Liberal HuffPoster Smacks Down Ed Schultz's GM Success Story
A liberal Huffington Post contributor and board member of the website's Investigative Fund rained on Ed Schultz's GM success story victory parade on Thursday.
After the MSNBC host crowed about the positive earnings report from the government-owned car company, he clearly expected that left-leaning guest Leo Hindery was going to join him in the celebration.
Quite to the contrary, the admittedly "progressive" Hindery, who has contributed almost $1.5 million to Democrats in the past ten years, quickly threw a heapin' helpin' of cold water on this party before it got started.
"I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for GM," he marvelously began.
"There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States" (video follows with transcript and commentary, pay particular attention to the smile being washed off Schultz's face):
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Well, the automobile loan program seemed to have worked. General Motors also known as "Obama motors," "government motors," raked in over $33 billion in revenue last quarter. It`s G.M.`s strongest performance in six years. To top it off, the company is set to go public again, possibly as soon as Friday.
Now, this is I think an unbelievable success story. This was a great American company on the brink and the ripple effect would have been unbelievable. And what did President Obama do? He put a team together that came in and fixed it.
The bottom line: government intervention sometimes works. Folks in Washington should be looking at how they can do the same thing in other sectors of the economy but, of course, the Republicans aren`t for that.
And, you know, it`s interesting, we don`t hear any Republican naysayers today. They`re out there being so quiet because this is a successful story. The ripple effect if the government had not loaned G.M. the money, it would have been so strong, there would have been hundreds of thousands of jobs lost across our economy.
Joining me now is populist hero, Leo Hindery, managing partner of Intermedia Partners.
Mr. Hindery, good to have you with us tonight.
We have -- we`ve had quite a battle with the White House in recent days about the professional left. I would say that this is a pretty good story to start off on to go in a different direction, wouldn`t you think? This is what they ought to be talking about.
LEO HINDERY, INTERMEDIA PARTNERS: You know, Ed, I think I was labeled one of the professional left earlier this week, but, you know, I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for G.M. And we should take pride as a nation that the bailout did produce the profits that you describe.
But we`ve got to be real honest about what`s going to happen here over the next decade. There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States. So, these profits are important. But we didn`t put -- we didn`t put any quid with the quo so to speak and we didn`t demand that the growth in these three companies, the recovery of these three companies be found here in American workers.
And you and the Reverend Jackson just spent a compelling 10 minutes or so pointing out that the only thing that matters right now is the real employment, and in converse, the real unemployment of Americans. And I`m distressed when I hear that G.M., especially, just committed in the last week or so, $500 million more to yet another one of its plants in Mexico.
So, give them a pat on the back for sure. But don`t give them too big a pat because they`re not creating jobs here in the United States.
SCHULTZ: Well, but they are saving jobs, are they not, Leo? They did save a ripple effect of plastics, of electronics, of upholstery, of tire and glass that would have been even more devastating than the economy that we saw?
HINDERY: Right. And there is -- there`s a sharp line, a bright line, Ed, between saved jobs and created jobs.
HINDERY: We need both. But what we didn`t get out of G.M. or Chrysler is a commitment to create jobs here in the United States. And that`s why I pat them on the back for saving a bunch of them, and I couldn`t be happier for the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio, and the state -- Upstate New York.
SCHULTZ: But moving forward is your concern, and moving forward, it should be a concern based on the news that came out today. The CEO of General Motors, Ed Whitacre, is going to be stepping down and he`ll be replaced by Daniel Ackerson. He is a managing director of the Carlyle Group.
Now, the Carlyle Group is known for one thing, and that is shipping jobs overseas.
How troubling is this move in your opinion?
HINDERY: Well, it`s very troubling because that is Dan`s modus operandi. And nothing we`ve heard in the last several weeks and we were all surprised by Mr. Whitacre`s announcement today. But we`ve not heard a single word out of this company about committing to American jobs.
So, they`re going to grow and they`re going to grow based on taxpayer money, tens of billions of dollars.
SCHULTZ: So, what should the president do at this juncture? Get a commitment? Try to get a commitment or where do we go? Where is the loyalty?
HINDERY: Well, I think Secretary Geithner let the nation down when he just gave them money and didn`t demand that they create U.S. jobs. Again, I like the fact that we saved a bunch of `em. But we need to find, Ed, 22 million jobs to put this nation back at full employment. And we need our big manufacturers to be stable and growing here in the United States. And G.M. and Chrysler made no such commitment when they took our money.
SCHULTZ: Mr. Hindery, always a pleasure. You do great work. I love reading your stuff on "Huffington Post." I appreciate your time tonight.
HINDERY: It`s always a privilege to be here, Ed. Thanks.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
For the record, Hindery is quite left of center. Last week he admitted in a HuffPo piece that he is on the "progressive side."
According to Wikipedia, his name was being tossed around in 2004 as a successor to Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe.
He served as senior economic policy advisor to presidential candidate John Edwards, and is even an advisor to the Obama administration.
As such, Schultz probably wasn't expecting any push back on his celebration.
Wasn't it glorious?