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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking.

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were a huge part of the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too now?

Pre-bankruptcy loans, yes. Because it was money down the drain for a busted business plan. That is where Romney and Obama differ and that is where (all things being equal such as understanding of business and these things) Romney would crush Obama.

Once you have a new business plan drawn up (restructuring plan), then you go to a judge with both the plan and the cash.

It is you guys that are relying on general ignorance to maintain this as a positive rather than a negative in the Midwest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It seems pretty clear that Romney wants to back track (as he does on other things) on the auto bailout because his initial view on it will not be looked at favorably in the states that benefited from said bailout.

Plus, he wasn't in a position of authority to save any industry, so how can he take credit? One voicing an opinion does not translate into industry being saved.

Unless you are stake out a position that later gets translated into action by those in charge, which Romney did in fact do with "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". What Obama did differently was 1) along with Bush, To prop up a failing business model for a period of time  and 2) to intervene in a politically motivated fashion into the content of the restructuring plan.

I don't see any backtracking here. This is perfectly consistent with "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". In fact that is what he is wanting to take credit for.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But North Carolina Yankee, the State can make any 'business model' 'succeed' or 'fail' by the legal structure in which it is allowed to function.  The only reason an 'auto company' branch of government has difficulties or thrives is due to its legally defined powers - relating to taxes, trade, control of workers, etc.  The autos were 'failing' because of policy, and its just an alteration of policy to make them 'succeed'.

My statement assumes a degree of political reality. 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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking.

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were a huge part of the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too now?

Pre-bankruptcy loans, yes. Because it was money down the drain for a busted business plan. That is where Romney and Obama differ and that is where (all things being equal such as understanding of business and these things) Romney would crush Obama.

Once you have a new business plan drawn up (restructuring plan), then you go to a judge with both the plan and the cash.

It is you guys that are relying on general ignorance to maintain this as a positive rather than a negative in the Midwest.

Sorry, I mean the bailouts prior to the official bankruptcy, which were part of Bush's and Obama's plans. 

So he should criticize Bush then. It would only help Romney. The base was made at Bush over the bailouts anyway and the Indies would applaud him distancing himself from Bush on something so substantial.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney's trying to thread a very fine needle here, taking credit for part of the Bush-Obama approach to the auto industry crisis (the decision to let the car companies go bankrupt), while blaming other parts of the Bush-Obama approach, like lending the car companies money before they filed for bankruptcy. Moreover, he placed greater emphasis on the blame side of the equation during the primary, and has now fairly abruptly shifted emphasis to the taking credit side.
You'd think he'd take advantage of the opportunity to tie Obama to Bush here -- if Obama was wrong, then so was Bush, and you'd think it would be a smart move for Romney to say that his business experience gave him a clarity on the issue that neither the current nor the former president had. Maybe he's afraid that Republican voters won't like being reminded that the bailout of the auto companies began as an executive order under President Bush?
Of course, the tricky needle-threading here really has to do with claiming to know which part of the policy actually implemented actually worked, and which part was a hindrance. I suspect voters are likely to feel that, since GM and Chrysler are doing much better now, that the plan worked, and are more likely to credit the president who supported the plan while president-elect, and continued to implement it when he became president, than the guy who supported parts of the plan, but opposed other parts, and who had nothing to do with its implementation, since at the time he was a once and future presidential candidate who held no position of responsibility.

Romney has only two objectives as it relates to this issue:
1) Reinforcing his image as possessing "econ cred" and for that it doesn't matter if Obama gets primary credit, so long as Romney doesn't get "credited" for wanting to close the plants, fire all the workers and sell the machinery to China, but does get acknowledged with having had a workable alternative proposal that differs on one or two key pivot points. This boast is strategically aimed at acheiving that purpose.

2) Removing it as an exlusionary issue in Michigan and Ohio, especially Ohio. Achieving this is part and parcel to achieving objective number 1.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Worst....candidate....ever...

It is a risky move necessitated because of the position Romney took on the issue (which was the smart move to take on the matter I might add). Romney is not a traditional candidate in a number of ways because he is a detail-oriented technocrat and in no way a politician. He is a fairly crappy politician. As a result of this, Romney will need to attempt some pretty risky maneuvering on the level of Lee at Chancellorsville, in order to win. Because sadly, so many people are completely ignorant on this and many issues.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.   

You make it quite clear that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

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.

Would you be willing to detail just exactly how Romney's plan would have screwed over Michigan, by explaining exactly how Romney's plan would have enabled a liquidation of the auto companies to occur?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So far, the only one in this thread who has acknowledged the details of the situation absolves the ignorance of his comrades because of a miniscule issue over Romney's semantics.

With politics conducted like this, one wonders why the nation is so screwed.


The political debate should be over the plans and the details of the plans, not lies based on completely the willfull ignorance of the many and justified by the knowledgable few, on the basis that Romney is as bad a writer as he is a politician.