative career, he has a cumulative 92% rating on the Virginia AFL-CIO's scorecard of votes. He's refused to denounce national union priorities such as card check. During a rough-and-tumble Democratic primary earlier this year, he visited picketers outside a Hilton hotel. Nor have the unions disguised their ambition of turning Virginia into a dysfunctional state like California. In the past year, organized labor has poured nearly $2 million into the Deeds campaign (only the party itself has given more). There was $900,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $200,000 from the SEIU, and $250,000 from the Mid-Atlantic Laborers. The amounts are so big even the Washington Post took time off writing about Mr. McDonnell's controversial graduate thesis on the role of women in society to weigh in with a raised-eyebrow story. Yet all this has happened against the backdrop of growing public disaffection with the union movement. Big Labor has spent the past year cashing checks in Washington—Detroit auto bailouts, special perks in federal contracting, carve-outs in health-care legislation—and the public isn't impressed. The Acorn videotape scandal, and subsequent revelations about the group's close ties to the SEIU, was a hit to the credibility of unions overall. In September, Gallup reported that labor had taken a "significant image hit in the past year." For the first time in 73 years of polling on the question, only a minority of Americans approved of unions (48%)—down from nearly 60% a year ago. A majority of Americans are instead now of the opinion that unions "hurt the U.S. economy." Approval among political independents dropped a stunning 20 points, to 44%, in just one year. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce poll in August suggests Virginians are similarly down on unions. Some 49% of registered Virginia voters said issues relating to unions and union organizing would be very important or extremely important to their decision for governor—though not in ways unions might wish. A full 65% said Virginia needs to keep employee unions out of state government; 54% want to keep Virginia's bar on collective bargaining for government employees. Asked specifically about Mr. Deeds's promise to be a "partner" to unions, 51% had a negative reaction; only 26% felt positive. This explains why in coming days the Chamber is going up with TV ads in Virginia highlighting Mr. Deed's union ties. It explains why Mr. McDonnell frequently mentions his commitment to "right to work" and Mr. Deeds's support of card check. It explains why the Virginia Republican Party made news several weeks ago in calling on Mr. Deeds to return his SEIU donations because they're tainted by Acorn. It explains why Mr. Deeds has recently been flip-flopping on questions like collective bargaining, and why he has not been seen on a picket line lately. Mr. Deeds has plenty going against him in this race, including his party's unpopular Washington agenda. But the unions have clearly been more hurt than help. The fact that Big Labor's political strength is already waning, and in a state on which it had placed such huge bets, is a story all in itself. Write to kim@wsj.com. online.wsj.com