Marc Ambinder poses the question should Obama install Mitt Romney as GM’s chairman. Obama has said
The government can’t hope to fix G.M. and sell it off without getting under the hood. Over decades now of restructuring plans at the company, two things have demonstrably not helped get much done: Money and time. The government can’t simply give more of each to the automaker. What’s needed is forceful, even ruthless, leadership to insist on the changes that everyone–the managers, the union leadership, the dealers, everyone–has known were necessary for about 20 years now.[…]
Here’s a modest proposal to drive things along: Obama should install Mitt Romney as GM’s chairman. Romney grew up outside Detroit and around cars; his father, George W. Romney, saved American Motors from collapse in the 1950s–by killing failing brands and focusing on compact cars! George Romney successfully took on the Big Three with a “dinosaur fighter” strategy. The son would bring to GM that legacy, the turnaround expertise and credentials he developed at Bain & Company, and the outsider’s eye that GM desperately needs. He would also usefully jack up even further the stakes and the drama of the undertaking.
And he would create a political firewall for the turnaround. An alliance with Romney to save GM would give Obama and Henderson the protection they need to move briskly to shrink the company. Why would Romney do it? Maybe because the chance to renew an American icon, preserve America’s manufacturing capacity, and save tens of thousands of jobs would mean something to him. Maybe because it would give him a platform to demonstrate what an effective leader he can be. Maybe because, along the way, it would allow him to save the Republican Party by proving that it stands for something besides…whatever it is that it stands for right now.
It would be a win for Romney because if he leads GM back he would be a top candidate in 2016. It would be a win for Obama cause it shows his bipartisan approach and would patch over a possible issue in 2012.
With all that said, it probably would never happen because it makes sense.
Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times this morning is a must read.
To paraphrase Al Pacino in “Godfather III,” just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can’t. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration’s high ambitions. …
There are many dots yet to be connected, and not just on torture. This Sunday, GQ magazine is posting on its Web site an article adding new details to the ample dossier on how Donald Rumsfeld’s corrupt and incompetent Defense Department cost American lives and compromised national security. …
[Robert] Draper reports that Rumsfeld’s monomaniacal determination to protect his Pentagon turf led him to hobble and antagonize America’s most willing allies in Iraq, Britain and Australia, and even to undermine his own soldiers. But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy. …
I’m not a fan of Washington’s blue-ribbon commissions, where political compromises can trump the truth. But the 9/11 investigation did illuminate how, a month after Bush received an intelligence brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on his and Cheney’s watch. If the Obama administration really wants to move on from the dark Bush era, it will need a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried.
Tom Latham says he wants to help cut taxes, let people keep more of their money, and is against the death tax.
However, last week Latham voted against Barack Obama’s budget that will cut taxes for middle class families, voted against eliminating the death tax for nearly every American, and earlier this year he voted against the largest tax cut in history.
• Cuts taxes for middle income families by $1.5 trillion and extends the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year.
• Protects millions of middle-class families who would otherwise be hit by the AMT in 2010.
• Provides tax relief for small businesses.
• Permanently extends estate tax relief to ensure that 99.7 percent of estates in America never pay a dime of estate taxes.
Earlier this year, Representative Tom Latham opposed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cuts taxes for 95 percent of the American people, representing the largest middle class tax cut in history.
So what gives Rep. Latham? Do you want to cut taxes and let people keep more of their own money or do you want to think our economic situation is just fine and you want to continue the status quo?
After watching Barack Obama’s speech last night I realized that it truly was worth it. It was worth the all the miles I drove to hear all the candidates speak, all the time I volunteered, all the phone calls I made, and all the doors I knocked days before the Iowa caucuses in below zero weather.
Inauguration day was about the show, the monuments, the weight of the presidency, and the historical moment in our nation.
Election day was about the people, the volunteers, and the excitement.
The night of the Iowa Caucuses was about the beginning of a movement.
Last night, though, it all came together. Barack Obama called all Americans to the table to act. He spoke, not as a member of a political party, but as our President. President Obama was no longer making promises on a campaign trail, but instead laying a vision for our country, a path back to prosperity.
Obama signed one of the largest tax cuts in history Tuesday when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Marc Ambinder says this could come in handy in 2012…
It’s hard imagine we won’t hear about this four years from now. And if that’s not boxing a future Republican candidate in ahead of time, I don’t know what is.
Think about how many potential Republican arguments are going to be pre-empted by that nice little fact?
I want everything he’s doing to fail … I want the stimulus package to fail … I do not want this to succeed.
I was not a big fan of George W. Bush, but it wasn’t always that way. I began not to like Bush after numerous failures during his prescidency. There was the Iraq War, Mission Accomplished, Katrina, tax cuts for the wealthy, torture, domestic spying, just to name a few. I didn’t root for him to faileven though that is all he seemed to do as president.
What Rush and the Right is doing is completely different. They are rooting for Obama’s failure because it would lead to their personal gain. Rush would get better ratings and more money. Republicans would have a better chance at getting elected. It would also lead to the demise of our great country.
I am sorry, but putting one’s own well being before country is what I call unpatriotic.
In the news, there’s been more talk about merit pay and reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. However, the key to Obama’s education plans is his promise to early childhood education.
As a 2nd grade teacher, each year I have students reading at a Kindergarten level. That means they are essentially 2 years behind grade level after 2 years of school. That doesn’t mean their previous teachers aren’t quality teachers. It means those students have not had the opportunities other students have had before entering school (such as quality pre-school and growing up in a literacy filled environment) and likely have obstacles that must be overcome (such as learning a 2nd language, living in poverty).
When you build a house, you start with the foundation. Obama wants to ensure that all children have the foundation needed to be successful in school. One of the failings of No Child Left Behind is that some students are already incredibly behind when the enter school.
10. Obama supports increasing funding for the Head Start program for preschool children. Obama has called on states to replicate the Illinois model of Preschool for All.
Campaign website, BarackObama.com, “Resource Flyers” Aug 26, 2007
9. We can start by investing $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America. Every dollar that we spend on these programs puts our children on a path to success, while saving us as much as $10 in reduced health care costs, crime, and welfare later on. Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.249 Jun 15, 2008
Put billions of dollars into early childhood education 8. Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters. Every dollar that we spend in early childhood education, we get $10 back in reduced dropout rates, improved reading scores. That’s the kind of commitment we have to make early on. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
7. Teachers don’t go in to education to get rich. They don’t go in to education because they don’t believe in their children. They want their children to succeed, but we’ve got to give them the tools. Invest in early childhood education. Invest in our teachers and our children will succeed. Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007
6. If you’re a progressive, you’ve got to be worried about how the federal government is spending its revenue, because we don’t have enough money to spend on things like early childhood education that are so important. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
5. Children’s First Agenda: zero to five early education
High-Quality Zero to Five Early Education: Obama will launch a Children’s First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children from birth up to five years old. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 20-23 Feb 2, 2008
4. We’ve got to have early childhood education. Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
3. We’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom. Source: McCain-Obama speeches at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 2008
2. Michelle and I are here only because we were given a chance at an education. I will not settle for an America where some kids don’t have that chance. I’ll invest in early childhood education. Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008
1. This clip really seems to show where his heart is on the issue of voluntary Pre-K. Hopefully, he won’t forget.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a5481b2d-73b6-4df7-aa1b-c73f177aac5a)
