Michael Moore: Saving the Big 3 for You and Me

By Michael Moore

Friends,

I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down.

My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride!

When it would start.

More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all.

A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake warning light came on. And on and on.

You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical.

And I care about what happens with the Big 3 because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuck!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be
back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil
and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. I will be on Keith Olbermann tonight (8pm/10pm/midnight ET) to discuss this further on MSNBC.

Comments

(111)

Buy them out

in partnership with the union. Then divest the offshore production.

I agree, just nationalize

This is the exact time when nationalization is the right move, when an industry is failing but considered important to the national interest. Take them over, dump the directors and executives, make them functional again, and then reprivatize, preferably by distributing shares to the workers. Laying off workers and closing plants defeats the purpose. Those are the ends we're trying to avoid.

The Raven's Blog: May the Better Bird Win
http://www.ravensblog.net

Lots of good suggestions there Michael

We have basically nationalized the financial institutions of the country by buying controlling interest in companies like AIG, and no one batted an eyelash, even when the amount that was handed to them kept increasing every week. So why NOT nationalize the automakers? As you pointed out, it would cost far less than the amount the automakers are asking for now. I know, we'll hear the inevitable cry from repubs that the government will mess things up if they take over. My question is this: How on earth could the government POSSIBLY do a WORSE job than the auto execs have done in the past few years? That's like saying you shouldn't replace the captain of the Titanic, because that might really mess things up! What, the ship might sink faster, or in a more inefficient manner?

Buy out the Big Three, and get them producing things that are not only better for consumers, but better for the environment. What have we got to lose at this point?

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

By UffdaguyDecember 3, 2008 - 11:43am

I can't believe I actually agree with Moore on something. Although I would prefer to see the UAW in conjunction with GM employees have the first crack purchasing the company, not to mention that they may first need to go through Chapter 11 reorganization first.

Once we have a national healthcare system, that'll take some pressure of the union legacy costs off the company and make them more competitive…But that may be years down the road...

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

I would prefer that you forfeit

your socialist pension check so that we can make America more competitive. This country is broke and if all you socialists gave back the pension checks that you worked for and were promised after you retired, maybe we could make a dent in the national debt. You wouldnt mind, now would you?

By hufflarry2000December 3, 2008 - 12:34pm

And you know what Huff, if the company for whom I worked for over 20 years goes bankrupt (that would be the US Government), I'd expect I'll lose my retirement check. Of course, if that happens, a retirement check will be the LEAST of my worries.....

Have a nice day... Hugs....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

But I am sure that you would

forfeit the socialist benefits now to keep that from happening, right? You could do your part to keep the country running.

Are you for real?

You really think that a US Government employee ever has to worry about his paycheck, retirement, vacation, healthcare or an other of the many many perks set forth by the gov.

The very first job I ever had was with the Dept of Land Management now know as the Dept of the Interior. I had one perk, minimum wage, and they gave it willingly without protesting Raygunites screaming that 13 year old doesn't deserve $3.15/hr building our National Parks. My intro to paying my own taxes. Income, SS, State. Nothing else.
Oh, those where the days.......and I was insured to boot. What a country.

What the hell went wrong? Oh, yeah, Reaganite's and that stupid WTO. Nice going Feds, digging a hell of a hole.

Bas

I'm not betting on seeing a national healthcare system any time

soon. Repubs broke the record for number of filibusters in a session during the last session, and I see nothing to suggest they won't break even that record this next time around. They're happy to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, overjoyed to bail out greedy Wall Street execs, but they draw the line at actually helping the average person. Maybe the dems need to threaten them with the nuclear option in the same way repubs did several years ago.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

By UffdaguyDecember 3, 2008 - 12:51pm

Unless there were “Blue-Dog” Dems that flipped, I tend to believe that any repub filibuster on a national health care initiative would fail as there are enough centrist repubs that understand the same wave that put Obama in office could take them out of office if they fight national healthcare. They only way they could filibuster and live to see another election is if the dems insert provisions to cover illegals. I tend to believe that most US Citizens don't wish to see illegal’s getting healthcare at the expense of our government...

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

Al your racism aside

Are you going to forfeit your socialist benefits to help the nation pay off it's debts? You expect the union members to do it so I am sure you will do the honorable thing too, right?

By StillaFRightenedTwit December 3, 2008 - 1:08pm

Your Party is in a no-win situation on the issue. It's as simple as that.

They either filibuster a piece of legislation that is popular with the American public who just voted in overwhelming numbers for a candidate who promised universal coverage in his health care reform...
OR...
They refuse to filibuster, allowing the passage of a piece of legislation that is popular with the American public who just voted in overwhelming numbers for a candidate who promised universal coverage in his health care reform, and delivered.

Either way, can you smell that?

It's the stinking stench of an irrelevant minority.
Get used to it...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 1:16pm

And as I said, if the liberal left pushes for a program that gives tax payer funded health care to illegals, there will be a good push from the public at large to filibuster the program. Just like the massive public movement when congress tried to push the McCain-Kennedy CRAP.

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

I have yet to see a single healthcare proposal that gives

free healthcare to illegal aliens. Sounds like more crap being peddled by the likes of Rush and Hannity.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

By UffdaguyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:13pm

I'm not saying that there is a plan to allow illegals to use our system for free. But you'll note that the number used "About 42.6 million Americans do not have health insurance, including 10 million children." Says "Americans" not U.S. Citizens. When they promise health care for all 42.6mill "Americans" who do not have it, they are including a HUGE amount of illegal's who don't have care and should not count as they are ILLEGAL....

www. govspot.com/know/insurance.htm

The vast majority (79%) of the uninsured are citizens. However, a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens. While non-citizens are 7% of the population, they are 21% of the uninsured. Non-citizens are a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured because they are more likely to have characteristics associated with higher uninsured rates.

http: //aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

So, you can remove 21% (or about 9mill) from that number as they are illegal. That leaves ~33.6mill (still a huge number) but smaller....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

The figures I keep hearing on uninsured is usually around

47 million. I have no idea if that includes illegals, but I see absolutely zero possibility that any national healthcare plan brought to a vote would include illegals.

In fact, if I recall correctly, every proposal I have seen specifically says that illegal aliens would not be eligible.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

By UffdaguyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:41pm

In fact, if I recall correctly, every proposal I have seen specifically says that illegal aliens would not be eligible.

-I hope you're right, I really do. Only time will tell. So far, Obama has done just about everything right (except maybe appointing the Clinton(s) as Sec(s) of State - but that may be to keep her out of his political hair {not Senate Majority Leader} as she now works for him).

Oh and by the way, I appreciate that you use the approriate term "illegal aliens" instead of the PC/progressive term of "undocumented workers".....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

I've always felt the "undocumented worker" euphemism

was about as valid as the Pentagon's term for aircraft crashes---"unintended ground-aircraft interfaces"!

They entered the country illegally, so what's wrong with telling it like it is. That being said, I'd have to say that Mexicans flooding across the border is way down on our list of priorities at this time. In fact, they seem to be heading back to Mexico as the economy goes down the toilet. Lou Dobbs better come up with a new rant to build his show around. It's kind of hard to get worked up about illegal aliens when your house is being foreclosed, you're losing your job, your car is being repossessed, and Hank Paulson is handing out hundreds of billions to his buddies and then refusing to say who the money went to.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

Anyone who needs care in this country

will get care and your racism will not stop them. You people have no power, remember?

By hufflarry2000December 3, 2008 - 2:43pm

I keep forgetting Huffy, that slum-lords like you WANT illegals here so you can stash a family or 20-30 in a 2/2 and get some rent. Hell, if illegals get FREE health care, you can buy more apartments to stash the hordes that will come. RACIST...

AA needs to ban the racist who believes that if you are a minority and live in the inner city, you are a drug abuser......

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

Werent you banned from this forum

for posting anti american lies and vicious racist attacks? Why yes you were.

By hufflarry2000December 3, 2008 - 2:55pm

Maybe, but guess what.....

Iiiiiiii'mmmmmmmmmm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack........

Hugs....

Love ya.....Mean it....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

".....are a drug abuser". No, its ....are a drug

dealer. Lets try to pay attention.

Illegals are the larger than legals group that is making you punch 1 for english in everything you will ever do again.

Take the fight to Madison AVE. The art of trickery is all around us.

Can't you see it?
Only a Facist Corporation would give hospitality to an illegal alien so as to make them feel comfortable enough to get their friends to jump the fence too.

Wait till the big green road signs start to turn multi-language. I cannot ever remember in our countries history ever catering to one nationality over our own. We should never have stopped the war with Mexico until we took over all the way to Panama.

55 States would have at least not been a lie, and English would rule the day.

BAS

By StillaFRightenedTwit December 3, 2008 - 2:03pm

I think you're going to find that the battle which The Left chooses to fight regarding a health care package is going to have little to do with "illegals" and much more to do with the mandates being proposed. A battle in that regard has already been brewing, and the legislation hasn't even been proposed yet... simply rumored.

And I don't think the public is gonna be too up in arms over The Right's claims of "illegals taking our benefits!" after they see that the reform will lead to universal coverage. Something tells me that more people will care about themselves finally being covered than they do about possible coverage for "those darn dirty brown people!".

Time will tell, but it doesn't look good for your Party.

Related:

Health-Care Reform Could Kill the GOP
Bill Kristol was right to panic.
[...]
Still, conservatives have always dreaded the day that Democrats discover (or rediscover) that there is a happy political synergy between delivering liberal economic reforms and building the liberal movement. The classic statement of this fear is a famous memo that Bill Kristol wrote in 1993, when he had just started out as a political strategist and the Clinton administration was preparing to propose some version of national health care.

"The plan should not be amended; it should be erased," Mr. Kristol advised the GOP. And not merely because Mr. Clinton's scheme was (in Mr. Kristol's view) bad policy, but because "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."

Historian Rick Perlstein suggests that this memo is "the skeleton key to understanding modern American politics" because it opens up a fundamental conservative anxiety: "If the Democrats succeed in redistributing economic power, we're screwed."
[...]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826686559774533.html

Bend on over...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:19pm

SJ, run some numbers.... Out of the 42 mill "Americans" who don't have coverage, ONLY 33.6 mil are U.S. Citizens. AND, (after removing children) only about 27.5 mill are eligible to vote... Now, let's ASSUME that EACH and EVERY one of them voted for Obama, that leaves OVER 100 MILLION US Citizens (who voted in the 2008 election) who ARE INSURED and probably do not want to see tax dollars going to support healthcare for ILLEGALS.....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

Alot of people dont want to see

a racist, lying anti american like you exploiting the system either. Should we cut you off the govt dole too? Are you going to give up your pension and pay back the money it took to educate your worthless ass? The country is broke and every little bit helps.

By StillFightn December 3, 2008 - 2:41pm

Okay, okay. I get it. You hate brown people from the country to the south of us.

Thing is, your Party's "illegals!" wedge issue has lost steam. And, in a political environment where people want things done as opposed to things being fought over and never getting done, that wedge issue is just about used up.

Worthless.

But, by all means, continue to push it.

With a voting populace whose demographics continue to shift toward increasing numbers of minorities and hispanics, I can't imagine your Party's continued hatred and anger directed at them is going to work any wonders as it relates to electoral politics.

In fact, it'll likely only serve to make your Party increasingly irrelevant.

Have at it. Please...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:52pm

I just love how you project your innate racism to others. When have I EVER said that I have any hatred of illegals, Hispanics or any other racial group? Show me once... Just once... Can't do it...

I have no issues with any group of people who want to come to the American "melting pot" work hard and blend in. I do have issue with those who come here illegally or those who come here and want us to adapt to them rather than they adapting to the ways of the host country...

C'mon... Just one time where I insulted any RACIAL group..... JUST ONCE... Can't do it, because I don't do it.... In fact, you can't even find a place where I've insulted gays (unless me insinuating Huffy is gay is an insult to gays. In which case I sincerely apologize to the gay population).

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

I'll do it I;m ok with my opinion

I don't like immigration. Its over filling the pot. I have yet to read any positive article stating that immigration is good or needed or wholly welcomed.

In fact most immigration here is in fact migration of young men working and sending the vast majority of their monies back to MEXICO. Money coming from the US to Mexico is in fact Mexico's second largest Gross Domestic Product. After oil. Of which they are pumping 9% less per year since 2003 and will run out by 2020.

At that point the rest of Mexico will invade the US. And all those choices of English or Spanish will have real meaning.

Problem with all these migrants is simple. They don't buy American. The vast 95% are men,(nothing balanced about that), usually young undereducated men bringing their nasty culture with them and looking down on all Americans white and black, (whatch u looking at mhan?), landlords love em for renting and hate them for breaking all the windows and stoves, neigbors hate them for living 9,12,15 to a house taking up all the parking, yelling, screaming, and that disgusting vanity for all to listen to their versions of rap and hip-hop.

Go home......we are America, and we're all FULL!!!

Bastiat Make a Mexican CHOOSE HIS LANGUAGE NOT AN AMERICAN

Why should any tax money go toward Healthcare

ELIMINATE THE MIDDLE MAN, Man.

NO MORE INSURANCE!!

ITs that fucking simple. Save the nation and get with the program.

\
Bas

At the .."expense of our Government".

Are you for real? Man?

Keep thinking of the Government as some sort of seperate entity from yourself and it always will be.

Talk about being the target audience for the Rethuglicans. Your it.

Bas

By UffdaguyDecember 3, 2008 - 11:43am

"I know, we'll hear the inevitable cry from repubs that the government will mess things up if they take over."

Actually, I think if you sell it as a "this will be less of a burden on taxes" type of thing it might go over. I don't know too many conservatives that are thrilled with giving Detroit billions. Of course there's still the issue of paying for re-tooling, re-training and all the other things that would be involved in getting production up and running.

Say, Uff, Jersey, it would appear that Franken actually lost a little ground in the recount eh?

It's hard to say if Franken lost ground or not. I've seen so

many different counts, it's impossible to say. No matter who comes out on top, there will be a legal challenge, so I'm not giving it much attention right now. If Coleman wins, it will be a chance for him to prove he's willing to work across the aisle with dems, as he kept claiming during the campaign. My bet is that being such a Bush bootlicker, he'll stick with being an obstructionist, working to break the record for filibusters that the repubs broke during the last session. Nuclear option, anyone?

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

By Kill-Whitey December 3, 2008 - 11:53am

Say, Uff, Jersey, it would appear that Franken actually lost a little ground in the recount eh?
---------------------
I suppose that would largely depend upon whose vote totals one is using and what one views as losing ground. For instance, if one is to use the totals posted on the SoS website, they would see this:

Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Norm Coleman 1122217
Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Al Franken 1124840

...which would show Franken gaining ground and taking the lead by 2,000 votes.

However, even the Franken campaign isn't using those figures. They're using their own.
And their totals would seem to indicate that Franken is trailing now by only 13 votes.
Once again, gaining ground.

I'm where Uff's at. Regardless of the final tally, it's going to head into the courts.

I'll wait for the final outcome.
Meantime, I'll continue to point out and rub in the fact that Al is winning at present...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 12:44pm

http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/mse...

I guess I'm not seeing anything that's showing Franken winning anything. These totals from the StarTribune are showing Coleman ahead. Now, these totals do not include any of the challenged ballots. But let's be honest, most of those challenges are crap anyway and most of those ballots will still go to the candidate they would have originally been given to. So let's say each candidate gets all the challenged ballots back and ........ Coleman's still winning, just not by as much.

By Kill-Whitey December 3, 2008 - 1:02pm

I guess I'm not seeing anything that's showing Franken winning anything.
--------------------------------
I guess that's because you didn't bother to visit the SoS (you know, the folks actually conducting the recount) website showing as much.

But it's neither here nor there. I'm not gonna go back-and-forth with you over totals (which will be settled in court anyway).

I've already gotten a kick out of watching your Party have its ass handed to it overall.
A Franken win would simply be icing on top of the Majority cake.

Yummy.
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By Kill-Whitey December 3, 2008 - 1:02pm

What are the chances you're catching the briefing that Franken's lawyer is holding with reporters?
If so, is your head still intact?

Franken Camp's Claim: We're Now Ahead!

In a briefing going on right now with reporters, Al Franken's lead recount lawyer Marc Elias made a stunning announcement: According to the campaign's methodology of tracking the recount results, they believe Al Franken now leads Norm Coleman by a margin of 22 votes.

This would be the first time that Franken has claimed a lead in this drawn-out process, and was clearly made possible by the discovery yesterday of ballots in the suburban St. Paul town of Maplewood, which gave him a net gain of 37 votes.
[...]
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/franken_camps_cl...

Related:

http://www.examiner.com/x-558-Congress-Examiner

This thing seems to get more messy by the minute.
Which is why it's best to just let it all play out.

That said: Franken claiming the lead is sure to have some effect on media narrative.
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:08pm

I will agree that with the votes being what they are, it ain't over til some chunky chick in weird roman armor sings or something. But I gotta say that even with the 37 votes everything I'm looking at shows that Coleman is still up by about 266 votes. I have indeed seen the state web site, but that isn't counting info from counties that haven't reported. And including the preliminary count from those counties is how one arrives at the 266 number. That number may shift a bit, but isn't going to change to the tune of hundreds of votes. Franken's only hope now is that he can convince the courts that somehow those absentee ballots that were tossed can be counted. The law is pretty clear on what constitutes a valid ballot though.

By Kill-Whitey December 3, 2008 - 2:25pm

I'm just glad that I was wrong about a confluence of events combining to possibly toss Coleman out on his ass and that Franken didn't stand a chance against Coleman, like you said.
teeeheee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb7nwoQVkQE
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher

By SJerseyIndyDecember 3, 2008 - 2:41pm

That's fine, that's fine. I can handle a little salt in the wound.

Great video.

You where saying?

Minnesota Recount: Duplicate ballots hit Franken
posted at 9:16 am on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Al Franken has filed a protest in a Minneapolis precinct that discovered it had counted some ballots twice on Election Night. The correction in the count cost Franken 46 votes, more than offsetting the ballots discovered in Maplewood the previous day. With 98% of the recount completed, Coleman still leads, and by a slightly larger amount:

Elections officials in Minnesota’s largest city today discovered that one precinct came up 133 ballots short of election day totals, resulting in a net loss for Democratic challenger Al Franken of 44 votes. …

Minneapolis elections director Cindy Reichert said she believes the error occurred when election judges at the precinct on election night mistakenly ran ballots with write-in candidates through a counting machine twice. There were 129 such ballots.

Reichert said although the numbers do not match exactly, she is confident that that’s what happened and will report those numbers to the Secretary of State’s Office. She also detailed a search for any potential missing envelopes that contain ballots, including opening the counting machine, talking to election judges and calling the church where the polling place was located.

According to the Strib, Reichert later decided to hold off on reporting the results:

Late Wednesday, Reichert said she had decided to keep the results in the precinct open until all of the discrepancies could be resolved, by reviewing all of the precinct’s election materials at City Hall today.

“Several mistakes were made in the precinct and we need to verify all of the numbers we looked at [Wednesday],” she said.

The protest probably won’ty fly. The precinct recounted the ballots and discovered a discrepancy in the count, not ballots that never appeared to exist until weeks after the election. Recounts exist to correct those kinds of errors.

The Franken campaign formally announced their intention to withdraw over 600 ballot challenges yesterday, making good on their “more than dozens” pledge earlier in the week. Marc Elias, Team Franken’s attorney, says that the withdrawals won’t affect the outcome of the election. If that’s true, why did they issue those challenges in the first place? How many other useless challenges from Team Franken remain in the 2000+ challenges still extant?

By momofukuDecember 4, 2008 - 9:58am

What a dolt. You don't even recognize the irony of swallowing the bullshit from a website called "hot air", do you?

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

time to realize that the

time to realize that the union wages and benefits are simply out of whack with the rest of the country and world. i suggest having the union, workers and the pension fund purchase the company from the existing shareholders and see how well they can do. i think they will quickly come to the conclusion that the current cost structure simply does not work. hourly costs for the big three compared to other automobile manufacturing operations in the US are almost double. my understanding is that a typical cost of a big 3 produced car has a higher proportion of employee medical costs then material costs for steel....amazing. it is time to get real with this problem and it is time for the unions to get competitive. Giving the big 3 bail out money is a band aid....they will be back 6 months from now, just like AIG, wanting more and then we will have the same situation we have in iraq...good money chasing after bad. i can understand blaming high paid executives for this mess, but the reality is that this was a group effort between lousy management and greedy unions. and in the end the american taxpayers need to pay for these mistakes? enough already...let the big 3 sink or swim.

The reality is that

you are a moron. Unions have nothing to do with Detroits problems. How is $25 an hour out of whack with other wages? Do you want everyone to work for Walmart wages and be on food stamps? Have you ever worked on an assembly line? Are you jealous that you could never get a decent job?

The average total

The average total compensation is $73/hour for a GM assembly line worker. Toyota's is $48.

That one's been shot down so many times, it looks like a piece

of swiss cheese.

So what is your solution? Cut the wages of salaried workers by 1/3, while leaving execs at compensation of millions per year while they continue the same shortsighted business strategies that have driven them into the ground? If Toyota has such low worker costs, why does your average Toyota cost more than your average GM vehicle?

I have to say Moore is right. Have the government buy the automakers, and put them in charge of building better cars. They can't POSSIBLY do any worse than Waggoner and the gang.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

So what is your solution?

Any CEO who takes a slalry that is more than 100x the salary of the least paid employee in the company shall be taxed at a rate of 96% on every dollar above 100x the salary of the least-paid worker. This to include contractors to the corporation so that the CEOs cannot offshore.

no, the average wage is $25 or lower

and you will still never get a good paying union job. It is fry cook for you.

That figure is bogus

It is arrived at by including the money GM was supposed to put away for the pensions over the last 40 years. In effect you are including costs that were already billed to your 1974 Vega, your 1981 Citation, your 1992 Tempo and your 1997 Intrepid.

By gt6December 3, 2008 - 3:29pm

Just asking here, but do you have something to back that statement up?

Example... The money for the workers who built the 74 Vega WAS put away in 74 but the money for the guy working on the 09 Malibu needs to be put away in 09 and that may be where the huge dollar figure comes from...?

Just askin'.....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

Here you go

The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811220004

By gt6December 3, 2008 - 4:24pm

Very nice. A good read and informative, the first time I've seen anybody use facts to argue the $70/hr statement....

The best part of an Obama Presidency is that Hillary will NEVER be President..

That's sort of correct. I

That's sort of correct. I was wrong when I said "total compensation". The correct term is cost/hour. The big 3 are saddled with huge pension benefits. What you are incorrect on is that those costs weren't already billed to your '74 vega they are part of the cost of a new car.

Why do you get so upset when

people get paid well for hard WORK but you have no problem giving billionaires who sit by the pool taxcuts? It is that damn lazy welfare mentality that all you right wingers have. You think that the govt should do everything for you. Dems have to work and should get a good wage.

The retirees paid into the pension programs. Why does a foreign car cost more than an American car?

None of that matters, if a

None of that matters, if a company is paying out more than it's bringing in, they can't stay in business.

And if a company makes horrible business decisions

they cant bring in money to pay out. It is no fault of the union.

That's true but the union

That's true but the union contracts have to be in line with the amount of money coming in for the business to be viable.

So I guess the workers

should be paying the company to work there because the companies have ZERO money. The union contracts are very fair and assure that a family can have a decent living. I thought you fake christian right wingers were "family values" advocates.

GM lost something like 39

GM lost something like 39 billion last year so the union contracts sound pretty fair to me.

Your "assure that a family can have a decent living" comment is interesting. Does that mean that a single person doing the same job as someone with 6 kids should make less? Is there no connection between the value you add to a company and the amount you make?

The amount of money you make at a job should be the fair market value of what it's worth.

You act as if GM had a gun held to its head and was forced

to pay the unions an exorbitant amount they knew they couldn't pay. Nothing could be further from the truth. They could have told the UAW, "We don't have the money to pay you what you are asking for. Here's our books, take a look for yourselves. If you don't like it, go to hell and strike". If GM honestly believed they couldn't survive under the terms they agreed to, they were either:

1. Poor businessmen, unable to understand their own balance sheets

2. Dishonest businessmen, who agreed to a contract they knew they were going to have to violate at some point, or

3. Weak businessmen, who were more afraid of their employees than they were of the financial consequences of the contract.

So, which is it? Notice that I didn't put "innocent victim" for any of the choices. We both know that is an invalid choice.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

Showing the books to a union

Showing the books to a union is a joke. Every union member I've ever talked to thinks the company they work is screwing them over somehow.

It's good to hear someone on the left finally agree that GM is paying the unions an exorbitant amount.

Why do you have no problem

giving your tax money to billionaires and paying higher taxes to give the wealthy a tax cut but you have a problem with people who work hard making a decent living? Why are you supporting policies that screw yoursel