Ms. Kennedy says she wants Hillary Clinton’s seat.

Read the latest here.

Steve Clemons encapsulates my thoughts pitch-perfectly:

“It seems hypocritical to on the one hand challenge Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s qualifications and readiness to have potentially assumed the presidency if something had happened to John McCain and if, of course, their ticket had won on November 4th and then on the other, say nothing about Caroline Kennedy’s dearth of real policy and political experience to assume one of the most powerful offices in the country — even if a Senator is usually not as consequential as a President.

I feel that it’s important that vacant Senate seats be taken seriously by both the Democratic and Republican parties — and selecting celebrity family members from political dynasties feels undemocratic.

Caroline Kennedy — when she shows she has thick-skin. can take tough-minded criticism for the mistakes she no doubt will make, and when she articulates coherent policy views on serious challenges facing the country — may make in fact make a great Senator from New York. I hope that she does and that she grows into the role.”

Hear, hear.

Republicans who can’t figure out why Palin was so unpalatable: while the analogy isn’t perfect, this story (Caroline’s) gets close to defining my opposition to her (Palin) as a candidate.

What in the heck is so wrong about throwing both this New York seat & Illinois’ seat up to voters?

Let the chips fall where they may, & let the next Senators in each seat (regardless of party) earn their place, rather than think it should be handed to them on a silver platter.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Happy Birthday, loser!

Boy, what a creep this guy is, huh?

As it is another one of those days for me (doing 5 & 5:30), the posts will be on the light side today (sorry).

Read the movie-script-ish press release from the Justice Department on the Blagojevich arrest here.

A ‘greatest-hits’ summary (if you don’t have time to read the above link) can be found here, at Politico.

Read how a phone call from Obama several weeks ago may have been the domino that started it all here.

Get a roundup on what some in the blogosphere are saying here. Be sure to check out Ambinder’s day-after thoughts, too.

Get a humorous/snarky (& warning: very salty-language-filled) take on the indictment from Wonkette, here.

Just how corrupt is Chicago politics? Pretty darn corrupt, as you can read here.

& as always, feel free to register your thoughts about this scandal in the comments section!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Click here to view the embedded video.

Caroline Kennedy reportedly wants to fill Hillary Clinton’s shoes in the New York Senate seat.

There are two schools of thought on this.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, despite some misgivings, gushes:

“What really draws me to the notion of Caroline as senator, though, is the modern-fairy-tale quality of it all. Like many women my age — I’m a few months younger than she — Caroline has always been part of my consciousness: The lucky little girl with a pony and an impossibly handsome father. The stoic little girl holding her mother’s hand at her father’s funeral. The sheltered girl, whisked away from a still-grieving country by a mother trying to shield her from prying eyes.

In this fairy tale, Caroline is our tragic national princess. She is not locked away in a tower but chooses, for the most part, to closet herself there. Her mother dies, too young. Her impossibly handsome brother crashes his plane, killing himself, his wife and his sister-in-law. She is the last survivor of her immediate family; she reveals herself only in the measured doses of a person who has always been, will always be, in the public eye.

Then, deciding that Obama is the first candidate with the inspirational appeal of her father, she chooses to abandon her previous, above-it-all detachment from the hurly-burly of politics.

I know it’s an emotional — dare I say “girly”? — reaction. But what a fitting coda to this modern fairy tale to have the little princess grow up to be a senator.”

My goodness.

Now, after brushing your teeth, read Jane Hamsher’s bucket of cold water on the idea:

“The woman has never run for office in her life. We have no idea how she’d fare on the campaign trail, or how well she could stand up to the electoral process. She simply picks up the phone and lets it be known that she just might be up for having one of the highest offices in the land handed to her because — well, because why? Because her uncle once held the seat? Because she’s a Kennedy? Because she took part as a child in the public’s romantic dreams of Camelot? I’m not quite sure.”

I’m with Hamsher.

She would certainly need to improve her public speaking skills.

But in my estimation Caroline Kennedy is about as qualified to be New York’s junior senator as Sarah Palin is to be Vice-President.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Great that the senator (& others) are holding their feet to the fire, but where the heck was this kind of scrutiny/outrage/demand for accountability with the heads of all the financial institutions that were bailed out with 20 times the money? Just asking.

FURTHER READING ON THE AUTO BAILOUT:

Jim Manzi looks closely at GM’s plan:

“The point of this document was supposed to be the presentation of the plan to achieve these operational improvements. But there’s no there there. I guess somebody who’s never read a real business plan might mistake this document for one, but it’s a joke.”

Joseph Romm looks at Ford’s plans, & likes what he sees:

“Ford Motor company goes into bailout negotiations with a much healthier balance sheet. And based on their restructuring plans, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford ends up more successful in the long term.”

But he goes on to say that GM’s idea to implement corn/ethanol technology is a laughably horrible one.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Minnesota’s still (still!) up in the air, but with Tuesday’s Chambliss win, the makeup of the U.S. Senate for 2009 is closer to taking shape.

Nate Silver gives a rough ranking of which Senators find themselves mattering the most:

Swing Republicans

59. Snowe (ME). Obama won Maine by 18 points, making it the bluest state to be home to a Republican senator — and in fact, it has two of them. Per Voteview, Olympia Snowe is incrementally more liberal than Susan Collins; she’s also up for re-election two years sooner. It will be very interesting to see how the two of them will legislate under an Obama administration.
60. Collins (ME). See above.
61. Specter (PA). Under re-election pressure in a state that Obama carried by double digits. Mitigating factor: possible that he’ll be under pressure from the right too in the form of a primary challenge.
62. Lugar (IN). On good terms with Obama, who (barely) won his state. Voteview has him becoming slightly more liberal over the past several Congresses.
63. Voinovich (OH). Under serious re-election pressure. Has often been moderate — or even slightly left of center — on pocketbook issues, and increasingly so on other ones.

…

Note: he doesn’t list Corker at all.

Swing Democrats

58. Landrieu (LA). Always a problem for Democrats on key votes. LA is trending red. Endorsed Clinton.
57. Pryor (AR). Is slightly more popular than Landrieu and also slightly more liberal, but the same basic story applies. Arkansas is one of the few states moving in the wrong direction for Democrats, and Pryor never really showed any signs of warmth toward Obama.
56. Nelson (NE). By most statistical methodologies, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber. However, he endorsed Obama early. I think Obama will have fewer near-term problems with the Midwestern blue dogs than the Southern ones.
55. Lincoln (AR). More liberal by some margin than Mark Pryor, but she’s up for re-election in 2010, and Obama may have reverse coattails in Arkansas. If Mike Huckabee enters the race against her, look out.

There are more on the list, both for Repubilcans & Democrats. Worth checking if you’re interested in filling out a scorecard.

All will be interesting to watch!

What do you thinK?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Marc Ambinder:

“Habitual voters tend to vote in special elections; in Georgia, there are more Republican habitual voters than Democratic habitual voters; the minds of Republican habitual voters were no doubt focused on Chambliss’s sudden cameo as the bullwark against an overweening Democratic majority. But these habitual voters are an ideologically charged subset of the electorate. On November 4, 3.7 million Georgians voted. Yesterday, about 2.1 million Georgians did.

Barack Obama pulled out all the stops for Martin? Not really. His campaign lent some expertise and people, but Obama did not campaign in the state; radio ads in urban markets doesn’t cover all of the “stops.” If Obama’s coattails still fluttered in December, they were gossamer-thin. In November, they were thick and meaty, backed by strands of expensive television advertising, significant early vote efforts in the black community, and hundreds, if not thousands, more volunteers. The Obama political team chose to stay out of Georgia for the most part, and they did so for several reasons, not the least of which was their desire to send a message that mere politics isn’t what’s important right now. Also, candidly, some Obama advisers didn’t think Martin had a chance to win, and they didn’t want to expose Obama to a losing campaign.
Nonetheless, it is conceivable that the fact of the exisrence of a President-elect Obama helped his opponents, who had something to run against. Jim Martin had change; but the general election already took care of that.”

Scott at Powerline:

“The decisive victory won by Saxby Chambliss over Jim Martin yesterday in the Georgia Senate runoff is reassuring in several respects. A contrary result would have carried a disproportionately large negative impact. It would have added further weight to the notion that some fundamental shift occurred on November 4. It would have added to the demoralization felt by Republicans licking their wounds following the results on November 4. It would have brought Democrats to within shouting distance of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

…

Given the closeness of the Georgia Senate vote on November 4, the magnitude of Chambliss’s margin over Martin is suprising. So far as I know, no one predicted it. In the event, the Republican base proved more motivated than the Democratic base. That has to be encouraging for Republicans.”

Fair point, but I have to wonder if Saxby ‘gets’ why his party finds itself in the ditch right now; I have seen multiple instances both during his 1st Senate term and during his recent campaign that he still believes that George W. Bush & Dick Cheney were actually beneficial to his party. The man, to me, seems nothing but unrepentant, divisive, & clueless.

I’ll be watching.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Right at Home’s John Scott reads the tea leaves in a response he got from a letter he sent the senator opposing the Big 3 bailout (his emphasis added):

“Once I have received this report, heard new testimony, and have had a further chance to evaluate the viability of these corporations, I will make a final decision on this issue based on the new information. But unless there are significant changes, I am highly skeptical of making any loan to these troubled corporations.”

Scott wonders if he’s reading too much into it; I happen to think he’s successfully spotted some ‘outs’ in the language the junior senator from Tennessee chose to use.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Read the runoff results here - it was a(n expected) blowout: 57% to 42%.

I’ll have NewsChannel 9 viewing area county results & my thoughts on who really stands to gain with this victory after the jump.

LOCAL COUNTY RESULTS (rough estimates, my math):

Catoosa: Chambliss 74%, Martin 26%

Dade: Chambliss 70%, Martin 30%

Fannin: Chambliss 74%, Martin 26%

Murray: Chambliss 71%, Martin 29%

Walker: Chambliss 72%, Martin 28%

So who stands to gain with this win?

Senator Bob Corker, (R) Tennessee.

Corker will be wooed/marked/pegged by Senate Democrats as a “moderate” who can cross over to their side. Chambliss will (probably) always vote in the opposition. So if you find yourself aligning with Bob Corker’s vision of the world, you have reason to be happy today, at least in my view.

FURTHER READING: Nate Silver outlines what this means for the GOP.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Click here to view the embedded video.

Today’s runoff day.

Polls in Georgia are open until 7.

What’s at stake?

Some good analysis from Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald

“Some political observers think Tuesday’s Senate runoff in Georgia is a big deal, because a victory by underdog Jim Martin over incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss would keep alive the Democratic Party’s dreams of a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority to move its agenda successfully through the Senate. Other experts see the race as a big deal for the opposite reason; Democrats with a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority as well as control of the House and White House could overreach, leading to a conservative backlash in 2010.

But really, there’s no such thing as a “filibuster-proof 60-seat majority,” even if Martin pulls off an upset and Al Franken wins his recount against Republican Norm Coleman in Minnesota and Joe Lieberman still counts as a Democrat. Senators don’t always vote in partisan lockstep; President Obama could succeed in recruiting Republicans on some issues with a 58-seat Democratic majority, and he could find himself stymied by defections on some issues with a 62-seat Democratic majority. In the Senate, even one determined naysayer is capable of grinding the institution to a halt.

And that’s why the Martin-Chambliss race actually is a big deal: Chambliss is a textbook Bush-Cheney Republican — and every vote counts. Sixty seats would be better for the Democrats than 59, which would be better for the Democrats than 58. Six years is also a long time. In fact, Georgia is still an extremely conservative state, so if Chambliss can win at a time when the Republican Party is at its lowest ebb, he can probably hold his seat as long as he wants — which would be good news for Bush-style Republicans and bad news for Obama-style Democrats, no matter who is in power.

…

…national fatigue with Bush will not necessarily translate into Georgia fatigue with Chambliss, who is in many ways a near-parody of a Bush-Cheney Republican. He has supported the administration on just about everything but its efforts to rein in outrageous farm subsidies. He is so tight with the sugar industry that he attacked a whistleblower who reported safety problems after an explosion at a Georgia mill killed 14 people. He has been an ardent supporter of sending American troops into harm’s way even though he avoided serving in Vietnam through student deferments, as well as an allegedly bum knee that hasn’t hampered his reputation as one of the best golfers in Congress. On a recent appearance on Fox News, he warned that if he isn’t re-elected, “you’re going to see an economic stimulus like you won’t believe.” As if that would be a bad thing!

Like many Republicans in Washington, Chambliss has trumpeted the idea that the GOP’s electoral difficulties are the result of insufficient conservatism, and can only be reversed by a stronger defense of traditional values and more consistent opposition to government spending. But it’s not as if Republicans in Washington have failed to defend traditional values; they got two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, passed all kinds of laws restricting abortion and stem-cell research, and practically shut down the government to try to save Terri Schiavo. And while it is true that Republicans spent taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors when they controlled all three branches of government — Chambliss was not a notable abstainer — there is little evidence that Americans soured on the GOP because of its profligacy. They don’t seem to be crying out for austerity and deregulation. John McCain is one of the most principled spending hawks in the GOP; how did he and his crusade against earmarks do?

That’s one more reason today’s runoff is a big deal. A Chambliss victory would not send much of a message to the nation; it would just confirm the obvious fact that Georgia is more conservative than the nation. But it could reinforce the dangerous message that recent electoral results have been sending to Republicans. GOP moderates like Connecticut congressman Christopher Shays and GOP pragmatists like North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory keep losing, while most Republican survivors have been conservatives from conservative districts and conservative states. So the party keeps looking more like Chambliss, and moving further in his direction-even more white, even more to the right, even more eager to fight.

It’s a defensible electoral strategy — if you’re trying to win elections in the Deep South. But the rest of the country isn’t likely to embrace Chambliss any more than it has embraced Bush.”

Some good reporting on the final day of campaigning in Georgia can be found here.

Caption accompanying the above picture:

“- No Chambliss T-shirts, buttons, etc. It was ALL Sarah Palin. She was all the others talked about and all the merchandise purchased there or worn there was about.

- No one attacked Barack, they all talked about checks and balances and keeping one party from controlling all branches.
- It was an all-star cast of GOP locals from the sheriff up to the Governor.

- When she finally came out the crowd went wild, and during her speech people (mostly men) screamed “I love you Sarah.”

There were also instances of “Palin-Chambliss 2012” signs to be seen.

So What Do I Think Will Happen?

Chambliss will win. Not only does this chart seem to indicate that in a big way, but as we pointed out yesterday, the odds are not in Jim Martin’s favor, get-out-the-vote-wise.

& that’s a shame. Chambliss has long been an enabler of the Bush-Cheney worldview. He has signed off on that worldview - regardless of its damaging consequences around the world & here at home - far too often, over 90% of the time. (& if you think I say this just to bash any Republican senator, think again)

What do you think will happen? Post your prediction in the comments section!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From Southern Political Report:

“…how many African American voters - who in our latest survey favored Martin by over 90% - will feel compelled to go to the polls on Tuesday?

If the Martin campaign is to have even a fighting chance, that number must push the overall percentage of black voter participation in the election to at least 30 percent of the overall total vote. That’s a tall order—and that alone would not put Martin ahead of Chambliss.

For Martin to win, he must hope that female voters overall continue to support his candidacy more heavily than that of Chambliss. More importantly, he must hope that men have already voted and that on election day the gender split (as far as overall participation) is more like 55 percent female to 45 percent male.

If the runoff’s early voting pattern of near-parity between men and women were to hold true on election day, then Martin is as cooked as that Thanksgiving turkey now resting in your garbage can.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

UPDATE: scroll down for a clip.

You still have time (though it’s running out) to RSVP to see her in metro Atlanta. Click here to find out details on Saxby Chambliss’ website.

Palin’s hometown newspaper is puzzled as to why she’s campaigning for Chambliss.

& Donald Craig Mitchell of the Alaskan Dispatch blog says she doesn’t seem to be ready to settle back down into the Alaska governor’s mansion anytime soon:

“My prediction is that for at least the next two years Sarah is going to keep her show on the road because that will be a lot more fun than being Governor of a backwater state that spends most of its time as far out of the limelight in which Sarah has been basking as North and South Dakota do. During the almost fifty years it has been a state Alaska has had nine governors. Other than Sarah Palin, how many people who do not live in Alaska can name one of them? And why should they be able to? Because who cares who the Governor of Alaska is?

That is the obscurity to which Sarah will return if she goes back to her day job. In addition to being no fun, for presidential candidate wannabe Palin, that also is the rub.”

UPDATE: The 1st reports are coming in, read more after the jump (I’ll post clips of her stump speech here once they’re available).

AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin implored Georgia Republicans to back Sen. Saxby Chambliss in his hotly contested Senate runoff, telling a cheering crowd today that the first step in rebuilding the GOP begins with the Southern state.
The former vice presidential candidate made her first campaign appearance since the Republican ticket of John McCain and Palin lost on Nov. 4. Palin’s four stops for Chambliss underscored not only the stakes for the GOP in the Senate race but Palin’s popularity within the party. She has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012 - a fact not lost on some Georgia voters.
Several thousand supporters waited in the cold to file into the James Brown Arena in Augusta. Vendors sold bright pink “Palin 2012″ T-shirts and “Palin for President: You Go Girl” buttons. She was greeted like a rock star with chants of “Sa-rah!”
Chambliss is locked in a runoff with Democrat Jim Martin after neither crossed the 50 percent threshold in the general election.
The race will help determine the balance of power in Washington where Democrats are just two votes shy of the 60 votes needed to prevent Republican filibusters. Georgia is one of two undecided contests. A recount is under way in Minnesota in the tight race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has more.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Last night the Tennessee junior Senator was at NewsChannel9 doing a satellite interview with Neil Cavuto on the Fox Business Channel. After that interview was done, he remarked at how Cavuto repeatedly interrupted him (darn media), so I promised to let him finish all answers to my questions.

Among other things, Corker talked of:

1. enthusiasm about Obama he’s seen around the world - he says many in the former Soviet satellites are agog at the American transition of power on display, not to mention McCain’s concession speech,

2. his pooh-poohing of the current president’s penchant for improper profligacy & its potential for prevalent penury, &

3. the positive power of prospective pragmatic politics.

I’m sorry if you can’t hear my questions very well; I was not miked up.

What do you think of his comments? Please post your own!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From the NewsChannel9 e-mail inbox:

ATLANTA—U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) today confirmed that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will campaign in Georgia with him on Monday, December 1st.

“I was thrilled when I got the call that Governor Palin would be able to make the trip to Georgia to campaign with me the day before the runoff election,” Saxby said. “Julianne and I are honored that she would take the time to travel to Georgia to tell everyone how important this election is and I know that she will receive an enthusiastic welcome everywhere we go.”

Governor Palin will join Saxby for four public rallies across the state on Monday, December 1st: 8:30 am in Augusta; 11:00 am in Savannah; 1:30 pm in Perry; and 4:00 pm in north metro Atlanta. More specific details on exact locations and how to obtain tickets will be available later this week.

Depend on me to keep you posted about those tickets. Looks like if you live in the NewsChannel9 viewing area, “north metro Atlanta’s” your best shot. Are you going to try to get tickets? If so, I’d love to hear from you!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The latest poll, from Rasmussen, has Chambliss leading 50-46, with 4% undecided.

Obama “robocalls” on behalf of Jim Martin; listen to the audio here.

“Mr. Obama has shied away from inserting himself in the still-to-be resolved Senate contests in Georgia and Minnesota. While he recorded a radio advertisement for the Democratic candidate in Georgia, advisers said he would not visit there, to avoid appearing to be too political as he works to deliver on his campaign pledge to bridge the partisan divide in Washington.” - the New York Times

Over the weekend “Freedom Watch,” a pro-Chambliss independent group, released this ad:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s Martin’s response:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Last week, Chambliss was giving a campaign speech on unemployment, & therefore missed a vote in the Senate on extending unemployment benefits.

Al Gore stumped for Martin over the weekend.

Mitt Romney did the same for Chambliss late last week.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The President-elect hasn’t committed to stumping in the Peach State for Jim Martin yet, but he’s just recorded a radio ad for the Senate hopeful.

Listen to it here.

What do you think? Will Obama visit Georgia? I’d say the odds are even either way.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be campaigning for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) late this week. His visit follows visits by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Peach state for the first-term Republican senator.

Romney will headline a rally for Chambliss at the Intercontinental Hotel in Atlanta Friday morning. The former Republican presidential hopeful later in the afternoon will hold another rally at the Charles H. Morris Center in Savannah.

The article also has this interesting tidbit:

“Martin, who served for nearly two decades in the state House of Representatives, campaigned with former President Bill Clinton on Wednesday in Atlanta. He will also have former Vice President Al Gore stumping for him on Sunday, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when a runoff debate to be moderated by PBS’ Judy Woodruff has been proposed.”

I hope that happens. Depend on me to post that as soon as it’s available.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Click here to view the embedded video.

MINNESOTA SENATE RACE UPDATE:

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

“With about 46 percent of the 2.9 million ballots counted by Thursday evening, the gap between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and DFL challenger Al Franken continued to close. Coleman was leading by only 136 votes, a drop from his unofficial lead of 215 that was confirmed Tuesday by the state Canvassing Board.”

Remember, we’ll likely not know the outcome of this race until after the Georgia runoff.

[That's unfortunate for WTVC NewsChannel9, which would just love the extra ad revenue a "battle for 60"-style contest would bring in.]

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

In case you still have an election fix to feed, or are a Republican already demoralized by the makeup of the current Senate, Sean Oxendine of TheNextRigtht.com takes a look at all of the 2010 Senate races.

What’s his prognosis for the GOP’s chances?

Read on…

“At first glance, the outlook is pretty grim for Republicans. Of the two competitive Senate seats for the Democrats, both probably at least slightly lean their way to start. For the Republicans, probably three of the four Senate seats for Republicans are at best 50-50. With the right combination of recruiting, retirements and national environment, this could easily get really bad, really quickly.”

There are no Senate seats up for grabs in Tennessee & Georgia.

But there is one in North Carolina.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Read more about Clinton’s (predictably late) appearance here.

On the other side of the fence, the NRA is setting its sights on Martin’s defeat.

Don’t forget - you can early-vote in Georgia for the runoff right now.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

UPDATE BEFORE YOU JUMP: After reading this transcript, Jackson, Tennessee blogger ‘Right at Home’ (which we’re adding to our blogroll) says, “I’ve been very critical of Senator Corker as a result of his vote for the $700B bailout package. Over the last couple of days, however, Senator Corker has shown the kind of thoughtful, responsible economic conservativism that we elected him for.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.  U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on Tuesday attended a Senate Banking Committee hearing with testimony from the CEOs of the Big Three U.S. automakers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

The Banking hearing entitled Examining the State of the Domestic Automobile Industry included testimony from U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), UAW (United Automobile Workers union) President Ron Gettelfinger, Ford Motor Company President and CEO Alan Mulally, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli, General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, and business professor Dr. Peter Morici of the University of Maryland.

A transcript of Corkers Q&A follows.

CORKER:

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and certainly the senator from Michigan.

In listening to the opening statements by many and just by reading the tea leaves, my sense is that probably nothing’s going to happen this week. And this is sort of the beginning of a loan application, if you will, or an application for equity injection. This is the beginning, and that in fact probably in January you’ll be back.

I know most of us have read the data on the companies and realized, by the way, that these companies are not homogenous. I mean these are three very different companies that have very different criteria that they are dealing with.

And I hope that today you will begin giving us a glimpse as to what each of the companies individually are doing. I realize that Ford may be in better shape because of some things they’ve done a few years ago. But I hope you’ll begin doing that.

And I would ask the witnesses, since in essence you’re asking the American public for a loan or equity or whatever it might end up being, I would ask you to be realistic with us.

I know that there’s been continual talk about how Chapter 11 just does not work. We realize there are lots of legacy issues that — that handicap these companies, and — and we understand that.

I’d like for each of you during your testimony to walk us through why that doesn’t work and why you wouldn’t be asking for money from the federal government for a prepackaged reorganization.

I actually wonder somewhat facetiously if in your boardrooms you aren’t hoping that we’ll turn down this — this, so that you have that as an option that you might emerge more strongly — and focus on those things that you do well.

So I hope you’ll talk about all those things. I realize that in all likelihood this is the beginning. I think each of you know that I’m fairly skeptical in looking at this, but I do thank you for being here, and I actually hope — I feel for you if — if — in the fact that hopefully you’re carrying the burden of responsibility of all the employees and the many distributors across the country that are involved in marketing your products.

Thank you for being here.

********************************************

CORKER:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this great hearing.

And I appreciate all of you being here. And I understand the tremendous problems this is creating in all of our states. We have one of our most respected business people here tonight, that’s one of your dealers, has 300 employees and we understand about all the — the many workers and much employment.

So I do have some tough questions, but I want you to know I do — I do understand the turmoil that this is creating throughout our country.

We’ve talked a lot about the TARP program. And we’ve talked about the fact that we were willing to, quote, “bail out” the financial institutions.

But one of the things that’s occurring in the TARP program that’s not happening here is that the OCC that regulates these banks or the FDIC, if that’s the case, has to certify to Treasury that these are strong institutions. And they actually make recommendations to Treasury as to which institutions are the strong banks, the good banks, and should succeed.

I find it really interesting that we, quote, “have the big three here,” if you will, because I know that all three of you are in different circumstances.

And my sense is, if the OCC was performing the same ordeal, if you will, on y’all, some of you would not be recommended to get credit. My sense is that Ford has done a better job and is in slightly stronger position, that G.M. has made some changes, but is spiraling downward and in serious trouble.

And my sense is — and I could be wrong. I know it’s a private company and results aren’t available, but that Chrysler is just — barely has a heartbeat.

And so I do wonder why we’re talking to three companies in very different situations about all being treated the same way. It seems to me that that premise to begin with is — is very flawed.

Now, obviously, you all have created a pact. You wouldn’t share with Senator Menendez how much each of you have asked. I know that one of you shared with us that you’ve given those numbers to Levin.

But I would like to know exactly what each of you has asked for. And I think that’s only fair. And I think dancing around that is incorrect.

And then I’d like Mr. Gettelfinger, if he would, since he says he went in and looked at these companies, to tell us which of these three should survive and which shouldn’t.

But I’d like to have the numbers first.

(UNKNOWN)

I’d be happy, again, to say…

CORKER:

I just want the numbers. Just give us the numbers that you gave to Mr. Levin to create the…

(UNKNOWN)

Seven billion dollars.

CORKER:

Seven billion dollars. What’s — what’s the number from G.M.?

NARDELLI:

Seven billion dollars.

CORKER:

And the number from G.M.?

WAGONER:

Senator, sir, I think you have to be fair and look at it.

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

I just want — of the $25 billion that you’ve asked for, how much of it have you guys decided are going to G.M.?

WAGONER:

We felt that, if we get our proportionate market share of that…

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

Well, just give me the number.

WAGONER:

… which would be in the $10 billion to $12 billion that — that we would have a…

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

And how much is Ford getting in this three-way pact?

MULALLY:

(OFF-MIKE) $7 billion to $8 billion.

CORKER:

Seven to eight billion? So it’s $7 billion, $7billion to $8 billion and $10 billion to $12 billion? Those are the numbers?

Mr. Gettelfinger, you’ve been into these three companies. They’re all in three and different positions. Some of them are stronger than others for lots of reasons. Rank them one, two, three.

GETTELFINGER:

Being in the best shape to the worst?

CORKER:

Yes.

GETTELFINGER:

I would rank them Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

CORKER:

OK, I have to say that we’ve gone to 10 million sales a year in our country, and there may not be a need for three automakers. And I just want to say that we’re — we’re going down this road in a really odd way and that, when we went through the financial mechanisms, we actually had the OCC go in and make sure these were going entities.

And I — I just want to say, if we’re going to try to do something this week, we’re bypassing something that to me is an incredibly important thing for us to do as it relates to the taxpayers.

We’ve mentioned section 136. And some people have said that maybe that’s the vehicle we ought to use to fund the automakers, if we do it.

There are two provisions there. One says that you have to be making alternative types of vehicles or alternative energy-type vehicles. The other is you have to show that you’re a going concern and that you’re going to survive.

I assume that, when you applied at 8:43 a.m., and the others of you the same day, that you put in place — there was a plan that was submitted that showed you to be going concerns, is that correct? Because that’s one of the stipulations of — of 136.

WAGONER:

That’s part of the process, yes. I’m not sure that all has to be submitted upfront, but, yes, we’re all aware of it and we’re all doing that analysis.

CORKER:

Now, I would just say to the committee that it seems to me that we would like to at least look at those prior to putting money into these firms.

DODD:

Look at what, Bob? What do you want?

CORKER:

Well, they’re going to have to submit for their 136 application…

DODD:

Yes, right.

CORKER:

… they have to submit something that lays out a business plan that shows that they are a going concern, that they can be successful, that they can pay this money back.

DODD:

A very good point.

CORKER:

And it seems like that, before we would rush to take action this week, we could at least see those, because it’s pretty evident, I think, to all of us in this committee that $25 billion was sort of thrown up on the wall and it stuck.

OK, there’s not been any real thinking behind that number. It’s what might be attained today, OK? I think we all know, if that occurs, they’re going to be back. I don’t think there’s anybody on this committee that believes otherwise.

So it seems to me that we’d be so much better off to actually see these submittals, that you’re going to have to submit to get the 136 money you’re already after. We should judge those, and we should see if you’re actually going concerns.

Now, I was just in Russia last week and noticed that General Motors was opening a plant there, I guess the next day after I was there. And I understand that you make money in Russia. You make money in other places. But you don’t make money here.

And I’d just like to — to ask a very blunt question, if it has something to do with your relationship with Mr. Gettelfinger or the UAW. I mean, what is it that allows you to make money in all these other countries, but not make money here?

WAGONER:

Well, each market, to be fair, has its own circumstances. But in general, we’ve done quite well in most markets outside the U.S. recently.

Part of the reason is a little bit of the issue we discussed earlier, very rapid growth. Frankly, it’s easier to make money when things are growing and when you have to shrink.

And it’s fair to say that, if you look back, you know, over the last 10 or 15 years I mentioned, we’ve had a fairly significant cost to restructure our business in the U.S. And so that’s a fair point.

I think the point we’re trying to make today in our earlier comments, that a lot of that is behind us now.

CORKER:

It’s a pretty big point. But let me just say, you all have been very careful — and I appreciate this — and, Mr. Gettelfinger, I want you to know I’ve been a card-carrying union member and been a trustee, and, you know, I don’t have a, you know, a major issue — I do with card check, of course.

But you — they keep saying that, by 2010, they’re going to be competitive. And I — it makes me think that what we’re doing is loaning these guys possibly money so that, at some point in the future, they’re going to be competitive because of agreements that they have with you.

And I would ask, why not 2009? Why not 2008? Why don’t you go ahead and make the changes you need to make to make them competitive now?

GETTELFINGER:

Well, as one example, Senator, the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, we had to go through a court process after the negotiations. That is a federal court-approved settlement.

Just transferring that over to the union, we have had two trustees meetings to this point in time. But this is major.

Because of the time that it’s going to take for everybody’s eligibility, we have to set up a complete structure, because what we’re doing is we’re creating the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, which has more independent trustees than it does UAW trustees. And we’re going to be responsible for everything. So just the magnitude — we’re on a push now to get this through to 2010.

CORKER:

Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.

NARDELLI:

Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…

CORKER:

I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.

NARDELLI:

Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.

CORKER:

That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.

And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.

CORKER:

Could you elaborate? Or, Mr. Gettelfinger, could you all change that tomorrow before you make another application?

GETTELFINGER:

Senator, first of all, I gave some numbers here earlier on. I have General Motors 9/30/05 had 110,000…

CORKER:

I know what you’ve done. I’m talking about this…

GETTELFINGER:

But they’re not getting paid is the point. We were able to reduce that…

CORKER:

I know what you’re talking about about the bank, but this is a different issue. This is a different issue.

GETTELFINGER:

You’re talking about the sub-pay.

CORKER:

Mr. Nardelli, do you want to explain to him the issue?

NARDELLI:

I think what he may have been alluding to, Ron, is for example, if we have to idle a facility, that we have ongoing labor contractual obligations to pay those employees.

GETTELFINGER:

That’s their unemployment plus…

CORKER:

For — for how long?

NARDELLI:

Ron?

GETTELFINGER:

I’d have to look at the contract.

CORKER:

You got to be kidding me. I’d like to know, and I’d like to know at what expense that is to the companies, but it seems like things like that — let me go back to — to prepackaged bankruptcy.

I have to tell you I don’t understand the stigma that would come with prepackaged bankruptcy, where you knew that you know there was money coming in certain things happen. You lay out a plan, either in 136 or some other way, that laid out how that would happen.

And these changes that are so necessary to cause these companies to be competitive were put in place overnight, not in 2010 or 2011. And again, I got to believe that there is a piece of each of you as CEOs — which I respect, I really do, and I respect the challenges you’re going through — that would almost like to see that happen, but you can’t say it.

I don’t know how that could possibly be detrimental. You have 7,000 dealers across this country. People that sell the same amount of cars have like 1,200 dealers across the country.

It seems to me that that highly problematic and that state laws keep you from doing things that you feel like you really would like to do, but you can’t. It seems like those things are very, very important — and very tangible and things that we ought to be talking about today.

And I’d love a response.

WAGONER:

Well, if I could start, Senator, I’m not an expert in — in bankruptcy, but I have seen research by an independent party as recently this summer, which said that 80 percent of consumers — and it was broken out by brand, so maybe it was 60 for Honda and I think it was 90-plus for one of the brands here at it was about 80 percent for us — would not consider — would not consider buying a car from a company that was in bankruptcy — 80 percent.

If we had an 80 percent — if any of us had an 80 percent reduction in volume, then this idea of a prepack bankruptcy is pure fantasy. If you’re talking…

CORKER:

But the…

WAGONGER:

Excuse me. You’d be talking about a Chapter 7 liquidation…

CORKER:

No, no.

WAGONER:

… which would affect the supply base, affect the other two, and ripple across this economy like the tsunami that we haven’t seen, and it seems like to be a huge roll of the dice to — to weigh that — the risks of that, which I personally believe are very high, against the request we’re making here today, so…

CORKER:

Well, today, but you’re going to come back for more, and I think you all — let me ask you this, then. Would you all make the pledge that if you get the $25 billion, you’ll never be back to see us again?

WAGONER:

Well, I think…

CORKER:

I don’t think you’re under oath, but I’d love…

WAGONER:

Sir, if you could make the pledge to us that the U.S. economy will turn around on a certain point in time, then — and the financial markets will rejuvenate, then we would be glad, based on that data, to come back to you and give you…

CORKER:

You’re going to be back, aren’t you?

WAGONER:

Our exact best estimate of how much financing we think we need, sir. We’d be very glad to do that.

CORKER:

I thank you all.

NARDELLI:

Senator, may I answer your question?

CORKER:

Yes, sir.

NARDELLI:

We did look at two parts of your question, if I may, sir. We did look at prepackaged. We looked at pre-negotiated. We’ve looked at almost every alternative within Chrysler as a privately held company before we came here and ask for support to — to provide a bridge, if you will, through this economic trough.

And to a certain degree, all of these take an extensive amount of time. Certainly in a pre-negotiated we’d have to get all the — all the players, all of the suppliers, all of the vendors, all of the labor. And you can imagine, sir, that would take an extensive amount of time to be able to renegotiate that.

And in fact we are in a very fragile position — Chrysler is, point one.

Point two, I — I think I’d be remiss as being the newest guy in the auto industry, if I didn’t respond favorably to your challenge. Chrysler again has been looking for partnerships. We’re looking for alliances. We’re looking for opportunities to make the auto industry, either within the United States or globally, more efficient.

I don’t think there’s any question that there’s opportunities for more synergies.

There’s opportunities for more sharing, whether good knowledge in 136 — for example, to create a national science center where rather than paying each of us a dollar to develop the same technology, we’d pay $1. That technology would then be transferred over to the auto companies. It would make the $25 billion go further. It would be more cost-effective.

If it became a wholly-owned affiliate, you can get private equity to invest in it and then market that.

So there are many creative ideas I think to your point that the auto industry could look at, but the immediacy of why we are here today is to give us the chance to get through this, and then to look at those on how the U.S. auto industry can be more formidable, can be more competitive, not only to be profitable here in the U.S., but on a global basis.

CORKER:

Well, I know you’re alluding to the fact that you’d like to see a merger between GM and yourselves.

And I don’t know that again, Mr. Chairman, that things like that we shouldn’t force to happen, if they’re going to get this money.

But I’ll stop. I know I’ve taken my time. I thank you. And I thank. I — I asked tough questions. I respect the problems you’re going through, and I thank you for coming today.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08