Auto Bailout: Corporate We(a)l(th)fare

Seriously democrats? Seriously?! Democrats got a huge mandate to do what they will with the nation by capturing the Presidency and enlarged their margin in the House of Reps and Senate. What do they do? What will their first lame duck move be? Trying to get the Big Three Auto companies (Ford, GM, Chrysler) to either be allowed to received money from the 700 Billion dollar bailout already passed or to pass another bailout just for American Auto companies.

Here's a better idea: Let them suffer. The crisis these companies face can be divided into two main problem areas: Management and Unions.

Management

It would be hard to imagine a company losing Billions of dollars for many quarters in a row and two or three years after having consecutive negative quarters beginning to respond with changes to structure and product design. The Big Three have done just that.

What did Ford and GM focus on while gas prices where skyrocketing? They were producing and actually expanding SUV production. Now they claim that somehow it is the economic climate that is causing their losses and they claim it is foreign competition that is adding to their woes. That's like wondering why the sidewalk lemonade stand doesn't do so well in winter and then blaming the lack of lemonade sales on the fact that there is a Starbucks 10 feet away.

Of course gas prices affect Auto sales, even Toyota had some losses last quarter (in the US) and it is also obvious that competition makes it more difficult for a company to sell the same product and have the consumer buy it without thinking. The management at the Big Three always seem to have their eyes on Washington for a handout ever since they decided that American consumers wouldn't trust new Japanese cars that came flooding into the US in the 70's when gas prices were sky high and they couldn't stop making gas guzzling boat-cars. It is true that American consumers like buying products that are made in America and have brand-name allegiance but there is a limit. The companies had fair warning that quotas on foreign cars were going out the window and should have gotten the message when "foreign" vehicle plants started popping up in the South and now have 100% American labor. These big company executives just refuse to believe that their reality from 1965 has changed.

These management executives have to realize a few things. 1) American consumers are smart, they will buy the best vehicle for their needs no matter how many million dollars is spent on researching a trendy model name. 2) Making a bad product should not make you eligible for a handout. 3) Unlike banks, if you fail there are plenty of other companies that can pick up the slack, there is no Auto Tsunami in the making. 4) React to the economy, don't sit around and wait until it beats you to death. 5) Deal with the Unions (UAW), they are sucking your carcass dry.

Unions

Bargaining organizations are an important part of the advocacy of blue-collar workers. Unions also played an important part in the fight against oppressive businesses and the politicians that were in Big Business's pockets. There.. proof I do not hate unions.

Now, moving on to the UAW (United Auto Workers), the union dealing with the the Auto companies in question. The UAW is largely corrupt and has turned from an advocacy group to a group that seeks to feed itself by extortion. This union isn't working for the true interests of workers it is making moves and spreading misinformation amongst those who may not know as much as them in order to cause walkouts and strikes. The effect of this being the UAW is extremely powerful and of course.. that means they want more. The UAW keeps finding the weakest points of the Big Three and then making sure they pay dearly before their workers return to the line.

The sad part of this setup is that it is the workers that are being hurt. First they lose wages when they are not working then they go back to work feeling better but without receiving any substantial increase in meaningful work benefits or work conditions. Meanwhile the unions gain more clout and more memberships.. They ought to change their title to UAE - United for Auto Extortion.

Conclusion

Democrats, no doubt, have a debt of gratitude to pay to Unions who endorsed them and made sure their members turned out in large numbers for their candidates but it is time to stand up to corrupt unions and failing big businesses and say "Help doesn't mean handouts!"

Obama VP Rumblings...

Well the Obama campaign could make their big announcement anytime now... the Vice Presidential pick... They have precious little time to do it especially since the VP candidate will have to speak on Wednesday night at the Democratic convention in Denver, CO. So.. there is a countdown until they find the right way to break the news.

Well, after looking after all of my posts I found that I've never brought up Barack Obama's possible picks for running mate outside of the the context of Senator Chuck Hagel however those posts focused on why Hagel would not be the a good VP pick for Obama. So.. although making predictions so close to an announcement is pretty stupid.. here it goes.. the top two contenders are: Indiana Senator Evan Bayh or Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. [Some would wonder why I left out Senator Joe Biden.. he ruled himself out, so I say adios to him and good luck with the Senate Foreign Affairs committee, maybe next time ol' pal.]

Senator Evan Bayh:

Pros:
1) From Indiana, a swing state
2) Is popular amongst whites, rural voters
3) Can speak pretty well about the economy
4) Attacks Republican rhetoric very well
5) Is a Centrist Democrat
6) Is on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affair, Committee on Armed Services, and Select Committee on Intelligence
7) Known to have a 100% rating from NAACP and other civil rights groups

Cons:
1) Scandal! Possible inappropriate relationship between his office and his wife's business interests
2) Is a Centrist Democrat
3) Co-sponsored the Iraq War authorization resolution (along with Senator John McCain)
4) His father was Senator, he "inherited" the position

Governor Tim Kaine:

Pros:
1) White, popular with rural and blue-collar voters
2) Virginia is a swing state that Obama is targeting..
3) Knows Spanish
4) Is Catholic, which could help ease worries about Obama's concern for conservative Christians
5) Gave the Democratic response to the 2006 State of the Union Address (I watched it.. he did a pretty good job at delivering the rhetoric)
6) Is "Green"
7) Says he is against Abortion
8) Opposes Same-Sex Marriage
9) First public figure outside of Illinois to endorse Obama's candidacy for President (and that goes a long way my friends.. a loooong way)

Cons:
1) He's Catholic
2) Virginia is a little too close to the Beltway
3) Young
4) Inexperienced outside of being the Mayor of Richmond, Lt. Gov, then Gov. of Virginia
5) Says he is against Abortion
6) Opposes Same-Sex Marriage


Oh yeah.. and Obama could pick Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius but that's for another day... ;)


Links:

Speculation, anticipation as Obama's VP announcement nears - CNN
Obama: I've decided on my running mate - CNN

Hagel to Keynote Democratic Convention?

Back to some news for Nebraska.. which has been very politically predictable.


This is from Meet the Press on NBC, August 3rd, 2008:

MR. BROKAW: Who's going to be the keynoter at the Democratic convention?

MR. TODD: Oh, my money's on Chuck Hagel. And I, I think it would be a Republican. That's the message that Obama wants to send. I mean, the whole idea of the Democratic convention, I think, is going to be two parts. One is you are going to see them be more aggressive on McCain than John Kerry was on Bush. I mean, I talked to an Obama person, and I asked them what they thought of that 2004 convention as a whole, was it too soft on Bush? And immediately said, "Oh, absolutely." So expect--in fact, don't be surprised if Obama starts ratcheting up rhetoric against McCain this week. Forget the convention. But I've always--my money's always been on Chuck Hagel as the, as the keynote. But it's not--you know, technically Hillary Clinton may dominate that night because she's, she's the, she's the big speaker that night. But you send a message with your keynote, and I think we may have seen the other keynote on this, at this desk.

Wait.. what did you just say? Chuck Hagel.. keynoting the Democratic Convention?! Isn't that slightly.. you know.. insane?

Chuck Todd is an analyst for NBC and a former writer for the National Journal. He brought up Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as a possible keynote for the Democratic Convention. The idea of bringing someone from the opposite party to keynote is nothing strange... the Republicans did it with Zel Miller in 2004. The big question mark is of course Chuck Hagel. There have been rumors of a want (or need) to bring in someone from across the aisle or an independent to do the keynote to boost the chances of Obama capturing important swing votes. More than a few big names that have come up such as Hagel, Colin Powell, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, or former Sen. Sam Nunn.

Chuck Todd thinks that Hagel has the inside track to keynote but a lot of problems exist.... First thing is, when you pick a keynote speaker it is generally a good idea to be sure that the speaker can go on for quite awhile and really articulate the message you want to send. If the Convention is pretty much geared towards having a War Hero talk about the blunders in Iraq then they have their man otherwise.. they are really asking the wrong guy. Hagel owns one of the highest conservative ratings from any thinktank asked according to his votes on everything but the War in Iraq. Seeing how the economy is shaping up to be the big issue of this election (and the failure of promise of 2006 Democrats to end the War in Iraq) maybe using Hagel to hammer the facts home wouldn't be such a bright idea.

What do you think? Post a comment.

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

We have a Winner!

UPDATE - 11:45PM CST

With 99% reporting, the count is the same - 55% for Clinton, 45% to Obama. A big defeat for Obama but he did make some gains in the state since five weeks ago when most polls put him 20 points behind. Obama won 7 counties, including the city of Philadelphia, and Clinton won every other county... so the Obama effect was localized mostly to the southeast corner and center of the state. Up next, on May 6th is Indiana and North Carolina, both expected to be double digit wins for Obama. Well.. a long road lay ahead, and StrongModerate Blog will be there every step of the way! Good Night and Good Luck.


UPDATE - 10:26PM CST

93% reporting, Obama now up to 6 counties, but no gains overall still a 10 percent divide. Clinton patted herself profusely on the back in her victory speech.. Obama on the other hand tried to push the focus to the future, such as North Carolina, where the outlook is a lot sunnier. In terms of pledged delegates, 77 have been awarded - 40 to Clinton, 37 to Obama.

We'll be back one more time.. when we reach 99 or 100% of the vote.. stay tuned!

UPDATE - 9:50PM CST

79% reporting now, and Obama has 6 counties (the 6th being only by 2 points). The lead has stayed at ten points statewide 55-45. Now with over 75% of the largest three cities reporting, Clinton has a lock on Pittsburgh and Allentown and Obama has locked in a big victory in Philadelphia. In terms of pledged delegates, 73 have been awarded - 40 to Clinton, 33 to Obama.

More analysis as more information becomes available..

UPDATE - 9:17PM CST

Now with 61% of the vote in, Obama has control over 6 counties, Clinton doing well in every other one (there are two counties with no precincts reporting). Clinton now leads by 10 percentage points, which is above and beyond the hopes of victory the Clinton campaign had dreamed of and well above the six to eight percentage points that the Obama campaign had thought it would lose by.. I'll bet Obama is already dreaming of how much different North Carolina's Primary night will be like.

UPDATE - 9:01PM CST

With 51% of the count in, it looks like an eight point lead for Clinton. She now has taken Pittsburgh (by 12%) but Philadelphia and Harrisburg are still Obama zones by 22 and 26 points respectively.

The state is going more and more towards Hillary as Obama has a lead in only 4 counties.

More soon..

8:37PM CST

With just 6% of the vote counted CNN, then every other news outlet known to mankind, projected that Hillary Clinton would win the Pennsylvania primary. Wow.. how predictive of them!

We all knew that HRC would win, the question is by how much. Obama is doing well in urban areas (as he traditionally has) and Hillary is doing very well.. everywhere else, guess rural voters were a little "bitter". Obama has kept it close by keeping his lead in urban areas well above double digits in people-rich cities like Philly, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh. Hillary however is keeping up with by winning almost every other country by around 60%.

As usual, the Clinton campaign is hailing this as a huge victory that will propel her to the nomination, however there is a distinct possibility that like the "victory" in Texas the majority of the state's delegates could go to Obama after the Super-Delegates make up their minds.

More analysis forthcoming...



For an interactive map, visit CNN's Pennsylvania Primary Results page
and CNN oft-updated coverage, here

Obama: Wooing Republicans in Penn.

Senator Obama (D-IL) announced this week at a campaign stop that even Republicans would be better than current President Bush. At his campaign stop in Pennsylvania he stated "Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," he said. "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

Why? Why would he do this? Obviously, he is trying to steal away any Republican support for Hillary Clinton (D-NY) before the Penn. Primary. Wooing Republicans and Independents just before the primary is a smart tactic considering how contested each democrat's vote is but now less than 48 hours before voters hit the polls he also needs to try to sway the swing voters who are still undecided.

An abysmal ABC debate hardly let either candidate state their case cohesively to the voters and now Obama is dominating the airwaves, Clinton is stepping up her rhetorical attacks and both candidates are going more negative than they had dared to go before.

So, maybe Obama did not praise McCain as much as he just tried to praise his own ability to work across the aisle no matter who is President. Smart Tactic... will it work? Only Pennsylvanians can tell us in a few days time.

Colin Powell.. being smart as usual

Colin Powell May Support Democrat or Independent in 2008


Hey! It is great to see someone actually understands what the presidency SHOULD be all about. Colin Powell is a man who has served in so many ways that each and every American should thank him for his endless service. Whether it was proposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise, coming up with the sane and militarily sound "Powell Doctrine" of massive build-up and clear objectives before an invasion, or his exceptional record as Secretary of State (even under opposition and resistance of the Bush Administration at times).

I applaud Mr. Powell for speaking out to Americans and asking us to look beyond partisan lines to the horizon. I am not a Democrat and I do not support Obama but it is important for us all to look at ALL the candidates and choose according to who would be best as Commander-in-Chief and the Head Executive of this country. Who will lead us with the strength, resolve and will needed in these troubling times? Who would have the ability and know-how to not only talk about an agenda for America but put it into motion? Who has a vision that is bright but not unrealistically so? Who will mend our image, restore us to peaceful hegemony, and re-gain the trust and respect that America deserves?

These are the questions we should be asking our selves. So whether you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or otherwise remember: if you don't see a candidate who would serve us right, write in Colin Powell.