Republicans are conflicted about the auto bailout. On the one
hand, this is a federal intervention that is harder to justify on
credit-crunch grounds than the Wall Street bailout. As written,
it doesn't require nearly enough concessions from labor or
management to make these companies potentially viable, as opposed
to merely throwing good money (that we don't really have) after
bad for a few more months. And they know that most polls show the
public broadly against the idea of bailing out the Big Three
using taxpayer dollars.
Yet the Republicans also fear being blamed for any economic
dislocation that results from a disorderly bankruptcy proceeding,
in the unlikely event that the federal government does nothing.
They worry in particular about taking an enduring hit in the Rust
Belt -- Pat Buchanan has warned them they can kiss the Reagan
Democrats goodbye forever if the Big Three go under -- where
there is still a lingering GOP presence in some areas. Finally,
autoworkers and others dependent on that industry are more
sympathetic figures than the bankers who received a bailout with
a much bigger price tag. While most Republicans, at least in the
House, opposed that bailout, the party's leadership did not.
In rides Bob Shrum to tell Republicans
what to do: for the GOP, he argues, it's bailout or bust.
Relevance or Herbert Hoover time. This input is more helpful than
it initially appears. Since when has Shrum been so concerned
about Republicans? Moreover, the record of his advice to
Democrats has been spotty at best.