411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 128 – Nothing Can Save GM Now; Thoughts on the Economy; Sotomayor and White Men; and Limbaugh thinks the GOP stinks.

Posted by Mark Radulich on 06.05.2009

We got cars, we got the economy, we got Latino Heat and even Pikachu...you know you wanna read this!

Welcome my friends to the show that never ends, come inside, come inside.

I would like to take this time to once again make the announcement that Fact or Fiction needs participants just like you to participate in our weekly discussion of politics and current events.

This week we have two 411 locals who have graced us with their opinions.

First we have J. Alexander Mitchell, one of the latest 411 Politics contributors. He has written a few blogs in the last few weeks which I suggest you take a look after you are done here. His dance partner is Dent Kelly, 411 reader and occasional contributor. This is his third appearance on this column, and he considers himself a right leaning centrist who doesn't scream at those who disagree with his point of view. Editors Note – You say that now but wait until you're given your own Prime Time talk show : )

And now let's get this party started...

…Ding Ding!

1) From Bizjournals.com "A panel of 45 U.S. economists expects a "modest" economic rebound to begin in the second half of 2009, picking up steam in 2010, according to the National Association for Business Economics." The recent economic downturn was a correction to the inflated housing market among other things and has now begun to right itself despite President Obama's Stimulus plan, not because of it (ie the economy was bound to right itself regardless of intervention).

Dent Kelly: Fact. It's quite simple really, we have what is called an economic cycle. For a few years, the economy is in good shape, we get cool items at reasonable prices and whoever is in charge gets to take credit for the boom. Then the economic bubble bursts which means high prices for everything, and the consumer getting repeatedly kicked in the groin. It happens from time to time, every 2 years is a good average estimate as to when the economy changes. It would have happened regardless and it sure wasn't changed because of the stimulus package.

Now what was the first thing that caused us to get mad at the Bush administration economically, that's right HIGH GAS PRICES. As i left my place of work today i saw $2.43 at all my local gas stations, and I thought to myself that if Obama doesn't do something about it soon, we'll end right where we were last summer. If that happens then the Democrats would really have a problem on their hands, but will that happen? Only time will tell.

J. Alexander Mitchell : Fact. A lot of the stimulus package seemed poised to help with the President's vision of long-term growth, not simple short term growth. If one looks at the four pillars of his plans, they involved: (1) Reducing military presence in Iraq (lowers short term war cost), (2) Revamping health care (addresses our biggest long-term cost), (3) Revamping our energy policies (some short term gains, but largely addresses long-term shortages and dependencies elsewhere while simultaneously creating a new, large set of jobs, and (4) Revamping education (so that we can be competitive for those jobs). Many would disagree that the implementations of the plans would work, but even then one has to cite that the goal of making sure the country is in a better place long term is there.

As I mentioned, though, much of the plan did not address the short term. The President stated repeatedly "things will get worse before they get better", and not to expect a turnaround immediately. As such, I would have no reason to believe that a quick turnaround would be directly because of the stimulus package.

To address Dent's thought on gas prices, I think you underestimate how low the bar has come. I believe, at this stage, people would be willing to pay $3 a gallon for gas if they at least have a job to get the money for that gas. I'm not saying that is a good thing, but that is simply where we appear to be.

Right out of the gate we are 1 and 1. This is what killed me about the stimulus plan to begin with. It was sold with fear that we were headed for a great depression while having nothing in it that would solve any immediate problems. Essentially this was the Democrat grab bag being sold to us as plan for combating a recession. Didn't Al Gore go bananas when GW Bush allegedly "played on our fears"? All I ask is for consistency. It would seem that both parties use fear to bolster their plans when just talking about them won't do.

2) The government stake in GM will not save the company and will only prolong the pain - GM will inevitably go out of business for good.

Dent Kelly: Fact. It's saddening but it's going to happen, GM will fail and will become one of the saddest American industry stories. As a man who has driven a GM car all his adulthood, it makes me quite sad, but in reality this should have happened at least a year ago. When Bush gave them the first bailout, you knew it would only prolong the agony. Then Obama did it and everyone was like WHY?, did he not learn from his predecessor's mistake?

I hate that GM is essentially on life-support now, but really who is to blame here? That's right GM themselves put themselves in this quandary and now they will finally pay the penalty for not turning a profit. You fail, you go out of business, that is one of the oldest laws of business, so no matter how many bailouts we would give them again, it's was time to pull the plug. Maybe other companies will learn from GM and actually try to entice new buyers. Yes gas prices were a primary cause for this as more consumers went to older more gas saving cars, and not these hot new cars that gave you 5 miles to the gallon like most of these companies did until now.

If it does go out to pasture Obama will just have to admit that there was nothing he could have done to save GM, and that trying to save it was a useless gesture. The stock may drop, but who cares as GM has nobody to blame but themselves.

J. Alexander Mitchell : FACT. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. There is no evidence thus far that says that there is any change in vision or strategy in this "new" GM. John Stewart made a joke recently that the government gave GM twenty billion dollars to help them avoid bankruptcy... and they are still going bankrupt. For all of that, we could have saved our money. I feel like any continued participation in their demise is simply tossing more good money after bad.

Like Dent, I question how the President will respond to this obvious failure. I recall a reporter asking President Bush whether there was anything in his presidency he felt was a mistake. President Bush avoided the question. President Obama has already shown himself willing to admit a mistake, but there is a huge difference between admitting you wanted to hire someone that was a bad fit for a job and admitting you sent tens of billions of dollars down the drain. It will make for an interesting press conference.

2 for 2. I think the idea here was that the benevolent and green minded government would make a car company create green cars and in turn make them eco-heroes and in truth it wasn't so much as a bad idea but mainly and unrealistic one. They are gambling on people buying GM green cars. The likelihood is that people will continue to go on buying Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. and those companies are already making green cars because unlike their American competitors, they saw the writing on the wall 10 years ago (and didn't kill their own inventions like Chevy did with the EV1).

AND NOW SWING YOUR PARTNER…I mean SWITCH!

3.) In a 2001 speech Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said she would hope that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life." If a Conservative/Republican had made the same or a similar remark, regardless of race, sex or religion, they would be publicly destroyed and the nomination to the Supreme Court would have been rescinded.

J. Alexander Mitchell : FICTION.. If Pikachu made the same remark in the same context he would not be publicly destroyed or have the nomination rescinded (and, given the current climate, Pikachu probably has a better shot of sliding in than anyone President Obama would suggest). Sure, some idiot left-wing blowhards would undoubtedly climb out of the woodwork to talk about how racist the person is (and I'm sure two would have the last names "Olbermann" and "Garofalo"). However, even with Congress being very heavily Democratic, they would not immediately annihilate it for fear of putting distance between themselves and the Hispanic community. Then, in a rather public confirmation, the full discussion will come out: In a discussion of race and gender discrimination, with the specific question of how experience makes one better at making decisions, the statement was made that someone who has experienced race and gender discrimination would make better decisions in these cases than someone that has not. I'd like to repeat this - people have an issue because race and gender was brought up in a discussion of experiencing race and gender discrimination. I know - this is a crazy thought. That person would then do exactly Sonia Sotomayor will undoubtedly do - say "I could have worded that in a less provocative way", and we would move on with life. In fact, dare I say that the only difference I see is that, in my situation, the words "Pika Pika" would appear in the end.

My current theory is that the entire thing is a political trap. If you push this issue too hard, you come off as insensitive. If you don't, then you leave things open to people actually researching what was said, which, even if you don't agree with the thought of experience mattering, isn't something that couldn't be understood. So there is no good way out for conservatives on this issue, in my opinion...

... sort of like Ricci v. Destefano, which is a MUCH bigger issue...

Dent Kelly: FACT. I agree that the opponents would get very angry although I don't believe a nomination would be rescinded. It is politics 101, find something bad on your opponent, reveal it and profit. Do i like it, no but there's nothing much we can do but condemn it. If Obama did nominate a person that made said comments he wouldn't look too bad although he might ask for an apology. One more point, doesn't Pikachu only say its name? That might make it a bit tough for us to know what it really said, just saying.

2 for 3 and thus we finally have discord. Truth be told I don't care if Sotomayor gets the job as Obama won the election and such is his privilege to nominate whomever he feels is qualified (so long as they pass congressional muster ). Why I keep harping on this subject is that I'm tired of the double standard between liberals and conservatives. There are liberals whom are bigoted and racist but if you call them out on it people become hysterical. However, it's just taken as FACT that conservatives are bigoted and racist, despite hardly ever having evidence to back up the assertion. Go on and let Sotomayor on the court and bully for her but for Pete's sake can we have some consistency with regards to claims of racism?

4.) On the May 29th edition of the Rush Limbaugh show, he made the following observation, "...the Republican Party is all out of whack. It's just messed up. It's trying to appease its critics. It's trying to make its critics happy. It's trying to make its critics like them, and, as such, it doesn't say anything anymore. It stands for absolutely nothing. It's just totally obedient to the left." This is absolutely true with regards to the party on a FEDERAL level.

J. Alexander Mitchell: FICTION. As long as Rush Limbaugh is a dominant voice of the Republican party, I would never agree that the party is "obedient to the left". I do believe there is an identity crisis on a federal level, but that doesn't mean there is the anarchy suggested in this quote. Perhaps it will move to a Center-Right position, and perhaps it will swing Hard-Right in response to the growing power of the Democratic party. However, I wouldn't say that it is in the total disarray suggested here. The fact that what it stands for may (or may not) be shifting doesn't mean it doesn't stand for anything; it means that what it stands for may (or may not) be adapting to the times and environment.

Dent Kelly: Fact. As of right now yes the party is not in it's best shape. However it's like WWE right now, it's in a rebuilding phase. Their first big test will be 2010, if they get seats instead of lose them, they may be posed to take Obama out in 2012, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

They need a new champion of their cause, a young gun that is basically an unknown in the political arena like Obama was to a certain extent. Right now though they have to concentrate on getting at least one house of Congress, and while Obama is in good shape, his party isn't faring that well, so they can likely take one of the houses of Congress from the Dems. If they can they may have a chance in 2012.

Right now though the big Republican powerhouse is Rush, personally i like Rush because one thing both sides can agree with is that Rush will tell you exactly how he feels on a issue, no sugarcoating and that is always a good thing. However, they are not the rising stars Steele needs to win the confidence of the American people and challenge Obama.

However, if Obama does something stupid or if the economy tanks again, then it may not matter who the Republicans throw at Obama. It's a long way until Nov 2010, so all we can do is play the waiting game.

and the final score is 2 for 4 once again (boy am I consistent)!

Thanks to both Dent and J Mitchell for participating. If you would like to join in and play along too email me [e-mail] or leave your email address in a comment and I'll contact you.