Alex takes issue with Romney’s New York Times article on the Detroit bailout, claiming that Romney has somehow “flip-flopped”. I think this is ludicrous. First, some quotes and commentary from/on Romney in the primaries:

Michigan native and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney offered the most extensive comments on the industry’s plight, saying the next president should have an open door to industry executives and boost spending on research into new energy-saving technology.

“It’s inexcusable that Michigan is undergoing a one-state recession,” Romney said. “There’s a lot we can do to strengthen Michigan, and in some respects what Michigan is seeing, the entire nation is going to see unless we take action now to get Michigan stronger.”

October 17th, 2007 Knight Rider Tribune Business News

“We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative — an energy revolution — that will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy. Moreover, even as scientists still debate how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for energy independence has come.”

July/August 2007 Foreign Affairs

He offered proposals to ease mileage standards, to lighten automakers’ burdensome employee health care obligations and to “make a fivefold increase — from $4 billion to $20 billion — in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science and automotive technology.”

USA Today, January 16, 2008

“From legacy costs, to health care costs, to increased (fuel economy) standard costs, to the cost of embedded taxes, Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer,” he said….

While saying he wasn’t proposing a bailout, Romney proposed a five-fold increase - to $20 billion - in federal funding for energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.

He vowed to get rid of burdensome regulations, taxes and litigation costs that hurt automakers and other businesses. He said he would work on “legacy” health care costs as well, but didn’t offer details.

He said he would make the tax credit for research and development permanent. He said he would ensure that trade deals don’t hurt automakers or other U.S. businesses.

He also criticized Washington for the recent fuel economy hike that President Bush signed into law.

“Washington also has to stop loading Detroit down with unfunded mandates…. Discontinuous CAFE leaps, uncoordinated with the domestic manufacturers, and absent consideration of competitiveness, kills jobs and imperils the entire industry,” he said.”

Detroit News, January 15th 2008

Now, from his new article:

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the embedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers….

New York Times, November 19, 2008

It’s hard to understand how this is viewed as a flip-flop, and Alex’s comments on the matter give us no real insight into the matter. He’d have us believe that because Romney said, in January, that Washington hadn’t “done much” for Detroit, it’s now inconsistent to oppose an attempt by Washington to help Detroit. Or something. Romney specifically notes that the automakers are reasonable to ask Washington for help; he simply opposes this particular means of “help”. As the Detroit News article, from January, notes, Romney made it clear that he wasn’t proposing an automotive industry bailout. Alex’s more specific criticisms are similarly misleading. He writes:

While offering a $20 billion aid package specifically to the auto industry. He’s still dropping the $20 billion number, but he’s doing it in a very tricky manner: what he’s proposing now and what he proposed before are not the same package. Pretty slick, and psychologically savvy.

But, this isn’t true, as even a cursory examination of Romney’s actual words-and the reports on those words- indicates. Here were Romney’s exact words, from the Detroit Economic Club speech:

[We need to] make a fivefold increase — from $4 billion to $20 billion — in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science and automotive technology.

Here are his exact words on the topic today:

[We should invest more] on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today.

These two statements are substantively identical; they use nearly identical rhetoric. It’s true enough that Romney’s critics accused him of pledging the 20 billion specifically to the auto industry- certainly Alex felt that way- but the charge is just not merited on the facts. Romney was proposing, and continues to propose, broad increases in research and development, particularly in the energy field. I won’t deny that Romney went out of his way to emphasize how this program would help the automotive industry, when he was campaigning in Michigan, but it was never geared specifically towards that industry as the quote above indicates. Alex further writes:

And furthermore, he’d rather see a managed bankruptcy than fight for every job and “take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”

Again, it’s hard to know what to make of this. It’s impossible for me to understand how he could have read Romney’s New York Times piece, and come to the conclusion that Mitt was backing away from his pledge to “fight for every job”. Romney’s article is centered around the notion that a “managed bankruptcy” will preserve jobs more effectively, precisely because the industry cannot sustain its current model. For Romney, a bailout of this nature will, far from preserving jobs, ultimately end them by ensuring the automotive industry’s collapse.

His contention that Romney no longer wants to “take the burdens off the auto industry” is similarly puzzling. What does he suppose Romney means by quotes like: “insurmountable labor and retiree burdens” or “First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers” or That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car”? What can Romney mean when he insists that “embedded tax penalties” must be lifted? It requires, I think, willful malice to interpret Romney as somehow inconsistent on this matter. He’s been saying the same thing, sometimes with the exact same phrases, for months now.

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com
______________________________________________________________________________

A conservative republican senator, James Inhofe of Oklahoma (left), wants to prevent a Republican President’s Secretary of the Treasury from spending $350 billion absent approval of Democratic Party congressional majorities.

Thomas Freidman, a liberal Obama-supporting columnist with the New York Times opposes Democrats in congress that want to come to the rescue of their UAW union constituents at General Motors:

Tom, if I thought with $25 billion we could save this industry, I’d be for it, OK?

I wouldn’t.

If there were an amount of money that would fix GM, investors would be begging GM to let them buy in.

It was necessary to stabilize the banking system, but a crucial “bailout” distinction must be made. Charles Krauthammer acknowledges that:

The Bush administration sees the $700 billion rescue as an emergency measure to save the financial sector on the grounds that finance is a utility. No government would let the electric companies go under and leave the country without power. By the same token, government must save the financial sector lest credit dry up and strangle the rest of the economy.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama (left) observes that:

Once we cross the divide from financial institutions to individual corporations, truly, where would you draw the line?

Hopefully, the failure of the first $350B, of the Paulson bailout plan, to unclog the money-lending arteries of a financial system distorted and stunted by bad government policies since the late 1990’s, will disabuse the President-Elect of plans to restrict the Liberty of Americans to bail themselves and the country out, as they did from 1983-2005, by being unleashed from central planning and allowed to spread their economic wings.

The government must stop causing companies to fail, allow failing companies to fail and stop preventing investors from investing. Investors went on strike during the 1930’s. Let’s not precipitate a repeat.

Paulson admitted on November 14 that “the financial markets are stabilized.” Fine, give the remaining half of the taxpayers’ money back and shore up the Greenback. Investors worldwide like a strong U.S. dollar. Despite the stabilization, little money is being lent.

Stop criminalizing business failure through the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley bill that has stifled new-business start-ups and made London a rival for New York as the world’s financial capitol.

Reduce America’s non-competitive corporate income tax or eliminate it altogether. Haven’t you heard, corporations don’t pay taxes. They just pass them along to consumers. We haven’t the time for any class warfare. Speaking of which, why not cut the capital gains tax rate? This nation is capital starved. Wouldn’t it be better if private investors wanted to infuse capital in banks so that Hank didn’t feel the need to?

The deficit you ask? What is government spending doing to the deficit? If Paulson spends the rest of his kitty, it will be over a trillion with a “T” for this fiscal year. Remember the 80’s and late 90’s when we cut tax rates and revenues gushed into the treasury?

Back to GM. We should be concerned about the millions of workers that could lose their jobs, but a native with a vested interest in Michigan, Mitt Romney (left) weighed in on the matter today:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

The key to an economic turnaround is to let Americans be free. Free to keep more of their money and free from onerous laws that value the swimming pools of snail darters over the ability of homo sapiens to feed their young.

There is no greater civil right than the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Jim Crow laws restricted that Liberty, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis and many others engaged in civil disobedience in protest.

During the campaign, President-Elect Obama opposed expanded oil drilling, was caught on tape favoring the bankruptcy of the coal industry, and opposed nuclear power expansion.

Will he stick to those liberty denying positions next year in the midst of a deeper recession?

Maybe Americans should take to the streets again and include the seas this time.
How about in addition to another March on Washington, let’s have a Float on North Carolina’s Outer Banks to build an oil rig? Plenty of water out there for hoses too.

Spreading existing wealth won’t do. Americans must seize their inalienable right to create more.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

Time to take down the picture, Kavon?

I have always refused to gamble, but I am willing to bet we will be posting about Governor Huckabee each day during his book tour.  He is clearly not running in 2012, but plans on stirring up the hornets nest between now and 2012.

Huckabee on Palin: “What John McCain did for her was to give her the capacity to sort of leapfrog over the process and get right to the center stage,” he said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. “By naming her (his running mate) he was able to put her in a position where she did have to go through the bruising process of the primaries. Many of us had been out there for 15 months … she walks into the hot spotlight and she’s a blank slate nobody knows so Republicans are fired up.”

Huckabee’s comments on Palin, a possible rival for the 2012 Republican nomination, suggest some jealously. “She didn’t have to go through any the debates, she didn’t have to go through the primaries, she didn’t have to have people pick her or pick someone else against her. State parties did not have to divide from one to 12 ways over her. So it was a remarkable ability for her to come in at a level that is an extraordinary benefit to her.”

Huckabee on 2012 and Palin: Huckabee wouldn’t rule out a 2012 run for president Wednesday, but he acknowledged it could be hard to take back the spotlight from fellow Republican Sarah Palin.

Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, said he expects Palin to continue to have a leading voice in the Republican Party, though he acknowledged he was envious of her meteoric rise after Sen. John McCain brought her out of relative obscurity as governor of Alaska to run with him this year as the vice presidential candidate.

Huckabee on Romney 19/11/2008: “He spent more time on the road to Damascus than a Syrian camel driver. And we thought nobody could fill John Kerry’s flip-flops!” Huckabee wrote.

Having now read through the comments on my post from last night, I think some don’t understand where I am coming from on this particular matter.

2008 is over and done with, and as Haley Barbour eloquently stated:

“Anybody here tonight who’s talking about the 2012 presidential election needs to get their eye on the ball”

I will admit that I was angry when I wrote the post, to put it mildly, but i find it revealing that the Boston Herald, who at times was highly critical of Mitt Romney during the primary process, today has a post praising him for “rising above the fray.” Governor Tim Pawlenty is giving the Star Tribune “very little” to work with, in regards to a possible run in 2012.

Huckabee, on the other hand, is out supporting his new book, which apparently could be titled “Mitt and Me.” While some Huckabee supporters have argued that the criticisms he aims at his supposed former rivals are just a small portion of his book, the Chicago Tribune’s Washington Bureau kindly refutes that point today:

Mike Huckabee’s new book about the 2008 primary race is titled “Do the Right Thing,” although the ‘right thing’ might have been to name the book, “Mitt Romney is a Big Fat Spender.”

Romney’s expensive media consultants?

His 40 rented golf carts at the Iowa Straw Poll?

The fact that he spent multi-millions to lose the nomination?

All that perceived profligacy and ineptitude appears to delight Huckabee to no end and few pages in the book pass without a mention of ‘ol Mitt’s mistakes.

In fact, Romney appears more in “Do the Right Thing” than any person except Huckabee himself, according to the book’s own index, and about 99.9 percent of Romney’s appearances ain’t pretty, of course.

While Governor Huckabee may succeed in reinvigorating his base support, he also pushes some of his critics, like myself, to defend Mitt Romney, a feat that would’ve been considered a sure sign of the coming Apocolypse if anyone were familiar with my feelings towards the latter during the past primary season. I’m not alone in this, as there are some who considered themselves anti-Mitt and even some who were pro-Huckabee, who come to the same conclusions over this as I do.

A few have brought up the fact that my post last night engages in the same type of tactics that I accuse Huckabee of doing, and I plead guilty of all charges. The difference is that I am not in the running to be considered the new leader of the GOP, and my opinions are nothing more than opinions.

I don’t like getting riled up like I did when I wrote the post last night, but I was, and still am, angry. I’m angry that the GOP imploded during the 2008 election. I’m angry that this is a party that has been left without a clear vision, direction, or leader for the future. I’m angry that Mike Huckabee feels that the best way to garner support is to start attacking possible future rivals for the 2012 nomination when not even a month has passed since the elections.

Above all else, the two things that anger me most are that Governor Huckabee seems unwilling to let Mitt Romney work towards rebuilding the GOP, a goal that he proclaims to share, and that Governor Huckabee can’t seem to understand that just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean that they are required to support him.

The media still dislikes Mitt Romney.  He could probably save a drowning child from the Potomac and he would still be criticized by the media for swimming the child back to the wrong bank of the river.

WXZY in Detroit; Romney: ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’

Boston Globe; Et tu, Mitt?

MLive; Mitt Romney to Detroit: Drop Dead

Not only are these headlines misleading, but how much would you like to bet they (and the editorials) were written before the NY Times piece was fully published?

Governor Romney is being savaged for his apparent ‘flip-flop’ on auto industry relief, but let us examine exactly what Governor Romney said during the primary and what he said today in his NYT opt-ed:

Michigan Primary-

1) “I will roll up my sleeves in the first 100 days I’m in office, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, congressional, and state leaders and together we will develop a plan to rebuild America’s automotive leadership,”

2) (Romney) declared that he would not let the “one-state recession” continue.

3) “What I’m critical of is the absence of a federal policy designed to strengthen the U.S. automotive sector and manufacturing general,”

4) Increase investments into automotive research by $16 billion per year.

Today-

“The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing,” he writes. “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

“In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

The actual headline for his Opt-ed piece is ”Romney Says Detroit’s Bailout Won’t Work“.  I read it and I agree with his thoughts and proposals 100%.

I also cannot find the flip-flop?  Are the proposed bail-out packages and his proposals during the primary campaign not completely different?  I was against the Romney proposal during the campaign, as I am not a big fan of corporate welfare, but I really cannot find the story that the media is playing out today?

I have been very skeptical of Romney’s adherence to fiscal conservatism (his record as Governor of MA), but today he sounded like a Marshall Sanford and Sarah Palin Republican.  I am not supporting him, but at least let us give Governor Romney credit for taking a principled stance.  We might also want to listen to what he has to say, not only because Romney is a successful business owner, but because his father was a pretty effective auto industry CEO.

(UPDATED. Some of the comments before #50 or so might not be relevant, as ambiguous wording led me to mistake part of the article for something that it didn’t mean. A flip-flop, however, is still evident in Romney’s piece. The article has been corrected for the error.)

(UPDATE 2: Some of you have been speaking of “changing contexts” in that we’ve hit a financial crisis since January. I issue the same challenge to all who make this point: state his original thoughts, the changing context, and then how the newer thoughts specifically address the changing context. I don’t see how this can be done. The shift in political posturing clearly has nothing to do with the credit crisis. If anything, as I note below, this new position makes even less sense, in every context but one: trying to appeal to free marketeers for the 2012 race.)

With that in mind, here is the original post…

—

We’re not even out of 2008 yet and we already have our first Mitt Romney flip-flop of 2012. Here are the relevant quotes:

Romney, January 2008:

“I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back’…I’m going to fight for every single job. I’m going to rebuild the industry. I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”

Romney, January 2008:

“Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry?”

Romney, January 2008:

“Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive manufacturing industry to disappear? … As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff.”

Fast-forward ten months, and in a piece entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Governor Romney writes:

“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

More…

Romney, January 2008:

Romney proposed increased government spending for research on advanced fuels and vehicles, aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees, and tax cuts for most taxpayers to help them buy new cars.

Romney, November 2008:

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

So now the twenty billion isn’t for the auto industry in particular anymore. And furthermore, he’d rather see a managed bankruptcy than fight for every job and “take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”

Sorry, Michigan, but thanks for those primary votes!

At the risk of overstating my case — the quotes in themselves are rather damning — we should recall that John McCain stated, truthfully, in January, that the lost jobs were not coming back and that Michigan would need to innovate to find a way to create new jobs — that’s simply how the market works. Romney disagreed, saying that McCain was being a cranky pessimist and that he would “fight for every single job” while offering a $20 billion aid package specifically to the auto industry. He’s still dropping the $20 billion number, but he’s doing it in a very tricky manner: what he’s proposing now and what he proposed before are not the same package. Pretty slick, and psychologically savvy.

The new context, really, makes this new $20 billion arrangement make even less sense: since we’re talking about solutions at this moment for the auto industry specifically, why would Romney shift his proposal from the exact focus to the general issue of energy? The answer is obvious: he’s backing away from his original interventionist plan to try and curry favor with free-marketeers.

(PS: I actually rather like the article, ironically. I just wish that I could trust the man who wrote it.)

From the official release:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced today that he will be campaigning in Georgia for U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss on Friday, November 21, and that his Free and Strong America PAC has made a contribution of $5,000 to help with the runoff election.

Romney will be appearing at political rallies in Atlanta and Savannah , as well as at a series of private event fundraisers. Chambliss won the Nov. 4 general election, but the Dec. 2 runoff was called when neither Chambliss nor his Democratic opponent, Jim Martin, achieved 50 percent of the vote due to third party participation.

“This is a critical election whose outcome will be important to maintaining a balance of power in the Senate,” said Romney. “It is critical that Republicans safely retain the ability to filibuster in order to prevent the worst abuses of single party rule.”

Romney praised Chambliss as an outspoken leader in protecting the homeland from terrorism and called him an important voice for strengthening America ’s military and getting our economy moving again through pro-growth, low-tax policies. The $5,000 contribution from Romney’s PAC is in addition to $2,300 that the PAC donated to Chambliss during the general election campaign.

Is Mitt really a sure bet to run in 2012?

Tagg Romney was in his office the other day when the door opened and in popped his father, Mitt Romney, dropping off the family dog.

It was a mundane task that highlighted Romney’s change in fortunes: Instead of managing a White House transition, or preparing to assume the vice presidency, the man who failed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and was passed over by John McCain for running mate is focusing on his family and political interests.

And it may stay that way through 2012 and beyond.

The surprising ascendancy of McCain’s eventual pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her popularity among some GOP conservatives have left Romney wondering whether he could wage a viable second campaign for the White House, according to friends and advisers.

Charley Manning, a Massachusetts Republican operative who has worked as a Romney adviser, recently told a local radio interviewer: “I’d be surprised if Mitt ever ran again for president.”

A top aide said Romney is focused on where to spend Thanksgiving rather than when to head back to Iowa or New Hampshire. Between now and 2010, Romney has no political plans other than to write about causes that interest him and use his political action committee to raise money for candidates who share his government philosophy.

Romney’s committee recently donated to the recount for Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and the runoff election involving Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

“The campaign’s over and now is not the time to be thinking about the next presidential election,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “Governor Romney believes that now is the time for all Americans to stand above partisan politics and help our president-elect address the pressing needs of the nation.”

Now is the time that the weight of a presidential campaign is probably remembered as the heaviest for those that have chosen to run this gauntlet. The election is over, and a new President-Elect is busy assembling their administration with the world transfixed on their every move.

Unsuccessful candidates return to their daily lives and contemplate what might have been. The holidays that come between election day and the inauguration most likely serve to reinforce that life has returned to normal, and that the exciting new path that they envisioned for their lives has been closed, at least for now.

John McCain has said that the only cure for the desire to become President of the United States in embalming fluid; and for those for which a future presidential run is still possible, the compelling desire to reach that pinnacle denied always returns.

I do not know Gov. Romney personally, but I do not think that it is outlandish for me to speculate that he believes he could have won this race. That he alone could have communicated a coherent conservative economic message that would have resonated with the American People. That he would have begun the effort to shed light on Barack Obama’s questionable associations long before doing so would be viewed as an act of desperation by voters.

Mitt Romney quest for the Presidency may be on hold, but it is surely not over. These are the Dog Days for losing presidential candidates. But just as the seasons change, Presidential hope springs eternal.

“Is Romney the man to save GOP in 2012?”

So is it a pleasure cruise or a political gathering?  I’ll email my buddy at Townhall and update later.

Article highlights from CNN Web.

- But it isn’t just any cruise and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn’t just any Republican. Since the economy began its historic downturn six weeks ago, Romney’s stock in his party appears to have skyrocketed.

- “There he was addressing the largest gathering every year of conservatives, and it was extremely symbolic in many ways,” said Matt Lewis, a writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com. “That’s where he chose to say for the good of the movement he was going to get out. It was very well-received by most people, and he is now in a better position to garner more conservative support because of it.”

- Al Regnery, publisher of The American Spectator who attended a summit of prominent conservatives in Virginia last week, said movement leaders continue to toss around Romney’s name as they look to the future.

- “People are going to have to compete for what will be the equivalent of several interviews with conservatives as to whether they fit the job description, and Romney would certainly be one of these contenders,” Regnery said.

- But even as the Romney drumbeat already can be heard in some corners of the party, it remains possible the former governor will face the same problems that hindered his 2008 campaign — namely the perception he is overambitious and given to flip-flopping on issues for political expediency.

-Is Health Care a right? Obama, “Yes”

-Is Health Care a right? McCain, “No”

The health care debate is not a winning issue for the Republican party.  No matter how creative we become in policy, how effective we are at spinning the liberal position, we lose this debate, nearly every time.  Pragmatic conservatives win elections by focusing on a short and easily communicatable list of domestic campaign promises, all of which naturally fit in to conservative philosophy.  The winning domestic issues include; gun rights, taxes, spending, crime, reducing the size of government and reforming public institutions.

Conservatives will never be able to compete with liberal promises of universal health care and universal prescription drug coverage.  Unfortunately, many Republicans never seem to learn from mistakes of the past.  When Republicans decide to compete on this issue, the damage to our image is twofold.

#1 - We are never able to out promise liberal Democrats on this issues, but when we attempt to, we appear less empathetic, less caring and out of touch to the needs of middle-class America.

#2 - When Republican health care solutions are implemented we damage our brand with fiscally conservative voters, who then doubt our claim as the party that watches their pocketbooks.

At the federal level, President Nixon appeased the left and proposed the HMO Act in 1973.  The term “HMO” now symbolizes a failure of Republicans/conservative values.  Blame for the rising cost of health care and lack of coverage is directed towards Republicans.  We repeated this error in late 2003, when President Bush signed in to law the Medicare Drug Benefit.  By 2005, it was discovered that the cost of this new health care entitlement would balloon from the original projections of $534 billion over 10 years, to over $1.2 trillion over a decade. The roll-out of this plan was as badly managed as Katrina and again the blame for this irresponsible and unaffordable new entitlement program and the mismanaged deployment, lay at the feet of Republicans.

As the GOP rebuilds, many Republicans are again looking at how our party can compete with the liberal Democratic plan for universal health care coverage.  Most of these Republicans seem to be pointing at Romneycare as our solution to present to the voting public.  But what exactly was Romneycare, was it successful and what image did it leave Republicans with in the state of Massachusetts?

Cato Institute;

Governor Romney bragged that he would “steal” the traditionally Democratic issue of health care. “Issues which have long been the province of the Democratic Party to claim as their own will increasingly move to the Republican side of the aisle,” he told Bloomberg News Service shortly after signing the bill. He told other reporters that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary Clinton’s was “mine got passed and hers didn’t.”

The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced.” In reality, the plan has done neither.

133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something “for free,” and let others pay the bill.

The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million (KL-numbers are now projected to be even higher than CATO estimated nearly a year ago). Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney- Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program.

Moreover, the cost of the plan is also likely to continue rising, because the Massachusetts reform has failed to hold down the cost of health care. When Romney signed his plan he claimed “a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs.” In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.

The intentions of Romneycare were as much about stealing the issue of health care away from Democrats, then providing fiscally conservative government for the taxpayers of that state.  Initially the headlines were positive, but now residents have come to realize that Romneycare is contributing to the bankruptcy of the state of Massachusetts.  Ironically enough, the failure of Romneycare allowed the liberal Democrats (led by Obama) to steal the issue away from the centrist Democrat, Hillary Clinton, during the 2007-2008 Democratic primary.  This is another example of how liberal Democrats always seem to win the health care debate in America.

My advice, stay as far away from health care policy as possible.  Do not attempt to combine the term, “free” and conservatism together, they do not mix well.  Do what Governor Romney did during the GOP primary, do not talk about it.  Hide from previous mistakes, concede the issues to Democrats and focus on the winning conservative issues.

Just over 9 months ago, I cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries. I did so reluctantly, without any real expectation that he could win the election. But, I did so on the strength of two thoughts. One, for all his faults, he was a better candidate then John McCain. Two, he would have been a great President 95% of the time. Since that time, I have been quite critical of Mr. Romney. His boosters tried to portray his bid as a “longshot”, but this will not sell. He was the best debater in the bunch, he had tremendous financial and organizational resources, and he had a sterling resume. He should have won the nomination; he should have run a better campaign. Still, as the months have worn on, and as some of my personal disappointment has faded- Governor Romney was the first politician I truly embraced- my opinion of Romney’s effort has improved.

Let me say something right off the bat: I do not accept the standard idea that Romney should have run as a fix-it technocrat, and scotched the cultural issues he embraced pre-Iowa. To be sure, I prefer the Michigan Romney to the guy who talked about “God-fearing Americans”, “purple mountains”, and pornography blocking computer chips. Though I’m a social conservative, that second Romney embarrassed me. But, I think he understood something that escaped every other Republican candidate; namely, that politicians must reach beyond their comfort zone. Going into the 2008 race, Romney lacked two things. As a blue-blooded, business-oriented technocrat, Mitt lacked what George H.W. Bush called “that vision thing”. Promises of competence and efficiency are not sexy. Ask Michael Dukakis. So he set out, from the get-go, to downplay his wonkishness, and try to find a broader vision. You could see this during his announcement speech, where he focused on the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. You could see it in his sometimes cloying tributes to American heritage. Romney also lacked credibility with social conservatives so he attacked this problem, to mixed results. I won’t deny that Romney’s efforts were often disastrous in effect, but they failed due to poor execution (his “vision” shifted too often for instance and he was too heavy-handed on social issues) not because the efforts were misguided.

I point this out, because if you look at the major players this election cycle, you’ll notice something peculiar; in this respect anyway, Romney’s candidacy comes much closer, then his Republican opponents’ attempts, to Obama’s successful effort. Rudy Giuliani entered the race with credibility on economic issues and terrorism. He had a weakness with social conservatives that he never seriously addressed. In fact, Rudy’s candidacy was marked by a retreat from his weaknesses. Iowa was too socially conservative, so Rudy abandoned it early. New Hampshire was McCain-friendly and practically Romney’s home state, so Rudy was gone by Mid-December. Nevada and Michigan have similar stories. No one denies that these areas weren’t prime targets for Rudy, but then, the Republican nomination was never going to be a prime target for a socially moderate/liberal New Yorker. In order to win the nomination, Rudy was going to have to move beyond his comfort zone. He never did so and, rather predictably, failed.

John McCain fell into a similar trap. He saved his candidacy by putting every last egg in McCain friendly baskets. That the “President of New Hampshire” ultimately won New Hampshire, shouldn’t surprise. Or take a look at his debates and commercials from the period; the focus is almost uniformly on the surge and his heroism. He almost never attacked one of his weaknesses. In this light, his bewildering general election campaign comes to into sharper focus. When the economy collapsed, he leaned on his “earmarks” crutch. He was left railing against Wall Street, when Americans wanted solutions and reassurance. John McCain ran the sort of campaign he knew-the sort of campaign with which he was comfortable- but it was incongruent with the sort of campaign the moment demanded.

Look at Obama’s candidacy, in contrast. Take a look at the few audio/video tapes that have surfaced from his early career. One gets the sense of a profoundly different Obama. He comes across as nerdy, boring, professorial, and even more effete. I would never have envisioned the Obama who droned on about “redistribution of wealth” running a Messiah-like Presidential campaign. Others who knew him during the time period, have reported being similarly bewildered by his new national image. But, he understood something that Romney also grasped- that politicians must attack their weaknesses and that his entry onto the national scene was an opportunity to re-invent himself. So he wrote a “vision” book, and delivered an impassioned speech, and set about eradicating the boring professor. If he was too dry and dull in interviews and debates, why he’d be precisely the opposite on the stage. He’d find a cause (the Iraq War) and a simple vision (hope and change) and graft it onto a narrative that cut against his weakness. But, notice something else; Obama’s versatility. When his cause ceased to be a benefit, he jettisoned it. When McCain succeeded in painting Obama as a celebrity without substance, Barack went back to the droning, dull persona, and selected as a “serious” Vice President. Where was “hope and change” when Obama simply needed to be a generic Democrat? Nowhere to be found.

Whatever Romney’s faults, he was the only candidate on the Republican side to campaign in a similar fashion. I remember reading an article about Romney’s 94′ run against Ted Kennedy. He had been upset about his poor debate performances, so he spent a good deal of time over the next few years mastering the format. Only, when 2002 arrived he was facing a woman (Shannon O’Brien) and the rules had changed. Again he flailed at the beginning. But, he was diligent and by the final debate, he’d made the necessary adjustments and clobbered her. He recognized that a blue-blood technocrat could be too easily pigeonholed, so he set out to “inspire”. He understood that a former pro-choice Mormon would have difficulty with social conservatives, so he courted them extensively and tried to speak their language. That he ultimately failed does not diminish the effort or the progress he made. By the end of the race, he was a better candidate in nearly every respect. He could discuss cultural issues, without overdoing it. He could project a vision, without sounding cloying. He could debate, without appearing condescending. We may not need Mitt Romney in 2012, but we certainly need that willingness to tackle a weakness and the diligence in doing so. We can be sure that a President Obama will come armed with this skill.

Gov. Romney is doing his part to support Sen. Coleman:

Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC today announced it has joined the battle to ensure Senator Norm Coleman’s re-election in the Minnesota Senate race by donating $5,000 to his recount fund.

Senator Coleman emerged the victor in last week’s race against Democrat Al Franken. With only a few hundred votes separating the two candidates, state law dictates an automatic recount.

“Senator Coleman is a proven, experienced leader. America and the people of Minnesota need his leadership in the U.S. Senate fighting for a stronger national defense, keeping government accountable and promoting fiscal responsibility,” said Romney, the honorary chairman of the Free and Strong America PAC.

The donation to the recount fund is in addition to the $2,300 the Free and Strong America PAC contributed to Senator Coleman’s election campaign.

A sincere thanks from the tundra to Gov. Romney for taking the initiative and showing leadership on this issue. We need all the help we can get to save our Senator.

Following up on Kavon’s earlier post, Michael Steele is another name being thrown about for possible RNC chair, and one I could easily support. On the other hand, neither Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are not interested in the job, as reported by K-Lo.

Race42012 is pleased to present the following Op-Ed from Benjamin Lynch.-KWN _______________________________________________________________________

Whereas the 2006 elections were unsettling for Republicans, the 2008 election, resulting in resounding defeat, should serve to inspire the GOP. Not because members on the right are indoctrinated into policies of “redistributive wealth” and cordial phrases lacking in substance. On the contrary, the Republican Party must rise above and focus on regaining the message that has been lost. Cries for small government has been lost among Republicans who champion government expansion into areas previously reserved for the states. Policy stances continue to drift toward the center, further compromising the conservative values of the Republican Party. In presidential politics, Republican candidates have had the most success when running as unabashed conservatives; see the 1980 and 2000 elections. However, when GOP nominees drift to the center, hoping to appeal to moderates, it tends to limit the red states on the electoral map, see the 1992 and 2008 election. Electoral success is above all in importance because without victorious candidates, conservative policies cannot be effectively implemented. However, historical evidence supports the notion that Republican candidates are victorious in instances where the conservative message reigns.

Reinforcing conservative policies among elected members of the GOP will render itself useless unless corresponding changes are also adopted. Several members of the Republican Party remain dedicated to the conservative values found in the Reagan administration and the Contract with America. However, one cannot continue to look back to the past, for nostalgia should not be mistaken for reverence and a longing for that that has passed does not translate into electoral success. While Reagan is admired by many in the Republican Party, he will not be returning to office. In addition, using the former president as a standard at which to contrast current candidates will no doubt leave a majority of the GOP unsatisfied with their candidate, regardless of electoral contest. The Republican Party cannot afford to fracture its coalition of support by attempting to regain what cannot be had. The best solution for Republicans is to seek out new, youthful leaders of the Republican Party. We need to maintain Republican principles, many of which President Reagan endorsed, while seeking someone who is not interested in filling someone else’s shoes. The next leader of the Republican Party must embody certain philosophies of governance but must adhere to his or her own leadership style and not attempt to pander to factions within the party.

Regardless of ideals and leaders, the Republican Party would be nothing more than a small, civic organization if not for the members of the party. However, the GOP needs an infusion of new members and should look not to adopt ideas of partisan isolationism. Members of the Republican Party have been stereotyped as older non-minority men. Republicans need to shake this unfair label and reach out to other demographics. We should not be content with the current coalition but actively seek to increase our supporters. Many Black Americans agree with the principles of the Republican Party and many Hispanic Americans also embody these ideals. As a party, we have to look for ways to overcome barriers any feelings of alienation in order reach out to potential members and promote conservative ideas across the nation. But Republicans should not limit outreach efforts to racial and ethnic minorities. There also has to be initiatives taken within the party to appeal to youthful voters as well as measures to decrease the gender gap.

In the coming months, meetings of top Republican officials will shape the direction of the party. It is important that they adhere to conservative principles, embracing small government, free market competition, and a forceful but rarely used military. Critical to the future will be allowing the next generation of Republican leaders to adopt their own style and fulfill their own inherent greatness, without the overbearing legacy of great leaders past weighing on their minds. The GOP also must focus on expanding the party and reaching out to new coalitions. With the defeat of Senator John McCain, it symbolizes the passing of the guard. Whether the next GOP leader is Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Gov. Mitt Romney, or perhaps even Senator Richard Burr, the three previously mentioned goals should be adopted with haste because their implementation is paramount to the Republican Party.

I am kind of wondering…

…sources close to the CEO-turned-politician say he’s very much uncertain about whether he’ll run for elective office again and is keeping a close eye on what direction the party takes in the months ahead, especially with regard to Palin.

Romney is extraordinarily close to members of his family, and most are opposed to another run.

He is, though, likely to stay involved at least at a policy level.

“What I’d say is he’s keeping his options open for now,” said one source close to Romney.

Add to that, this quote from before the elections from his spokesperson,

“Gov. Romney had his shot at the White House, and he lost fair and square,” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. “That opportunity is unlikely to come along again. Gov. Romney is pouring all his energy into electing McCain-Palin and other Republicans, and that has been his single focus since leaving the presidential race.”

…and this one from Romney himself…

Romney, who sought the Republican presidential nomination earlier this year, said he will not be on the 2012 ballot.

“I think it’s unlikely that I’ll be running again,” Romney said.

Romney compared a run for the White House to a window opening offering the right timing and the right opportunity.

Of course, these were prior to the election day, and he could have been talking this way simply because he felt John McCain would win, and that would make things unlikely. But then again, at that point who really thought McCain would win?

Romney has some reasons not to win. The big two I can think of are his family vetoing it (more importantly his wife) and the success of Barack Obama. At this point, I think the GOP has more of an opportunity to paint Congress as a bastion of idiots, than paint Obama as a screw up. I could be wrong, but we hear so often that Obama will probably be the next Jimmy Carter, but what if he is not? What if he becomes the Dems Regan? At that point whoever runs in 2012 as the GOP nominee will be a martyr for the cause, and our best bets (including Romney and Jindal) will be better off to wait until 2016.

Update

Another quote from a Romney adviser…

And Charley Manning, a longtime adviser to Mitt Romney, poured some cold water on the former Massachusetts governor’s ambitions in a radio show appearance.

“I’d be surprised if Mitt ever ran again for president…I sure don’t think it was the best experience of his life,” Manning said, citing anti-Mormon bias in the Republican primaries.

“There are other things he can do,” Manning said.

In the wake of Barack Obama’s victory, there are a number of folks in the party clamoring for a year or two of ferocious idea building, before focusing seriously on the 2012 elections. They contend that McCain’s campaign failed for lack of ideas and from a wayward and unfocused party direction, and that any successful effort to unseat a President Obama must begin by addressing these concerns. These folks aren’t totally off base, but I wonder if they recognize the challenge that 2012 presents. Obama raised over 600 million dollars this year, as a non-incumbent. Even excluding the doubtless thousands of fraudulent donations, Obama’s unique donors surely numbered in the millions. As of July, in Florida alone Obama had 200 paid campaign staffers. His entire staff was more then 3 times larger then McCain’s, and more then twice the size of George Bush’s 2004 staff. Even if he manages to hobble into 2012 with a 50/50 approval rating, the advantage of incumbency should increase all those numbers. So how exactly does the GOP marshal a comparable effort if the next two years are devoted to ideas, policy, and low-level party building? Let’s take a look at the most diligently pursued campaign this last cycle: Mitt Romney’s. Mitt Romney was making trips to Iowa in October of 2004, ostensibly to campaign for Bush and Congressional candidates. On October 18th, the Boston Globe wrote:

Romney’s speech to an Iowa Republican crowd Saturday night, seen by many in the crowd of 600 as a warm-up for a possible run in 2008, was a tough critique of Kerry.

“America needs a president who . . . will take action regardless of public opinion, regardless of a global opinion poll, and regardless of what they think in France,” Romney said, drawing a standing ovation from the crowd of 600 at the annual Ronald Reagan Dinner in Des Moines.

In September of 2004, the Boston Herald reported on a meeting he attended with the Iowa delegates to the Republican National Convention:

At a breakfast for Iowa delegates to the Republican convention, Romney recalled business trips he made as a young man to Marshalltown, Iowa. “I feel like I know a corner of Iowa,” he said, drawing appreciative nods from the crowd.

Our eventual nominee was campaigning with George Bush in Iowa in July according the USAToday:

Back then, McCain had a hard time convincing Republicans he was not a closet Democrat or independent. That problem might be less serious in 2008 due to his reconciliation with Bush. He praised the president lavishly in his convention speech Monday and campaigned with him Tuesday in Tennessee, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

Rudy Giuliani was also laying the groundwork for his bid incredibly early. The New York Daily News reported, in September of 2004, that Rudy met with the Iowan delegates to the Republican National Convention:

THE DAY AFTER his rousing convention speech, Rudy Giuliani seemed to be sticking his toe in the 2008 waters yesterday, racing around town meeting with Republicans from around the nation, starting with delegates from all-important Iowa.

“You’ve got a really great state. Politics is like the third or fourth sport,” the former mayor said at the Iowa breakfast. He told the delegates he hopes to make it out to the swing state - where the first presidential caucus is held - to campaign for President Bush.

In short, running for President isn’t the whim of a moment. The pump must be primed very early in order to put together a respectable effort. And the eventual nominee will need better then respectable effort if he or she hopes to unseat an incumbent Obama. Who could manage such an effort, realistically? First, let’s take a look at fund-raising possibilities. Who among the potential GOP contenders could expect to raise significant amounts of money? Mitt Romney immediately comes to mind. His personal resources might help him in the primary, but would likely of limited usefulness against an Obama warchest (Obama likelu spent more then Romney’s entire fortune in the general election). Still he was a prolific fundraiser, comparing favorably to Rudy Giuliani, and with 4 more years to lay groundwork he shouldn’t have too much trouble here. Sarah Palin’s another obvious possibility. Ordinarily, an Alaskan politician would struggle to get beyond Huckabee level fundraising (i.e, too anemic to plausibly compete), but after her VP bid, she’ll have access to a much larger potential donor base (perhaps she’ll get McCain’s donor list). After these two, things get a bit tricky.

House GOP’ers are, almost without exception, limited fundraisers. The average House member raised just under 1.5 million dollars this cycle. These numbers fluctuate depending upon standing, level of competitiveness, etc. For instance, Michelle Bachman (MN), who had a competitive race towards the end, raised 2,437,500. Dave Reichert (WA), who also had a competitive race, raised 2,370,314. In non-competitive races, money normally flows to those in leadership positions. House Minority Leader John Boehner is, as near as I can tell, the most prolific Republican fundraiser this cycle, netting 4,909,133. There are very few Republicans in the House, who seem to have genuine fundraising prowess, that isn’t necessarily connected to their status or to the competitiveness of their races. Eric Cantor comes to mind here. This cycle, he raised 3,650,910. Now Cantor was in a leadership position (Deputy Whip), but he raised more then a million dollars more then Roy Blunt, the head Whip. Furthermore, Cantor has outstripped the average fundraising every year, hitting 2.5 million in 04′ (about twice the average) and 3.3 million in 06′ (more then twice the average). If anyone could mount some sort of successful bid from the House, it’s Cantor, but still it isn’t likely.

In the Senate these numbers increase meaningfully. Norm Coleman raised just over 14 million between 2007 and 2008, for instance. Minority leader Mitch McConnell (who also faced a tough re-election fight) raised just under 14 million in the same time period. Still neither of them were much above the Senate average for 2008 (which was about 13.7 million). Barack Obama, in comparison, raised nearly 15 million dollars in his first Senate election, compared to a Senate average of under 6 million. There doesn’t seem to be a GOP Senate fundraising star, and so while a few Senators could manage to raise seed money, none are likely to get anywhere near Obama totals.

Back to the Governors mansions. During the two years leading to his re-election campaign, Governor Tim Pawlenty raised 4,193,536 according to disclosure forms. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, raised 14,273,639, but a comparison is somewhat misleading because the two men ran in different election cycles. As we’ve seen, general fundraising increased during this cycle, and monies generally fluctuate from election cycle to election cycle. There was over a 3-fold increase in Senate fundraising, for instance, between 2006 and 2008. Assuming a similar increase is perhaps not unwarranted at the Gubernatorial level, which would put Pawlenty and Daniels in comparable territory. Looking at other Governor’s, we see similar numbers. With a few exceptions.

In preparation for his 2007 re-election campaign, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour amassed 12,878,547. Again, note that the 2007 election was an off-year election and it came at least partly before the massive fundraising burst that fueled the 2008 cycle. I think it’s fair to say that Barbour’s total is more impressive then either Pawlenty’s or Daniels’. But, then Haley Barbour is the former of the RNC and one of the most prolific and connected fundraiser’s in Republican politics. That haul, while sizable, is somewhat understandable. But, curiously Barbour wasn’t the most impressive fund-raiser in 2007. That honor goes to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Governor Jindal raised a whopping 14,779,614, between 2006 and 2007. This total is incredibly impressive for 3 reasons. 1.) Jindal was a non-incumbent. 2.) This haul represented only “primary” funds. In Louisiana, a multiple candidate primary is held in early October. If no candidate gets 50%, a run-off is held a month or so later. Jindal won without a run-off, but had one been held, he likely would have banked a few extra million at least. 3.) Individual limits are lower in Louisiana then in Mississippi. In Louisiana, individuals were limited to $5,000 donations. In Mississippi, Barbour received at least $16000 from a single person.

It’s nothing short of remarkable that Jindal out-raised the massively popular former head of the RNC, as a non-incumbent, in a state with strict campaign finance laws. If there’s a Republican Obama, in terms of fundraising, Jindal seems to be the only candidate. Barbour, Daniels, and Pawlenty could plausibly mount serious campaigns, but none of them seem likely to overwhelm their opponents financially. Jindal could. Which brings me to the central point: can we afford to wait to focus on the 2012 race? Given what we know about re-election efforts, is it logical to spend the next two years focusing on ideas and low-level party building, while standing on the sidelines to see how the Presidential race plays out? Or should we, instead, begin to push forward/line up behind the handful of candidates that history indicates could mount successful bids and give Obama a challenge? For my money, that means Jindal, Romney, or Palin, with an outside chance of Newt. I’m not at all comfortable with this question; my favorite Republican (Tim Pawlenty) lies outside of that list. But, I’m also not comfortable allowing Barack Obama glide to a second term- unlike many other Republicans- and I fear this is what will happen unless we get serious early and weed out the unlikely possibilities. President Obama will be planning his re-election campaign starting January of 2009; if we wait too long to promote and build up our own heavyweights, he’ll be delivering his second inaugural in January of 2013.

Romney gave a great interview to Fortune Magazine/CNN which can be viewed here. I think is one of Romney’s best interviews actually.

Here are a few excerpts:

Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship.

How likely do you think that’s going to happen?

In his second term, President Clinton made an effort to govern more from the center than from the extreme wing of his party, and by doing so, found greater support and greater political success. Perhaps it’s a paradox, the less political the agenda, the more political success one enjoys. But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism.

The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back. I’m particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America’s long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine. It would be a partisan payback for organized labor but it would come with devastating consequences for the nation.
…

Given your Michigan roots and what your father accomplished turning around the American Motors Corporation in the 1950s, what do you think is the future of the auto industry?

Right now, the auto industry is on life support, and its prospects look extremely dim. But they don’t need to be. The industry could be turned around. There is no inherent reason why America can’t build and sell cars to Americans at least as well as the transplants are doing. Any effort to help the auto industry has to be made as part of a comprehensive strategy. Before the government issues loans to the auto industry, as has been authorized by Congress, it should insist on seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability. Government should not finance ongoing losses and declining market shares.

(more…)