but to actively actively work towards the downfall of a major American company and with it the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands seems a bit treasonous Anti-American to me. And maybe I'm overreacting, but this truly enraged me. Via Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
A BOYCOTT IS A VERY BAD IDEA.... I can appreciate why government intervention in support of General Motors is controversial. I can even understand why Republicans would hope to exploit the issue for short-term partisan gain.
But organizing a boycott of a struggling U.S. auto manufacturer, just to spite the nation's elected leadership, seems like a spectacularly bad idea. Hugh Hewitt, for example, had this item the other day. (thanks to reader T.B.)
What's he talking about, you ask? Seems like Hugh Hewitt is actively calling for a boycott of GM. Just to spite Obama, of course.
In the effort to reverse this lurch beyond the farthest left fringe of previous Democratic statist urges, individual Americans have a role to play. They have to say no to GM products and services until such time as the denationalization occurs. This is a painful conclusion for those of us with friends still working for the company, and who had supported aggressive efforts to help the private company restructure.
But there isn't any alternative, every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise. Every car or truck purchased from Government Motors is one not purchased from a private car company that competes fairly against all other car companies. Many are rightly afraid that the government will do to automobile production what it has done for Amtrack and the Postal Service, but the risk is much greater than a federally mandated lemon.
The idea is small now, but growing among the hard core right wingers. And even though they are a small group of bitter-enders, this could potentially effect GM, a company that is struggling to stay afloat.
So, as usual, the right decides to step on hundreds of thousands of Americans who will lose their jobs, healthcare, homes, and automobiles, just to prove an effing point.
The idea is not only morally reprehensible, IMHO, but there is no logic behind it. Do they think that only the democrats and/or liberals will suffer if the economy collapses further?
I NEVER want to hear them talking about "small town values" and dissing big city liberal elites. One of the great things about small town values is that you come together as a community to help one another through difficult times, not tell them to rot in he** because you've got a beef with the guy that owns your property. It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And Steve puts it so much more elequently:
There's been debate in conservative circles over the last several months about whether, in the midst of multiple crises, it's appropriate to root for failure. But it's even more striking to see some conservatives trying to actively ensure failure, regardless of the consequences for the country.
Thanks for listening. I needed to get that off my chest ^_^