A startling display of economic ignorance from David Horsey:
Between the crippling legacy costs (which go much beyond just wages & benefits for current workers) that are fruit of the UAW and the less than innovate leadership of management, the domestic auto industry just isn't very good.
Disparate voices agree, from Mitt Romney to Tom Friedman, bad companies need to fail. It isn't pleasant. It isn't joyful. But this isn't an entire sector of the economy we're talking about here. It's a handful of badly under-performing companies, whose bankruptcy would not irreparably harm the American consumer writ large - or worker - over the long-term. Indeed, a completely reborn domestic auto industry would probably be a much more positive force in the economy than the current status quo.
Yet, David Horsey remains happy to simply lay the blame on a handful of guys for the robust coin they may have made along the way.
Figures.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 18, 2008 09:15 PM | Email ThisGood cartoonist, total moron. Posted by: scott on November 18, 2008 09:28 PM
I know most liberals don't understand this, but companies are not REQUIRED to give employees Health Insurance or a "familly wage.
People keep saying "we can't" or "we need to" let these companies fail. Declaring bankruptcy is not going to cause them to close all the plants and let everyone go. Bankruptcy is probably the BEST thing GM could do at this point.
Posted by: Dave on November 18, 2008 09:54 PMWhy did you support a presidential candidate that supports these idiotic bailouts and thinks they should be used to force the auto industry to be more green?
It seems such a fundamental disagreement would be reason to stop supporting such a candidate.
Posted by: Lysander on November 18, 2008 10:12 PMTech companies also run much leaner since they are not union shops. No need to constantly re-up for some exorbitant wage and benefits. If the employee does not like it, he or she goes elsewhere. That's freedom.
I hope Obama and team inject billions in to the US auto industry. Because that will just be egg on Obama's face later. You can't fix a crappy product and overpriced labor with a bailout. The flaws are systemic and the auto companies are better off dead.
Let some new phoenix of American ingenuity arise from their ashes. Maybe it will even be the latest green marvel as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 18, 2008 10:24 PMBecause, for all my m-a-n-y disagreements with John McCain you give me a choice between him and Barack Obama and I'll pick McCain. Now that's he has lost, I can go back to disagreeing more vociferously with him.
As much fun as it is sitting on the sidelines waiting for a candidate I agree with 100% of the time to come along before I'm willing to vote for someone, I've decided against that non-winning strategy.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 18, 2008 10:33 PMIf the companies are failing, then how could anyone have honestly made such huge executive salaries? Does capitalism exist to reward failure?
Posted by: tensor on November 18, 2008 10:38 PMThis is the kind of political lie that people like Horsey told all through the election season. The mainstream media lied flat out and uneducated voters believed their BS. I guess Horsey sees no reason to stop now.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 18, 2008 10:38 PMAgree with Saltherring...Americans are intelligent, hard working, innovative, and capable of so much better than the mediocrity that is Detroit.
Posted by: dl on November 18, 2008 10:54 PMHe drank the koolaid a few years ago and has lost any sense of perspective or wit.
He just practices class and race warfare and thinks it is cute.
Posted by: bigZ on November 18, 2008 11:30 PMIf you disagree a with McCain on so M-A-N-Y things why on earth would you find it reasonable to defend him? Why on earth would you expect us to put any faith in things you say in the future if you are sitting here now telling us you have spent the past year defending a man you are now essentially saying has lacks the economic knowledge required to be president and in fact you disagree with?
Simply because you agree with him slightly more than another man who also lacks the economic knowledge to be president?
You justify this by saying you have dismissed the idea of being HONEST with yourself and your readers by publically disagreeing with people you do in fact claim to disagree with. And yet you expect us to take you seriously? Your endorsements in the future mean nothing to anyone who values honest OR even people that value the type of government you claim to support. Why? Because your past indicates you will try and lead us to support candidates that you secretly disagree with!
I once again point to you as an example of what is wrong with the GOP. A lack of honesty and principles!
You claim that my strategy of voting only for candidates that I predominantly agree with is a losing strategy. But Eric... I have to ask... what has your strategy gained us so far? In politically aware lifetime (essentially 92 forward) we have seen republicans go from no house of congress or the presidency to complete dominance. It led to the exact opposite of what we both want (smaller government).
I suggest you admit that your strategy is the losing strategy and try voting your principles a try. The worse that can happen is a big government candidate wins (which is what we are guaranteed with your strategy!) but at least we have a smaller government candidate getting the limelight to educate people for next election.
Posted by: Lysander on November 18, 2008 11:53 PM"total compensation is $73.21 an hour"
"That works out to about $100K a year plus healthcare and other benefits."
'Total compensation' already includes everything - healthcare, retirement, health and disability insurance, and all other benefits. That's why they used the word 'total'.
We already bailed out Chrysler one time. They got smarter for a few years and made cars that people wanted, and that had semi-decent quality. Unfortunately, the K-car was not as well-made, efficient, or desired by the consumers as their Japanese competitors. They even managed to pay back the loans several years ahead of schedule.
Now they're mainly into selling the cup holders, in-seat DVD players, navigation systems, and assorted other junk instead of the basic vehicle.
Posted by: SeattleMike on November 19, 2008 12:06 AMThe point is, that it's way more than a decent wage. And way more than any non-professional is worth. Yet Horsey wants to paint these auto-workers as hapless victims with low wages and no healthcare. That's BS.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 19, 2008 12:32 AMAs Friedman says, how about Honda? Right now they are the only company leasing a 21st Century vehicle, the FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle. Yes, that's right, even though GM has promised and promised to deliver the Volt, Honda is actually leasing (on a limited basis) a hydrogen powered car that is getting rave reviews.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 19, 2008 05:32 AM"Bring it all down, baby!" Class warfare. Oops--where's my golden goose? Oops--where's my paper to illustrate in? gone. Maybe he'll draw in a government paper.
Big 3 need to fail & be reborn like the phoenix. Tough love, not the Nanny Butt-wipe Bailout State.
Ask Horsey how HIS tax advisors and financial consulants are now scurring about protecting HIM for the upcoming tax slaughter--er--um--"hopes & changes."
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 19, 2008 05:43 AMOil companies spend more then a fraction on exploration and research.
Hydrogen as a fuel will only be a novelty for some time to come.
Posted by: Snuffy on November 19, 2008 05:44 AMEnjoy the bubble, David. I prefer reality myself.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2008 06:18 AMSo now you wish to yell at everyone for it.
Gezzz fool, take your toys and go home. Many of us didn't want Mccain, but we got stuck with him. But get over the idea that RP was going to even make it.
Talk about spitting in the wind!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2008 06:32 AMHorsey would be well served to read it before scrawling his next propaganda piece in the ever-devolving P-I.
Socialism- Here We Come!!
To let them die allows "us" to prove that "we" can fight the "big corporations".
If "we" were to bal them out, "we" would show that "we" are really just hypocrites when "we" disparage "big corporations".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2008 07:36 AMHonda is about a decade behind GM in bringing out an innovative car. The old GM EV1 was rolled out in 1996, for lease only (like the Honda) as a pilot program on the viability of an all electric car.
Believe it or not, most car innovations DO come out of the big 3; they implement them a lot slower, and are a lot less willing to take risks predominantly because of the overhead and burden of future benefits they must maintain (contracts).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 19, 2008 08:11 AMThis Congress won't pass this bailout, but Obama and the next one will. It's a blue state payoff.
I saw yesterday on the news the comparison between the wages paid by the "Big 3" in Michigan were averaging around $75 /hr, while Toyota with manufacturing in right to work states average $50-55. There is no way those American companies can compete with that. That won't change any time soon, unless those companies go bankrupt and start up somewhere else. This bailout is only a temporary fix. They'll be right back here again in a year.
Posted by: Palouse on November 19, 2008 08:36 AMSad.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2008 09:07 AMWatch for it.
You think Congress has low numbers now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2008 09:12 AMUnder chapter 11, the auto companies have the right to unilaterally reject executory contracts, such as labor union contracts, if such rejection would be financially beneficial to the company and its creditors. That means that if the automakers can get into chapter 11, they can fire everybody and dump the UAW, then hire back any workers willing to take the now non-union jobs (which will be almost everybody I would think), and then emerge from chapter 11 a much healthier company.
Horsey is stupid if all he can see is the elimination of the ridiculous financial burdens brought on by the unions. Does he think that Toyota and Honda are evil companies because their domestic manufacturing lines are all non-union? I don't hear anybody complaining about that.
When will the unions learn that bleeding the parent company dry is a sure fire way to kill the union? If the big 3 enter into chapter 11, the UAW is toast. The only people left in the union will be the union bosses.
Unions in this country are dying out because they can't compete on the world labor market. The only thing they can hope for is government subsidies to the parent company to negate the inflation in overhead caused by the union, protectionist international trade moves (killing NAFTA for instance) and things like chard check so they can strong arm more employees into unions.
And that is exactly what will happen in the first 100 days of Obama's presidency. The end result will be a further decline in America's global competitiveness, continual loss of jobs, and further degradation of our standard of living. So instead of just kill three auto companies, they want to kill the entire country.
Unions are a 20th century idea left over in the 21st century. The real answer to this problem is to look at what factors caused the big three to get into the mess. Here's what I'd do:
1. I'd eliminate the CAFE standards. The CAFE standards killed the inexpensive mid-sized car which could function as a car and a small utility vehicle. The only option left for utility was to upgrade to a truck/SUV, which thankfully, has much lower CAFE standards. The CAFE standards *created* the SUV fad.
2. Let the big three enter into chapter 11 so they right themselves by dumping the unions and restructure their debt. As soon as the unions were gone, the big 3's production lines and brands would be worth a mint. They wouldn't have any problems finding private equity to help them out of chapter 11. C'mon, how much is the Corvette brand worth? How about Cadillac? Without the union burden, whoever owns those brands will be able to print money.
3. Do more to open up free trade even farther and lowering regulation. We still are the world's largest consumer market. If we lowered regulation and taxes, it would make far more financial sense for companies to make their goods here and save on the transportation costs. This is especially true for durable goods. That would bring more jobs here overnight and help right the export imbalance. We could do all of this by killing regulations designed to force product design and switching to a low flat tax for both corporations and individuals.
Do Democrats really think that if we end the CAFE standards that hybrid cars would disappear overnight? If the government also loosened their safety regulations on cars, it would open up the market to small and mid-sized car companies that could do real innovation in the car market. (When was the last time you heard of a car start-up company? When was the last time you heard of a tech start-up company? The reason there is a difference is in the regulation, or lack thereof in the tech market.) We'd see more companies like Project Better Place trying out new business models. We'd see lots of electric car companies and alternative fuel companies. The market for greener cars would not disappear, it would explode. It's funny how the elimination of the CAFE standards and other car design regulations would actually create the green boom everybody is talking about and without huge government money. We all have to start thinking this way now, because pretty soon the government won't have any more money to give without destroying the currency in the process.
Less government, not more is what we really need.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 09:27 AMWhen the government thinks they know what the market wants and regulates products accordingly, the only way for the system to succeed is if the government becomes all parts of the economic system: the producer, the lender, and the purchaser.
If not, then outside entities filling one of those roles will cause the whole system to collapse.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 09:33 AMThe national right to work foundation (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm) has a very illuminating map that shows where the jobs of the future (read Boeing's next airplane) are going.
admitedly I am unsure of how clean these cars burn and i dont have the numbers on the CO2 ppm but i do know that with the lower sulfur content diesel and the fact that these cars get 2x the mpg average of U.S. cars it would make sense that the pollution couldn't be any worse. (if your burning 1/2 the fuel, less drilling shipping manafacturing and possible exhaust as less fuel is burning). Yes the safety standards are less but in this country it is perfectly legal to drive a motorcycle (in some places without a helmet) but not drive a car with lower safety standards without a 5mph bumper and airbags??Thats stupid, i can choose to ride a Harley but not drive a SEAT or SKODA????
So in a nutshell if we were truly being capitalists, LET the BIG 3 fails and take all the restrictions off of importing cars for silly reasons like bumpers and airbags. If a company cant make it with out bailouts and free money then let them fail. There are plenty of other companies out there that can replace them. And I for one would love to be driving that diesel mini cooper or the volkswagon polo bluemotion until viable (for us rural dwellers) EVs start production.
Side note toyota builds cars in this country and they are not screaming for bailouts and their employees are doing fine. their average salary + benefits = approx 99,000 per year, while the UAW (united auto workers) salary+ benefits = approx 140,000 per year. Understand that a large percentage is for pensions and persons no longer making cars but still since when should unskilled labor costs far exceed say a college professor avg + benefits 93,000. I am all for persons making as much as they can but not at the expense of paying them with my and more importantly my childrens future tax dollars.
Posted by: lurkertroll on November 19, 2008 10:44 AM"Apparently Horsey was not required to even take Business 101 when attending the UW. Another testimony to the quality of education one gets at the UW."
Hey, I went to UW. Not everybody gets screwed up there. Of course, I went into it knowing about the leftist bias that soaks campus society. I used to drive my professors nuts. They thought I was the evil incarnate for wanting to keep the fruits of my labor. One of my professors, a nasty little marxist, used to get red in the face and all flustered when I would play devil's advocate with him and poke holes in his wonderful theories.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 10:56 AMWhy does this map look almost identical to this one?
I suspect that's why we haven't had a right-to-work initiative in this state. It would lose so bad, it's almost a waste of time trying.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 11:02 AM
This same thing has a happened in a down market before with a west coast steel maker and the union then stayed on strike until the plant was finally sold to the Chinese, dismantled bolt by bolt and hauled to China. Everybody lost but the commies. This is how the UAW will proceed.
IF the domestics are bailed out, they will be in the same exact financial position in a few short years, the UAW riding the horse to death. They need to go Chapter 11. That will give them the flexibility to do what needs to be done.
If you see the numbers for GM you'd see what I mean. GM used to control 50% (1966) of the market, they now control 20%. It has been a steady decline while the money they have spent to produce that ever reduced share has skyrocketed (R&D, marketing and build) into the multiple billions a year with little or no reserve. They simply can't support the business model no matter how many bailouts they get.
It is a complex problem that Horsey really fails to understand like most things he cartoons. The only thing that will save GM is to get smaller. With the UAW in the way they can't get ahead of the sales-curve-versus-shrinking-sales-volume equation. Basically they need to be about 3 or 4 times smaller than they are now including their dealer network. Toyota sells the same amount of cars with a dealer network that is much smaller and with less, non-union, factories.
There is more but my fingers are getting sore.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 19, 2008 11:05 AMThe sooner they go into Chapter 11 protection from creditors, the better. $25 billion for companies worth
The sweetest part of going into chapter 11 will be the creditors ending both that habit and the employment of such nonsense. Think that amused the holders of billions of dollars of GM and Ford debt?
OTOH, if those bozos succeed in extorting billions from the rest of us (via the federal government) then we shall be treated to a never ending parade of such extravagance. Because the various boards--representing the stockholders who look to be crammed down in a restructuring--will reward the CEO's for "saving" them.
Posted by: iconoclast on November 19, 2008 11:42 AMFrom @1: Scott calling tim McViegh an eco-terrrist (what kool-aid are YOU drinking). McVeigh was a right wing militia type - Puhleese!
"his only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military.[5] Despite the former, he self-identified as a libertarian in a statement that was reported by MSNBC.com and The Washington Post;[6] and in 1996, while in federal prison, he voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the United States presidential election, 1996."
He timed the bombing to the anniversery of Waco.
Here is McVeigh on taxes:
McVeigh wrote letters to local newspapers, complaining about taxes:[22]
" Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight...Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."
sound like a ecoterrorist - or someone from THIS site?
Also he was an avid GUN supporter.
Wow - what a bunch of revisionist historians on here. Here is the biggest domestic terrorist act and this IDIOT tries to blame it on eco-terrorist. NOT EVEN CLOSE - you are one BIG LIAR!
Posted by: correctnotright on November 19, 2008 11:50 AMThe same could be said for Ayers, but he was a Leftwing nut.
Works both ways doesn't it.
One thing you didn't bring up about McVeigh. He also looked into the KKK which the leftwing party clings too.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2008 11:59 AMlurkertroll, you're missing three significant pieces of data that are totally screwing up your comparison of european cars versus american cars.
1. European (Imperial) gallons are about 20% larger than U.S. gallons. So depending on where you're getting your figures from, that's a potential mistake you're making.
2. Diesel fuel has about 155 MJoules/gal and gasoline has about 132 MJoules/gal, that's about 20% more energy per gallon than gasoline.
3. American cars have ridiculous government safety regulations that make American cars much heavier and therefore less efficient than European cars.
If you take the 50 miles-per-U.S.-gallon car and you add in 20% to switch to Imperial gallons you get a 60 miles-per-Imperial-gallon car. Then if you add in another 20% to account for the switch to diesel fuel you get a 71 miles-per-diesel-Imperial-gallon car, matching the figures you were saying for top European cars.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 12:05 PMlurkertroll, oh and I forgot to point out that the EPA and European fuel economy test cycles are different. That means the measurements aren't done using the same conditions and criteria...you just can't compare the two; they're apples and oranges.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 12:12 PMI am not yelling at anyone. Nor am I even mentioning Ron Paul.
Yes we all got stuck with Mccain. My only point is merely that we did not all need to cheerlead for him as Eric has. I think it is important for people to understand there is a cost in trust for people who cheerlead for politicians that they disagree with. Do you disagree with me on this point?
Posted by: Lysander on November 19, 2008 12:13 PMO-please. I can understand why Eric pushed for McCain... Come on with many faults john had. He's NO-where close to what Obama could and just may do.
Yes we do understand the cost. Have you even noticed the fools who Obama is bring to his team?
Gezzz Clinton all over again.
By the way. I was one of the first on the site to have a BIG chip against McCain. I wanted Duncan Hunter.
At one point you have to let comon sense take over and grow up.
Sorry, I don't think you have.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2008 12:52 PMNow lets take one of my examples and do some basic math. the smart for 2 diesel (in an independent road test drives from rome to barcelona) 3.3 liters/100 kilometers. where 100 kilometers =62 miles and 3.3 liters = .872 gallons (u.s.) then we get approximately 62/.872=71 mpg (u.s.) in mixed city/hwy driving. The smart for2 http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/smart-cdi-review.htm actually has 4 airbags but probably none of the other ridiculous safety restrictions. Also it has lower only 90g/km CO2 output and is costing between 10-14000 euro which is somewhere between 14-20000 dollars.
This car is currently for sale in countries that dont have a large rural commuter populations and we DONT HAVE THAT CHOICE so using your numbers or mine there are choices out there currently on the market that we in the land of the free cant have while the oppressive big three are looking for bailouts. Why should my tax dollars go to support people building cars that use too much fuel, pollute to much. Why should we support govenment regulation to restrict the flow of more/different chioces in autos. The excuse of safety and emmisions are ridicuolous when again i can choose a harley or an f-350 super duty diesel or hummer that spews fumes at a crazy level but not an economical vehicle.
Posted by: lurkertroll on November 19, 2008 01:41 PMJobs bank programs -- 12,000 paid not to work
$31/hour to read crossword puzzles....
Posted by: iconoclast on November 19, 2008 03:59 PMI wasn't arguing about your point, just your numbers.
You are complaining about all of the nasty CAFE and safety regulations that keep those other cars out of our market. It isn't any domestic car company doing it. It is our own government.
The big three make big heavy cars with just barely over CAFE standard mileage because of the government regulations.
Eliminate the CAFE standards. Eliminate all of the ridiculous safety regulations. Then you will see all of those cars from Europe flood into the market. Government regulation only stifles innovation and competition. Period.
The big three are bankrupt mostly because of the UAW and the rest because of the ridiculous government regulations. GM had 50% of the US market in the 50's and 60's. Then the 70's happened with all of the regulations and government mandates and GM's market share began to fall. Down, down, down. Now the government and the UAW are circling like vultures waiting to finish them off.
If the government bails them out and then forces them to build cars designed by congressmen, the company will go out of business. Nobody will buy the shit Congress designs...unless Congress mandates that we purchase them...but shhhh, don't give them any ideas.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 05:08 PMThe government applies the CAFE separately to domestic and import vehicles, even if they are produced by the same company. From the NHTSA:
Manufacturers' domestic and import fleets must separately meet the 27.5 mpg CAFE standard. For passenger cars, a vehicle, irrespective of who makes it, is considered as part of the "domestic fleet" if 75% or more of the cost of the content is either U.S. or Canadian in origin. If not, it is considered an import.
Good example of ridiculous government regulation. An even better example of what we can expect if Barney Frank starts to run GM....
Posted by: iconoclast on November 19, 2008 05:30 PMI regret once again you're creating a straw man with which to argue.
If you disagree a with McCain on so M-A-N-Y things why on earth would you find it reasonable to defend him?
You were reading this blog during the primary season, so you know full well the depth of my disagreements with McCain. Moreover, I was not shy about criticizing McCain and his campaign at various points after the primaries - even if my critique wouldn't align with yours.
Elections are about choices. I had a choice in the primaries. He didn't win. I had a choice in the General, neither of which I liked, but one of which I deemed less problematic than the other. Thus, my vote. That should not be construed as "defending McCain," which any reasonable and regular reader of the blog would attest was not my MO.
Why on earth would you expect us to put any faith in things you say in the future if you are sitting here now telling us you have spent the past year defending a man you are now essentially saying has lacks the economic knowledge required to be president and in fact you disagree with? Simply because you agree with him slightly more than another man who also lacks the economic knowledge to be president?
You're putting so many words in my mouth it's tough to know where to begin. My objections to McCain's economic thinking and concerns about his ability to articulate an economic message have been appearing on this blog for months. And again, saying a candidate is the better of two preferred options is not the same as "defending" someone. I don't think any rational reader of the blog over the course of the last year would confuse me in the least with a McCain enthusiast.
You justify this by saying you have dismissed the idea of being HONEST with yourself and your readers by publically [sic] disagreeing with people you do in fact claim to disagree with. And yet you expect us to take you seriously?
See my above comments. Your understanding of what I have and have not said about McCain is leading me to seriously question your reading comprehension skills and/or your memory. I've always endeavored to be direct and honest via the blog. The fact you can't seem to grasp the difference between voting for a candidate who regrettably made it through the GOP primaries versus being enthusiastically supportive of him is not my fault.
Your endorsements in the future mean nothing to anyone who values honest OR even people that value the type of government you claim to support. Why? Because your past indicates you will try and lead us to support candidates that you secretly disagree with!
Well, I actually endorsed Mitt Romney and stand by that choice. I never endorsed McCain. I never liked him as a GOP candidate. I voted for him, in large part because the idea of President Obama troubled me substantially more than the idea of President McCain.
At some point you might want to come to grips with the fact that most voters don't take their ball and go home when their preferred candidate loses the primary. They still realize there are choices to be made in November.
In sum, your comments above serve as a not so subtle reminder that you truly fit the profile of a Ron Paul supporter: stuck in a highly vocal but remarkably small minority who stands befuddled at how the overwhelming majority of voters view the choice they make when given the chance to exercise their right to vote.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 19, 2008 06:02 PMI am sorry if you feel I am putting words in your mouth. I do however feel you have spent much time defending John McCain as a valid choice for president and in fact just did again. So long as you understand that saying you stand for limited government and then defending John McCain loses credibility amongst reader, have at it.
I do not beleive most Ron Paul supporters stand befuddled at how an overwhelming majority of voters chose their candidates at election time. They in fact understand all to well and are doing their damnest to try and change that. I just expect you to chose better than average and actually vote with principle. But you are not willing to give that a try yet. Or you think John McCains principles are close enough to yours to give him massive amounts of power.
I am going to stick with voting by my principles.
Posted by: Lysander on November 19, 2008 09:31 PMCan you not read? Eric posted:
Well, I actually endorsed Mitt Romney and stand by that choice. I never endorsed McCain. I never liked him as a GOP candidate. I voted for him, in large part because the idea of President Obama troubled me substantially more than the idea of President McCain.
OK - Eric did NOT support or defend John McCain as "a valid choice for President". Rather he voted for McCain only as the last choice option, rather than Obama.
Come on, Lysander, you can't be that dense!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 20, 2008 06:40 AMI was going to say something more but then I read Shanghai Dan's comment and that mostly sums up my thought.
I repeat: there is a difference between selecting someone as the less problematic of two less than ideal choices on the ballot and actually endorsing, supporting, and firmly advocating someone's candidacy based on one's strong belief in that candidate's agenda.
Most Americans don't care to play ideological purist, refusing to cast a ballot simply because their preferred option isn't on the November ballot. You call that "voting on principle." Again, that's what primaries are for. If you refuse to support the better option after that - again, even if it isn't ideal - then to some degree you're abdicating your voice in the election process. Be my guest in continuing to do that.
Lastly, if you think my comments above constitute a defense of McCain - as opposed to me merely saying why I voted for the guy when given a choice between he and Obama - then you might actually be denser than Shanghai Dan suggests.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 20, 2008 08:37 AMIf you vote your principle only in the primaries, then please enlighten us as to who you voted for in the primaries. I would like to see how that candidates principles match with those of limited government.
So who did you vote for in the primaries?
Posted by: Lysander on November 20, 2008 08:23 PMI voted for Harry Browne in '96 in an attempt to voice my libertarian principles...result, Bill Clinton re-elected.
I don't piss away my vote these days. I pick the candidate whose positions I agree with most. We conservatives have to put the conservative philosophy back into the Republican brand and repair the 8 years of damage President Bush has done to the party's image, warranted or not.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 21, 2008 07:19 AMAs I say, the primaries are when you do the strategic positioning; the general is when you do the tactical execution.
Primaries are the time to get the most conservative, best candidate in. Once the general starts, you go for who will do the least damage AND has the best chance of winning.
Guys like Lysander are simply living in a fantasy-land. Demanding ideological purity at all times or a candidate is tossed away leaves you pretty lonely and on the sidelines. Like Lysander and the other Paulistinians...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2008 02:03 PMI do not demand idealogical purity. I demand that the candidates I vote for for the most part agree with and have a record showing they follow through with it. Ron Paul is not my idealogical 'soul mate' if you will. There are in fact quite a few positions i disagree with him on. But he has a long record of pushing for smaller government as a whole.
McCain does not have a history of smaller government and I find his positions on MOST issues to be in disagreement with me.
I am still waiting to hear Who Eric voted for in the primaries when he supposedly voted with principle.
Posted by: Lysander on November 21, 2008 05:25 PMI still believe Mitt Romney was far and away the best candidate for moving this country forward whether Democrat or Republican. Meanwhile, Obama continues to add training wheels by bringing in the entire Clinton entourage in the hopes he may one day be able to ride the bike by himself. I'm sure the founding father's are just ecstatic to see their grand experiment reduced to such a tragic comedy. Posted by: Rick D. on November 21, 2008 10:06 PM
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010201.html
You felt dirty about it which is a good sign. But just as you do not trust McCain, I can not trust you when you say you are for small government, you voted for McCain (twice!)
Posted by: lysander on November 22, 2008 12:27 PMDo you mind commenting on why you voted for McCain in the primaries when in your own words the primaries is the place for voting with principles?
Posted by: Lysaner on November 23, 2008 05:04 PMDear Lord, you really are that dense.
As that post indicates, I voted for McCain in the state's primary because he was the most powerful anti-Huckabee option left in the race - Romney having dropped out nearly two weeks prior. My disdain for Huckabee is wide and deep. Thus my vote (which was explained in even greater detail in this post).
Since, however, you still can't seem to recall the rest of the primary season, might I suggest you try using the Sound Politics search feature to dig up posts discussing "Mitt Romney"? You might just find a few from me. That would include ranging from my endorsement of him in November 2006 to me caucusing for him this past February...before Huckabee's antics grew even more loathsome.
If you don't recall I was avowed Romney backer during the primary season then I don't know what I can do to help your memory. Though at this point, I think you're just searching for a reason to complain.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 23, 2008 08:21 PMI am not dense. I am not searching for reasons to complain. I am trying to help you see the importance of principles.
You did not vote your principles in the general. But claim you had to because of scary Obama. But that was okay because it is the primary where you are supposed to vote your principle. But now you say that you did not vote your principle in the primary because of scary Huckabee.
Let me let you in on something Eric, there will always be a candidate you do not like running that will scare the hell out of you. Do not let them use this as an excuse to make you compromise on your principles. And more importantly... do not try to scare others into voting against their principles either.
You can go ahead and call me dense. You can call me a moron. You can claim I am ignorant. You can do all that but at the end of the day, I know I voted for a candidate I would have been proud represent my views. You on the other hand will lose even if your 'candidate' wins. I also can go to bed at night feeling better about myself for not having to resort to name calling in a silly blog.
Posted by: Lysander on November 23, 2008 09:05 PMI almost forgot... I did notice that you were an avid Romney supporter. This however highlights my point... If you were really an avid supporter, why abandon him when it counts (the election)? Do your principles mean nothing?
You call that "voting on principle." Again, that's what primaries are for. - Eric Earling
One last question.
What did you get by voting against your principle. Did McCain at least push your ideas while losing? Did people become more familiar with your ideas while he lost? Is the party more or less likely to nominate a candidate who shares your principles next time around? Does the party take your vote for granted more or less now that you have voted for McCain TWICE?
Let suppose McCain had won. What would you have won? Basically all the same crap we get with Obama only now it would be done in your parties name.
So what did you get for throwing away principles?
Posted by: Lysander on November 23, 2008 09:41 PMAre you retarded? What is the point of voting for a candidate who is not only out of the race, but has endorsed someone else in it? It's not my fault the race for the GOP nomination was already over by the time our primary rolled around on Feb. 19th.
Moreover, since I dislike Huckabee substantially more than I dislike McCain (for entirely different reasons), my choice was entirely rational in that context.
This all goes back to the same issue where most voters realize they have a choice between candidate A and candidate B in an election. Most voters make that choice accordingly.
A small minority of voters such as yourself insist on voting for a candidate matches their personal beliefs better than any candidate who is actually competitive. As you have proven, this is often regardless of who is actually left in the race or has even a remote chance of winning.
That difference between idealism and reality is what separates you (and many a Ron Paul supporter) from the rest of the world.
As such, I'm done speaking with you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 23, 2008 11:33 PMThanks.
Posted by: Eric on November 24, 2008 06:00 AMAlso I should add Eric, do not complain when the GOP takes your vote for granted in the general election and selects more McCain's in the primary as a result. You have made it clear they have your vote no matter what so there is no point in accommodating your choice in the primary.
Posted by: Lysander on November 24, 2008 06:02 AM