The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

The Obama administration has already made leaps and bounds past BushCo in terms of releasing information documents.

 

I hope this was sarcasm

[southsideirish71]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html

 

 

 

Somebody needs a diaper change.

 

 

 

Would it be too much to ask for Reid to provide some examples. After all he did vote againstRoberts, so how, exactly was he fooled?

 

Reid's idea of a moderate democrat is probably Pelosi.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

In response, the market is down about 3% and falling... This is what the markets feared most when these bailouts started happening, and that is government interferences in their businesses. Good or bad can be debated, but the fear this puts into the markets, can't.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

 

The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and administer harsh medicine to Chrysler LLC, marking one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year.

[GM CEO Rick Wagoner] Associated Press

 

DETROIT IN CRISIS: The ouster of Rick Wagoner, shown at a February news conference, is a milestone in the state's intervention in the economy.

 

The administration's auto team announced the departure of Mr. Wagoner on Sunday. In a summary of its findings, the task force added that it doesn't believe Chrysler is viable as a stand-alone company, and suggested that the best chance for success for both GM and Chrysler "may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way."

 

The move also indicates that the Treasury Department intends to wade more deeply than most observers expected into the affairs of the country's largest and oldest car company.

 

After over a month of analysis, the administration's auto task force determined that neither company had put forward viable plans to restructure and survive. The verdict was gloomier for Chrysler. The government said it would provide Chrysler with capital for 30 days to cut a workable arrangement with Fiat SpA, the Italian auto maker that has a tentative alliance with Chrysler.

 

If the two reach a definitive alliance agreement, the government would consider investing up to $6 billion more in Chrysler. If the talks fail, the company would be allowed to collapse.

 

Despite the grim view of Chrysler, the task force said it had no intention of replacing CEO Robert Nardelli. Unlike Mr. Wagoner, who had been at the helm of GM since 2000, Mr. Nardelli is considered an auto-industry outsider who has only been in charge at Chrysler since the company was acquired by Cerberus Capital Management LP in 2007.

 

In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Chief Operating Officer Frederick "Fritz" Henderson.

 

The administration said it would provide the company sufficient working capital for 60 more days, during which a revamped GM board and top management has to put forward a much more rigorous restructuring plan than it submitted last month.

 

"The administration is prepared to stand by GM throughout this process to ensure that GM emerges with a fresh start and a promising future," according to term sheets released by the White House Monday morning.

 

Administration officials made it clear that an expedited and heavily supervised bankruptcy reorganization was still very much a possibility for both companies. One official, speaking of GM, compared such a proceeding to a "quick rinse" that could rid the company of much of its debt and contractual obligations.

 

The clearest losers appear to be the thousands of bondholders and lenders to both GM and Chrysler. In both cases, administration officials said that the companies were burdened by inordinate amounts of debt that would have to be scrubbed. Chrysler's survival, the administration said, would require "extinguishing the vast majority" of the company's secured debt and all of its unsecured debt and equity.

 

To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health.

 

Mr. Wagoner had managed the company through some of its most difficult moments. The company hasn't logged a profit since 2004, reporting losses since then of $82 billion. It nearly ran out of money at the end of 2008 before the Treasury Department provided emergency loans. GM's stock was trading above $70 when Mr. Wagoner took over as CEO in June of 2000. Shares closed last week trading at $3.62, placing the company's market capitalization at $2.21 billion.

 

1998: Rick Wagoner, shown here in Detroit, was then president and chief operating officer at General Motors. He would manage the company through some of its most difficult moments.

 

Oct. 5, 1998: G. Richard Wagoner Jr. becomes president of GM.

 

June 1, 2000: Wagoner adds chief executive to his title.

 

2000: Wagoner, just picked as next chief, with GM Vice Chairman Harry Pearce, left, and Chairman Jack Smith.

 

Sept. 19, 2001: GM unveils 0% financing on new cars and trucks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to "Keep America Rolling."

 

Oct. 28: GM agrees to sell its Hughes Electronics satellite unit to EchoStar Communications, ending GM's two-decade foray into nonautomotive businesses.

 

May 1, 2003: Wagoner becomes chairman of the GM board of directors

 

April 4, 2005: Wagoner takes control of GM's unprofitable North America auto unit

 

April 14: Wagoner tells The Wall Street Journal that the "one specific issue that has reached crisis proportions…(is) the health-care cost issue. It's clearly outrunning our ability to hold it off with other cost cuts."

 

Oct. 3: GM reports a sales drop of 24% in September 2005, compared with the same month a year ago, as sales of Detroit's trucks stall amid spiking gas prices and a consumer shift away from SUVs.

 

Oct. 17: GM reports a net loss of $1.63 billion. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits through union concessions, GM still faces a $51 billion obligation to union members.

 

2007: Wagoner, left, and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, at the opening of contract negotiations.

 

Sept. 26, 2007: GM and the United Auto Workers union agree to a new four-year contract, ending a two-day nationwide strike and creating a new trust fund for retiree health care.

[2008: Gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon, as displayed at a Chevron station in Mill Valley, Calif.] Getty Images

 

2008: Gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon, as displayed at a Chevron station in Mill Valley, Calif.

 

Week of June 9, 2008: Average price of gas in U.S. crests above $4; U.S. consumers abandon SUVs and pickup trucks in droves.

 

Aug. 1: GM reports a $15.5 billion net loss for the second quarter of the year, the third-biggest in GM's history, as analysts question whether Wagoner can keep his job.

 

Nov. 7: GM warns that without federal assistance, it might not have enough cash to operate its business past the middle of 2009.

[GM CEO Rick Wagoner, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, Ford CEO Alan Mulally, testify before a Senate panel on Nov. 18, 2008.] Associated Press

 

2008: GM CEO Rick Wagoner, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify before a Senate panel on Nov. 18.

 

Nov. 18: The chief executives of Detroit's Big Three auto makers, including Wagoner, appeal for U.S. taxpayers to help their industry.

 

Dec. 2: Auto makers return to Congress, this time with turnaround plans in hand. GM says it needs $4 billion to stay afloat until the end of the year. In total, the company says it needs $18 billion in loans -- $6 billion more than it said it would need just two weeks before.

 

Dec. 7: Wagoner comes under increasing pressure from outside the company to resign as part of any broad bailout.

 

Dec. 11: Effort in Senate to aid auto makers collapses amid partisan disputes.

 

Dec. 19: White House agrees to $17.4 billion in bailout loans.

 

Dec. 31: GM receives first $4 billion in loans.

 

Feb. 26, 2009: GM announces a $9.6 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2008, bringing its loss for the year to $30.9 billion and raising new concern about its viability.

 

March 27: U.S. asks Wagoner to resign as part of an agreement to receive new package of federal aid.

 

Mr. Wagoner's tenure came amid extraordinary challenges that weren't entirely of his own making -- including costly retiree benefits and union contracts that predate him, and the recent deep recession. Yet GM by most measures performed worse than other auto companies. Among the key decisions that hurt the company: a huge bet on trucks and SUVs that piled up on dealers' lots unsold as high gas prices drove Americans to look for more fuel economy offered by rival companies.

 

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

 

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

 

GM spokesman Steve Harris declined to comment.

 

In a statement released by GM Sunday night, Mr. Kresa said: "The Board has recognized for some time that the Company's restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the Company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience."

Plan for Viability

 

President Obama plans Monday to lay out the administration's interim conclusions on the companies' viability and the many steps that need to be taken to return the companies to health. The president will hold off on granting the companies the $21.6 billion in new loans they requested last month.

 

In remarks Sunday, Mr. Obama said that he intends to extract "a set of sacrifices from all parties involved-management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers." The industry, he said on CBS's "Face the Nation," must "take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road." The two companies "are not there yet," he added.

 

Mr. Wagoner's removal shows that the sacrifices could cut deep. The departure of the company's top executive promises to further shake up a company that has already been through considerable change over the past six months. The 56-year-old executive had been scrambling to craft a global strategy aimed at maintaining leadership in the global sales chase with Toyota Motor Corp., and making big profits in emerging markets.

 

But Mr. Wagoner's plans came crashing down in the second half of 2008 as the company ran short of cash and was forced to ask the government for billions of dollars in aid. At the same time, his executive team started dismantling several parts of the company, including a plan to shed several brands, slow the pace of new-product introductions and sell off stakes in international operations.

Industry's Outlook

 

The president's auto task force has spent more than a month digging into the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler submitted last month. The team has struggled to make two determinations: when will the steep plunge in car sales end, and what will the market look like once it revives.

 

GM has based its revival plans on the U.S. market rebounding to sales of 14.3 million vehicles a year in 2011, up from a rate of around nine million vehicles so far this year. Many analysts now consider GM's short-term forecasts to be overly optimistic.

 

The two companies received a total of $17.4 billion in government loans in December, and have requested another dose to keep them going through this year. Of the $21.6 billion, GM is seeking $16.6 billion more, while Chrysler has asked for $5 billion more.

 

Among challenges the administration faced leading up to this weekend's decision, foremost were the efforts to draw steep concessions from the United Auto Workers union and from the bondholders.

 

Attempts to solidify deals with the UAW and bondholders were slowed by disagreements by both parties over how exactly the other party needed to budge. The UAW, for instance, insists it already made health-care concessions in 2005 and 2007, and argues that the bondholders have never been asked to concede anything.

 

"I don't see how the UAW will do anything until they see what the bondholders will give up," one person involved in the negotiations on behalf of the UAW said Sunday.

Bondholder Factor

 

The bondholders have said that they are willing to make concessions, but they wanted to see the union make further cuts. The fact GM raised most of the unsecured debt to fund union health-care and pension costs is also seen as a reason why the union needs to take bigger steps.

 

With Mr. Obama potentially holding off on new loans until concessions are made, analysts said GM likely has enough cash on hand to weather at least another month before its need for more government aid becomes urgent. Chrysler may need another infusion of cash sooner. Ford Motor Co. hasn't sought federal assistance.

 

Both GM and Chrysler are negotiating with the UAW to accept a range of cost-cutting measures, including a greatly reduced work force, lower wages and a revamped health-care fund for retirees.

 

The U.S. auto industry, hardly robust to start with, has been reeling from a plunge in car sales over the last six months. Sales in February were down about 40% over the same month last year. The drop has sent shock waves through the hundreds of smaller parts companies that supply the big auto makers. To keep the sector afloat, the administration recently announced a $5 billion financing facility to help suppliers cover their expenses.

 

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry," President Obama said on Sunday. "But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge -- at the other end -- much more lean, mean, and competitive than it currently is."

 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is nominally in charge of overseeing the auto bailout, said on Sunday the government was prepared to lend more money "if we believe it's going to provide the basis for a stronger industry in the future that's not going to rely on government support."

 

The original December loans were given under the agreement that all sides would strike a compromise deal by March 31, but the administration is taking advantage of a clause allowing all sides another month to negotiate. "It was unrealistic to renegotiate a new labor agreement and the unsecured debt in so short a time," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist with the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research. "That has never happened before."

 

GM and Chrysler are meant to submit by Tuesday assessments of where their restructuring efforts are heading. In February, both companies put forward plans for paring back their operations, reducing their work force and eliminating vehicle models.

 

GM and representatives for its bondholders remained in talks over the weekend about a deal that would force these investors to turn in at least two-thirds of the value of the debt they hold in exchange for equity and new debt.

 

This arrangement would force GM to issue significantly more stock than what is currently being traded in the market. In addition, the government is being asked to guarantee the new debt with federal default insurance in order to entice bondholders who otherwise wouldn't be interested in participating in the swap.

 

If GM can't eventually forge a deal with the ad hoc committee representing the bondholders, the company may be forced to issue a debt-for-equity swap without the blessing of some of its biggest and most influential unsecured investors. This would heighten the possibility of the company eventually needing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

 

Write to Neil King Jr. at [email protected] and John D. Stoll at [email protected]

[NorthSideSox72]

In response, the market is down about 3% and falling... This is what the markets feared most when these bailouts started happening, and that is government interferences in their businesses. Good or bad can be debated, but the fear this puts into the markets, can't.

You take billions in government money, you fail to run your business (which we the taxpayers now own) well enough to make things work... you get booted. The taxpayers are now the board, for companies receiving huge bailout dollars. I like it.

 

I'd like it better if it was part of a bankruptcy or bankruptcy-like reorganization, though, and if all the high level execs (and high level union leaders for that matter) went with him. They need a serious re-boot to have a shot at being viable.

 

 

[lostfan]

You know, judging from the way I heard GM execs saying last year about how it doesn't make sense for them to make fuel-efficient cars, and the only reason people are not buying big cars is because the credit is frozen up, I felt like this was inevitable. I was facepalming.

Edited March 30, 2009 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

You take billions in government money, you fail to run your business (which we the taxpayers now own) well enough to make things work... you get booted. The taxpayers are now the board, for companies receiving huge bailout dollars. I like it.

 

I'd like it better if it was part of a bankruptcy or bankruptcy-like reorganization, though, and if all the high level execs (and high level union leaders for that matter) went with him. They need a serious re-boot to have a shot at being viable.

 

I like the idea on paper, but the fact is, the "taxpayers" didn't make these decisions, Obama's administration did. Electing someone into office doesn't mean, "now you do whatever you want without asking the people". While I'm sure a lot of people are happy with this type of thing considering how angry they are about the economy and these types of leaders ruining companies, I'm not sure government control is the right way to go. These guys can't run a country without a trillion+ dollar deficit and they're going to tell a business how to run itself now?!

 

LOL.

[southsider2k5]

You take billions in government money, you fail to run your business (which we the taxpayers now own) well enough to make things work... you get booted. The taxpayers are now the board, for companies receiving huge bailout dollars. I like it.

 

I'd like it better if it was part of a bankruptcy or bankruptcy-like reorganization, though, and if all the high level execs (and high level union leaders for that matter) went with him. They need a serious re-boot to have a shot at being viable.

 

They need a bankruptcy to fix their problems. The boat is sunk, its just a matter of how long it takes to get to the bottom. The reason they aren't moving forward is Obama knows if they go under, the unions get screwed, and he doesn't want to lose votes from one of his strongest groups of supporters. They could have just of easily pushed them into a government financed bankruptcy and done what they have needed to do for years and get rid of debts and costs. Instead they threw money into a pit. Well surprise, suprise, it wasn't enough.

[lostfan]

I like the idea on paper, but the fact is, the "taxpayers" didn't make these decisions, Obama's administration did. Electing someone into office doesn't mean, "now you do whatever you want without asking the people". While I'm sure a lot of people are happy with this type of thing considering how angry they are about the economy and these types of leaders ruining companies, I'm not sure government control is the right way to go. These guys can't run a country without a trillion+ dollar deficit and they're going to tell a business how to run itself now?!

 

LOL.

This is a republic, not a direct democracy. The will of the people does matter in terms of the big picture, but that's not how decisions get made. If it did, oh my god would our government be making some horrible decisions.

Edited March 30, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

They need a bankruptcy to fix their problems. The boat is sunk, its just a matter of how long it takes to get to the bottom. The reason they aren't moving forward is Obama knows if they go under, the unions get screwed, and he doesn't want to lose votes from one of his strongest groups of supporters. They could have just of easily pushed them into a government financed bankruptcy and done what they have needed to do for years and get rid of debts and costs. Instead they threw money into a pit. Well surprise, suprise, it wasn't enough.

If they went into bankruptcy though, who would finance it, who would be on the hook for that money? Sounds to me like it was a matter of "do you want to waste 15 billion, or 150 billion?"

[StrangeSox]

This is a republic, not a direct democracy. The will of the people does matter in terms of the big picture, but that's not how decisions get made. If it did, oh my god would our government be making some horrible decisions.

 

How many times have we all heard "Clinton didn't do anything without first checking a poll." Now Obama is being criticized for not checking a poll before doing anything.

[Y2HH]

This is a republic, not a direct democracy. The will of the people does matter in terms of the big picture, but that's not how decisions get made. If it did, oh my god would our government be making some horrible decisions.

 

Yea, I know...I'm just not sure I like the guys who have basically failed our country as a business making "sound" decisions on how to run a publicly traded company. As a company, these "leaders" have amassed massive debt to the US taxpayers, without a plan to ever be able to pay it off, and then increasing that debt 10 fold, planning future deficits for years to come...and these are the geniuses that are going to tell a company how to run itself?!

 

It's failure teaching failure.

[kapkomet]

How many times have we all heard "Clinton didn't do anything without first checking a poll." Now Obama is being criticized for not checking a poll before doing anything.

Not exactly. Obama's not checking anything before doing everything he wants.

[southsider2k5]

If they went into bankruptcy though, who would finance it, who would be on the hook for that money? Sounds to me like it was a matter of "do you want to waste 15 billion, or 150 billion?

 

The same government that is loaning them money now would be the same government that would finance them through a bankruptcy. In this case the problems that are actually plaguing the automakers would be fixed, instead of acting like just the CEO is the problem at GM.

[lostfan]

The same government that is loaning them money now would be the same government that would finance them through a bankruptcy. In this case the problems that are actually plaguing the automakers would be fixed, instead of acting like just the CEO is the problem at GM.

Yeah, but wouldn't that end up costing a LOT more? In another type of economy where the government wasn't financing everything, bankruptcy would be higher on the list as an option because the government wouldn't be absorbing so much of the blow.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, but wouldn't that end up costing a LOT more? In another type of economy where the government wasn't financing everything, bankruptcy would be higher on the list as an option because the government wouldn't be absorbing so much of the blow.

 

I wouldn't think so. It might actually be cheaper in the long run. I really think GM has a better chance at paying off loans when their cost structure has been dramatically reduced, versus with the same albatrosses hanging over them that got them there in the first place. The loans up front might be bigger, but the US auto industry would be much healthier in the long run. Burn those contracts, and get rid of that debt. Its going to happen sooner or later, we might as well not waste all of the payer money we are throwing into this hole right now before we get it done.

[lostfan]

I wouldn't think so. It might actually be cheaper in the long run. I really think GM has a better chance at paying off loans when their cost structure has been dramatically reduced, versus with the same albatrosses hanging over them that got them there in the first place. The loans up front might be bigger, but the US auto industry would be much healthier in the long run. Burn those contracts, and get rid of that debt. Its going to happen sooner or later, we might as well not waste all of the payer money we are throwing into this hole right now before we get it done.

Which contracts are we talking about burning here? The UAW legacy costs for retirees or something I didn't know about?

[StrangeSox]

They have a lot of bonds out there.

[southsider2k5]

Which contracts are we talking about burning here? The UAW legacy costs for retirees or something I didn't know about?

 

The existing work contracts, as well as the legacy costs. All of the costs of buildings they don't use anymore, and debt they have on their books. Management, labor, executives. Burn it, and start over. This business model does not work. Look at the steel mills as the type of chages that need to be made.

[southsider2k5]

This ought to be fun

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,5456892.story

 

Take the Limbaugh Challenge

Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh -- why don't you actually listen to his show before bashing him?

By Andrew Klavan

March 29, 2009

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

 

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

 

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

 

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

 

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

 

Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

 

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, B) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

 

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

 

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

 

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind. Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?

 

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.

 

Don't believe me? Well, then, gird your loins. Gather your courage. Accept the Limbaugh Challenge. See what happens.

 

I dare you.

 

Andrew Klavan is a contributing editor to City Journal. His novel for young adults, "The Last Thing I Remember," will be published next month by Thomas Nelson.

 

Next week:

Hear from liberals who took the bait.

[southsider2k5]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers

 

Updated 7:02 p.m.

By Garance Franke-Ruta

President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.

 

Obama has said, "I think it's important to engage your critics ... because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recounted to The Post's Lois Romano in an interview Wednesday.

 

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.

 

Here are their stories:

 

1. Sergio Salmeron: Self-description at the White House: "My name is Sergio Salmeron. I want to find out about health care."

 

Salmeron became engaged with the Obama campaign early in 2008, writing on his blog at my.barackobama.com, "We need to mobilize towards changing the trend of '2 to 1 Latinos favoring Hillary over Barack.' Let's make a resolute commitment... Let's put the facts on the table, ask the questions, until we understand how this all applies to us. Then strategize [sic] to get the word out to Latinos in America, who want change as much as everyone else."

 

He was a volunteer canvasser for the campaign, he told The Post, and did voter registration work and translated materials for the campaign, as well. A partner at Global Paradigm Strategies, Salmeron is volunteer "member of the Democratic National Committee" and continues to be active with the Obama campaign's successor, Organizing for America, which is how he got the White House invite, he said.

 

"I got a call from this woman who has been working with me for the pledge drive," he said, referring to the Organizing for America drive on behalf of the president's budget proposal. "You know, we're trying to get support out for the president's agenda."

 

2. Tom Sawner: Self-description: "Sir, I'm Tom Sawner. I'm a service-disabled veteran, small-business owner in Arlington, Virginia. My company, Educational Options, works with public schools."

 

According to Federal Election Commission records, Sawner made a $250 donation to Obama's campaign on Oct. 27, 2008. He also, as he noted Thursday, served as an adviser on Obama's educational platform committee. He said he was invited to the White House town hall through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Executive Council.

 

Sawner's no stranger to the White House, either; he attended President Bush's Feb. 2008 signing ceremony for that year's economic stimulus package -- another Chamber of Commerce invite. And in April 2008, he even became an anecdote in one of Bush's speeches.

 

"And I met a guy named Tom Sawner," the 43rd president said at a small business summit. "Now, he's an old fighter pilot, which means there's no wall he can [sic] run through. He's a doer, an achiever, and he's got him a small business called Educational Options."

 

But the event with Obama, Sawner said, "was a whole different look and feel" than the one with Bush. "This is a president who is into openness." And he didn't know he was going to be able to ask a question until he got to the forum, he said.

 

3. Carlos Del Toro: Self-description: "My name is Carlos Del Toro. I served in the Navy for 26 years, retired four years ago, and started a small business."

 

In 2007, Del Toro stood as a Democratic candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, but did not win. A supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, he backed Obama against McCain in the general, endorsing him in an Oct. 24, 2008 op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.

 

"As a Virginia small-business owner, veteran, and Latino, I'm voting for Sen. Barack Obama for the same reasons as millions of other Americans: because I believe this country desperately needs change. Obama will change our economic policies to help middle-class families, promote the growth of small businesses, and increase funding for veterans' affairs, so no member of our armed services goes without the medical treatment he or she needs and deserves," he wrote.

 

In 2008, he donated $2,750 to Virginia Democratic candidates for office, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; in 2006, he gave $1000 to the campaign of now Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), FEC records show.

 

He also has ties to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Small Business Council.

 

4. Linda Bock: "My name is Linda Bock and I'm a registered nurse just in Prince George's County, Maryland -- been there 34 years at a free senior health center. And I'm here with my fellow nurses from SEIU."

 

Bock, along with her chapter of the SEIU and her son and daughter, helped campaign and canvass for Obama, she said. After Obama was elected, she wrote in the Landover, Md., 1199 SEIU nurses' newsletter: "Now we have our work cut out for us -to hold our elected officials accountable. And I hope they hold us accountable too. We all have work to do to make the changes needed to restore our reputation, to heal the wounds of war, to repair our earth and regulate its resources; and, to secure our economic future. It will take sacrifice and service. It will take prayer and the grace of God. Now we have hope. We have President-elect Barack Obama. God bless America."

 

Her invite to the White House came through the Nurse Alliance Leadership Council, she said. And like Sawner, she didn't know until she got to the forum that it was open to the in real life participants. "I did not think we would be able to ask any questions," she said. "I wasn't personally anticipating being chosen to ask anything. We knew that the Web portion was people already lined up."

 

5. Bonnee L. Breese: "Hi, Mr. President. Thank you so very much for having me, a public school teacher from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, here to be with you.

THE PRESIDENT: What's your name?

Q Bonnee Breese.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you, Bonnee.

Q Thank you. I'm from Overbrook High School. I have to say that, because I know all the children are watching. (Laughter.)"

 

Breese has not donated a reportable amount to Obama, according to the FEC. She is a member of the 11,626-person Pennsylvania for Obama page on Facebook.

 

A supporter of the president's -- "Of course!" she said -- Breese was invited to the meeting through the American Federation of Teachers union. She sits on the executive board of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local 3, she said, and is known in her area for being politically engaged.

 

The sixth in-person presidential questioner, "Ellie" from Maryland, did not give her surname. The White House did not respond to a request for it, but noted there were roughly 100 people in the audience.

 

"The audience was composed of approximately 100 people, including teachers, nurses, small business owners, and community leaders -- and the virtual audience of thousands across the country who have submitted questions online," said White House spokesman Nicholas S. Shapiro. "The White House reached out to a number of community groups and the chamber of commerce and those groups invited their folks to come and participate."

[lostfan]

The problem with that "challenge" is that the writer seems to assume that when other people perceive things differently from him, and therefore their reality/opinion varies from his, that they are ignorant and/or insulated. The exact same thing he accuses liberals of doing. And round, and round, and round we go, this is just another part of how political discussions go in this country.

 

This same logic gets used after debates, that Candidate A "won" over Candidate B not because of their technical performance, but because Candidate A said more things that you agree with than Canidate B (regardless of how valid Candidate B's points may/may not have been).

[Y2HH]

The problem with that "challenge" is that the writer seems to assume that when other people perceive things differently from him, and therefore their reality/opinion varies from his, that they are ignorant and/or insulated. The exact same thing he accuses liberals of doing. And round, and round, and round we go, this is just another part of how political discussions go in this country.

 

This same logic gets used after debates, that Candidate A "won" over Candidate B not because of their technical performance, but because Candidate A said more things that you agree with than Canidate B (regardless of how valid Candidate B's points may/may not have been).

 

To be fair, he explains that he has watched/listened to NBC/CBS, NY Times, etc. He's speaking of those who have never listened to Limbaugh who claim they "have heard him", when they haven't. He's not telling liberals who actually have listened to Limbaugh to take the challenge, he's asking those who never even bother, yet believe everything told to them to take the challenge.

 

Which they won't do.

 

For example, I'm a O'Reilly guy, and liberals hate him -- but at the same time have never seen him other than mostly out of context clips. I, on the other hand, have watched hours of Olberman, who is basically the same guy, but on the other side of the spectrum. I don't agree with Olberman very often (I have on very few occasions), but at least I give him his chance rather than just taking someone's word for it because they played some incomplete clip or out of context clip.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I'm wondering why anyone would subject themselves to hours of Olberman.

[lostfan]

I'm wondering why anyone would subject themselves to hours of Olberman.

Because he's such an over-the-top liberal windbag that it's funny. Only in small doses though.

[Y2HH]

I'm wondering why anyone would subject themselves to hours of Olberman.

 

For the very reason that I like to know, first hand, what the other side said/did. For the very reason that article was written.

 

Besides, Olbermann rules (when played by Ben Affleck) : http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...bermann/805561/

 

That skit makes me LMAO.