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

[Beet]

He also founded Staples, apparently.

[Beet]

The problem with Romney's article is that he tries to have it both ways. The headline and first two paragraphs make it seem like he's advocating for a solution without government help, and even the meat of the article is consistent with that reading, but at the very end it's clear that he does, after all, support a government rescue. In other words, he pulled a bait and switch by sneaking his real position in at the very end of his article. Had he actually faced the political heat of a real decision, would he have stuck to his position or would pandering to popular sentiment have won out? We'll never know.

The difference between Romney and Obama is like the football commentator urging the quarterback to throw to the WR on the left, vs. the quarterback actually making a completed pass. The commentator can say he made the right call, but he doesn't take home the MVP because he was never even on the field.

[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.