Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > November > 19
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I’m with Mitt Romney on the Detroit bailout
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I’ve been reading everything I could find on the proposed bailout of Detroit, trying to come to a definitive conclusion. Part of me wanted to let them fail as punishment for being so blind and obstinent for so long; another part of me worried about the consequences that failure would have, with ripples affecting the livelihoods of millions of innocent people.
At the very least, it was clear that we had to demand some serious concessions from both the United Auto Workers and industry management if we were to rescue them from bankruptcy. Otherwise, the $25 billion would only delay the inevitable pain.
Over the last few days, though, it became more and more obvious that Detroit didn’t quite grasp the seriousness of the situation, and that the concessions they were willing to offer wouldn’t be sufficient. Clarity came in reading Mitt Romney’s piece in today’s NY Times, in which he argued against a bailout and in favor of a managed bankruptcy.
Romney’s professional work in private equity and leveraged buyouts, combined with his family background in the auto industry, gave the piece a lot of credibility, and he argued his case well. I found it convincing. (It also reminded me of how intelligent, moderate and well-informed Romney had seemed in his primary-season interview with the AJC editorial board, a side he unfortunately kept largely hidden in his effort to woo the conservative wing in his party).
Romney’s piece also made me reassess how Barack Obama is handling the issue. He’s a sly one, that guy. The president elect has come out publicly in favor of a bailout in return for concessions, as he had to do given his labor backing and campaign rhetoric. But he doesn’t seem to be pushing hard for the immediate action that GM, Ford and Chrysler claim is needed.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the sense that he too is willing to let the companies fail, knowing that once they do, he’ll have a lot more freedom in trying to put them back together in a way that makes sense.
Permalink | Comments (112) | Post your comment |
Obama shows no sign of taking it slow
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
.
Barack Obama ran on a platform of change, a rather vague theme that left many legitimately asking just what kind of change he had in mind. Last night, in a discussion sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, we got some early clues about what’s coming. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House chief of staff, suggested the administration will seek change on a large scale across a range of issues.
“What used to be long-term problems — be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area — things that we had postponed for too long and were long term, are now immediate and must be dealt with,” Emanuel said. “This crisis provides us with the opportunity to do things we could not do before.”
With Obama still two months from taking office, details are still sketchy. But the ambitious tone of the administration is already pretty clear, and it presents Republicans with a dilemma about how to respond.
Conceivably, they could argue that big changes aren’t really needed, but I don’t think that’s going to get them very far with the American public right now. In the latest Gallup poll, only 13 percent of those polled said they’re satisfied with the country’s direction, while 84 percent said they were dissatisfied. Those are pretty damning numbers.
The better alternative would be to accept the need for large-scale change but offer a competing GOP vision of what such changes should be. I don’t see any evidence that Republican leaders are prepared to engage on that level. Their only remaining option would be to simply oppose ideas suggested by Obama without offering alternatives of their own, an approach that casts them as mere obstacles to change and guarantees they get steamrolled.
In other words, Emanuel and Obama are correct to see a great political opportunity to transform this country and finally address issues too long delayed.
Permalink | Comments (68) | Post your comment |
“The Republican Party needs a new base — or the nation may need a new party”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As punishment for her columns on Sarah Palin, Kathleen Parker found herself excommunicated as a heretic by the Church of Right-Wing Orthodoxy. So, with nothing left to lose, she has apparently decided to go for broke.
Her column in the Washington Post today isn’t exactly the “95 Theses” that Martin Luther nailed to the door of the Castle Church to start the Reformation, but the spirit sure is there:
“As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.”
The piece pulls no punches, concluding that “Either the Republican Party needs a new base — or the nation may need a new party. “
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
