Posted on 10/04/2007 7:07:18 AM PDT by SJackson
I've seen a lot of opinion polling, but my jaw dropped when I saw this result from our special NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll of Republicans in advance of next week's presidential candidate debate sponsored by CNBC, MSNBC and the WSJ. By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush’s calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.
"It’s a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
waah
Incidentally, are the censors prohibiting you from posting a link to them? [hoot]
That's not what it said. LOL!
Facts are facts. Doesn't matter where they are reported in when you google them up. You are always committing the ad hominem fallacy. Anyways, so what are you up to now, it sure sounds you are implying that McGraw-Hill is against Business?
How long before Media Matters shows up as a Paul Ross source?
More likey you would as your are clearly a Liberal. And that is neither a "think tank" or an accepted business journal. That is an arm of the Soros/Clinton political machine. [Your buddies no doubt].
Not too different from your cleaving to the Wall Street Journal's elitist editorial board positions on trade and Illegal aliens. I will stick with Investor's Business Daily...which is more Main Street.
The clash between Main Street and Wall Street for the soul of this party is at issue in this election...and it is time for Wall Street to get its come-uppance, and the American middle class to restore its political primacy...and re-orient the party to its grass roots. Nationalism. Not Globalism.
In the first place, there's no conflict because most mid-Americans own Wall Street.
In the second place, anyone who's not a member of the stock holding middle class is still part of America, and has nothing to be gained by seeing the other guy's end of the boat sinking.
It’s your censorship, since you went out of your way to have them erased, and didn’t post “a link” to them. Some hoot.
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints.
You know, you could do something really, REALLY radical to circumvent this horrific censorship, this hugh and series infringement on your First Amendment rights - like, re-post the article in question as a link and excerpt, according to basic FR guidelines. But if that is in turn too much of an infringement on your fundamental liberties, I'm afraid I can't be of too much more help here in your ongoing battles against tyranny.
**************
LOL! Meanie. :)
Naw, that misses his whole point, namely flame the opposition. A much better solution is posting the entire text of some wordy document not bound by copyright restrictions --like, say that someone's idea is unconstitutional and 'prove' it by posting the entire text of the US Constitution.
Hard to believe he’s a lawyer. LOL!
Note how the information is no longer important, but the “censorship” is.
And his misunderstanding of the info he posted just highlights his ignorance.
Ownership does not connote control. An ownership stake in broad numbers, even if the majority, is not a decisively controlling interest. The delegation of the "middle class" investments to Fund Managers, severs their lines of authority. And as a practical matter, the fund managers could care less about the issues that would actually rouse the investing public, if it had authority to engage in the proxy issues. It has as this poll that heads the thread become something of a populist cause among the conservative grass roots. As the divide over executive compensation issues, as one such example (along with American Employment opportunities) clearly indicates, many are concerned. Excessive executive compensation hurts shareholders according to a number of studies. CEO pay levels became so huge that they cut into corporate earnings.
Those levels also raised a red flag about how independent the corporate boards are that they continue to approve of those ridiculously large pay packages. So despite the division in control, the firewall protecting self-indulgent management, it's not surprising that the biggest increase in shareholder resolutions has been in the area of excessive CEO pay.
There is also a reasonable concern about the American loyalty of a management which becomes so over-weening and self-obsessed. [Just like you.]
In the second place, anyone who's not a member of the stock holding middle class is still part of America, and has nothing to be gained by seeing the other guy's end of the boat sinking.
That would have formerly been true in a nation which was not pitting lowest-wage Global labor inputs...along the entire skill spectrum... against the American public. Thus your thesis no longer holds since that condition has in fact changed.
And the converse clearly is not true. Clearly someone seems to have something to "be gained by seeing the other guy's end of the boat sinking." To wit: The practice of the Wall Street model of outsourcing to increase yields...trashing of American middle class manufacturers, engineers, by shifting their activity to low-wage nations etc. is pandemic.
Effectively, the Globalist Wall Street deal-makers targetted the Middle Class itself as an "inefficiency."
The $16.5 billion of bonuses to the Goldman-Sachs crew for their deal-making is certainly "gain".
That is an allowable presumption, seeing that he won’t post the relevant passage(s) again. I’ll read it when I get home. I have one more question: if this is an insidious plot on my part to silence him, why did I inform him that I was reporting the violation?
I don’t expect his hysterical rantings to be logical.
Must have something to do with Cthulhu, and some weird cult thing.
(Makes about as much sense as his premise that you have some strange insidious plot against him. Though more entertaining.)
Why the heck shouldn't the rules be followed? The rest of us are following them (for the most part).
Paul can do whatever he wants, because he's the biggest (hehe) conservative on FR.
Now, apparently, what's important has morphed from information to censorship to class warfare. Maybe Paul should have become an investment banker instead of a struggling lawyer.
Paul is indeed the biggest conservative I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.