According to one automaker lobbyist who asked not to be identified because of the current negotiations: “I think Bush’s economic team was hoping the automakers would get weak enough to bust the UAW.…It’s no secret that they have no love of organized labor.”

And there it is. They don’t necessarily want the automakers to fall apart entirely. They simply want the union to get busted, because unions force companies to “spread the wealth.” Oh, there are some with their own agenda. Southern States (without a UAW presence), that have benefited by having Toyota, Hyndai and BMW build factories there want to be the “new Detroit” and oppose the bailout because they see the failure of Detroit as a boon to their States.

Of course, the Union doesn’t win itself any friends when as everybody is warning about imminent collapse and the potential loss of many jobs, that union President Ron Gettelfinger says Congress must do the bailout, and that the union will make no more concessions, even while President Elect Barack Obama’s advisors are saying that workers are going to have to take a pay cut.

On a side note, to be honest in my 43 year, the UAW has been held up as a model by many people as to what is wrong with this country from a competitive standpoint, how under skilled workers made above average salaries to the detriment of the economy because of unions that were “too powerful” like the UAW. I am not saying it is true, but I will say, that making such a blanket statement, when the options are potentially make concessions or everybody is out of work… well it just appears quite arrogant to be taking such a stance right now. Unemployment is high, people are feeling the financial pinch all over. It just gives more ammunition to those that see busting the union as the “first step” more ammunition to work with.

Update: Think Progress has also picked up on this and has a video compilation of Conservatives Politicians blaming the unions for Detroit’s woes

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not.

OK, well I don’t completely agree with him, but there have been a couple of slip ups, and I can see what he is trying to say here, but then we get to the punchline:

In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.

Now, obviously it is quite clear why I thought he was joking, right? I mean… President Bush? The man that has had 365 day calendars, books… with multiple volumes and countless wesite and videos dedicated to what may be the worst spoken President ever, the man that has never learned to pronounce the word nuclear… that is who Obama should model himself after?

But apparently, he was serious.

According to the story on Politico:

A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee, because “she did not abort her Down syndrome baby.”

Barone said in an e-mail that he “was attempting to be humorous and … went over the line.”

Went over the line? Where the hell is this line? Just what part of abortion is funny? What part of any of this is humorous? This is backpedaling plain and simple because he never expected anybody to question his outlandish accusation.

His “point” according to the article was:

“I was trying to focus on press hostility to Palin. I agree with [Washington Post media reporter and CNN 'Reliable Sources' host] Howard Kurtz that the press was much more interested in tracking down negative information on Palin than Obama.”

I’m really confused by people like this. I mean I am only a blogger sitting in my parents basement in my pajamas (no not really), and even I know the main reason that Palin was getting most of the press attention is because Obama (as well as McCain and Biden) all were vetted out by the press already during the primaries. So why is this such a revelation to people like Barone? Why wouldn’t it be obvious that now it would be Palin’s turn under the microscope since the other players in this have already gone through this? I mean, it would seem quite clear that it is because he is trying to push this agenda, but I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, though I don’t know why. They either need a vacation, or to be medicated.

“So, no, I think that if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about Nafta, and about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context,” Ms. Palin said.

The continent versus the country?  I guess she feels she was taking out of context because she was talking about the COUNTRY while the preppers meant the continent.  Now I know she is too busy since she reads EVERYTHING in print, but a quick look at The Africa Guide, might clue her in that there is no country of Africa, ONLY a continent.

She really had better get some studying done between now and 2012.

Newsbusters is trying to throw Faux News’ Carl Cameron under the bus as “liberal”?  Their complaint… throwing Sarah Palin under the bus by reporting on what is being said by former campaign staffers.  Apparently it is “not objective reporting” to simply report (without spin) what those that have had to deal with the rogue diva over the past couple of months.  It seems these divisions are running deep now as the neocon class wingnuts have apparently hooked their wagons to Palin as the shining star of the party, and if you don’t give them somebody to attack, they will attack you instead.  Better keep that in mind Carl.