« Illinois Dems Move To Force Blago To Leggo | Home | In Boost To Franken, Minnesota Restores Missing Ballots To The Count »
Obama: Disappointed And Frustrated Over Collapse Of Auto-Bailout
Obama, in a new statement just out, professes his disappointment and frustration at the collapse of the auto-bailout in the Senate late yesterday:
"I am disappointed that the Senate could not reach agreement on a short-term plan for the auto industry. I share the frustration of so many about the decades of mismanagement in this industry that has helped deliver the current crisis. Those bad practices cannot be rewarded or continued. But I also know that millions of American jobs rely directly or indirectly on a viable auto industry, and that the beginnings of reform are at hand. The revival of our economy as a whole should not be a partisan issue. So I commend those in Congress as well as the Administration who tried valiantly to forge a compromise. My hope is that the Administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required."
With Democrats and the United Auto Workers now locked in a fierce spin war with Senate Republicans over who was to blame for the bill's catastrophic collapse, Obama takes pains to say that the larger issues at play shouldn't be "partisan."
Also note that Obama didn't call on the Bush administration to step in and bail out the automakers by itself, now that Congress' efforts have gone belly-up. He's been urging general action but can't thrust himself into the fray in earnest as he waits to take office.
Advertisement
But he didn't blame Harry Reid. Can't figure out why since every Angry and not so Angry Leftist is blaming Harry.
December 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes no sense - this is entirely on the GOP, who have proven themselves utterly incapable of governing seriously. They are far too constrained by their ideology.
Obama cannot insert himself into this by attacking the GOP, he can't enter office that way. He needs members of Congress to do the dirty work of making sure this is hung around the neck of Republicans...which it is.
This "angry left," "impeach Reid/Pelosi" crap is getting old really fast.
December 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. What the hell is it that causes so many people on these boards to bash Harry Reid constantly when the Repugs pull this shit?
It is so self-defeating for Democrats to constantly put the blame for every damn thing on Harry Reid.
I wouldn't majority leader for any amount of money - it's a lose-lose for anyone who holds that office.
It's utterly breathtaking!
December 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think some just want someone to be the voice of outrage and frustration that has built up over all these years. And since everyone talks about the majority that Dems have in the Senate, they think that he can kick ass and not have the Dems pay a price.
December 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I understand some of the frustration. Yes, the Republicans are responsible for all the obstruction on this and many other matters. But the problem is, when the Democrats were in the minority, the GOP got a lot of really awful stuff passed, and the few filibusters were almost all ended with "compromises" that got us nearly nothing in the end. But now that the GOP is in the minority, they're able to block nearly everything and maintain a record number of filibusters, and the fact that each vote is their fault doesn't explain the discrepancy.
Part of it is that we have less caucus cohesion (good and bad -- Blue Dogs siding with the GOP bad, members thinking for themselves instead of voting lock-step, good) and part of is is that we haven't had the presidency through either of these periods. But it's not an unreasonable conclusion that part of it is because our leadership is much less effective than theirs.
That doesn't mean that getting whipped up into a frenzy is sensible, but frankly, getting whipped up into a frenzy is a feature of Internet discussions, not "the Left," so I don't get too worked up about it. But asking "is there something wrong with our leadership that they can't accomplish what the other side does?" is not out of bounds.
December 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Major news flash:
Democrats scuttle Auto bail out and blame Republicans. The vote failed 52-35 with 8 Democrats (the number needed to pass exactly) voting no or not voting. Lincoln, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Baucus, Tester, Reid and Wyden should be the ones y'all are pissed at...not us. Put down your rocks and take a good look at your own glass house!
December 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a pretty fair point.
December 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks...I thought so.
December 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Reid voted against it for purely procedural reasons (it gives him the capability to bring it to the floor again since the bill wasn't actually defeated). The other three Dems, though, should be shot.
December 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry is out of the country; Kennedy is ill; Reid voted against it for procedural reasons; and Biden didn't vote, I guess, since he's soon to be VP (?). The rest, I don't know about.
December 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden vote yes. There were folks like Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, and Sanders.
Here's how they voted.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html
I think the point is that nays were made of mostly of Republicans. I don't want either party to vote yes or no on something simply because that is what their leadership forced them to do. That is why the loss of Delay was a great thing. The vast majority of Dems voted yes, and it's their fault it failed is ludicrious statement. The bill was not a Dem issue or a Repub issue. If some Dems voted against it, then they have their constituency to answer to. But if the Repubs were able to get half of their people behind it, the bill would have passed.
December 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the 700 billion vote.
Here's yesterday's
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGwd1jlCNMafTX4H1T4CHfPGHGtAD950VMF85
December 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. But that it was only four (let's say that Reid didn't do it for procedural reasons) even makes my point more.
December 12, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and had the UAW made concessions it would have passed. It got 20% of the Republican caucus as is.
December 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is again putting the blame on the UAW as if it is given that they needed to make the concession. That is debateable. The Repubs said it was deal killer, but that is because they made employee cost, 10% of the overall cost of a vehicle, the primary cause of the problem facing the auto industry.
December 12, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are right. The UAW has given concessions in 2005 and 2007 and they will probably give more. Here is one of the problems, there are four stakeholders for the Big 3--workers (union and regular salaried), management, dealers and creditors.
The Republicans focused solely on the UAW and the cuts they had to make. UAW President, Ron Gettelfinger, is correct. If the union employees took no pay, it wouldn't help.
Top management, in all probability would have to take some cuts--yet what they did take (so far) was meaningless. Selling company planes results in firing UAW employees and regular salaried employees. Top management will probably continue to fly private jet, albeit chartered and at a higher cost than having your own jets.
Dealers and creditors were not coming to the table or even being considered. There are too many dealerships and a reduction in the interest rates at Ford and GM would be the biggest cost savings.
It was estimated that Ford would save $5 billion annually, if interest rates were cut in half. Creditors would still make a nice profit, they just wouldn't make an exhorbitant profit.
So, it is easy for the Republicans to blame the union, the other three groups support (in the most part) the Republican Party.
It is also a "shot across the bow" as Josh Marshall stated regarding the Employee Free Choice Act.
December 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has basically gone back to square one where both political parties wanted TARP monies used for this, with only Bush, through Paulson, opposed.
Now Paulson will do a $5-10 billion loan to tide them over until January 20th and Obama and the new Congress (quite a bit more UAW friendly) will finalize it.
Much ado about nothing!
December 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seemed clear to me as of yesterday that republica members of the senate wanted to make an issue of this and would not support it.
Now The TARP money will have to be used and they will probably just give them enough to kick the can down the road because Paulson doesn't seem to be doing anything constructive with the money.
December 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
...only 31 Republicans voted no. There's 68 more votes out there...
December 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
One tic of blogs, the MSM and commenters I find kind of irksome is the habit of thinking that "public statements" = "action" and "action" = "public statements." Once in a while, they'll acknowledge "behind the scenes efforts" if someone will give them a good leak, but mostly, its "why hasn't he spoken about this," and "why did he say that."
The public statement part is just kabuki, shadow puppetry. At best, its just one action among many, but since its the only one the MSM can see, they act like its the only one there is.
Does anyone really think Obama is just sitting holed up in his office mulling over who's going to be the Undersecretary of Commerce for Doorknobs and that all he is doing on the unfolding economic crisis is to step out in front of the microphones periodically and make a public pronouncment?
December 12, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dead on target and very well put. I would add that the media is obsessed with public statements because it's all they can talk about, and talk they must. In the absence of any hard information they just dream up stuff to talk about - hence the "angry left" meme and other such nonsense.
December 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
fair point, but obviously, many of us spend tons of time trying to figure out what's happening behind the scenes...it's not like we don't want to know that...
December 12, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Impeach Bush, Pelosi and Reid, NOW!
December 12, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
O bite me! I have no intention of supporting an impeachment movement against Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
Grow up - it was not the fault of the Democrats and not the fault of the Democratic Leaders.
It was the Repugs. Now quite blaming the Democrats, dammit.
December 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this snark?
December 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. I'm fed all the way up with liberals blaming the Democrats via Harry Reid every time the Senate fails to do something we want it to or does something we don't want it to.
The first thing every damn liberal says, just about, is: fuck Harry Reid, it's his fault.
Unless the comment above about impeaching them was snark, in which case I didn't get it, obviously.
December 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious: as Rachel M. suggested last night, why didn't the Dems force the Repubs to filibuster this bill last night thereby having to defend their position so publicly that all the country could see their obvious union busting intent?
I don't know Reid, but I think that even I could kick his ass in chess.
December 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you may want to think again. I think that Josh Orton on MyDD has it right, and Reid and the Dems actually are going to end up winning this round handily. Read it and see what you think. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/12/12/112932/70
December 12, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the strategy, then my hat is off to Reid, et alia. However, I can't help but thinking that forcing the Repubs to filibuster and demonstrate the depths of their sheer asshattedness wouldn't have been a bad PR maneuver. But, what do I know? I thought Reid should have kicked Liberman's ass, but he was probably right on track there too.
December 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched Rachel last night and my answer was that the public is not paying attention like they should. If the public watched Rachel's show last night, they would be outraged. She gives details that the evening news doesn't even come close to showing.
December 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senator From YokoBAMA Sends a Message to Detroit
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5120
December 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with TenaX. This is Republican nastiness, a combination of rigid anti worker ideology and doing as much damage as possible on the way out the door.
Remember in 2000 when the Bushies claimed the departing Clintonites had left a mess behind? It wasn't true; apparently it was projection. 20 more days of this congress, 40 of Shrub - I just hope we can hold on.
December 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember in 2000 when the Bushies claimed the departing Clintonites had left a mess behind? It wasn't true..."
Really?
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm
December 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Wally. Really.
"On May 18, 2001 the General Accounting Office issued a three-page letter that said that it was unable confirm the damage largely to a lack of records from the White House. The letter also said that the condition of the White House offices was "...consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
1/20/09: The end of the worst presidency in the modern era, bar none. And it is not even close.
December 12, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
$20,000 in damages...
December 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the record show that Clinton staffers did not leave the Eisenhower office bldg in "broom-clean" condition in 2001.
A devastating revelation, truly.
December 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather have a trashed White House than a trashed Constitution.
December 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overall, I think the goal of the GOP is to leave Obama the worst mess possible when Bush leaves the White House, so that his chances of getting it cleaned up enough by 2012 to get reelected are diminished. If that means millions of people are thrown out of work, who cares? Screw 'em. Maybe next time they'll vote Republican.
December 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
...again, only 31 Republicans voted no...there are 68 more votes out there.
December 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jennifer Granholm just violated y'all's first rule of political hate speech!
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/12/12/mich-gov-un-american-to-vote-against-auto-bailout/
December 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding right?
By the way, I'm still trying to get my arms around your very valid point about the votes. Why aren't the republicans pointing the finger at the dems if your point is valid? Kinda doesn't make sense. If they had the votes, I am sure that they would have wheeled in the other dems that didn't vote. Nonetheless, something doesn't smell right, as pointed out by your posts on the vote totals.
December 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, each Senator should vote as he or she believes is right, regardless of Party pressure. So if when sees that 4 Dems and 31 Repubs voted no, and one wants to blame one party or the other, I would think the blame goes to the Repubs.
December 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
10 Republicans voted "Yes." What compromises could've been made to garner a few more Republicans (or Democrats for that matter)? Could the Majority Leader have provided some leadership?
December 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would guess it was better stated "what more concessions" could be garnered. The auto workers have been making concessions with the companies for years now. They wanted the concessions to take effect sooner than what was negotiated with management. The industry hasn't been sitting on their hands the entire time leading up to this crisis.
December 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuz it's easy to just say Republicans are evil and hate workers...at least easier than accepting responsibility for failed leadership. Compromises require compromise.
December 12, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, the point was why aren't the republicans pointing the finger at the dems that didn't vote for it? By the way, many republican senators are evil and hate workers. We can stipulate to that one.
December 12, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuz if they did Dems would attack them for making Kennedy come vote, pointing out again how evil they are...the point is Dems refuse to make any conssesions and then complain that only 20% of the Republicans were with them, instead of making the changes they need to pull 20 more Republican votes that may lose 10 - 15 Democrat's votes...Leadership...Compromise...
December 12, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line here is that the Repubs wanted more concessions than had already been negotiated. They voted no because they wanted the concessions to take effect now rather than in a few years. If they thought this would be the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy auto industry, and thus worth killing the bill, then they need to stand by that, just as the few Dems will have to do the same. I differ with their opinion and thus feel those who voted no voted in a way that will harm rather than help the economy.
December 12, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she was wrong to use that term. She should make a statement retracting that term. And I would expect that any Republican, Democrat, or Independent politician in the future who makes a statement using the term "un-american" should be called out by all.
December 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Reid and McConelly wanted the bill to pass. By failing it, the real loser is Bush. This is how:
-- Democrats (and the union) didn't have to settle with a bill that gave in too much from workers and not enough from management.
-- Republicans can say to their crowd, specially the southern senators back home, that they stood tough.
-- Bush has no choice but to do what he said all along he didn't want to do -- use TARP money. Now, he will have to.
The auto industry will get the money to get by until Obama takes over, and then, the Democrats will have the votes to pass a better bill, and the Republicans can say there's nothing they can do because they are in a small minority.
December 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink