UAW Will Run Pro-Bailout Ads, Suspend Jobs Bank [Stephen Spruiell]
Back against the wall, the UAW has announced that it is willing to renegotiate its contracts with the Big Three. That apparently includes letting go of the jobs bank:
>>>As for the jobs bank program, which provides many laid-off workers with most of their pay and benefits, Mr. Gettelfinger said the program has shrunk dramatically, but remains a "lightning rod" for critics of the domestic auto industry.
"Jobs bank has become a sound byte that people use to beat us up," he said. GM and Ford have reduced their jobs banks by nearly 80,000 workers in recent years. The Detroit Three auto makers currently have 3,500 workers in the jobs bank.<<<
That's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. Labor contracts have also burdened the Big Three with mounting buyout costs as they try to shrink their workforces to keep pace with falling demand. Product commitments and work rules have hindered their efforts to adapt to the market. A bailout would strengthen the UAW's hand in future negotiations and remove pressure on them to make further concessions.
Maybe that's why Gettelfinger has launched a pro-bailout ad campaign:
>>> He also said the union will run a television ad in Maine, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota to put the faces of union workers on the controversy over the loans. The ads presumably are designed to pressure Congressional opponents of the loans.<<<
As long as we're getting outraged over symbolic wastes of money, why isn't this on par with the corporate-jets fiasco? Speaking of which, the execs are driving to DC — one pictures them all crammed into one Ford Focus — and they say they're ready to accept an annual salary of $1 if Congress would only save their jobs. It's almost like in order to get help from Congress, you have to grovel and pander and suck up like... a member of Congress!
The Pakistani Four-Step [Victor Davis Hanson]
We all know the Pakistani four-step:
1) Large parts of the country where al-Qaeda and its affiliates openly congregate are a "badlands," a "frontier," or a "tribal land," supposedly out of control of an otherwise concerned government, eager to stop terrorism, but too often impotent to do so—and extremely sensitive to charges that its intelligence services or military cadres might in some quarters be sympathetic to radical Islamists who destabilize democracies in nearby India and Afghanistan.
2) Western suggestions for more order are deemed illiberal support for military juntas; Western suggestions for more democracy are derided as naive calls for plebescites that will empower popular jihadists. Taboo is the suspicion that a large majority of Pakistani people sort of likes the idea that its homebred Islamists from time to time kill Hindus, Afghans, Americans, Christians, and assorted Crusaders and Jews. We are told ad nauseam that Pakistani public opinion concerning the U.S. is "at all time lows," never that U.S. public opinion toward Pakistan is even lower, or that we are more concerned about the present good will of a democratic India, than the disdain of an autocratic Pakistan where the 9/11 killers reside.
3) The suggestion of lunacy, as well as the notion of a "failed state," is not unwelcome, since it reminds the U.S. that it should continue giving billions in aid, both military and civilian, inasmuch as otherwise an unpredictable nuclear and Islamic Pakistan is not always in control of terrorists who might get fissionable materials, or, due to its religious zeal, might not necessarily behave according to the Cold War laws of nuclear deterrence, or because of its poverty can't be held to account.
4) When all else fails, the Pakistani Westernized elite simply blames the U.S., past and present: During the Cold War we armed dictators and jihadists alike (apparently the alternative of becoming a Soviet protectorate was preferable); during the war on terror we energized strongmen (apparently we were to accept that the architects of 9/11 were ensconced on Pakistani territory and free to destroy the Afghan democratic experiment). Taboo also is the suggestion that most of Pakistan's problems are self-created, and involve deep-seeded religious zealotry and intolerance, rampant corruption, a lack of transparency, and medieval practices of land tenure (always interesting to hear anti-American critiques from members of the Pakistani baronial class).
As I understand the subtext of U.S. current policy—we pay Pakistan billions for (a) locking up their nukes, (b) the privilege of hunting terrorists, largely, but not always, through drone missile attacks—and Pakistan has plausible deniability. (c) It deplores U.S. intrusions when we screw up and either kill someone too prominent or get caught on tape; and (d) we loudly deplore Pakistani terrorism when its terrorists go beyond killing a few Christians or diplomats and do something like Mumbai.
I suppose all this is sustainable, but a large number of Americans (who wonder why seven years after 9/11 the killers are still traversing Pakistani provinces) are getting tired of the same old, same old, and might wish to wash their hands of Pakistan—and out-source the problem to India.
Canada on the brink, cont. [Mark Steyn]
I apologize if this seems a bit arcane to those accustomed to fixed election dates, two-year campaigns and three-month transitions. But what's happening in Canada is shaping up as the biggest constitutional crisis in the country's history. Remember when Jim Jeffords flipped control of the Senate to the Dems because he wasn't invited to the Vermont Teacher Of The Year reception? This is the nuclear version of that.
To recap: the soft left (Liberals), hard left (NDP) and secessionist left (the Bloc Quebecois) have entered into a backroom agreement signed in blood (and with many billions of dollars and Senate seats changing hands) and are leaning on the Governor-General to fire the Conservative Prime Minister and replace the present government with a "coalition" - a misbegotten pantomime horse comprised of three rear ends. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is contemplating ways to avoid defenestration and will be addressing the nation (I use the term loosely) this evening.
I disagree with David Frum's interpretation of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and of his characterization of the Queen's view of it. But he's right that this is the relevant precedent. Three decades ago, the Australian Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, fired the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. Whitlam's first words on being told the news were supposedly: "I must call the Palace." He meant that, if he got through to the Queen in London, he could fire Kerr before Kerr could fire him. Sir John told him it was too late: He'd already spoken to Her Majesty. But Whitlam captured the hard-power reality: It was a question of who got through to Buckingham Palace first - the Governor-General to say he'd fired the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister to demand the Queen fire the Governor-General.
In Canada, Stephen Harper is said to be considering doing for real what only belatedly occurred to Gough Whitlam - having the Queen fire Mme Jean, Canada's vicereine, and replace her with somebody who'd tell the pantomime horse to get lost.
If they're the choices - a constitutional coup by the opposition parties or Harper's proposed solution - serious and lasting damage will be inflicted on Canada's institutions either way. The best way to avoid either option would be if the Liberal leader-in-waiting Michael Ignatieff (former Harvard prof, former BBC talkshow host and former Iraq war supporter) were to decline to support the coup and bring enough fellow Libs along with him.
Otherwise, whatever happens, it's going to be ugly. The "checks and balances" of most free societies operate on a kind of honor system. In the Westminster form of parliamentary monarchy, the important stuff isn't written down: it depends on codes and conventions agreed over the ages. All very gentlemanly - until some thug decides he doesn't care about gentlemen's agreements and drives a truck over the conventions. That's what the three-reared horse is proposing to do.
Emolumental Problem? [Jonah Goldberg]
Mickey Kaus demonstrates why he'll be so much fun over the next couple years.
A Knack for Diplomacy: What attitude do the Hillary people bring to the State Department? I didn't think her spokesman Phillipe Reines could top his obnoxious and nonsensical response to the Gerth and Van Natta report that Hillary had secretly eavesdropped on her enemies ( "We don't comment on books that are utter and complete failures"). But he's come close with his spin on the legal argument—a slam-dunk if you actually believe the Constitution's language—that Hillary is barred from becoming Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset," [E.A.]
Well all right then! No clinging to guns and God in this administration! ... I'm sure they spent a lot of time on the Emoluments Clause at Harvard and Yale.
Why do Hillary's people think this smug, sneering approach** is productive? Because of its success in winning them the nomination? Think how well it will work in the India-Pakistan crisis! .
Chris Wallace at Frost/Nixon [Mark Hemingway]
On Monday night I attended a screening of the upcoming film Frost/Nixon, a fictionalized, behind-the-scenes account of David Frost's infamous 1977 series of interviews with Richard Nixon. The film itself is very well done and I may be writing about it soon, but what was noteworthy about the screening Monday night is what happened afterward: a heated exchange about George W. Bush between Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and historian Robert Dallek. There was a report in the Washington Times about it that made some waves, but let me add some perspective.
Following the screening, there was a panel discussion with the film's director Ron Howard, screenwriter Peter Morgan, and James Reston Jr., one of David Frost's researchers for the Nixon interviews who is the basis for one of the characters in the film, played by Sam Rockwell. The panel was moderated by Dallek.
From the beginning, all of the panelists alluded to their dislike of George W. Bush, and there were several comments — mostly from Reston — that referred to the film being relevant vis-a-vis Bush's alleged abuses of power.
Now one of the interesting subtexts to the Frost/Nixon interviews is that they were a watershed moment in the history of checkbook journalism. Nixon was offered $600,000 do the interviews and — I haven't been able to confirm this — but I believe Morgan mentioned on the panel that he was ultimately given a share of the profits from what ended up as a huge syndication success. So Nixon made out quite well financially even if the interviews did further damage to his reputation.
The film is quite up front about all this happening, but didn't really tackle the ethical issues involved. So someone from the audience asked Reston, who worked on the interviews, about whether it was right to pay Nixon for the interviews. Reston gave a very self-serving answer. "More important than that is the abuse of power. The relationship of Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal to the abuses of power today ... The younger generation feels that Richard Nixon was railroaded out of office and what he did was really trivial compared to what George W. Bush did. So it's important to go back to the source, to go back to the cauldron both for checkbook journalism and abuse of power." In other words, Reston basically admitted what they were doing was unethical journalism but then said the end justifies the means because they were out to get Nixon who was the real criminal.
At which point, Chris Wallace seized the microphone in the audience, apparently fed up with the Nixon and Bush comparisons: "I respectfully would like to disagree with that and I think it trivializes Nixon's crimes and completely misrepresents what George W. Bush did. Whatever George W. Bush did was after the savage attacks of 9/11 in which 3,000 Americans were killed and was done in service of trying to protect this country. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything he did, but it was all done in service of trying to protect this country and keep us safe and, the fact is, that we sit here tonight so comfortably and the country has not been attacked again since 9/11. Richard Nixon's crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain, and I think to compare what Nixon did for pure political self-preservation to George W. Bush, even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding, is a gross misunderstanding of history then and now." Somewhat surprisingly, given the political make up of the crowd, Wallace got a smattering of applause.
Now at this point Dallek pipes in and says, "Let me take issue with some of what you're saying..." and then proceeds to go off on a petty and tangential riff about how Bush signed some executive order that makes it harder for the arbiters of history such as himself get access to Presidential records, and therefore we don't know how bad Bush really is. Then Dallek concludes by saying, "I have my biases and they are distinctly negative in this case because I think he has abused power. I wouldn't say necessarily the same against him as Richard Nixon, but sui generis. He may have abused power in his own special way."
Wallace then correctly pounces on Dallek's logical inconsistency in saying, well, we don't know how bad Bush is yet but hey I'm biased anyway. He tells Dallek, "You're simply making suppositions based on no facts whatsoever."
At which point, Dallek begins somewhat heatedly talking over Wallace and says, "Oh, come on. You read The New York Times," as if an anchor at Fox News is going to reverentially regard the paper as the unbiased authority on the Bush administration.
"...And the other panelists have been quite confident in their position. All I'm saying is that I see no personal political gain with what Bush did after 2001. I see a great deal of personal political gain in what Richard Nixon did," Wallace continued.
Shortly thereafter, screenwriter Peter Morgan (who also authored the play the film was based on, as well writing the Oscar-winning films The Queen and The Last King of Scotland) piped up. While no fan of Bush, Morgan was eminently reasonable all evening and effectively ended the discussion of Bush as Nixon in no uncertain terms. "I somehow always wanted not for it [Frost/Nixon] to become a springboard for discussion about George W. Bush. I cannot think of anything – even arousing sympathy for Richard Nixon which is exquisitely painful to me – which is less painful than somehow making this a parable for George W. Bush," said Morgan.
Wallace definitely seemed to get the better of the exchange. Though certainly it could be argued that a few things the Bush admin has done — particularly the firing of U.S. attorneys — was for personal political gain, Wallace was making an important distinction regarding most of the complaints about Bush's presidency. It also struck me as odd that not once was the name Clinton mentioned in all this discussion of Presidential corruption. Without excusing Nixon's reprehensible actions, it's still quite amazing to see so many liberals invested in the idea that the Nixon and Watergate (and to some extent the Republican party) are the wellspring of all Presidential abuses of power when, in fact, this country has a long tradition of that which doesn't fit any particular narrative other than political power is corrupting in and of itself.
corner.nationalreview.com |
