Romney: I'll take a lot of credit for auto industry success.

[All Along The Watchtower]

He'll take a lot of credit for Obama's win in November (as he should ).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Midwest is shrinking and at some point California, Texas and Florida would grow weary of propping up a perpetually insolvent institution either as a nationalized entity or a constantly bailed out private firm. Plus, no mainstream political figures were willing to tolerate nationalization.

We should be implementing policy that punishes industries in those states, we don't need to be incentivizing people to move to sh**thole climates. Appalachia, Mountain West/Pacific West should be propped up instead.

I'd much rather put up with a little heat and humidity if it means I don't have to worry about snow that often.  We have been propping up Appalachia for decades now.  While it would only be a smidgen of savings, the Appalachian Regional Commission should be eliminated. (As well as the copycat Delta Regional Authority.)

[Ogre Mage]

lol.  Romney is playing into the worst stereotypes about himself.

[AmericanNation]

lol.  Romney is playing into the worst stereotypes about himself.

Competent?  Technocratic?  Wonkish?  Smart?  Problem Solver?  You're right, terrible stereotypes.       

[Ogre Mage]

lol.  Romney is playing into the worst stereotypes about himself.

Competent?  Technocratic?  Wonkish?  Smart?  Problem Solver?  You're right, terrible stereotypes.       

lol, "Etch A Sketch" is the stereotype I was referring to.

[AmericanNation]

lol.  Romney is playing into the worst stereotypes about himself.

Competent?  Technocratic?  Wonkish?  Smart?  Problem Solver?  You're right, terrible stereotypes.       

lol, "Etch A Sketch" is the stereotype I was referring to.

You're right, staying completely consistent throughout the entire time frame is so "Etch A Sketch."  Wait, that is a completely wrong characterization that requires you to perpetuate ignorance in order to make any sense.     

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What exactly is a change here from before? It is completely consistent with both his book and the 2008 article itself, which seems more and more that so many have conveniently declined to read.

Romney has always credited the managed bankruptcy for turning around the companies (Which is common sense. Changing business plans is the only way one saves a company from liquidation forced by insolvency when absent exterior mitigating circumstances.) and since he was the first to call for such a thing, it isn't that much of an "etch a sketch" moment to want to take credit for that.

Granted, it may play into the "arrogant, self absorbed, out of touch" labels, but it is what we would call a "high risk-high reward investment".

[Ogre Mage]

If that is y'all's grasp of reality with regards to the staunch opposition to the auto bailout that Romney put in writing, I'm not going to argue with it.  We'll see what Michigan voters think about it come November 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[AmericanNation]

If that is y'all's grasp of reality with regards to the staunch opposition to the auto bailout that Romney put in writing, I'm not going to argue with it.  We'll see what Michigan voters think about it come November 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

"grasp of reality" LOL.  Romney Opposed what Obama/Bush did because his plan was much better... reality tells us Romney was right.  Typically you take credit for being right.     

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If that is y'all's grasp of reality with regards to the staunch opposition to the auto bailout that Romney put in writing, I'm not going to argue with it.  We'll see what Michigan voters think about it come November 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

We clearly aren't reading the English language the same way then. I have read that article 10 times. I would claim that my understanding of it is better then yours and if Michigan is far worse then the numbers should indicate it is because Obama successfully utilized voter ignorance for political gain. What a surprise that such a polished politician is so effective at misleading people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What Romney was rejecting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amounted to a no strings attached blank check for screwing up. It is very "too big to fail" based, moral-hazard encouraging, misguided approach that was taken with the banks.

What Romney called for:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such a plan could have been drawn up over a weekend by a bunch of staffers working 24/7 and would be ready by Monday to present to a judge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OH NO, He wants to fire the guys that failed, what a nightmare!!! And heaven forbid that a more cooperative atmosphere exists between management and labor. I would have thought you guys would applaud this, but since it is from a 1%er it must be rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Third: Long-term approach:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you guys prefer that they focus on quarterly profits first?

Fourth: Gov't supported research

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fifth: Gov't Supported Restructuring (Post bankruptch bailout)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[AmericanNation]

...And then GM and Chrysler failed after the bailout and went through a bankruptcy restructuring.  Mitt was right about everything, apparently a huge political liability.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What the hell is wrong with any of that?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I was Romney, I would be distributing that damn article to everyone in Ohio and Michigan free of charge.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I interpret this to mean two things:

1) Literally, the gov't should provide federal backing to anyone willing to offer private loans to finance an auto restructuring.

2) Implied that should that fail to garner enough capital, other measures would be placed on the table such as direct loans.

[Ogre Mage]

lol, Romney is now trying to take credit for a (federally funded) auto bailout which he previously vociferously opposed, calling it "crony capitalism on a grand scale."  There is no evidence he worked on the bailout beyond his op-eds.  He wanted the auto industry to find private financing and if you think it would have materialized (especially given the frozen credit environment at the time) I have a bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.  Perhaps the reason Michigan voters will not buy his sudden credit-taking is because they realize it makes no sense.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, Romney is now trying to take credit for a (federally funded) auto bailout which he previously vociferously opposed, calling it "crony capitalism on a grand scale."  There is no evidence he worked on the bailout beyond his op-eds.  He wanted the auto industry to find private financing and if you think it would have materialized (especially given the frozen credit environment at the time) I have a bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.  Perhaps the reason Michigan voters will not buy his sudden credit-taking is because they realize it makes no sense.

What doesn't make sense is your post, which is badly clipped together collection of terribly designed talking points. Respond to my analysis of the Op-ed (the very one you peddled as a smoking gun) or cede the argument.

He wanted the Gov't to back the loans first off, second he never ruled out (Post-Bankruptcy) direct gov't loans should no one take up the offer of 100% gov't backing. He just declined to mention that for the sake of the tea party. He did rule out any gov't aide to support a failing model (the Bush-Obama, "Pre/No Bankruptcy" Bailout) whether it be backing of private loans or direct gov't loans.

Laslty, he is not taking credit for the bailout. The reason you said he was is because in your mind you have come to associate the bailout with saving the companies. For you to be in touch with reality, you must first abandon that dishonest notion. The "pre-bankruptcy bailout" which Romney rejected in November 2008, FAILED. Romney is taking credit for being the first one to propose using gov't supported bankruptcy restructuring, which is what Obama eventually used to save the companies (but not without stepping in to reward his special interest groups and corrupt the process for his benefit, politically).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Obama is really in a horrible position on this issue, but thanks to ignorance and the dishonest notion that Romney would have let the companies be liquidated (impossible if your read the 2008 article with any impartiality) to turn what is really his own disadvantage, into a disadvantage for Romney.

If Romney can establish that he too would have saved the companies, but without supporting a failed model and without engaging in crony capitalism, this may very well be what gives Romney Michigan, rather than what costs him it. The question is whether the dynamics of a campaing even allow for this, and also whether Romney and his campaign is competent enough to acheive it. The latter is more in doubt then the former.

[Beet]

The pre-bankruptcy rescue was never going to be a permanent measure. The main issue was whether to rescue the companies, not whether to put them through restructuring. There was no one arguing at the time that the companies' existing business models were a success, so Romney was really just arguing against a phantom. Far from being the first person to state that the companies would need to change their leadership and reduce costs, he was merely stating the obvious at the time. The blowback he's getting from this article is deserves because, as I said, the article until the very end heavily implied a different position than Romney's actual position. We'll never know what Romney would have done, but the article suggests it would have been heavy on pandering.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The pre-bankruptcy rescue was never going to be a permanent measure. The main issue was whether to rescue the companies, not whether to put them through restructuring. There was no one arguing at the time that the companies' existing business models were a success, so Romney was really just arguing against a phantom. Far from being the first person to state that the companies would need to change their leadership and reduce costs, he was merely stating the obvious at the time. The blowback he's getting from this article is deserves because, as I said, the article until the very end heavily implied a different position than Romney's actual position. We'll never know what Romney would have done, but the article suggests it would have been heavy on pandering.

No, but it was possibly a long term measure as many were afraid to even mention the "b-word" lest it look bad politically or rile the markets for a day (which it did later on when Obama put them into bankruptcy, but it is better to get the companies salvaged thne preserve a bleeding status quo to avoid a few bad days on Wall Street). Romney was the first mainstream politician (as second place finisher in the GOP primary) to call for such thing and call it for what it was.

Money to an insolvent company without a new business plan is indeed supporting a failed model with tax payer money. You also have to consider this is one month after the bank bailouts and handing money to a bunch of failed executives without conditions wasn't exactly a smart move economically or politically.

If he deserves blowback it is for a poor title choice, but he clearly wanted to get people to see it and he is not a good writer as he himself admits in his book. Only someone who didn't read the full article would come away thinking he implied something different then what he actually supported. And he makes clear, at the beginning, that his overarching goal is to save them from liquidation down the road.

Are you saying Obama didn't pander to certain groups of people when he actually enacted his plans? Atleast Romney's pandering had a measure of holding people accountable, whereas Obama's dealt with benefiting groups monetarily.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will say it again, though. The credit is not being sought for it's own sake, it is being sought primarily as a method for combating the idea that he wanted them to be liquidated.

[pbrower2a]

I will say it again, though. The credit is not being sought for it's own sake, it is being sought primarily as a method for combating the idea that he wanted them to be liquidated.

He was willing to let them be liquidated as a message to those who have solid wages -- accept poverty and harsher conditions of employment on behalf of executives, financiers, tycoons, and big landowners who are the only people of significance in America. The GOP solution is economic, if not political fascism... government exists only to rescue elites, and such rescues invariably imply the marginalization of working people. It is a return of capitalism to the Marxist stereotype of early capitalism, an ugly but all-too-real caricature of the Gilded Age.   

[AmericanNation]

The pre-bankruptcy rescue was never going to be a permanent measure.

What? ? !!!
Then why did you waste all that money?
Why didn't you go to the process that would work, like Romney said to do?

[EmersonAdams]

Romney is a joke. First Romney goes ahead and urges the world to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt", and then he goes around and claims the laurels afterwords. He is a blatant flip-flopper, and if Romney had his way half of Michigan would be out of work. Michiganders will remember this come November, and how Romney wasn't man enough to admit his plan would have screwed over the Michigan.