December 12, 2008

12/12: A Tough Night For Detroit

The big topic in the blogosphere today is the Senate's failure to reach a compromise on a gov't rescue of the U.S. auto industry. Liberal bloggers are accusing Senate GOPers of opposing the auto bailout for political reasons instead of "doing what's best for the country". They're convinced that Congress' failure to pass a rescue bill will force GM and Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, which will lead to the loss of millions of jobs and negatively affect other sectors of the economy. Jane Hamsher declares: "I think this erases all doubt -- the Republicans quite plainly want the economy to fail."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are pleased that the auto bailout negotiations failed, as most of them believe that bankruptcy is a better option for the automakers than the compromise bill offered by TN Sen. Bob Corker. Righty bloggers are praising Senate GOPers for recognizing "that the federal government has no role in bailing out out private enterprise with taxpayer money". However, they're angry that the White House is now looking at other ways to rescue the auto industry.

AUTO BAILOUT: Do Republicans Want To Create A Depression?

Liberal bloggers blasted Senate GOPers after negotiations broke down:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "I think this erases all doubt -- the Republicans quite plainly want the economy to fail."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Given the choice between being reckless ideologues or doing what's best for the country, the economy, and millions of American families whose income is connected to the auto industry, the Senate GOP decided to be reckless ideologues."
• digby: "This is what [Republicans] do. But if there's anyone left out there who thinks that these guys are on the post-partisan bandwagon, think again. They will do everything in their power to weaken Obama and fuck up this country even worse than they already have. At this point, the only route they see power is to make things worse and blame it on the Democrats. What else do they have?"
• Molly Ivors: "Republicans to Detroit: if only you could figure out a way to pay your executives and not your workers, we might help you."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "So, because [Sen. Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and his Republican buddies wanted UAW workers to accept wages equal to what Toyota workers get, forgetting that those 'wages' include retiree benefits that Toyota workers don't have to pay for, [there will be] no deal on an auto bridge loan and the US can suck up a Depression, because screwing union workers is more important than saving the economy for everyone."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "So the Senate Republicans were willing to let a million jobs, give or take, go down because they wanted the UAW to make massive wage concessions, over and above those it has already made, within one year as opposed to three years. That shouldn't be a dealbreaker, except to people who don't want a deal to start with. [...] I support the bailout. I don't think I would if these were normal times, but they are not. And under the circumstances, this seems to me to be an extraordinarily irresponsible thing to do."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is a bit more conflicted about the bill's failure: "I am of two minds on this. First, I think the American automakers should be bailed out, although strings should be attached and the government should get an ownership stake. After all, as Matt writes, why should the financial sector get $700 billion, but manufactures who produce cars and provide three million middle class jobs get nothing? Surely, if we can spend $700 billion to 'save' Wall Street, $25 billion of that money can be spent to save Detroit. The collapse of this bailout leave me worried that these jobs will all be gone by January. [...] Second, this bill kept getting worse every day. Concession after concession after concession was made, and it still didn't pass. This legislation had turned into a real stinker, which would have actually retarded the growth of cleaner vehicles in America rather than attached strings to push them along. The government would likely have not received any meaningful investment stake, either. We need to save these jobs and this domestic industry, but swallowing this pill would have been extremely difficult."

AUTO BAILOUT II: Way To Hold The Line, Senators!

Conservative bloggers are pleased that the auto bailout negotiations failed, as most of them believe that bankruptcy is a better option for the automakers than Corker's compromise:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The cloture vote failed, 52-35. Thank goodness. Now the auto companies can get about the serious task of preserving their businesses and their employees' jobs through bankruptcy proceedings."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Congratulations to Senate Republicans. Most of them, and a few Democrats like [MT Sen. Max] Baucus and [MT Sen. Jon] Tester and [AR Sen.] Blanche Lincoln, must have read their [WV Sen.] Robert Byrd Pocket Constitutions and realized that the federal government has no role in bailing out out private enterprise with taxpayer money."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "A compromise package designed to extend $14 billion to the Big 3 automakers has failed to achieve cloture in the Senate. Good, I say. Again, there is no reason why bankruptcy should not be an option for the Big 3 and given the fact that bankruptcy is a more predictable and less dramatic process than is a government bailout -- which will likely be followed by another government bailout in a few months -- it should be the preferred option. Other companies in other industries -- the airlines come to mind -- have declared bankruptcy but continued their operations, reorganized and came back stronger for the effort. The Big 3 can do the same."

Righty bloggers are offering special praise to McConnell for leading the effort to defeat the legislation:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Seldom do I have anything good to say about Mitch McConnell, but this time around, he led the Senate Republicans in the right direction. Good Job, Mitchie!"
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "All praise to Mitch McConnell for leading the charge that beat back this lunacy. Can someone explain why the White House thought this was a good idea?"

AUTO BAILOUT III: Double Standard Alert!

The New York Times's David M. Herszenhorn explains that the "talks ultimately deadlocked" over Sen. Corker's proposal to cut automakers' wages and benefits next year:

"Under [Corker's] plan, [...] the automakers would also have been required to cut wages and benefits to match the average hourly wage and benefits of Nissan, Toyota and Honda employees in the United States. It was over this proposal that the talks ultimately deadlocked with Republicans demanding that the automakers meet that goal by a certain date in 2009 and Democrats and the union urging a deadline in 2011 when the U.A.W. contract expires."

Liberal bloggers are accusing Senate GOPers of advocating a double standard by demanding major concessions from the UAW when they did not demand such concessions from Wall Street bankers:

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "The Republicans in the Senate are risking crashing the world economy simply because hundreds of thousands of real workers wouldn't make concessions that the local owners and white collars bankers weren't asked to make."
• Hamsher: "[T]he Republicans didn't ask for commitments from dealers or creditors or bond holders or suppliers, just blue collar workers. So that was really where the only problem was going to arise. Funny, none of these bastards demanded wage and benefit cuts for Wall Street workers in the $700 billion bank bailout."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "This is nuts. If you're just flatly against the bailout, fine. Vote against it. But if the wage cuts, along with the debt-for-equity swap that was also part of the bill, were enough to bring you around, why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2011 instead of the end of 2009? It's only about an 18 month difference, and cutting wages makes a lot more sense in 2011 than it does in the middle of a massive recession anyway. Another shining moment in the history of the modern GOP. Ideology uber alles."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Tim Fernholz defends the UAW: "[The bailout bill's failure] is bad news for the UAW, because the GOP seems intent on pinning the problem on their refusal to accept immediate pay cuts (they offered to take a phased-in cut over two years). Of course, as David Leonhardt points out, that would only change the price of a car by $800, which is not a make-or-break discount for someone looking to buy a car. The problem still resides in the type of cars that the company makes. Labor has made several compromises with the automakers in recent years, most notably a 2007 agreement where they took responsibility for their own pension fund in order to allow GM to get ... more outside funding. The union shouldn't be held accountable for the mistakes of management."

AUTO BAILOUT IV: Don't Like Corker's Offer? Your Loss, UAW.

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the UAW for refusing to agree to Corker's provision:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "What was so unreasonable about the Corker provision that wages had to be brought in line with foreign competitors within one year? We're heading into a deep recession. Very few people are going to be in the market for a new car in the coming year. Sales for the Big Three are not going to rebound anytime soon; costs are going to have to be cut. The UAW position was that wages could not be cut until their contract expires in 2011. Which side is being unreasonable?"
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "Union workers at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors are some of the most highly paid workers in America. At the Heritage Foundation, James Sherk says the union workers cost the three automakers over $70 an hour in wages and current and future benefits. If the unions aren't willing to sacrifice to save the automakers, why should taxpayers bail them out[?]"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are angry that the Bush admin. will consider other options if necessary -- including use of the TARP program -- to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers"":

• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "Bush is caving. Unbelievable."
• Michelle Malkin: "The Bush administration apparently didn't understand the message last night. [...] Senate Republicans drew a line in the sand on bailout mania. And now the White House is scrambling to erase it and expand the crap sandwich once more to rescue the UAW. No means no."

REYES: Whose Side Are You On, Silvestre?

Liberal bloggers are furious that House Intel. Cmte Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has recommended (1.) "that President-elect Barack Obama keep the country's current national intelligence director and CIA chief in place for some time"; and (2.) "that some parts of the CIA's controversial alternative interrogation program [be] allowed to continue." Lefty bloggers believe that this would represent a betrayal of everything that Obama and Dems stood for during the '08 campaign:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "It's really just inconceivable, that a Democratic committee chair would actually lobby Obama to keep torture, but the House Intllegence Committee chair has done just that. [...] What in the hell is Reyes thinking? [...] This is torture we're talking about. Torture, Mr. Reyes. Which part, I wonder, does he want to continue? Beatings with electrical cords? Water-boarding? Electrical shocks? Maybe just extraordinary rendition, where we don't really have to think about what happens because someone else is doing it for us. [...] Reyes is undoubtedly being pressured by those CIA insiders that have been raising hell with whoever will pay attention to them (and too many in the traditional media will) over the groundswell of opposition among all principled people to having any apologist for or architect of torture anywhere near the Obama administration. [...] That effort must be rejected. The most important thing the Obama administration must do in re-establishing our position in the world is dismantling the Bush torture regime. This is continuity we don't need. If Reyes isn't smart enough to recognize this, and to see when he's being played by the CIA, then it's time for a new Intelligence Committee chair."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Here's what is most amazing about this. While virtually all of the Bush agenda over the last eight years ended up being deeply unpopular and profoundly discredited, it was his foreign policy and intelligence programs (torture, rendition, illegal surveillance, war) which caused the most intense opposition, at least among Democratic voters. That is a large part of why Democrats just won their second straight national election promising to oppose Bush's policies and to implement 'change.' It was the policies implemented and overseen by Bush's Pentagon, CIA and 'homeland security' apparatus that caused the most disgrace. 'Continuity' in those areas would be nothing less than a patent betrayal of everything Democrats, over the last two years, told the citizenry they intended to do."
• The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman: "[Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence Mike] McConnell has a history of lying to Congress about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [CIA Dir. Michael] Hayden is a self-described architect of a very clearly illegal surveillance effort. The intelligence community will have innumerable career professionals remaining on board to transit between administrations. Leadership is in place to set a tone -- and clearly this is a tone Reyes is fine with. Reyes also makes clear that he's pretty soft on torture. [...] How charming."

BooMan wants Reyes to lose his seat: "One possible reading of this is that Reyes is merely being polite and he's just maintaining good relations with the existing Intelligence Community. I understand the game, believe me. But once you start going on about keeping the torture regimen in place, you've completely lost me. Even if you think the CIA needs to reserve the right to go beyond the Army Field Manual on occasion, you have to be clear that you renounce torture. Rep. Reyes doesn't seem to understand the damage that has been done to our reputation under the leadership of McConnell and Hayden and their predecessors. Rep. Reyes isn't the brightest crayon in the box to begin with. I think the chair of Intelligence should know that al-Qaeda is not a primarily Shi'ite organization. Rep. Reyes thought that they were as recently as December 2006. It should have disqualified him from taking the gavel a month later, but it didn't. Rep. Reyes is going to have the chair in this upcoming Congress, and there's really nothing we can do about that. But I sure would be interested in supporting someone in the El Paso area who wants to challenge him in a primary."

EMANUEL: The Plot Thickens?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about a FOX News report about "possible conversations between a top Obama aide [IL Rep. Rahm Emanuel] and [IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich] regarding the open senate seat":

• RedState's Josh Painter: "According to Fox Chicago's source, a list of names was given to the governor's office of candidates for Obama's senate seat that would be acceptable to the president-elect. Since the conversations took place after the FBI had established wiretaps on Blagojevich's telephone lines, the phone conversations between Rahm and the two defendants were likely recorded and in the FBI's possession. The big question now is whether the conversations contain evidence of any quid pro quo or deal-making."
• Morrissey: "[This] doesn't necessarily mean that Emanuel knew about Blagojevich's efforts to extort payment for the selection, but it puts a damper on the idea that Emanuel tipped off the feds, too. It wouldn't take 'multiple' meetings for Emanuel to decide to squeal. If Emanuel continued meeting with Blagojevich, that indicates some kind of negotiating was happening, and that would strongly suggest that Emanuel was working on Blagojevich's terms."

Meanwhile, Power Line's Scott Johnson notices that Emanuel has been making himself scarce lately: "The otherwise conspicuous Emanuel has dropped from sight over the past few days. Among those with intriguing reports that bear on Emanuel's absence from public view are John Kass, Andrew Malcolm and Jim Hoft."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What If It Is A Lifestyle?

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"...The case for/against gay marriage is hung-up on this idea of choice -- i.e. we should frown on gay marriage because it's a deviant lifestyle. Or we shouldn't frown on it because it isn't a lifestyle, it's a biological fact. This is where the comparisons with race come in. But I always hated this argument. Whenever people say, 'You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black,' I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension.

Implicit in that logic is a kind of judgment, the notion that if I could choose, I obviously would choose to be white. But what if I just like being black? What if I could choose and would still choose black? Ditto for homosexuality. So what if you do choose to be gay? I understand that a lot of the science says you don't, but why do we accept this implicit idea that heterosexuality is, necessarily, what everyone would chose?

I'm not trying to minimize the bias and trauma that must come from being out, but a basic extension of humanity, a belief that those who aren't like me actually are like me, says that to be gay has to be more than coping with living beneath the boot of the ignorant. It's always about more than getting your ass kicked, no? What if you actually love the 'more than?' What if it is who you are and what you choose?"

LEST WE FORGET: Lie To Cover Surprise Party Sounds More Fun Than Surprise Party

From The Onion:

"HOPATCONG, NJ -- A lie told to 28-year-old Kyle Bida to cover up a surprise birthday party to be held in his honor later this evening sounds a lot more fun than the actual party will be. 'Why don't you come over to my place to play Xbox and drink a few beers?' said best friend Louis Welles, leading Bida to believe he might have an enjoyable, relaxing evening rather than one spent making forced small talk with coworkers and a few cousins he doesn't see that often. 'And don't forget to dress up a little bit, man. We're going to hit the bars later.' Though Bida is doomed to an evening far inferior to the one described to him by Welles, most of the guests will likely leave early, using excuses that are more boring than what they actually plan to do."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 12, 2008 01:01 PM