Robert Reich: Palin's a 'Realistic Candidate' for President, Not Clear GM Bailout Was Necessary
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a couple of rather startling comments on ABC's "This Week" Sunday.
During the Roundtable segment, the devout liberal not only defended former governor Sarah Palin as a "realistic candidate" for president, but also questioned whether or not the government bailout of GM was necessary (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Let's switch right back to here and economic security. G.M. today this week had success, initial public offering. The bailout worked? The saving G.M. worked?
ROBERT REICH: Well, it worked, Christiane, to the extent that, indeed, G.M. is now worth $50 billion, if you believe the stock market, and before, in the old G.M., was worth $25 billion.
But what happened during the bailout? Actually, it was a -- it -- it was not so much a bailout as it was a reorganization under bankruptcy, and they got rid of $80 billion of debt, they got rid of thousands of jobs, divisions that were not functioning. Wall Streeters came in and reorganized G.M.
Why do we suppose the exact same thing would not have happened under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, reorganization? It's not clear that the $50 billion of taxpayer money was necessary.
A few minutes later as the discussion turned to Palin, most of the panel including George Will didn't see her as being a serious candidate except:
AMANPOUR: Let me -- let me just play devil's advocate. The midterms were characterized by the rise and the power of the Tea Party. Sarah Palin is a big backer, the godmother, the supporter. She -- she made quite a lot of inroads. Many of her candidates, the majority actually won. Why is this so -- so strange that she might win -- run?
REICH: You know, Christiane, I want to support your -- and I think it's actually more than simply raising the question here. Sarah Palin is not only a realistic candidate right now, but given the degree of anger in the electorate, anti-establishment anger, populist anger, she's the only candidate to come along who actually embodies that anger.
This is not the ebullience and hopefulness of Ronald Reagan. This is not "Morning in America." This is the anger of people who feel that they're being screwed by the establishment.
AMANPOUR: And talk about...
REICH: And she is, I think -- look, I'm not going to make any predictions, but I think that she does not have a negligible chance of becoming president.
Makes you not only wonder what got into Reich's Wheaties this morning, but also what his friends in the administration as well as the liberal media are going to think of these comments.
Stay tuned.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Reich just became a
Submitted by MikeB on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 2:39pm.
Reich just became a non-person. His image will be removed from all Party photographs, and his name will be redacted in all Party documents in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
No, I see it slightly
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:16pm.
No, I see it slightly differently. THe Clintonistas smell blood in the water and are becoming excited....
My thoughts exactly.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 7:51pm.
My thoughts exactly.
Just some double speak
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 2:43pm.
He thinks Palin would win for Obama so he coaxes the opposite being the genius strategist.
~The meme that a Palin run would guarantee
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 5:21pm.
An Obama win is something the left has put out to frighten the Republican party. They all know quite well that Richard Nixon's corpse will be abe to defeat Obama by the time 2012 gets here.
Nah, it's the left
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 2:48pm.
MikeB,
Nah, it's just the left once again trying to insert itself into the right's candidate selection process. I think the left actually wants Sarah Palin as the R's 2012 candidate because they think she is too polarizing to draw enough (or any) independents to win.
And though it won't win me any popularity contests around here I think they're right. I don't really see SP as a viable candidate for 2012. Of course that's just my opinion. Scores of folks will disagree with me.
I'm thinking along those
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:28pm.
I'm thinking along those lines too....................these guys spend way too much damn time on Palin - talk about polarizing!!! And Reicccccchhhhhhhh!!!! is a sneaky, innocuous little weasel who's got an agenda to push - why else would he be on there??? So maybe he's on the forefront of trying to talk up Palin as the most 'realistic' candidate...............if they can actually GET HER to be someone - besides what she is doing now - they can REALLY go off on her!!!!
As for the GM statement................not sure why this sawed off little socialistic would say that, other than it might be part of the 'trying to make sense' scam that is being hatched............ because you KNOW that these guys are totally DEVOID of any common sense!!!!
Remember when GM bankrupty was NOT an option?
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:04pm.
Well, he is right on GM.
I had these same conversations with liberal friends from the beginning who claimed GM would be destroyed without government intervention and taxpayer bailouts.
Most people don't even understand what bankruptcy is and think it means the company ceases to exist.
Bankruptcy was not an option, they maintained, but what did Government Motors eventually do? Go into bankruptcy.
The money was needed to prop up unsustainable union pensions and GM only looks better today because of all the free cash, stiffing bondholders by basically seizing their interests for nickels on the dollar, tax breaks, and clearing of debt from their books.
Plus, now that the UAW and the Obama team are calling the shots as management, they suddenly decide it's necessary to reduce salaries and benefits for new workers.
Which the union said were non-negotiable until IT became "the Man!"
Give any of us $50-60 billion and tax breaks and I'm sure we too could make AT LEAST $5 billion in profits a year.
I agree
Submitted by octavioj on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 9:19pm.
I told liberals the same thing meta and was scolded because millions of jobs would be lost. I told them that even if GM would be liquidated there are some assets that are very valuable, namely the SUV and trucks division, not to mention Corvette. As for the other vehicles, there would be unattended demand that would force increased production by other manufacturers and idle factories that would be assets to be absorbed by the competitors. Can one really imagine Hyundai and VW passing up the opportunity to get a factory on the cheap and producing cars without an UAW contract? I cannot imagine these companies passing up the opportunity to either increase their market share or buy market share (companies such as PSA and others absent from the US).
"...Let me just play devil's advocate."
Submitted by Paul G on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:19pm.
Why not just say.."I am the devil..."
I agree with you MODEL 850
Submitted by Paarl on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:30pm.
Palin is no Ronald Reagan....her political instincts seem to be fine and actually quite sharp but her knowledge and approach to politics and the issues are incomplete at best. By 1980 RR was a successful governor of California..an accomplished writer on politrical thought and issues (as we have discovered recently) a successful labour union leader and successful professional actor. He was the complete man and candidate.
The GOP is VERY deep in candidates who have accomplished a lot more in politics and professionally in their private lives than Palin...from Jindal to Bachmann (my 2 favorities) and Christie in NJ (beleive him when he says he is NOT running)..to Pawlenty and Mitch daniels
to Haley Barbour....all very accomplished and articulate and energized. Palin is being fronted by Reich and others to undercut the GOP. I think we will see slow and steady adoption of Tea Party principles by the GOP establishment and thus the whole slew of better qualified candidates should be the ultimate candidate.
BTW I just spent 3/4 weeks in NE Indiana on business and while that area (fort wayne and surroundings) are very GOP most people were very supportive of the GM bailout..maybe bankruptcy would have lead to a better or similiar result at lower cost to the taxpayers but maybe not.....just like 911 we elect and pay our presidents to make hard decisions..certainly the pay offs to the UAW was assinine and smacks of political cronyism (and state capitalism) but a large swath of the industrial midwest was in jeopardy from a GM shutdown.
There is much to criticize aboout Obama from Obamacare to the waste of the stimulus but the hard decision on GM will not be a target of mine.
Paarl of America (formerly of Rhodesia, of blessed memory )
No way Bachmann compares to Palin......
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:54pm.
Bachmann is my rep and a great person, but she is in no way in Palin's league.
She is not savvy (ie goes on Matthew's show in 2008), and can be grating in her voice
and actions.
As for Reagan, he SMOKED the opposition in both 1980 and 1984, so Palin doesnt have to
be that formidable, ie, a win by 3% is still a win........Reagan was a once in a century phenomenon, and wont be repeated. The big question is can Palin beat Obama 51-49 and I believe after 11/2, anybody getting the GOP nomination CAN beat OWEBAMA!
we disagree
Submitted by Paarl on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 4:20pm.
Listen carefully to Bachmann's interviews...she is uber sharp...does not get taken off point and has a better grasp of the issues than Palin and is just plain more knowledgeable. Certainly in political instinct Palin shines above most.
In 2012 we need more than a squeaker of a victory. A lot of damage needs to be undone and we need a mandate from the voters on par with Reagan's victory in 1980. My opinion is that Palin will not bring that type of victory. Jindal can..mitch Daniels can and if running Chris Christie can. The issue of 2012 has to be the damage that has been done by Obama but if Palin runs the issue will be her to a large extent. While in 2012 she will be more qualified than Obama was in 2008 the party and the country requires more.
Paarl of Rhodesia
Ahhh, so if she is so smart, why the BachmannHardball interview?
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 4:44pm.
A squeaker victory is still a victory......Personally, the NJ gov is still my fave, but Bachmann no way compares to a Palin. Again, why not let the primary voters decide?
Chris Christie
Submitted by Jimbo on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 1:00am.
Take it from someone who lives in NJ. Saying that Christie is a breath of fresh air in this state would be the understatement of the year. He is a bare knuckler who is not afraid to take on any sacred cow if it stands in the way of cutting costs and assuring that a spade is called a spade. As for the NJ teacher's union, and by extension all unions in the state, he is viewed as the Anti-Christ.
Over the summer, he was giving a speach to a small crowd outdoors across from my local high school. I kid you not, teachers were running across the front lawn of the high school (during school hours!) toward Christie shouting insults at him. Why?? Because Christie wants the teachers in NJ to contribute toward their healthcare. Currently, teachers receive free helathcare (i.e. no personal contribution) for their entire carreers AND throughout retirement. Christie wants them to contribute 1.5% of their salary to pay for their cadillac health plans. $10 doctor copays, $5 perscription copays, etc. I have seen my individual school budget, and teacher healthcare costs are literally unbelievable. And it gets worse every year as medical costs rise.
I think he would make an excellent President, particuarly at this juncture. However, the unions, Soros, et al will come at him with everything they have. You think Palin can whip liberals into a frenzy?? Wait till you see this guy go face to face with a raging liberal. It's a sight to see!!
Re to Paarl: Hard decision?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 5:20pm.
What was hard about Obama handing 37% control of a new GM to one of his biggest political supporters, the UAW, while at the same time, stiffing capitalistic bondholders? For the Dems and Obama, that was the easy road.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Of course palin could win--first female candidate alone....
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:43pm.
would draw voters near election day. Everything Palin does seems to turn to gold--from her election days, to her book sales, to her TV show. Even paired with a lamO like Mccain, her ticket garnered 60 million votes. I believe prior to 2008, only one ticket ever beat that one for total votes---Bush/Cheney in 2004...........I think with the "right" VP person, the sky is the limit if she was at the top of the ticket. Of course, she has to win the primaries/nomination and many good candidates are out there, too.
Wow you guys!...
Submitted by Paul G on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 3:44pm.
None of you guys haven't commented that this is the beginning of the 'Hillary for POTUS' media hype? The LSM has 'soured' on BHO... they're now going back to their first love...
Reverse reverse reverse
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 4:17pm.
Reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse psychology.
Can Palin wni election everywhere inthe country? Nope.
Can Paln win election all over the country? You Betcha.
The House of Representatives just won a clear Majority on the platform she adheres to.
Is this called " too polarizing"? No, it is called success!
To be sure, I don't agree with Palin on everyting but I do agree with her on the most important point. The Constitution itself matters and we must all turn to that document itself for resolution to our Nation's troublesome situation.
If that is too polarizing or extreme, then domestic enemies abound within this country.
What I see happening is a Nation rejecting Obama and his mindset. Former supporters are jumping ship trying to resurrect their own reputations, careers and legacies. Too bad for them that Youtube, copy and paste and websites like NewsBusters exist. They can run, they can change their postions now, they can try to hide behind doing so. But in reality they cannot hide from their own mistaken positions of backing the "One".
Bravo Labor Secretary Robert Reich
Submitted by Conservator on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 4:54pm.
That is the best overview I have read or seen about the GM bailout.
Regarding Sarah Palin, I have doubts that she could win a national election with disapprovals at 52%. Nevertheless, I think she would be a tough opponent in the primaries for any of GOP possible candidates tossed about - also because of the GOP Primary Calender. BTW, I'm not shocked by George Will's opinion.
Some may recall that Obama won 20% of conservatives vote in 2008. I'm sure George Will was one of them. The intelligentsia conservatives despised McCain and Palin because they were simpletons in their elitist minds.
People like Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, David Books of the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post broke bread with President-elect Obama at George Will's $1.9 million home. This confused the media and the left at that time (see articles below): Obama breaks bread with conservatives and... George Will lashes out against big government, McCain's claims Today, the same elitists constantly find fault with the President's agenda - HYPOCRITES IMO.Why not?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 5:11pm.
"Regarding Sarah Palin, I have doubts that she could win a national election with disapprovals at 52%"
Why not, Bush did and his was about that bad (His approval rating was around 44 percent when he was re-elected.) ! It doesn't matter what your "disapproval" rating is, it matters what your, and your opponents, "approval' ratings are. You can have a "disapproval" rating of more than 50 percent and still win the Presidency, just as Bush did.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As we all know thee is only
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:07pm.
As we all know thee is only one approval rating, taht one at the ballot box. I voted once because a President canditate had great approval ratings and looked like the winner. His name was Jimmie Carter. I will never ever do that again.
Winning is not the only thing in this instance
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:03am.
With apologies to Vince Lombardi (who I'm not really convinced ever said "Winning is the only thing"), winning the election is one thing. Actually being a President is a totally different matter. Whether you have administrative or executive experience or not, you have a lot of hand grenades to juggle, any one of which could go off and destroy your reputation, your Presidency, and your ability to govern effectively. (Notice I didn't say "rule.")
From Congress getting its BVDs in a knot over the hot button issue of the day, to activist judges making law by fiat, to the SCOTUS deciding to derail key parts of your agenda, to special interest groups/lobbyists/people who think they're owed personal favors, to your own staff working on ways to knock you off message (and don't think "The West Wing" was totally fiction, either), the job of President of the United States is one of the most thankless, most difficult, most soul-killing jobs out there.
You're not the captain of a ship. You're a cat herder. Reagan was successful as a President because he not only had a staff that, in most cases, worked to further his agenda, but also because he had the personality of a movie star. And it was the personality that got him elected over most everything else, because there was a lot of disagreement over "trickle-down economics" and missile defense and the Soviets and lots of other stuff. Plus there was a Democratic Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neill) to deal with. His personality made most of it work; his staff did a lot of the rest; and Congress decided it was better to go along (but not without some foot-dragging).
Palin is not in that class. I like her a lot as a personality, and she has some very good ideas, but she is not in Reagan's league and never will be. She rubs a lot of people the wrong way (even those who like her) and would find it hard to govern from the center if required (and I'm not a big fan of that myself). Would I vote for her if she was on the ballot? You betcha! But are there other, more qualified candidates out there? You betcha! Jindal and Christie are, right now, my top 2 for 2012...Jindal because of his handling of the oil spill mess, and Christie because of his no-nonsense style.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.