Allahpundit over at Hot Air is wondering why President Bush isn’t deferring the matter of an auto industry bailout to President-elect Barack Obama instead of claiming the responsibility himself. Allah asks:
I like what he says about his obligation to his successor but can’t understand why he won’t go the whole nine yards rhetorically and pawn the matter off on Obama. The One supports an auto bailout and insists we’re headed for Carmageddon if we don’t keep the industry afloat. Fair enough. The people wanted Change, so give them Change a month early. Bush is going to bail out the Big Three anyway. Why take the hit when he doesn’t have to?
My Short Answer? Why not?
My Long(er) Answer: I’ve felt that the White House’s initial initial non-support of an automaker bailout was half-hearted. This administration clearly supports intervention where they feel it is needed, and even perhaps where it’s not. They were the cheerleaders for the financial bailout. I don’t know if Bush is just bowing to the (probably) inevitable, that more strongly Democratic congress has a good chance of getting one through, but it doesn’t surprise me that he would do it. Surely people have noticed they haven’t been particularly good economic conservatives as of late?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
I for one am very disappointed at the Republican’s bad fiscal habits during the Bush years. Fiscal conservatives aren’t getting their due in the party – that’s why there’s an internal debate over direction.
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I for one am very disappointed at the Republican’s bad fiscal habits during the Bush years. Fiscal conservatives aren’t getting their due in the party – that’s why there’s an internal debate over direction.
At this point he’s damned if he does and damned…