1. peach4handel says:

    The New York politcal trackers has Keown down by 1.2% 49.6 to 48.4%.That right there had to be within error right there

  2. Oh, great. Now the GOP is the party of regulating executive pay. Does Mike Keown support the idea that government should dictate how much a firm should pay its employees?

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us”

    • polisavvy says:

      I certainly hope not. The chance to climb the ladder, reach the top, and draw in the big bucks is called hard work, determination, and incentive. That should not be stifled.

      • The bonues in question were a patently stupid populist talking point for several reasons. 1.) The bonues were in contracts that were agreed upon before the government bailouts. 2.) A lot of employees set to rec’v those bonuses didn’t work in the subprime mortgage products 3.) Several banks were forced to take the money reguardless of their financial stability and 4.) If you’re not willing to pay for top talent you are going to get major corporations run by the likes of Michael Scott (The Office reference) But hey, let’s not let principles and nuance get in the way of getting ourselves elected.

        Does anyone have an official stance from Mike Keown on government regulation of private sector pay?

        • polisavvy says:

          True, and good point. Hopefully, if he has a stance, Keown will make a statement. If not, can you say “oops?”

          • They’ll just say “It’s paid for by the NRCC. Mike’s campaign is not responsible for the content” However, I still want to know if this ad reflects Mike beliefs. Would Mike have voted for a 90% tax on AIG bonuses?

            • polisavvy says:

              Makes one wonder, doesn’t it? I’m not in his district; but, I’d like to know his answer to this before I were to cast my vote. They shouldn’t run from the ad by saying his campaign “is not responsible for the content.” They should face it head on, answer the question, and put the voters’ minds at ease.

              • jeff says:

                I can tell you exactly what Mike’s stance on the subject is. He thinks that government should be completely out of the private sector. Check out his website if you have any questions about his stances. http://www.mikekeown.com

                This is not Mike Keown’s attack on Bishop. This came from the NRCC. However, Bishop has been trying to portray Keown as a “Wall Street Man” and not a “Main Street Man”. The NRCC bringing up Bishop’s voting record for bailing out Wall Street directly contradicts Bishop’s statements throughout the district.

                • polisavvy says:

                  Thanks for the information. That’s good to hear. They SHOULD be completely out of the private sector. The government can tear up a crowbar – we need them out of the private sector, that’s for sure. Thanks again. (As I said, I’m not in his district).

                  • jeff says:

                    No, I was trying to point out that Bishop has been traveling the district attacking Keown for being a “Wall Street Man” while calling himself a “Main Street Man”. However, this ad points out that Bishop supported and voted for the Wall Street bailout which directly contradicts his message to the voters of the district. Keown on his website points out that he is opposed to any and all of the bailouts. Sorry if I didn’t get the point across correctly.

                    • You didn’t address the point at all, much less correctly. The ad attacks Sanford Bishop for not taxing away AIG employee bonuses, which according to you, is the same position Mike Keown would have taken.

                    • jeff says:

                      Where did I state that Keown had the same position? You wanted to know if Keown would tax bonuses. No. I said earlier that Keown wouldn’t have voted for the bailout either. He doesn’t want government interfering with the private sector. How is that the same stance as Bishop? I was pointing out that what Bishop portrays himself as in the district completely contradicts his voting record in Washington DC.

                    • jeff says:

                      Bishop voted for the bailouts in the first place. Keown wouldn’t have voted for them. That is the difference in their stances. That is what I am trying to point out. That doesn’t match up with what Bishop is campaigning on in the district.

                      I understand what you are talking about. Bishop allowed the bonuses after the bailout. He is being attacked because of that. With Keown’s stance you wouldn’t have to vote to allow bonuses because there never would have been a bailout to start with. Government needs to get out of the private sector.

Comments are closed.