Not helpful, Rahm:

Emanuel, a former Democratic congressman, said GM pursued a strategy over the past 20 to 30 years that left the biggest U.S. automaker in a “very unfortunate position.” The company relied on sales of “gas guzzlers,” never invested in alternative energy cars and instituted an outdated health care program that hurt the company’s business and employees, he said.

How was providing health care to their employees "outdated?" What exactly could they have done for all of those years to provide for the welfare of their workers when they got no help from the government (unlike their foreign competitors)? Shouldn’t we be applauding them, not tearing them down for having made bad business decisions? It’s the party line of Corker, DeMint and Shelby to claim that if they’d only left their workers with no form of health care, it would have been good for the company. They’ve made a lot of noise about the "crippling" problem of "legacy costs" and how management was irresponsible to do the decent thing.

I don’t know why Rahm is reinforcing right-wing talking points when we’re trying to make the case that we need to provide health care to everyone. I asked a White House spokesperson for clarification in case I misunderstood something, but since they wouldn’t respond on the record, and there is no reason to ask for anonymity when speaking officially on behalf of the administration, I’m not going to print it.