Henry Ford was able to assert, “You can have any color you want . . . as long as it’s black” because lots of people chose to have an automobile rather than ride a horse.  When GM started producing competitively-priced cars in a number of colors, Ford either had to provide color choices or lose market share . . . big time.  Choices have consequences.  Behaviors have consequences.

Should the federal government have stepped in to bail out Ford, if he’d wanted to continue producing only black?

 The “Big Three” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) back in the day all had their CEOs supporting the same political candidates as the bosses of the UAW.  In labor negotiations, a deal was cut with the “targeted” company du jour, and then an almost-identical deal was “negotiated” with the other two. The contracts for workers were “too good to be true” and thought possible only because there was no one producing colors.  The four parties – GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the UAW – were the American auto industry.

 Then came colors.  The likes of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, VW, Mercedes, et al, came to America, ignored Detroit, ignored Michigan, ignored the UAW, ignored the paradigm, ignored the deal; opened plants in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas.  Each made deals with plant workers that were good, but not “too good to be true.”

 The now-sorta-big three today are in the same position that Henry Ford was back in the day.  And so is the UAW.  And so are its members.  If the automakers there choose to continue from the same old playbook – despite what’s going on down south from Motor City – they’ll either suffer disastrous consequences or have the federal government step in and allow them to continue with black.  If the UAW and its members choose to continue from the same old playbook – despite what’s going on down south from Motor City – they’ll either suffer disastrous consequences or have the federal government step in and allow them to continue with black.

 The market – the real world – dictates that they change the playbook or perish.  A government bailout won’t change the market, won’t change reality, just push it down the road, and not far.  Henry Ford understood the market, did the right thing.  Will the auto titans of Detroit finally get it?  Will the bosses of the UAW?  Will the autoworkers themselves, both present and retired?  We can only hope so . . . for their sakes.

Dear Ana Gomez-Mallada:

Your e-mail with Rebuild the Republican Party was forwarded to me by Sandra Schimmelfennig of Madison, Alabama, that because she knows what I am working on.  I thought that almost all of your message was spot-on and hugely important.  Let me contrast my view, focus on with what I disagree.

 I can only hope that America hasn’t passed the tipping-point, both slouching towards Gomorah and sliding towards some combination of socialism and fascism.  If I could have persuaded my wife, we’d have moved to Panama, evacuating our assets. I can’t persuade her, so I have to persuade America.  Critical is saving America, not saving the GOP.  If I thought that a third party could succeed at saving America, I’d be going that way.  I don’t.  If I thought that the Republican Party could be rebuilt, I’d be going that way.  I don’t.  I’m working to co-opt the Republican Party.

 The closest boots-on-the-ground webvehicle to what’s needed that I see isn’t of either the DNC or the RNC.  It’s outside and independent.  In 2004 in Pennsylvania RINO and CINO incumbent Arlen Specter defeated true-conservative Republican Pat Toomey . . . narrowly.  The RNC and its titular head, President George W. Bush, saved Specter.  It defeated Toomey and discouraged bright-true-conservative-potential candidates across the fruited plain.  Officially, county GOP organizations are neutral in primaries, while unofficially they favor incumbents.  To not do so would be unseemly, offensive, and rude.  Ditto state and national.

 America’s viable future depends on having, first, a true-conservatives’ majority in both House and Senate; and, second, a true-conservative POTUS.  My plan focuses on the House and Senate in 2010.  With 435 House races and but 16-17 Senate, focus between them must be equal while results expectations favor the House.  Critical is getting Pat Toomeys, not Arlen Specters, identified, recruited, funded and campaigned for in, say, 350+ congressional districts and, say, 13+ senate races from border-to-border and sea-to (shining)-sea, including against Republican incumbents.  Given how the RNC functions, and how state and county GOPs function, collaboration with the Party will naturally begin post-primary.

Given continuation of an Obama presidency, my hope for 2011 is that we can halt the slouching and sliding.  Another hope for 2011-2012 is that in Congress conservatives will attempt to fulfill Contract with America II only to affect repeated presidential vetoes.  (See the "Cliff's Notes" version  of the Contract here.)  The case for true conservatism versus liberal socialism/fascism will be stark.  Given declining influence from “mainstream” news media, and our boots remaining energized and on the ground, November of 2012 may be the reverse tipping-point, and in 2013 and 2014 much of Contract with America II can actually be implemented.

GetAmericaRight.org (and .com) will be (not up yet) a web 2.0 bottom-up transactional webvehicle.  It will recruit members, e-mail subscribers for news bulletins, contributions, advertising.  It will provide headline news with comments following, professional videos, links (including, maybe, to yours).  Most content will emanate from congressional districts and states.  It will encourage formations of meet-ups within congressional districts, working toward identifying, recruiting, funding and campaigning for GAR primary candidates, and identifying and recruiting more members.

Would I like to see a “rebuilt” Republican Party that’s stronger than the Democrats?  If it’s one that multiplies the size of the federal Department of Education?  No.  If it’s one that gives us Medicare Part D?  No.  If it’s one that throws Pat Toomey overboard in favor of an incumbent who almost scuttled good Supremes nominations?  No. If it’s one that leads Democrats towards socialism/fascism with the recent bailout(s)?  No.  If it’s one that “reaches across the aisle” to form gangs of 10 or of 12?  No. If it’s one wherein any elected official, when sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, can and does so swear without crossing his fingers or having a Pinocchio moment?  Yes. Hell, yes.

 If that’s the GOP you’re (re)building, Ana, count me in.  Meanwhile, my task is daunting and I’m a neophyte, so I’d like your encouragement and support and assistance; along with that of Erick Erickson, of Patrick Ruffini, of Matt Lewis, of Mike Rempasky, of  Jon Henke, of  Ben Domenech, of Soren Dayton, et al.

Enthusiastically,

 Pete Stevens

Louisville, Tennessee