Google Search

Showing posts with label Beyond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beyond. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Attack against Romney on auto bailout moves beyond Michigan - CBS News

Democrats continue to hammer Mitt Romney for once penning an op-ed entitled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," but now the attacks are moving beyond Michigan to Ohio, another state with a large number of voters with jobs tied to the auto industry or the unions.

Public sector union AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees) is running an ad in Ohio slamming the Republican for his opposition to the auto bailout. "Romney would have turned his back on us in the depths of the recession," a narrator says in the ad, "but he supported giving the banks billions in bailouts? That's Mitt's world."

Republicans vote in Ohio on "Super Tuesday" on March 6, and a new poll there shows Rick Santorum with a seven-point lead over Romney.

President Obama's re-election team is already running an ad in Michigan that references Romney's op-ed while touting the president's support for the bailout. And the Democratic National Committee published a web ad today on the same theme.

The DNC ad plays a snippet from an interview with Romney on CBS last year, when in reference to his 2008 op-ed, he said, "That's exactly what I said. The headline you read which said, 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' points out that those companies needed to go through bankruptcy."

In that same interview, however, Romney explained that letting a company go bankrupt wouldn't mean liquidating the company, "but allowing them to go to the bankruptcy court to reorganize and come out stronger. That's what happened."

He added, "And the federal government put in, I think, $17 billion into those companies before they finally recognized, 'Yeah, they need to go bankrupt, go through that process, so that they're able to get rid of excess costs.'"

Romney did not mention that there was no private capital available at the time that allowed the managed bankruptcy to take place and the government's intervention was a pre-requisite to the managed bankruptcy.

General Motors and Chrysler were restructured as part of the $85 billion auto bailout, which started under President George W. Bush's leadership and was extended after Mr. Obama took office. Some analysts have claimed more than 1 million jobs were saved by the bailout.

Polls show voters in Michigan approve of the bailout. In a recent NBC/ Marist poll from Michigan, 63 percent of registered voters said the bailout was a good idea.

Nationally, 56 percent of Americans said the federal loans given to GM and Chrysler were good for the economy, according to a Pew survey from this month -- that's up from 37 percent in October 2009.

Romney's op-ed makes him a prime target for Democrats, but the bailout is a sticky subject for the other GOP candidates as well.

Santorum has tried to cast himself as an economic populist who can appeal to working class, social conservatives -- a segment of voters once referred to as "Reagan Democrats" who could help the GOP nominee in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Indiana. However, he also opposed the auto bailout. Santorum has tried to claim that he's at least more consistent on bailouts than Romney, since he also opposed the Wall Street bailout (unlike Romney).

"Mitt Romney supported his friends on Wall Street and then turned his back on the people of Detroit," Santorum said Sunday on the ABC's "This Week." "Now, I say turned his back because he supports the concept of bailouts. I don't. And that's the difference between the two approaches."

Rep. Ron Paul, a staunch libertarian, unsurprisingly opposed the auto bailouts. However, in a speech in Detroit on Monday, Paul said that U.S. capital "might have been spent building cars in this country rather than bombs overseas."

With reporting from CBS News/ National Journal reporter Lindsey Boerma



View the original article here

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Beyond Democrat and Republican: A Closer Look at Third-Party Campaigns (ContributorNetwork)

There has been plenty of recent speculation in the media about a possible third-party run for president by current Republican candidate Ron Paul. Whether Paul, or any other candidate, will make a third-party play against President Barack Obama and the Republican nominee this November remains to be seen. In the meantime let's look at some of the more creditable third-party presidential runs of the past one hundred years:

* Theodore Roosevelt (1912) -- A century ago the old "Bull Moose" founded the Progressive Party after a rift with his hand-picked Republican successor William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was upset with Taft for not continuing his progressive platform after he had left office. Roosevelt was so fired up that the former president decided to enter the 1912 race as the candidate for the new Progressive Party. Predictably Roosevelt split the vote and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. Still, TR's 27 percent of the popular vote remains the high-water mark for third-party candidates still today.

* Strom Thurman (1948) -- Aside from being considered by many historians as the biggest upset in presidential election history -- incumbent Democrat Harry S. Truman beat Republican challenger Thomas Dewey -- this election was famous for Thurman's State's Rights (or Dixiecrat) Party. The Dixiecrats were white Southern Democrats who deplored the moves that the Truman Administration were making toward desegregating the South. They formed their own party and chose Thurman to run against Truman and Dewey. Thurman won four Southern states and 39 electoral votes and managed to get 2.4 percent of the popular vote.

* Ross Perot (1992) -- The Texas pro-business billionaire decided to throw his hat into the ring as an Independent candidate in the 1992 election. Concerns about the state of the economy, and a general distrust-as always-of Washington insiders, helped fuel a surge of support for his candidacy. In May, six months before the election, Perot was actually polling ahead of the incumbent Republican George Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. In the end Perot captured nearly 20 million votes and almost 19 percent of the electorate.

* Ralph Nader (2000) -- This was Nader's third run for president and, while his ultimate vote count was modest (about 2.8 million total votes and 2.73 percent of the electorate) his presence on the ballot might have proven to be monumental. That's because Nader took part in one of the closest presidential elections in U.S. history between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. Many have suggested that, had Nader not been in the race. Gore, who actually won the popular vote, would have captured enough electoral votes to win the White House.


View the original article here