General Motors Bailout: Republican Party, R.I.P.; President Bush, R.I.P.

Does anyone but me notice the eerie similarity between the General Motors bailout "debate" in Congress and that farce of a debate over the original Wall Street bailout proposed by Hentry Paulson and Republican saboteur President Bush? Remember how Repbublicans in Congress tinkered with the bill, in a "debate" that meant nothing, while accepting the idea that the government "had" to purchase distressed assets? Remember how Obama and Democrats insisted that there would be no "blank check"? Remember how it ended up being a total blank check, and how no "distressed assets" were ever purchased--making the total "debate" a farce and exposing Paulson for the clueless, destructive, panic inducing fool that he is? What did the whole Congressional debate "mean", other than an exercise in CYA face saving? Nothing.

We are having the same debate on General Motors and the auto industry. Rush Limbaugh is again jumping on my bandwagon--noting that the Republican Party is giving no reason for anyone to vote Republican--much less the Republican rank-and-file. Well behind me, as usual, Rush seems to be totally abandoning the Repubican Party. And why should he and I not abandon the Republican Partty? The party is dead. It no longer has any principles. It is a dead party walking, as I have said before.

You doubt me? You really are a fool, aren't you? Republicans in Congress are accepting the idea that the government has to "do something" about the auto industry. They accept the idea of government control over the auto industry--they just argue over what ways that control should be exercised. Thus, this time it is Republicans in the Senate who are holding up the bill (since a more unified Democratic Party was able to push their bill through the House, without really coherent Republican opposition). Are Republicans arguing, mainly, against the concept of a bailout? Not so you would notice, except for a few. Republicna Senators, rather, appear to have noticed that rolling over on the Wall Street bailout, where they passed a bill even providing money for ACORN, merely doomed them all in the recent elections. That is because people like me have reached the point that we don't care if every Republican Senator gets defeated. At least the Democrats will then--as they will now have to--have to take responsibility for what happens. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been able to use President Bush as a front stooge (I use that word advisedly) one last time.

So Republicans in the Senate are opposing the Democratic attempt to impose further "green" requirements on the auto industry (as "global warming" is becoming more and more obviously a lie, with snow in Houston and temperatures not warming, worldwide, since 1998). Indeed, government environmental regulations have played a role in destroying the American auto industry, and Democrats are becoming invested in raising the price of gasoline back above $4 a gallon. That is because otherwise all of this extreme environmental nonsense is totally uneconomic. Even at $4 gasoline, "green" vehicles were too expensive. Even now, the Chevrolet Volt appears to be heading for total failure, with a sticker price above $40,0000 (if it workds at all, which it now does not because of ongoing battery problmes).

But Republicans in the Senate are not standing firm on principle (the principle of no bailout and free markets). Rather Republicans in the Senate are just playing power politics. Democrats are supporting the unions--especially the UAW. Republicans in the Senate are trying to force the unions to suffer pain. Is this "principle"? Not that I can see. It is just transparent pandering to specific constituencies, as Republicans want to force the automakers to act the way Republicans want them to act, instead of the way Democrats want them to act. The only real "debate", as with the Wall Street bailout, is what particular government directions will be given. Republican Party, R.I.P.. The party is dead.

Yes. President Bush is hopeless. He really has no Republican support anymore--much less support from others. This blog disowned him in the immigration bill debate, and said that he will go down in history as the person who destroyed--almost single handedly, although John McCain helped) the Republican Party. This is another case of this blog having been proven right. Since then, President Bush has proposed--through Paulson--socialism as they panicked the country into worse economic shape than it needed to be. Then it turned out they had no clue, as the "plan" to "save" the country turned out to be immediately inoperative. They substituted an even more socialistic bailout--undermining any argument about a limited Federal Government. Now President Bush has signed off on the auto bailout. The man can't go fast enough. He has destroyed the Republican Party and undermined conservatism. I have reached the point of regretting not voting for that stiff, John Kerry.

Is this "limited", proposed automaker bailout a "blank check"? Of course it is (barring the possible total collapse, that is entirely possible, making it obvious that these companies cannot possibly be saved). It does not matter that the money given is only intended to last until March (just as the 700 billion Paulson figure meant nothing, as has been proven). What happens in March? Are Congress and Obama going to sink the automakers then? Don't be silly This is a blank check, up until the final collapse, and everyone knows it. All of the talk otherwise is face saving farce, as was the talk in the original Wall Street bailout "debate" about government "oversight" of a program never even implemented.

Nope. I was right in 2006. I was right to oppose John McCain. I am right now. Republican Party, R.I.P. President Bush, R.I.P. His tombstone will read: "He was the most effective Democrat of them all.". Clinton's, by the way, should probably read: "He was the most effective consservative of them all."

I will never be a Republican again, unless there is a total coup within the party. Conservatives are indeed in the wilderness, without a party.