Wow, I really mean WOW!!!! It is Sunday morning and along with it brings tea, making breakfast for the family and reading the Star Tribune. It did not take long in reading the paper this morning to find a story that has no purpose in the election process. The story was one transplanted from the Washington Post with the tag line "GOP candidate wore Nazi uniform at reenactments". Democrats are truly worried about losing the House of Representatives, rightfully so, and have done a hit piece on Republican challenger Rich Iott. According to the article, Rich Iott participated in reenactments, with his son, of 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking as they fought the Soviets.
Rich Iott defended himself by saying, "Never, in any of my reenacting of military history, have I meant any disrespect to anyone who served in our military or anyone who has been affected by tragedy of war. I have immense respect for veterans who served our country valiantly, particularly those who fought to rid the world of tyranny and aggression by relegating Nazism to the trash heap of history." Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Ryan Rudominer stated, "It sends a chilling message to all Americans, especially to our veterans and to those of the Jewish faith, that John Boehner and the Republican leadership in Washington would actively seek out a candidate like this and embrace him." Rich Iott, as of yesterday, was listed on the Republican's website as one of the "Young Guns". Is this really an issue in the campaign? Does participating in a reenactment translate to a character flaw for office?
Every year, up and down the East Coast reenactments of the Civil War takes place. Does that mean that every person that fights on the side of Johnny Reb is a racist, bigot and insensitive to minorities? This attempt to smear a challenger is why so many Americans are turned off by politics. Is Rep. Marcy Kaptur really in that much trouble of losing her House seat that she needs to campaign on a non-issue of reenactments? I am running for City Council in Hamburg this year. Granted we are talking about a small community, to many in Hamburg I am still an outsider even though I have lived there for nearly 8 years. While those seeking re-election have made decisions that I don't agree with, I will not use inflammatory attacks on their non-council decisions to win an election. I will stand on my own two feet and state my vision, principles and thoughts of what can move Hamburg forward and if that is not what residents of Hamburg seek then life will go on.
For politicians that seek to use the smear campaign or supporters of said candidates is a weak attempt and indicates, to me at least, that their candidate doesn't have the mustard to hold office. So, does it really matter that Rich Iott participated in reenactments of WWII as a SS solider?
This is absurd as compared to what? Both sides present dirt and faux news. Truthfully, I had no interest in this story until he spoke in his defense. I actually found his explanation for wearing an SS officers uniform somewhat weak. He tried to explain away his admiration for 1940's Germany when he should have just said "it was a re-enactment, get over it". His poor explanation only fueled the story.
ReplyDeleteBut when they right side of the aisle continually compares Obama to Nazi's they should expect to get called out for any perceived "nazi" ties too. Fair is fair.
My point is the pathetic mud slinging that takes place in politics. The fact the challenger participated in a re-enactment is becoming relevant to the character of the candidate is sad.
ReplyDeleteNow, I agree that comparing any president, Obama or Bush, to Hitler is a bit of an overreach. Those that are doing it are making the comparison based on their perceived views of the actions of the president and not his participation in a re-enactment.
"Those that are doing it are making the comparison based on their perceived views of the actions of the president and not his participation in a re-enactment."
ReplyDeleteNo, those that are doing so are not making that comparison based upon perceived views, they're doing so in an attempt to link the president to the most vile persona of the 20th century. It's no different than this because it has nothing to do with policy, it has to do with mud.
Other than that, I'd say we agree on this, but I don't see it ending. I do find it a bit ironic that you call this mud slinging unfair but your own blog posts have crossed that very same line in some peoples opinions more than once.
Do you see a conflict in your own objectivity here?
Truman - Is my role really to be objective? As I stated above, when running for election I'd wish candidates would stick to facts and not read into someones involvement with a historical reenactment in the attempt to smear the challenger. Now, if Rich Iott was an active member of the Socialist Party and harbored Nazi ideals then we have something to talk about.
ReplyDeleteI do attempt on this blog site to bring up a point of view to start the discussion and often times I find myself defending that point of view as well, sometimes due to the lack of a voice, regardless on how I personally feel on the topic.
The policy of the Patriot Act smells of Big Brother, the passing to TARP, Stimulus and Health Care reform all smell of Big Brother - all these programs are marching ourselves toward a central government with enormous power and the erosion of State and individual rights. As these policies continue to be adopted the characterization of our elected officials as Hitler, Mao, Lenin, etc...are justifiable as all these men used the central government to control the people and that is not what America was founded on.
"Truman - Is my role really to be objective?"
ReplyDeleteNo, to be un-objective is completely within your rights, especially on your blog. However, it strikes me as ironic that you complain about the tone of political discourse when some of your own posts here have treaded into that same "mud".
It seems like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, especially when you only complain about the negativity when it's against a candidate you'd support.
A more constructive discussion would have been to ask if this or several other examples part of a larger electoral issue relating to the "lowest common demoninator" trend we see in politics today. For example, candidates campaigns looking for new ways to dig the metaphorical hole a bit deeper in order to win.
I'd be more curious about that debate than one around whether the tea partier was a nazi or not. Again, you can't sling that word against your enemies and then not expect it in return when you dress up as one.
As to TARP, you're aware that the CBO says this program will only cost the taxpayers >50billion and may actually turn a profit right? As a country we sneeze 50billion on programs that are less important than staving off a depression don't you think?
"As these policies continue to be adopted the characterization of our elected officials as Hitler, Mao, Lenin, etc...are justifiable as all these men used the central government to control the people and that is not what America was founded on."
You understand that Hitler was a Fascist while Mao and Lenin were Communists right? They are not the same thing, nor are they related. IN fact, they're completely antithetical to one another.
And as to the founding fathers and collectivism, there's a good Christian Science monitor article about this posted today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101008/cm_csm/331185
Truman - TARP money is being paid back but the problem is that we have traded some of the money lent out for stock - since when does a Government own a part of a company in a Democratic society?
ReplyDeleteI do understand that Hitler, Mao and Lenin fall ideologically on opposite sides of the political spectrum; yet both slants use the power of the central government has the hammer.
Interesting article. While I do see that our Founding Fathers wanted Unity behind the concept of the United States, I do not see where they intended the central government to rule the roost. Perhaps I missed it in the article or in the Constitution or any book I have read thus far. I think that is where Beck was going then again the guy is a nut so one never knows.
With regards to the founding fathers and whether they believed in a strong central government or not, it depends on which school of thought you follow: Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian. Jefferson was for small central government and limited federal powers. Hamilton was for strong central government and extensive federal powers. The reasons they had different opinions was largely to do with their backgrounds as farmer (jefferson) and industrialist (hamilton). The philosophical dichotomy between them is interesting to study, I recommend it if you have the time.
ReplyDeleteRemember, TARP was not what was used to buy up stock. It was used to buy troubled assets such as the securitized mortgage assets that banks were holding. The bailouts of GM, Chrysler and AIG were separate financial decisions. However, while I cringe at the governments actions, the alternative was 3-4 million more highly skilled workers unemployed (CBO estimate) along with the loss of an industrial capability that is considered a national security necessity.
Without those bailouts, unemployment would be in the 14-17% range. So I struggle to see how the alternative was better than the poison pill we swallowed. Now, on top of that GM and Chrysler appear to be returning to profitability after their bankruptcy restructurings. If they can do that, the Fed will likely turn a profit on those investments too. If the alternative was 15% unemployment and we may actually make money on the deal, while I see the "free market" issues with this, I see the alternative as far worse.
I'm not a Volkerian who believes that we need to let the market plunge to the bottom naturally. People who talk free-markets are often not truly clear on what it means to have an absolutely free market. The impact in this scenario was likely double our current unemployment and a depression like the 1930's.
That seems like a bad alternative to what we have today, as bad as this choice was.
I'm curious, what would you have done differently if you were president?
I ask because it's easy to sideline quarterback after the play has already been run, pointing out the failures. But when the burden rests on your shoulders and there are no good choices, I don't think it's so simple.
Correction - TARP was partitioned after the law was passed to fund part of the assistance that GM and AIG received. I missed this when I read the initial review of the law because it was passed as an amendment after the first bill was signed.
ReplyDeleteTruman - If I were President or a Congressman when the finance and automotive industries were being stressed, I would have allowed the bankruptcy laws enacted to take hold. The bankruptcy process would have adequately and properly assisted the re-structuring of companies in either industry. Some would have failed, some would have been eaten up and others would have emerged in better position.
ReplyDeleteNotice that Ford did not need a bailout. Not every bank, financial firm or brokerage house required a TARP handout to stay the course. The government simply monetized risky behavior by passing TARP and re-using it on the Automotive industry.
"I would have allowed the bankruptcy laws enacted to take hold."
ReplyDeleteI think we'd both agree that the Fed has oversight of national security. That said, your solution would have meant insolvency for GM/Chrysler. This means sale of assets and dissolution of the companies which would mean millions unemployed and loss of a strategic national security industrial capacity. Should the president have overlooked this latter of the two issues in order to appease a portion of the population, or does he have a responsibility to look out for the greater good even if the populace won't understand it and will not be pleased by it?
"The government simply monetized risky behavior by passing TARP and re-using it on the Automotive industry."
You think that risky behavior wasn't already monetized by the investment banks? if we were talking about letting banks fail, I'd be 100% supportive. But GM/Chrysler, while objectionable from a perspective of accountability, was the right thing to do. Both for maintaining lower unemployment as well as maintaining a critical national security capability.
Truman - Just because one files for bankruptcy does not immediately translate to closing the doors and massive layoffs. Donald Trump used bankruptcy court to assist in his empire.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how GM/Chrysler closing their doors is a "loss of strategic national security industrial capacity" as the capacity is still there. If we required production of war machines then another company or collective would step in and fill the gap - the beauty of the free market.
Let's face it, the Big 3 automakers have for years ignored the trade winds. The driving force behind the GM/Chrysler bailout was to protect the Union vote for the Democrats.
Government bailouts monetize risky behavior. Since we are no longer on the gold standard and our money is printed by a keystroke from the Fed, wouldn't it be more of a national security risk to save the banks and financial institutions that took on risk through government notion that everyone has the right to own a house? I mean, if our currency were to fail, would we not be like the Germans in the days that followed WWI. Our money would be worthless.
Don't get me wrong, Government handouts need to stop. I understand a safety net, a temporary assistance for those that desperately need it. Social Security was suppose to be that safety net. It was not meant to replace normal savings. Instead of being that safety net it has become an entitlement and ultimately another political chess piece.
ReplyDeleteViper, you are dead on. The government needs to remove itself from picking winners and losers. Not only with bailouts, like TARP, as well as with tax credits. As with everything there is a life cycle to it. We have allowed the Fed to run without the proper checks and balances for too long and it is time to reign in their control of our money supply. As for the bankruptcy angle, yes it is true that not every bankruptcy court case results in whole sale selling of factories and the laying off of workers. As a matter of fact depending on which chapter of the bankruptcy code one files under many companies come out in better fiscal positioning than going in. The bailout of GM/Chrysler was not to save the industry; rather it was to ensure the Union pension was not depleted.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain criteria for entering Chpt 7 for corporations. GM/Chrysler had little possibility of paying off creditors without a major influx of capital to both buttress their cash positions as well as buoy investor confidence. This was required to buy them time to restructure. Without those things (both of which came from TARP funds) the investors would have fled the sinking ships and the bad position would have collapsed causing insolvency. It's all but certain.
ReplyDelete"Donald Trump used bankruptcy court to assist in his empire."
Trump is a brilliant marketer but a terrible business man. The only thing of value he has generated in his career is a brand.
"I don't see how GM/Chrysler closing their doors is a "loss of strategic national security industrial capacity" as the capacity is still there."
Name another manufacturing industrial complex in the USA the size of GM/Chrysler that is US owned? I'll give you a hint, they don't exist. Ford is the closest and much smaller. So who would build the tanks/trucks/guns for a war effort? We won WWII precisely because of companies like GM/Chrysler.
"The driving force behind the GM/Chrysler bailout was to protect the Union vote for the Democrats."
Yes, because they had no incentive to make sure that 3-4 million Americans weren't unemployed and that a national security asset wasn't lost.
Seriously, can you be any more cynical? It's comments like this that make me think that all your conspiracy posts really are your belief and not some "devil's advocate" position. Because only someone with that level of cynicism could believe that the sole driving factor was votes and not the welfare of the US. Do you really believe you're the only patriot?
"Since we are no longer on the gold standard and our money is printed by a keystroke from the Fed"
Umm, money is printed by the Treasury. Monetary supply is controlled by the fed through bond sales/acquisitions. That may sound over-technical but it's not. And I'm dying to see how the gold standard has anything to do with this? Are you asserting that we should go back to the gold standard? If so, why? To what value? Where would we acquire the gold necessary to generate a reasonable reserve for our current monetary volumes? How would we pay for it? When we can't pay for it, how would we generate that reserve?
"I mean, if our currency were to fail, would we not be like the Germans in the days that followed WWI."
With or without gold reserves, your currency is worth what the marketplace believes it to be worth. This is because while the currency itself might still be worth $1, the amount it might be able to buy can fluctuate up and down with inflation/deflation. It has always been confidence in currency that gave it the valuation it holds. Gold provided sense of security in that valuation, but did nothing to drive the true valuation.
And you've been reading too much Peter Schiff. Germany's money devalued through inflation due to their printing of actual paper bills to pay off the Versailles debts after WWI. This increased supply without an increase in demand. This caused the valuation to plummet as currency reserves in the marketplace skyrocketed. Today's scenario is not equivalent for the reason that there was a 12-20Trillion dollar hole created by the mortgage and subsequent stock collapse of 2007. The Fed Gov and Fed Reserve together pumped about 3.7 Trillion into the economy in response. Even with fractional reserve lending applying a multiplier effect to the currency volumes in the marketplace, you barely begin to fill the hole that was created which means that supply does not outstrip demand which means that inflation will not occur.
In fact, we are at relatively high risk (25%+ according to some economists) of seeing deflation. So I'm remiss to see how this equates to your "money would be worthless" comment.
"The driving force behind the GM/Chrysler bailout was to protect the Union vote for the Democrats."
ReplyDeleteTo address this a bit further, I'm curious as to why GWBush and Henry Paulson would move to protect Democratic votes and the unions? The executive order authorizing TARP funds to be used by Paulson to buttress Auto manufacturers was ordered by Bush on Dec 19, 2008.
Can you explain to me why they would do this in what you accuse was a move solely to protect votes for democrats? If that was the case, wouldn't the best decision be to let the corporations and by way of proxy, the unions fail?
Again, I'll point out that your cynical logic is VERY flawed. Stop listening to Fox news pundits who spin lies into the "truth". Because obviously what you're accusing wasn't the case.
"The bailout of GM/Chrysler was not to save the industry; rather it was to ensure the Union pension was not depleted."
ReplyDeleteAnon, cite evidence of this. After all, this bailout was authorized by a Republican president and a lame duck at that who had nothing to lose by outright political maneuvering like helping hurt the unions.
So what evidence do either of you have other than cynical innuendo and supposition that is not supported by the facts at hand?
No one likes the bailouts, I've been one of the most vocal opponents of them for the banks. Goldman, BoA, Merril, JP Morgan all should have gone bankrupt for their behaviors. Other banks would have stepped in to take up the slack and as an industry, they are not integral to our national defense. That's not true of the manufacturing base of america, which is founded in automotives.
Truman
ReplyDeleteRead this and then tell me that the bailout was not to ensure Union pensions were saved - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-sacrificed-non-union-employees-for-UAW-cronies-957578-103519324.html
Truman - chapter 7 is not the only way GM/Chrysler could have gone. For either one of these two titans to fall would not have been the end or created a national security risk. There are many companies - Northrup Gruman for one - that could have picked up the slack.
ReplyDeleteOr a spinoff of GM/Chrysler would have emerged. The trouble is if they had gone through Chapter 7 the Unions would have been the big losers - not because of jobs lost rather because of pension and lifetime benefits. I understand the importance that companies like GM/Chrysler have but if they were so important then why did Obama's Car Czar sell off the Hummer division to China who ended up putting it on the trash heap?
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteI don't need to read that for one clear reason, the executive order authorizing the bailout of GM/Chrysler was a Bush era order, not Obama. Anything that happened after that is moot, because the basic premise of the bailout was not political, it was economic. It was not a union bailout, it was a corporate one backed by the GOP.
The GOP has no reason to bail out a union, they do however have a reason to bail out a national security apparatus and employer of 3-4 million people.
@Viper,
Admittedly there were slim scenarios where GM/Chrysler would have emerged from bankruptcy without Fed help, however they were unlikely. Go back and read the analyst reports on the issue. They clearly stated that the ~18Billion in debt GM was carrying without having posted a profit for the past 6+ quarters meant that it was likely the investors would have called the debt and forced them to liquidate their assets through sale since the assets were worth more than the company as a whole. This would have meant dissolution of the company. Only a capital investment from the fed gave the investors confidence enough to stay the course through bankruptcy. I'm not a fan of it, but that's the reasoning behind it, not some sinister union bailout for votes. Again, that's because the GOP would never sign off on a union bailout for votes trade with federal receipts.
And I'm not saying that the auto industry was critical to national security, the Quadrenial Defense Review as well as an independent congressional review are. In it, they state that the Auto industry in the US accounts for ~70% of the large product manufacturing base (auto, aircraft, etc). Nothing could replace 70% immediately should we need to ramp up war production. It takes years just to manufacture a plant of the complexity of an auto factory. Therefore, loss of this industrial complex would be catastrophic to the national security capabilities of the US. That's their judgment, not mine. I just happen to agree with it. You and Anon seem to think you know better than the national security experts in the DoD.
And the Unions would not have lost out on pensions because the federal government guarantees pensions through the PBGC. So again, your point is moot and ill informed.
I can't stress this enough, stop listening to the right wing propaganda machine and educate yourselves on the subject matter.
"why did Obama's Car Czar sell off the Hummer division to China who ended up putting it on the trash heap?"
Because Hummers are crappy cars? How would I know, they obviously wanted to buy it though and it was unprofitable so why not sell off that division? We're not talking about the military vehicles mind you, we're talking about the civilian version. The military vehicle is manufactured by AM General, not General Motors. GM simply licensed the name and produced a hulking hunk of crap.
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteSo you know, I did read that Opinion piece you posted. Malkin is a far-right political hack, and that article has no facts in it, only hearsay "testimonials" by Delphi workers.
If she had buttressed the article with actual documentation and facts supporting their claims instead of simply asserting "sworn depositions" as proof then she might have had a valid point. However, sworn depositions are nothing more than the statements by a person, unsubstantiated, but under oath.
And all that lack of evidence is why this is an OpEd piece and not an investigative report. It's rife with speculation, supposition, inference and innuendo but grossly light on facts.
If this is what qualifies as factual reporting to you, then you truly have bought into the propaganda machine.
I have not because my computer is being worked on. I working off the small screen. But a friend did send this to me on addiction. Found it interesting as it is a scientific response http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-addiction-real.html.....The other thing, what if Scientologist (sp?) are right...then addiction does not exist. I mean, scientist told us Pluto was a planet and it is not now...
ReplyDeleteAddiction is the scapegoat of the weak minded person.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/11/01/101101crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=all
ReplyDelete