Does the GOP want to kill the economy? I'm really starting to think so. Lots of reaction to the GOP's refusal to make concessions like everyone else to assist the American auto industry.
Also, Portugal says it will take some Guantanamo detainees off of our hands and urges other EU nations to do the same. I'm interested in how the U.S. sold it to the Portuguese - by claiming they will get the "least dangerous" of the detainees. Whatever happened to the "worst of the worst?"
And, did you see Rumsfeld's reaction to the Senate torture report? It is priceless!
So, the auto bill died in the Senate. Once again, Republicans show that they have no concern for ordinary Americans or their jobs, as long as they can satisfy their political goals. Harry Reid wonders:
“We’re not going to get to the finish line,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid “I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow (Friday). It’s not going to be a pleasant sight.”
If the reaction of the Asian markets is any indication, it's going to be an interesting Friday on Wall Street. And the New York Times editorial board glumly wonders if there can be any long-term solution to the automakers' problems without this short-term fix.
::::::
Felix Salmon ponders what the automakers can do now besides bankruptcy:
The problem here is that there really doesn't seem to be a Plan B: there isn't any indication that the government is even willing to provide debtor-in-possession financing within Chapter 11. And if such financing is not forthcoming, the worst-case scenario is looking increasingly probable: an outright Chapter 7 liquidation, which would cost millions of jobs and would probably have a devastating effect -- thanks to the inevitable supplier bankrupcies -- on the big Japanese automakers with plants in the South. In other words, everybody loses.
::::::
Kevin Drum says of the GOP's insistence on wage cuts for auto workers in 2009 rather than 2011:
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.
Here is the full roll call vote from the AP. I totally agree with Jane Hamsher, who believes that all doubt has now been removed - the GOP wants the economy to tank.
::::::
Maura Kelly writes a column for The Guardian (UK) supporting the Republicans in their opposition:
While the amount of jobs lost and money drained from the US economy will be huge if the auto industry collapses, it seems silly to prop up businesses that have been under-performing for so long. As Republican senator Richard Shelby of Alabama recently put it: "The [Detroit] firms continue to trail their major competitors in almost every category necessary to compete." He confirmed what so many consumers know: When people purchase American cars, they do it out of patriotism, but they're not getting the best deal for their money.
I think there might be some interesting reaction to that statement! I love columns that preface their opposition to the bridge loans by saying "I know it will be horrible for the economy if the auto industry collapses, but..." See? It's that whole "but" thing we were talking about yesterday.
::::::
This is a pretty interesting story. In a move that may assist Obama in shuttering Guantanamo swiftly once he takes office, Portugal has agreed to resettle some of the detainees:
In a diplomatic breakthrough that is likely to help the Obama administration close the Guantánamo detention camp, Portugal said this week that it was willing to resettle some detainees and urged other European countries to accept prisoners remaining at the camp, which has been a source of international criticism for nearly seven years.
One of the interesting aspects of this story is how the Bush administration has attempted to sell the idea to the Portuguese. Luís Serradas Tavares, the legal adviser to the Portuguese Foreign Ministry, remarked that the citizens of Portugal should not be concerned because:
“The U.S. has assured us that these people are the least dangerous people.”
Say what? What happened to the "worst of the worst" and the Bush administration characterizations that the detainees at Guantanamo represent the most dangerous players in the war on terror? They've been saying this for years and now they tell the Portuguese that, oh, they're really not that bad?
::::::
Speaking of Rumsfeld, you probably already heard that the Senate released a report clearly linking him to prisoner abuse and torture. But did you see his spokesman's response?
“Because of irresponsible charges by a few individuals in positions of responsibility in Congress, millions of people around the world have been led to believe that the United States condones torture,” Mr. Urbahn said.
If it weren't such a serious subject, this response would be really, really funny. I don't even know what I can say... his response just renders me speechless.
::::::
The ACLU welcomes the findings of the report and calls for an independent investigation:
“The ACLU applauds Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for initiating this vital inquiry. The American people need to know if crimes were committed in the authorization and ordering of torture and abuse. Those individuals must be held responsible for the United States to be able to move forward and restore the rule of law.”
::::::
Speaking of Republicans, did you know that 72% of conservatives approve of Bush? I guess I shouldn't be too surprised - these are conservatives we are talking about after all - but that number just astounded me. I thought maybe 55% - tops.
::::::
So what else is going on in politics today? Oh, yeah, there is that whole Blagoblahblahblah thing still going on. Joe Conason thinks Republicans are reverting back to the old habits they demonstrated so well in the 90's:
From the kooky obsession with his place of birth on WorldNetDaily to insinuations about his Chicago pedigree by the Associated Press, all of the attacks launched lately on Barack Obama give off the same familiar smell. Even a quick sniff is enough to bring back memories from a decade ago, when no perfidious accusation against Bill or Hillary Clinton was too crazy to deserve attention.
The madness that was eventually classified under the quasi-clinical rubric of "Whitewater" began, in no small degree, with the dubious idea that Arkansas, the Clintons' home state, was a peculiarly corrupt place -- and that any politician from Arkansas by definition was suspect (but only if he or she happened to be a Democrat).
The ol' guilt by association game seems to be a favorite of the GOP. Did anyone expect them to change? Conason calls them the "Clinton rules" and it's not just the GOP - the traditional media who "echo the mindless questions" follow the rules of the game as well.
::::::
Eugene Robinson calls on Obama to be more forthcoming about the Blagojevich scandal:
None of this is likely to hurt Obama in any material way or even dim the glow of his victory and upcoming inauguration. But maybe it can be a lesson. Real "change" would be throwing away the playbook and getting all the facts out now, rather than later.
Meanwhile, Joan Walsh says Obama is responding just fine, thankyouverymuch:
I thought the president-elect handled the issue well at his press conference Thursday. He made a joke about Blagojevich's colorful language and said he couldn't repeat it on a "family program." Obama looked like the happiest man in history ever to be called a "motherfucker."
I thought his response was pretty funny too. Obama said yesterday he will be compiling all the details on any staff contacts with Blagojevich's office, so I'm not sure what else people expect him to do?
::::::
So, please do tell us what's on your mind this morning...