March 30, 2009

3/30: Wagoner Is A Goner

The big story in the blogosphere is the news that the Obama admin. has forced General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, which the Washington Post describes as "an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company." Conservative bloggers are blasting the move, warning that it will lead to "Mussolini-style corporatism" and "long-term Continental-style economic stagnation". Many righty bloggers are arguing that the Obama admin. isn't qualified to judge what's best for GM; Francis Cianfrocca asks: "Since when does an urban agitator and small-time legislator with a law degree think he can run an enterprise with 100,000 employees, thousands of vendors, millions of customers, and operations in every part of the world?" Meanwhile, liberal bloggers think Obama is being tougher on the automakers than he is on the banks. David Sirota complains: "[H]ow is it that the White House is requesting the resignation of GM's CEO while not doing the same of, say, Bank of America's CEO?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (BooMan, Boehlert, Atrios, Dayden, DougJ) are buzzing about Newsweek's cover story about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's emergence as "Obama's toughest liberal critic."
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hinderaker, Fiano) are accusing Sec/State Hillary Clinton of making an embarrassing gaffe while visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.
• Liberal bloggers (Dayden, Yglesias, McCarter) are pleased that a Spanish court is considering "opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law" by authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

GENERAL MOTORS: So Long, Capitalism!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama admin. for forcing the GM CEO to resign:

• Michelle Malkin: "Barack Obama rose from community organizer to auto company usurper -- only in America."
• RedState's Cianfrocca: "Since when does an urban agitator and small-time legislator with a law degree think he can run an enterprise with 100,000 employees, thousands of vendors, millions of customers, and operations in every part of the world? Well, that's one of those questions you'll just have to ask the people who voted for him last November."
• Townhall's Dwayne Horner: "Barack Obama is not only President but apparently he is America's Chairman of the Board as he has forced GM Chairman Rick Wagoner to resign in advance of Monday's announcement on another Auto Industry bailout. [...] Just one more step towards the Government being in complete control and removing all signs of what made America: rugged individualism and free markets."
• AmSpec Blog's Matthew Vadum: "There is a whiff of Fascism emanating from the Obama White House. [...] Although there have been some incidents of government exercising minor control over industry during wartime, this aggressive assault on American capitalism is unprecedented and should give all Americans who care about freedom pause. Strict government control over businesses is the essence of Fascism, or more precisely, Mussolini-style corporatism."
• Glenn Reynolds: "What do you call it when the private companies are nominally independent, but do whatever the government wants? Not capitalism, anyway. And doesn't this make Obama responsible for what happens to GM now?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's rather disturbing that the President of the United States is the one pressuring an executive to step down. In this case, it's hard to argue that General Motors chairman and CEO Richard Wagoner Jr. has performed well, but at the same time, Obama's reasons for dismissal seem more cosmetic than anything else. [...] Whatever Wagoner's faults, it doesn't make sense to change management just for the sake of it, unless you have a replacement in mind who you think will be able to do better."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "[T]his GM/Chrysler thing is bad. Really bad. The descent into corporatism will doom America: The government is not competent to pick winners and losers, and will mire us in long-term Continental-style economic stagnation if it persists. [...] The Obama economy is shaping up not just as a Carteresque decline but a global tragedy."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "GM is now Obama's company. If it closes, it will be on his say-so. But Obama is a politician, not a CEO. So his first concern is to avoid bad political fallout, which means he will prop up the company for as long as it takes, regardless of what makes economic sense. This, in turn, will likely make the company either less economically sound or, it will rebound -- but only by getting special breaks other companies won't get. Either way, bad practices will be rewarded and/or good practices will be punished. More firms will see that gaming Washington pays off and the cycle will continue."

GENERAL MOTORS II: Why The Inconsistency?

Liberal bloggers don't mind that the Obama admin. forced Wagoner to resign, but they're wondering why the Obama admin. hasn't also forced the executives of insolvent banks to resign:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Why is Rick Wagoner getting the boot while the management of the big banks remains in place? [...A]fter that meeting of the major bank CEOs at the White House last week, it's hard for me not to think that, for all that has happened, their clout in Washington is just on a scale where they are accepted as peers of the realm. And simply immune to certain sorts of treatment."
• Open Left's Sirota: "[H]ow is it that the White House is requesting the resignation of GM's CEO while not doing the same of, say, Bank of America's CEO? In fact, not only is the president not demanding the resignation of bank CEOs, he's actually hosting them for photo ops at the White House. Sure, I know some bank CEOs resigned a few months ago under shareholder pressure, but the Obama administration has never publicly demanded such resignations of the current management that is making the problems worse, nor the resignation of management at the biggest firms (Goldman Sachs, BofA, etc.) that are still in place."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I do not disagree with President Obama's admonitions to the auto industry. [...] Here's my question -- how about some tough words and conditions for Wall Street BEFORE you bail them out, AGAIN, President Obama?"

KRUGMAN: Now You're Paying Attention To Him?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Newsweek's cover story about Krugman's emergence as "Obama's toughest liberal critic." Many lefty bloggers are complaining that Krugman didn't receive this much attention when he was vociferously criticizing George W. Bush between 2000 and 2008:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Now that he's criticizing some of the policies of a Democratic president, the traditional media is just fascinated by Paul Krugman. Back when he was criticizing Bush policies, he was just another liberal, a 'shrill' one, at that."
• Oliver Willis: "[It's] worth noting what it takes for an outspoken liberal to get on the cover of a newsweekly. You have to be on a different side of an issue than a Democratic president."
• BooMan: "Three things changed to convert Paul Krugman from a raving Michael Moore-ish leftist (in the eyes of the Establishment) into a very serious man: (1.) He won the Nobel Prize in Economics (2.) A Democrat took over the White House (3.) Krugman is now attacking a Democrat rather than a Republican."
• Media Matters' Eric Boehlert: "During the Bush years, Krugman, from his same perch on the pages of Times' opinion pages, waged about as vocal a campaign as humanly possible to warn readers and the country about what he considered to be the perilous policy decisions the Bush administration was embracing, and what the disastrous results for America would be. Looking back on the Bush years, Krugman's track record was rather impeccable. But you'll note he didn't appear on the cover of Newsweek back then. (No 'Bush is Wrong' cover lines.) And for years Krugman only occasionally appeared on the pundit talk shows. [...] But now a Democrat is in the Oval Office, Krugman is still hitting the president from the left, and suddenly the Beltway press thinks Krugman's work is fascinating and newsworthy. Trust us, it is. (For years he's been our pick as the country's premier columnist.) We just think everyone would have been better off if the press had paid this much attention to Krugman's work between, say, 2002 and 2006."

Some liberal bloggers see Krugman's rise as a positive development, since it pushes the debate to the left:

• Atrios: "Boehlert's right that Krugman's getting much more attention now than he did in the Bush years, though I still find it refreshing that the self-described establishment is finally acknowledging that a Democratic president actually has criticism from the left which doesn't just come from (in their eyes) crazy people."
• dday: "[Krugman] performs an important function. It's an odd quirk of fate that Krugman has as big a megaphone as he does, and so using it to put pressure on the Obama Administration from the left does several things: 1) provides a counter-weight to the conservative critiques of the President, which are usually so nutty that they pale in comparison to reasoned dissent, 2) forces Obama to at least debate the merits of his proposals rather than dismiss all critics, and most important, 3) gives Obama space on the left to put out an more progressive agenda than otherwise."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "What’s most important about Krugman right now isn't whether he's right or wrong but that he's starting to get traction attacking Obama from the left. [...] It's worth remembering that criticism of [Franklin] Roosevelt from the likes of Huey Long, Francis Townsend, and Charles Coughlin, crackpots though they were, played an important role in setting the stage for the Second New Deal. One can only hope that Krugman and his ilk will succeed in moving the debate from moderation versus right-wing craziness to moderation versus more aggressive policies."

Other liberal bloggers aren't convinced that Krugman's rise is good for progressives:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "CNN's 'Your Money' segment earlier today featured them reading two paragraphs of Krugman trashing the bank plan and then spent the next five minutes letting wingnut WSJ economist Stephen Moore trash the plan. This is working out well. And might I point out that after we all have trashed the President from every angle, the American people aren't going to say to themselves 'the socialist black muslim guy kind of sucked, let's give [OH Rep.] Dennis Kucinich and [VT Sen.] Bernie Sanders and [WI Sen.] Russ Feingold a shot.' Not going to happen. Standing in the on-deck circle are Mr. [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford, Mittens, and the Wasilla wingnut."
• BooMan: "I'm going to keep my eye on Krugman as the media builds him up. [...] Krugman is not an idiot, but he should be careful that he isn't treated as a useful one by corporate and Republican enemies of Obama's policies."

CLINTON: D'oh!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Sec. Clinton for asking "Who painted it?" while visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City (Catholics believe that "the image appeared miraculously on the back of a simple peasant cloak"):

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This is one of those stories that seem like it can't possibly be true. Could America's Secretary of State really be ignorant of a central cultural symbol of a country next door? It is as though a foreign minister came to Washington, was shown [Gilbert] Stuart's portrait of George Washington, and asked, 'Who was he?' It is hard to imagine how Clinton's staff could have prepared her for her visit without making sure she knew the story."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Demonstrating that Amateur Hour continues at the State Department, Hillary Clinton managed to display an amazing degree of ignorance while making a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico yesterday afternoon. [...] Some 'smart diplomacy,' huh? First Hillary doesn't understand multiparty democracy, then she fumbles a snarky 'reset button' by mistranslating it and putting it in Latin rather than Cyrillic script. She can't even get names straight, let alone sound intelligent when visiting national shrines."
• Right Wing News' Cassy Fiano: "Hillary Clinton is not a tourist making a casual visit; she's the Secretary of State making a trip on behalf of, according to her own words, the American people. Was there no one who told her that she should learn about Our Lady of Guadalupe before going on the trip, since the idea apparently never crossed her own mind?"

TORTURE: Spain Takes Matters Into Its Own Hands

Liberal bloggers are pleased that a Spanish court is considering "opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law" by authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay:

• dday: "I would call this a big deal. As the report notes, [Judge Baltasar] Garzon indicted [ex-Chilean Pres.] Augusto Pinochet, which led to his arrest and extradition. This would not immediately lead to arrest and trial, but it would certainly confine the six officials to the United States and increase the pressure for stateside investigations."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I do think that symbolism is important in situations like these, so I wouldn't dismiss the importance of symbolism. And while fear of traveling abroad isn't the gravest punishment in the world, it's not nothing. [...] I think it's important not to normalize these kind of crimes as the precise time and place of their commission fades into the background. Legal rulings help with that, even if they don't lead to trials in the short-term."
• mcjoan: "This is, or at least should be, more than a little embarrassing for the U.S. -- other countries are now investigating torture instigated by American officials. [...] The fact that the U.S. is also a party to the torture convention, and thus is also obliged to investigate torture claims, has as of yet not compelled the U.S. to begin the process. Maybe the fact that our allies are doing so will spur our own Justice Department on. It's going to be awfully hard to 'turn the page' and look forward when the rest of the world is exposing the very dirty deeds of our past."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "It's a start."

Conservative blogger (and ex-Asst. U.S. atty) Andy McCarthy had a different reaction: "Battle lines are being drawn regarding whether the United States is going to be a sovereign nation ruled by a Constitution voluntarily adopted by our body politic or a satellite in a world government under 'the rule of law' as fashioned and evolved by international law professors, human-rights activists and other transnational progressives."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is The Blogosphere An Echo Chamber?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff wonders if the conservative blogosphere is underestimating Obama:

"A brutal work and travel schedule prevented me from blogging this week. I did manage to watch President Obama's press conference, however, and I must say that the Obama I saw was not entirely the same Obama I had been reading about on the conservative blogosphere. The Obama I'd been reading about was at sixes and sevens, gaffe prone even though married to this teleprompter, and perhaps on the verge of melting down. Even the New York Times seemed to be having second thoughts about him.

The Obama I saw delivered an assured performance. He provided detailed answers to a range of questions without a teleprompter and without gaffes. The policies he defended ranged from the misguided to the abominable, and his pronouncements were frequently misleading and sometimes flatly dishonest. But they easily passed the political test -- they were delivered with confidence and they sounded plausible or better. [...]

As the economy continues to 'lose 10-0,' Obama will find it difficult to maintain his popularity. However, the communication skills he has displayed at his press conferences will help keep him afloat, whatever the New York Times thinks. This is not yet an administration in trouble and this president should not be underestimated."

LEST WE FORGET: Everything Taking Too Long

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- An overwhelming sense of restlessness and impatience engulfed the U.S. this week when citizens determined that everything -- the morning commute, phone conversations, getting a table at Chili's, making coffee, commercial breaks, everything -- was taking entirely too long.

'This is ridiculous,' said Boston resident Joe Sosnoff, waiting for a subway train running behind schedule. 'I don't have time for this. I seriously do not have time for this.'

'Oh, for crying out loud,' said Atlanta native Ashley Rose, standing in line at a local Rite Aid pharmacy. 'Open up another register if you have to. What are these people doing? Hanging out?'

Between eye rolls, sighs, and repeated glances at wall clocks, a majority of Americans are reporting that the nation badly needs to pick up the pace. In some cases, including those where things are taking so long that it's not even funny, citizens urged all present to hurry the hell up."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 30, 2009 12:58 PM