The day before Election Day 2008, there are "moderate" voices aplenty on EFCA:

Over at his LiveJournal page, The Only Living Boy in New York (aka nightstalker) wrote:

On the issues over all, I find myself agreeing with Obama far more then with McCain. Off the top of my head, I think McCain would be the better choice to run the wars we're in, and I like his energy policy somewhat more. He'll probably be better on Israel. I don't like gun control, and while I'm pro-Unions, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" is a horrible idea.

But on most issues, I'm with Obama. I like his tax plan better, he has an actual technology platform, he's pro Net Neutrality, he'll improve our standing in the world, he's a social liberal, and so on and so forth. I also think we need a Democrat picking the next few Supreme Court justices to bring some balance back to the bench.

At The Moderate Voice, Pete Abel bemoans the campaign's tempting fixations on issues like Senator Obama's relationship with William Ayers, as a failure to focus attention on significant policy issues:

And that failure really hit home between Friday night and this morning, as I learned more about Obama's support for - and McCain's opposition to - a return of the "Employee Free Choice Act." For those not familiar with this bill, here's how an article Friday in the Miami Herald explained it:

The act ... would update the nation's labor laws and end a long-standing practice of secret balloting that dates to 1935 and the National Labor Relations Act.

Instead of voting in secret in a federally supervised election to determine whether to unionize, under the new proposal employees could unionize simply by collecting signatures from more than half the workers at a business.

On the surface, that doesn't sound like such a bad thing. In practice, the repercussions could be significant. Case in point: A friend of mine is an executive for a mid-sized firm that, despite economic pressures, has maintained a manufacturing plant in the U.S. He told me there should be no question in anyone's mind: If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law - and the employees at my friend's company unionize as a result - then the company would immediately shut down its U.S. plant and move operations and jobs to Mexico.

At Bloomberg, commentary by Kevin Hassett suggests that currently, the "key labor policy parallel to the 1930s is 'card check'":

Supporters of card-check are presumably willing to accept the possibility of coercion because they believe the end -- a large increase in unionization -- justifies the means. But if that end is achieved, then it likely will lead to a surge in labor costs and reduction in competitiveness for U.S. companies at just the wrong time.

Should Democrats deliver on these promises, we will have a trade war and a reorganization of the workplace on par with that of the 1930s. If that occurs, then financial markets will have been right all along.