Romney Campaign: CO, NV, OH and VA will decide General Election

[Torie]

Obama is going to play well in the Rust Belt?  Did you witness 2010?  What part of hostile to your existence is appealing?  Obama's Energy and Environmental policy (for instance) is driving a wedge into his coalition.  In WI, OH, PA, MI he needs to win blue collar whites or its over.  They BUILD things and use a ton of energy to do it.  Obama (and increasingly his party) is a mortal threat to their livelihood.         

His record in saving the U.S. auto industry vs. recommending bankruptcy and potential liquidation (there was no private capital to be had in fall '08 to save Detroit) is going to help Obama. His energy record is more conservative (i.e., more drilly) now than his rhetoric was in '08. If these issues didn't deliver PA to McCain, I don't see how they're going to deliver it to Romney.

Romney said he would have had the government step in if there were no private capital (although he thinks their would be), to save the industry, but not government money to save the unions and their pension plans, which is what happened.   The BK tool would have been used for that.  So the message is anti union (when it comes to spending government money on them), not anti industry.

[Torie]

Obama is going to play well in the Rust Belt?  Did you witness 2010?  What part of hostile to your existence is appealing?  Obama's Energy and Environmental policy (for instance) is driving a wedge into his coalition.  In WI, OH, PA, MI he needs to win blue collar whites or its over.  They BUILD things and use a ton of energy to do it.  Obama (and increasingly his party) is a mortal threat to their livelihood.         

His record in saving the U.S. auto industry vs. recommending bankruptcy and potential liquidation (there was no private capital to be had in fall '08 to save Detroit) is going to help Obama. His energy record is more conservative (i.e., more drilly) now than his rhetoric was in '08. If these issues didn't deliver PA to McCain, I don't see how they're going to deliver it to Romney.

Romney said he would have had the government step in if there were no private capital (although he thinks their would be), to save the industry, but not government money to save the unions and their pension plans, which is what happened.   The BK tool would have been used for that.  So the message is anti union (when it comes to spending government money on them), not anti industry.

How does Romney distinguish between money that goes in to "save the industry" but not "to save the unions"? This kind of logic usually doesn't fly when applied to health insurance funding and abortion.

The industry can do just fine, without being saddled with pension obligations, and unrealistic union contracts, etc. But that must be obvious to you, so I guess I don't know what you are getting at. The industry does not equal the unions - obviously.

[Torie]

Torie, I'm talking about what Romney proposed for the auto industry in 2008 and what form it would have taken. You're talking about broader goals you think would be good for the industry, and I don't see the point of contact with what Romney suggested, which was basically a fantasy meant to dodge responsibility for either the industry collapsing or a federal bailout, which were the two options on offer, but neither of which was acceptable to both the economy and the Republican electorate.

I can't discuss complex policies solely on whether they spank unions enough. Yes, the auto industry has crazy obligations--but note that they're actually profitable now and the unions did take quite a haircut.

How specifically did I mischaracterize what Romney said?  And did he say something different in 2008 than what he said this year and last on the topic? At least more recently, Romney made clear that after all the debt was cleaned out, if investment was needed and not raised from private sources, then the government would have a role.  That of course was not what happened. Just like the bank shareholders were not cleaned out, when the government had to step in to save the banks - yet another mistake. Government seems to specialize sometimes in giving subsidies to the undeserving, un-poor. Who knew? It is time to put an end to it.  We're broke.

[Torie]

Torie, I'm talking about what Romney proposed for the auto industry in 2008 and what form it would have taken. You're talking about broader goals you think would be good for the industry, and I don't see the point of contact with what Romney suggested, which was basically a fantasy meant to dodge responsibility for either the industry collapsing or a federal bailout, which were the two options on offer, but neither of which was acceptable to both the economy and the Republican electorate.

I can't discuss complex policies solely on whether they spank unions enough. Yes, the auto industry has crazy obligations--but note that they're actually profitable now and the unions did take quite a haircut.

How specifically did I mischaracterize what Romney said?  And did he say something different in 2008 than what he said this year and last on the topic? At least more recently, Romney made clear that after all the debt was cleaned out, if investment was needed and not raised from private sources, then the government would have a role.  That of course was not what happened. Just like the bank shareholders were not cleaned out, when the government had to step in to save the banks - yet another mistake. Government seems to specialize sometimes in giving subsidies to the undeserving, un-poor. Who knew? It is time to put an end to it.  We're broke.

Can you find a link to Romney's defense of his 2008 position? I tried, and wasn't able to.

Here is the article.  Mittens does not fully elucidate what a "managed bankruptcy" means in it, but he does say the government has a role. I am not sure at that time, there was much of a belief that if the auto industry shed all of its debt, it would still not be able to function or raise capital as needed. If that issue had been in play, I presume Mittens would have addressed that hypothetical, as he did later. And both he and I question whether that hypothetical would have come to pass.

[Torie]

Mittens  actually did say government financing would be involved (which we both missed I guess). That is what the word "guarantees" means. So case closed. It is time to move on. Mittens has this one in lockdown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh and Mittens is right too that just giving the auto companies money, without a restructuring, would lead to their demise. That is what Obama did. He just used government money to give a big handout to the unions. So the article you put up appears to be wrong on its face as to the assertions made that are quoted in it.

I have no intention of allowing the Dems to get any mileage out of this issue if I have any say in the matter.  They are just out of gas.

[Torie]

Mittens  actually did say government financing would be involved (which we both missed I guess). That is what the word "guarantees" means. So case closed. It is time to move on. Mittens has this one in lockdown.

Guaranteeing post-bankruptcy funding does nothing to solve the immediate liquidity needs which were causing GM problems in 2008, and which threatened dissolution. Post-bankruptcy funding assumes the company has made it into and through bankruptcy. This did not address the problem at the time. We did not miss anything. 

No, "managed bankruptcy" means you have a pre-negotiated deal, your flush the creditors, and as part of the package, post bankruptcy, the government issues guarantees to the extent necessary to keep the wheels moving. I don't know if the Dems are just being obtuse here, or being deceptive as part of an effort to confuse and propagandize the "dumbs."  In any event, it isn't working with me. Hopefully Mittens at the right moment, will kick them where it hurts most.

[Torie]

No, "managed bankruptcy" means you have a pre-negotiated deal, your flush the creditors, and as part of the package, post bankruptcy, the government issues guarantees to the extent necessary to keep the wheels moving. I don't know if the Dems are just being obtuse here, or being deceptive as part of an effort to confuse and propagandize the "dumbs."  In any event, it isn't working with me. Hopefully Mittens at the right moment, will kick them where it hurts most.

Ok, I see where you are on this, and that continuing would not serve the purpose of this forum. Cheers.

Cheers to you. This issue and the Buffet Rule rantings, annoy me, I admit.

[Torie]

Way, way too complicated Jomentum, and off point. Obama used taxpayer money to give money to the union pension plans, and other goodies, not necessary to keep the industry going, in order to cater to his base. You might not like the message, but that is the message, and you will hear it a lot. It is part of the larger theme about crony capitalism gone wild, which you will also be hearing about, again, and again, and again.

[Torie]

It appears that we (or I at least) have poor communication skills, because we are just not making any headway here Senator North Carolina Yankee. Ditto on the ludicrously inane Buffet Rule. The House is so divided, that folks on either side sadly seem to have stopped listening to each other (and/or find my text incomprehensible).