Where's The Outrage?

David Frum, on how Romney won Michigan:

As has been pointed out often today, Michigan faces some of the worst economic troubles in the nation. Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state (Huckabee, McCain).

He's absolutely right. But note that in the context of the Michigan primary, the weakness of the Huckabee/McCain economic message seems to have been that it wasn't, well, liberal enough. David Brooks quotes the Mitt Romney line that may have put him over the top in Michigan:

"If I’m president of this country, 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.”

This is what people like to call "industrial policy," and what Jonah Goldberg likes to call liberal fascism - big business and big government working hand-in-glove for the purposes of economic nationalism. It's "sustained and detailed," all right, just as Frum says - a sustained and detailed infringement on free-market principle, and one that appeals to voters in places like Michigan precisely because it goes much further to the left than Mike Huckabee's substance-free talk about how the current period of economic growth isn't doing all that well by the working class, or John McCain's straight talk about how Michiganders can't expect the federal government to bring back the glory days of Chrysler and GM. But because conservatives spend way, way more time worrying about the spectre of "class warfare" than they do about than the nexus between big business and the Republican Party, Romney gets off with a mild slap on the wrist, while McCain and Huckabee get tarred as liberals.

I'm overstating the case a bit, obviously; there a variety of good reasons, besides their response to Michigan's economic pain, why McCain and Huckabee have come by their crypto-liberal reputations. But the extent to which Romney is getting a free pass for his back-to-the-'70s, "D.C. will save the auto industry" promises , while conservatives are still obsessing over how John McCain's 2000-2001 preference for a more progressive tax code makes him a "class warrior," seems more than a little ridiculous.

Comments

The conservative movement has been dominated by liars and thieves since the Reagan days. "Trickle-down" economics was always 100% bullshit, and every sane observer knows Mitt's just kidding about his economic populism, anyway. What's happening in Michigan now isn't an unfortunate by-product of the last 30 years of conservative thought - it's one of the major goals of it.

Come on, Ross - you don't seriously believe your party really wants to help LOSERS, do you? They wanted the Gilded Age back and they've just about got it. Now it's time for payback. I just wish the Dems would have the guts to strip the bones from the GOP's back and leave it gasping in the desert.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 10:38 AM

McCain gets more un-electable with each day in so far as the guy is 72 going on 73 years old. He has health issues that are secret: He's already had to insult any one who mentions age as a concern with a hostile joking don't go there threatening tone. America won't pull the lever in november for someone who is 73! How does a 73 year old ever represent change?

keep in mind that we've been hearing that the republican party deeply hates McCain, a grand-standing loose cannon all these years.
I hope they do pick him because Hillary or Obama will both look so freaking young and ready next to mr. geritol.

Posted by Michael C. | January 16, 2008 10:44 AM

It's "sustained and detailed," all right, just as Frum says - a sustained and detailed infringement on free-market principle, and one that appeals to voters in places like Michigan precisely because it goes much further to the left than Mike Huckabee's substance-free talk about how the current period of economic growth isn't doing all that well by the working class, or John McCain's straight talk about how Michiganders can't expect the federal government to bring back the glory days of Chrysler and GM.

I'd really prefer it if you would more explicitly state your own views about this kind of infringement on free-market principle. As it stands now, if I point out the amount of suffering that strict adherence to free-market principle has wrought in Michigan and elsewhere, and the fact that it is a perfectly legitimate position to suggest that the government should use its power to prevent that kind of suffering, I'll be criticized for attacking you for things you haven't said.

Posted by Freddie | January 16, 2008 10:45 AM

The FUNNY TRUTH is that Most people don't want to hear THE REAL TRUTH

Posted by Funny Truth | January 16, 2008 11:03 AM

Michigan is getting pounded for its rep as a union jurisdiction. In short, the Japanese won't build factories there and their more efficient methods, dependant on flexible scheduling, are killing the American companies. Not that one cannot feel compassion for those whose lives are being upended, but union workers were overpayed in the past and now their descendants are paying the price for it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/unions.html
Unfortunately, large scale government intervetion will only postpone the pain. If the industry doesn't becomes sound in its fundamentals, its only headed for a bigger crash. Propping up uncompetitive industries only means that the the collapse, when it finally comes, will be even more complete. Imagine how_those_workers are going to feel.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 11:07 AM

Funny Truth writes: "And guess who's best qualified to move things in DC? Its McCain. He knows the inner workings and knows how to bring others across."

Across to what? One hundred more years in Iraq and a continuation of Bush's domestic agenda... and a couple of more Supreme Court appointments of corporation-sucking vampires like Alito?

No thanks.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 11:08 AM

Thursday writes: "Not that one cannot feel compassion for those whose lives are being upended, but union workers were overpayed in the past and now their descendants are paying the price for it."

Who says they were "overpaid in the past"? You and your con heroes?

When one of you comes forward and says management was overpaid, too, and still is being overpaid, then maybe I'll think you have some intellectual integrity. Until then I'll continue to believe you're just a toady.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 11:12 AM

But because conservatives spend way, way more time worrying about the spectre of "class warfare" than they do about than the nexus between big business and the Republican Party, Romney gets off with a mild slap on the wrist, while McCain and Huckabee get tarred as liberals.

Exactly. The first clause of that sentence has been true since at least 1896. There has always been a gap between the professed ideology (laissez faire) and the de facto ideology (crony capitalism). This is why your efforts to pull the Republican Party in a more Christian Democratic direction, while admirable, are thoroughly quixotic.

Naturally, the Democrats have their own gap which maps roughly along the divide between "the public interest" and "interest group turf war". The difference, it seems to me, is that the Left has always been disillusioned with the Democratic Party. Conservatives have lately been more willing to whistle in tune with their own propaganda. I think the disaster named George W. Bush can best be explained by an entire generation of politicians who were dazzled by Reagan's theatrics and chose not to look behind the curtain. That needs to change before your reform-minded conservatism can get anywhere.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 16, 2008 11:29 AM

When one of you comes forward and says management was overpaid, too, and still is being overpaid, then maybe I'll think you have some intellectual integrity. Until then I'll continue to believe you're just a toady.

Yes, I'm astounded by the superpowers of the UAW reps who negotiated both sides of the labor contracts, designed the cars and the production facilities, and greenlighted all the final decisions. Truly, the highly-paid and well-respected corporate executives were powerless to save the American auto industry from the overwhelming evil of teh unionz.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 16, 2008 11:37 AM

Read Mickey Kaus' comments of Jan. 11/07:
http://www.slate.com/id/2157272/&#kuttnerG6

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 11:52 AM

Actually, Michigan has been upended by a combination of high labor and benefit costs, American auto companies lagging competitive position, and by excessive state taxation. Romney couldn't possibly solve these problems by "rolling up his shirt sleeves" in his first one-hundred days.

Jonah Goldberg is precisely right when he argues that relying on national government for solutions to hard economic or social problems is premised on foolish statism. The best parts of our economy involve creative, entrepreneurial, non-union companies that are able to develop world-class products. The best thing government can do is stay out of their way.

When Romney was head of Bain Capital that had a superb record of turning around troubled companies, he didn't sit down with a bunch of governmental types to solve the basic problems.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 16, 2008 11:55 AM

Re: When one of you comes forward and says management was overpaid, too, and still is being overpaid, then maybe I'll think you have some intellectual integrity. Until then I'll continue to believe you're just a toady.

Moe,

Very true. The union worker gets paid $50,000 for actually building a car, some executive makes $500,000 by playing the stock market, and somehow it's the workers who are overpaid?

If you don't have any problem with the idle rich being 'overpaid' then it becomes very hard to take seriously any conservative whining about workers being overpaid.

'The union of big government and big business' isn't by the way, a left-wing position; the classic left wing position is that big government should swallow up and destroy big business.

Posted by Hector | January 16, 2008 12:02 PM

Romney won by talking like a Corporate Republican (promising to bring back lost jobs), McCain lost by telling the truth (the jobs are gone, and they're not coming back).
The GOP Establishment pushing for Romney and the Democratic Establishment pushing for Clinton are both practicing "liberal fascism".
Take the UnitedHealth boondoggle, the largest financial scandal in the history of healthcare. The cronies at play? Donna Shalala, James E. Johnson, and Walter Mondale.
Whether it's Vernon Jordan, Mac McLarty (now at Kissinger & Associates),Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, it makes no difference as long as the Washington Insiders stay in control.

Posted by fougasseu | January 16, 2008 12:04 PM

Thursday "replies": "Read Mickey Kaus' comments of Jan. 11/07:
http://www.slate.com/id/2157272/&#kuttnerG6"

How is that an answer, chuckles? Kaus doesn't bother to address Kuttner's point about GM management. I'll happily concede that GM's labor costs are higher, and I have no problem with that. How about their management costs? How about the relative skills of their management and design staff versus that of Toyota's?

Why do management toadies like you and Kaus always - ALWAYS!- lay the brunt of "noncompetitiveness" off on labor? Well, it's because you're management toadies. Back when America wasn't filled with management toadies, we were actually proud of the fact that our workers made more money than their foreign equivalents. Now toadies like you want to roll it all back and pretend that generations of American workers were somehow immoral for earning those wages.

Hop your way down to the nearest GOP headquarters, maybe they'll toss you a jar of flies for lunch.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 12:36 PM

When did Ross Douhat turn into a free market fundmentalist? Or is this tongue-in-cheek?

"It's "sustained and detailed," all right, just as Frum says - a sustained and detailed infringement on free-market principle"

I'm pretty sure that horse left the barn and was last seen galloping over the hill at least sixty years ago. In fact I'm not sure there was ever a time when government and industy were not intertwined.

Posted by James | January 16, 2008 12:39 PM

" .. the nexus between big business and the Republican Party

That nexus gets commented on a lot. The nexus between big business and the Democratic Party gets ignored for some reason.

Posted by James | January 16, 2008 12:42 PM

"The nexus between big business and the Democratic Party gets ignored for some reason."

Ignored by whom? You clearly don't spend much time on lefty websites.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 16, 2008 12:58 PM

I'll happily concede that GM's labor costs are higher, and I have no problem with that.

Boy, is this like shooting fish in a barrel. You can't force people to buy stuff. Labour costs either get passed on to consumers or else the cars get stripped down. If consumers are getting significantly more for their money from Japanese cars they are going to buy Japanese cars. And Michigan workers are going to lose their jobs.

How about the relative skills of their management and design staff versus that of Toyota's?

Here is Kaus:

If you're GM or Ford, how do you make up for a 43% disadvantage? Well, you concentrate on vehicle types where you don't have competition from Toyota--e.g. big SUVs in the 1980s and 1990s. Or you build cars that strike an iconic, patriotic chord--like pickup trucks, or the Mustang and Camaro. Or--and this is the most common technique--you skimp on the quality and expense of materials. Indeed, you have special teams that go over a design to "sweat" out the cost. Unfortunately, these cost-cutting measures (needed to make up for the UAW disadvantage) are all too apparent to buyers. Cost-cutting can even affect handling--does GM spend the extra money for this or that steel support to stabilize the steering, etc. As Robert Cumberford of Automobile magazine has noted, Detroit designers design great cars--but those aren't what gets built, after the cost-cutters are through with them.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 1:08 PM

"Propping up uncompetitive industries only means that the the collapse, when it finally comes, will be even more complete."

Then I suppose it is lucky that nobody is proposing "propping up" anything.

Posted by James | January 16, 2008 1:15 PM

Thursday quotes and writes: "I'll happily concede that GM's labor costs are higher, and I have no problem with that.

Boy, is this like shooting fish in a barrel. You can't force people to buy stuff. Labour costs either get passed on to consumers or else the cars get stripped down. If consumers are getting significantly more for their money from Japanese cars they are going to buy Japanese cars. And Michigan workers are going to lose their jobs."

Dear Stupid - is there any reason you haven't commented on the main point, which is that GM's MANAGEMENT COSTS are also much higher than their labor costs? Why should any labor union, anywhere, agree to rolling back wages and benefits when management never does the same? Just because it's the attitude of management toadies like you that people should be willing to eat a bowl of shit every day in order to keep a job?

Is it possible you think the only people who work for GM are a CEO and union members?

Hop in the barrel yourself and take a shot. It would be good for you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 2:41 PM

Kaus:

The trouble with this comforting liberal argument is labor costs. When Kuttner says "Japanese total labor costs are comparable, even with Detroit's higher health insurance costs," he is--as is so often the case--talking through his hat. Look at this chart. GM pays $31.35 an hour. Toyota pays $27 an hour. Not such a big difference. But--thanks in part to union work rules that prevent the thousands of little changes that boost productivity--it takes GM, on average, 34.3 hours to build a car, while it takes Toyota only 27.9 hours. ** Multiply those two numbers together and it comes out that GM spends 43% more on labor per car. And that's before health care costs (where GM has a $1,300/vehicle disadvantage).

Figures here:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

So, the problem is that management is to be blamed for not outcompeting the Japanese while working at a significant disadvantages.

GM's MANAGEMENT COSTS are also much higher than their labor costs

Citation?

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 3:11 PM

So, the problem is that management is to be blamed for not outcompeting the Japanese while working at a significant disadvantages.

Management is to be blamed for many of the disadvantages, such as unpopular poorly-designed gas-guzzling cars built on outmoded assembly lines, and a dismal lack of foresight about what foreign competition would do to their market share. Not to mention signing those contracts with the union that they now evidently regret.

Also, for opposing the sort of universal health insurance package that would lower their business operating costs but require them to pay higher taxes on their own personal income.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Hector:
Very true. The union worker gets paid $50,000 for actually building a car, some executive makes $500,000 by playing the stock market, and somehow it's the workers who are overpaid?
Um, yes. Hey, your average janitor probably does more actual work in a day than your typical executive. But guess what? A janitor who gets $100,000 a year is nevertheless overpaid. If there was a law that janitors had to be paid at least $100,000, either the economy would collapse, or public places everywhere would go to pot because nobody would hire janitors to clean them.

You can dream of some kind of ideal fantasy world where cosmic justice always supercedes economics, and at the end of each day, possessions just float down into people's laps based on how hard they worked that day. However, it's dangerously stupid to try to turn the real world into that fantasy world, because in the real world, nobody is willing to pay a janitor that much (including you), and trying to force it artificially will just screw things up, putting janitors out of work and making your office building rank.

So yes, auto workers were overpaid in the past, because of the unions, and now they're getting screwed because of it. And I don't mean that they were overpaid in some cosmic justice sense that they personally deserved less, but simply that they were payed beyond what the market could bear in the end, with predictable results.

Envy is a sin, not an economic policy platform. Try to engineer society around the premise that it's just not fair for that big jerk executive to make so much more than an auto worker, and you'll just make life miserable for everyone (But, hey, we'll all be equally miserable together and won't have to feel jealous, right?).

Posted by Deuce | January 16, 2008 3:54 PM

Jim Keane/MoeLarryAndJesus/Tortureiswrong wrote: Dear Stupid

Thanks as always Jim for raising the level of discourse around here.

Still working on that citation?

Posted by Mark Adams | January 16, 2008 3:57 PM

Romney won because he is the most attractive candidate regarding the economy. That is obvious.

Posted by jesse | January 16, 2008 4:02 PM

Douche writes: "Try to engineer society around the premise that it's just not fair for that big jerk executive to make so much more than an auto worker, and you'll just make life miserable for everyone (But, hey, we'll all be equally miserable together and won't have to feel jealous, right?)."

This has nothing to do with envy, Douchie. It is certainly relevant to inquire whether the explosion in executive salaries relative to those of rank and file workers over the past few decades has anything to do with the relative lack of competitiveness of our industries. And if our industries are falling behind in competitiveness, what could be less justified than that sort of relative growth?

Thursday asks for a cite on the disparity up above, and offhand I don't have one and I'm not about to spend half an hour looking, but if I've seen a hundred comments about said growing disparity over the past ten years I've seen a thousand.

LFP's comment about universal health care will also be ignored or dismissed by the wingnuts, but since it's such an important component of rising costs it shouldn't be.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 4:03 PM

Jim Keane writesThursday asks for a cite on the disparity up above, and offhand I don't have one and I'm not about to spend half an hour looking, but if I've seen a hundred comments about said growing disparity over the past ten years I've seen a thousand.

See Thursday? Being "reality based" means never having to cite . . .

Posted by Mark Adams | January 16, 2008 4:08 PM

Mark Adams writes: "Thanks as always Jim for raising the level of discourse around here.

Still working on that citation?"

Look, Marky, I realize you have a lot of spare energy to work off because your old lady won't let you tap her spigot half the month, but stalking is beneath even you.

Then again, maybe it isn't.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 4:09 PM

. . . after all, Jim Keane needs to spend his time figuring out ways to creatively re-spell the names of people and organizations he disapproves of so as to insult them in some way.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 16, 2008 4:11 PM

Jim Keane write: but stalking is beneath even you.

Then again, maybe it isn't.

Be sure to let me know which one it is when you decide so I can adjust my conduct accordingly.

Although for the life of me, I can't figure out why complementing a commentator for his contributions is considered stalking.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 16, 2008 4:15 PM

Wait wait wait....

Liberals ARE FASCISTS??!?!

Posted by Rickm | January 16, 2008 4:57 PM

Why do management toadies like you and Kaus always -... Dear Stupid - is there any reason you haven't commented on the main point... This has nothing to do with envy, Douchie. [Deuce]...Look, Marky, I realize you have a lot of spare energy to work off because your old lady won't let you tap her spigot half the month, but stalking is beneath even you.

One sees that LarryMoeJim, our one man plague of civil discussion, has discredited yet another thread on this blog. I should suggest that either Ross bans him, as Wikipedia did, or we studiously ignore his juvenile and vicious antics. In effect he threatens to reduce a potentially first-class blog to inanity.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 16, 2008 5:14 PM

My friends who work for McCain tell me that he thinks Huckabee is his "useful idiot" who he basically propped up only to take down Romney.

Posted by Steven Rinehart | January 16, 2008 6:11 PM

A number of posts deal with the "nexus" between big government and big business. You may want to visit muckety.com
Muckety maps are fun. Click on a name and a spider's web of "ties" fills the screen. Check out the one for UnitedHealth Group's board, click on James Johnson, and you get an amazing "nexus".
http://www.muckety.com/UnitedHealth-Group-Inc/5001956.muckety?big=true
Romney, Sen. Clinton, no diff.

Posted by fougasseu | January 16, 2008 6:12 PM

Peter Leavitt says: "In effect he threatens to reduce a potentially first-class blog to inanity."

You mean the first-class blog where Ross beats up a poor old black woman for owning a TV, or where you lead cheers for torture while Chris Ford calls for genocide and Fitz says child molestation is a matter for the Church to take care of?

Can't be this one. You must be thinking of some other blog, where two-time Bush voters are unanimously given the scorn they deserve.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 6:16 PM

Steven Rinehart says: "My friends who work for McCain tell me that he thinks Huckabee is his "useful idiot" "

How sad is it for the Repiglican Party that a dim bulb like John McCain could consider himself to be much brighter than Huckabee - and he'd be right?

But Huck's call for changing the Constitution to move it closer to biblical values is, at least, the single dumbest thing any candidate has said in years. Thanks for that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 6:21 PM

Re: In short, the Japanese won't build factories there

Except that the Japanese don't have a problem building factories in neighboring Ontario where the UAW is just as strong and the govermnment even more liberal. Of course Canada offers a business something very tangible in return for its taxes: healthcare for all people so that businesses are releived of that burden.

Re: And I don't mean that they were overpaid in some cosmic justice sense that they personally deserved less, but simply that they were payed beyond what the market could bear in the end,

They were not overpaid in the past because the market bore their wages just fine for years. You could make a case that they are overapid today, but not in the past. They would not have been paid those wages back then if they were excessive.

Posted by Jonf | January 16, 2008 7:17 PM

News flash: most people who purport to favor the "free market" are really mostly interested in a pro-rich, pro-business economic agenda. That's why Hucakbee's anti-executive rhetoric and McCain's (past) progressive tax proposal make movement conservatives go apeshit while Romney's proposal barely draws a slap on the wrist.

The only people who favor an an actual free market are libertarians.

Posted by Elliot Reed | January 16, 2008 7:33 PM

MLaJ: Archetypical troll. Obsessive personality type matrixed with an overweening sense of narcissistic grandiosity.

Some sources suggest that narcissistic personality disorder may be an infantile, defensive personality structure in response to abuse and trauma, usually developing in early childhood or early adolescence. They suggest that narcissistic personality disorder may be a maladaptive defense of the abused child’s or adolescent’s emotional splitting, resultant cognitive distortions, and negative/hostile worldview.

Does the Hsu fit?

Posted by lex | January 16, 2008 8:13 PM

Now how can I not feel grandiose, lex, when so many turds pop up in this punchbowl whose sole purpose seems to be to comment on my posts?

It's good to have fans.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 16, 2008 10:16 PM

Romney won for two reasons. First, he's from Michigan, and his people didn't want to show their native son the door in this race. Second, Romney found a group of people so desperate to hear optimism, they didn't even care whether the source was a rampaging panderer or not--or whether that optimism was grounded in truth. And they bought the newest face of Mitt Romney: that of the man who will spend $100 billion of our tax dollars bailing out a seemingly doomed industry. Bravo Michigan, you really blew this one. Is Mitt the "true conservative" in this race, or just the guy who will tell you whatever you want to hear? If people can't see through Romney's antics, then this country truly is headed for the hellmouth.

Posted by Publius | January 16, 2008 10:41 PM

It's all about you, bubba. But then, it always is, isn't it?

Always.

Posted by lex | January 16, 2008 11:25 PM

lex says: "It's all about you, bubba. But then, it always is, isn't it?

Always."

Well, I've read two of your posts, and they both fit that description. Perhaps you need to expand your areas of interest.

Send me a patch of snow and I'll autograph it for you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 17, 2008 3:18 AM

McCain was too pessimistic and Romney capitalized on that. Huckabee, as usual, doesn't have a clue. I doubt if Ouchita Baptist Theological Seminary even has a course in economics and if it does it is economics of the Bible.

A lot of other states have overcome their economic problems and Michigan will too. Having a president on your side who understands your problems instead of bad mouthing your plight will help.

Romney seems to be a smart, creative person that looks for solutions to problems and is not an ideologue. He is not beholden to special interests like unions or lobbyists for big business so he can work both sides to come up with good ideas. He seems to get things done rather than sit around and talk about the problem.

Posted by Mad Jayhawk | January 17, 2008 10:45 PM

McCain has been in the US Senate for 100 years. Has he solved any problems while there? His solutions have actually created more problems than they solved. His method of solving a problem is a "program". Another program. And then another. Endless BS in my opinion.

John McCain's resume of significant accomplishments is about as long as the first two sentences in this post. He talks and talks and talks about what he is going to do, but has never done anything substantial that he can point to with pride. Is he proud of McCain-Feingold? Of McCain-Kennedy? Etc Etc Etc. It doesn't appear that he is to me. For a man with as much 'experience' as he brags about it sure looks like he doesn't really have any recent experience beside hanging out with 99 privileged people. Professional experience? Executive experience?

Question to McCain Lovers: the Navy gave McCain the command of a training squadron and if he was so successful with it why didn't he get a star? A son and grandson of famous admirals, a war hero, distinguished (haha) Annapolis graduate, and no star? Why? Has McCain ever released his military records?

Posted by Mad Jayhawk | January 17, 2008 10:59 PM

"Question to McCain Lovers: the Navy gave McCain the command of a training squadron and if he was so successful with it why didn't he get a star? A son and grandson of famous admirals, a war hero, distinguished (haha) Annapolis graduate, and no star? Why? Has McCain ever released his military records?"

Look, up in the sky! It's a Mad Swiftboat!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 17, 2008 11:21 PM

Mitt Romney is right about what he said in Michigan, the government placed all kinds of regulations on the industry, and then skrewed them over again on the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

On top of that, the auto industry lost big on health care benefits. So, is it wrong to say that the government made the mess in the first place with overbearing regulations AND taxes? If the government is going to but high stress regulations on the industry, the least they could have done is help the industry succeed.

Instead the jobs went overseas. Less taxes and less BS from liberals outside of the U.S.A.

Posted by Stephen | January 18, 2008 2:14 AM

Romney CAN help the auto industry and anybody who was paying attention in Michigan clearly saw how.

Fairer trade policies, free market health plan for everyone, adjusting the right kinds of tax rates, decrease regulation. Add to that investment into new technologies which will not only boost the auto industry but help us become more energy independent which is well worth the money considering how much we spend already and where that money is going.

Posted by Stephen | January 18, 2008 2:21 AM