Romney article on "Letting Detroit go Bankrupt"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

All of this is article is dead nutz on.

 

And it exposes Obama as a lying sack yet again.

 

By MITT ROMNEY

 

Published: November 18, 2008

 

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

 

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

 

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

 

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

 

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

 

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

 

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

 

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

 

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

 

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

 

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

 

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

 

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

 

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

 

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?src=mv&ref=general

[Reality 2,710]

Obama had a very hard time with the truth last night.

[MTSkiBum 1,593]

In the end Ford did not take the bailout, and has posted the highest profit margin out of the 3 American car makers the last few years. Maybe it is correlation, maybe not, but the 1 american car company that did not take the bailout has done the best.

 

 

 

To be fair GM has been posting a profit the last 2 years in-spite of the european recession. The bailout was not the correct move, but it looks like GM is still managing to be competitive.

[eaglesalltheway 0]

Alright, I'll take the bait...even though it's not going to change your opinion or mine.

 

My link

 

But many auto industry experts, including the Obama administration's former car czar, Steven Rattner, a Democrat, and former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, a Republican, say there was no private-sector financing available in 2009 and the bailout was the only way to keep the companies alive.

 

"He thinks we didn't try to borrow money from the banks?" Lutz told the Detroit Free Press in February. "The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?"

 

Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.

 

So what was Romney's plan when no one was willing to invest in these companies? And how would the government provide "guarantees" without using tax payer dollars? His opinion seems exactly that, an opinion, with little details and a perfect world scenario. To think that there were companies lining up at the door to buy these companies is crazy, and any private investor, if there was one, would want to pay pennies on the dollar for these companies. Do I believe Obama saved the companies themselves? Not necessarily, but I certainly believe he saved the jobs of all the workers of these companies.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Alright, I'll take the bait...even though it's not going to change your opinion or mine.

 

My link

 

But many auto industry experts, including the Obama administration's former car czar, Steven Rattner, a Democrat, and former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, a Republican, say there was no private-sector financing available in 2009 and the bailout was the only way to keep the companies alive.

 

"He thinks we didn't try to borrow money from the banks?" Lutz told the Detroit Free Press in February. "The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?"

 

Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.

 

So what was Romney's plan when no one was willing to invest in these companies? And how would the government provide "guarantees" without using tax payer dollars? His opinion seems exactly that, an opinion, with little details and a perfect world scenario. To think that there were companies lining up at the door to buy these companies is crazy, and any private investor, if there was one, would want to pay pennies on the dollar for these companies. Do I believe Obama saved the companies themselves? Not necessarily, but I certainly believe he saved the jobs of all the workers of these companies.

 

 

So, Obama's first "Car Czar" (who's job was created because of the bailout) and the clown who ran GM into the ground and wanted the taxpayers to save his ass thinks bailing out GM was a good idea.

 

I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

[eaglesalltheway 0]

So, Obama's first "Car Czar" (who's job was created because of the bailout) and the clown who ran GM into the ground and wanted the taxpayers to save his ass thinks bailing out GM was a good idea.

 

I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

 

That clown was a republican though - either way, it's good to see you not disagreeing with the fact that Obama saved the jobs of the employees. I'm glad we can agree on something

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

So, Obama's first "Car Czar" (who's job was created because of the bailout) and the clown who ran GM into the ground and wanted the taxpayers to save his ass thinks bailing out GM was a good idea.

 

I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

 

So no real response.... I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

[SUXBNME 1,319]

All of this is article is dead nutz on.

 

And it exposes Obama as a lying sack yet again.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?src=mv&ref=general

Bison Messink, Sports editor, thinks you are full of it

One needn't read past the opening sentence of Mitt Romney's infamous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Op-Ed to see that he is wrong. Just to be thorough, we'll go deeper than that here, but let's start with that sentence:

 

"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday," Romney wrote in the New York Times, "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

 

The Obama administration did support Chrysler and General Motors with federal funds, and did work with the companies to restructure through a managed bankruptcy. What we have now is now is a domestic auto industry that is stronger than it has been at any point in the last thirty years.

 

Last spring, Romney turned heads by having the audacity to take credit for the success of the auto turnaround, because he says it was his idea to put the struggling companies through a managed bankruptcy. So where does Romney's plan differ from Obama's execution?

 

If it were up to Romney, GM and Chrysler would have had to fund their bankruptcy using private capital, instead of funds from the federal government. Which sounds great in an ideal world -- but 2008 was far from an ideal world. We were in the midst of a historic financial collapse and there was no private capital to be found. You could not get a loan to buy one car, not to mention a loan to support the manufacture of millions of them. Without Obama's auto bailout, Chrysler would not exist today. GM would probably have hobbled along, but it would be a shell of what it is today.

 

Hundreds of thousands of jobs - maybe more - would have been lost. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri would have faced economic ruin.

 

"Frankly, what we told ourselves at General Motors was we're sure (Romney) is a good governor, but he doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance," said retired vice chairman of GM Bob Lutz. "What he conveniently forgets is that there was zero liquidity in the country," Lutz says. "There was no way to fund a private Chapter 11 - even though, believe me, General Motors really tried to get private debt financing or organize a private Chapter 11. But there was no money to do it."

 

Lutz, a Republican, added that he still hopes Romney can win Michigan.

 

If we read on in Mitt Romney's Op-Ed, we see Romney's naivete, and the knee-jerk instinct that both he and Paul Ryan express every time they see economic woe: force concessions out of workers.

 

Romey blames auto worker's pay rates and benefits as the reason that, as Romney says, American cars are an inferior product to those made oversees. And at the same time that he insists on cuts to workers, he stares through rose-colored glasses to say "new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end."

 

Slash pay and benefits and cut away the retiree benefits that seniors are currently depending on, and then insist that enmity must end?

 

Fortunately, in 2008 America had already said "no thanks" to a Mitt Romney Presidency, and he was not in a position to make such a disastrous decision. Hopefully, America will take a pass on him again in 2012.

 

http://www.ology.com/post/220158/where-mitt-romney-got-it-wrong-on-the-auto-bailout

 

Good luck disputing Bisons facts, RP...you focking hack

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Bison Messink, Sports editor, thinks you are full of it

 

 

http://www.ology.com/post/220158/where-mitt-romney-got-it-wrong-on-the-auto-bailout

 

Good luck disputing Bisons facts, RP...you focking hack

I always turn to sports editors for my info on intricate financial matters. Thanks for the info.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That clown was a republican though - either way, it's good to see you not disagreeing with the fact that Obama saved the jobs of the employees. I'm glad we can agree on something

Thousands of corporations go through the normal bankruptcy process and save the employees jobs. The only difference here is that Obama ignored normal bankruptcy laws, screwed the bondholders out of their legal standing as creditors, and gave controlling interest in the company to the UAW.

 

 

Yep, awesome plan.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So no real response.... I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

Um, my response was to point out his link relied on the opinion of a guy who's job was created by the bailout, and also relied on the opinion of a guy who fukked up his company so bad he looked to the taxpayers to bail out his failures.

 

Nice rebuttal of my points by you though, Sport.

[flap 1]

I'd vote for Mitt's dad. Is he on the ticket?

[MDC 5,875]

RP got so clobbered in this thread.

 

Wow that was a beat down.

[SUXBNME 1,319]

I always turn to sports editors for my info on intricate financial matters. Thanks for the info.

So...No response huh?

 

Focking republitards

[Voltaire 4,552]

Thankfully President Obama rejected the awful advice from a politically compromised source. The bailout were/are incredibly successful and thankfully went through despite Romney's objections ... for this we can all be grateful America rejected him in 2008 and hopefully will do so again in 2012.

 

I know folks Texas you don't give a sh*t about the American auto industry and for that, they can go fock themselves. Thankfully, the influx of Mexicans there is improving the genepool. As for Romney backstabbing his "(wink-wink)homestate" and neighboring Ohio at a time when we could have use the support - hopefully that's the straw that breaks the weathervane's back, the one that comes back to haunt him the most and tilts the election away from him the election. Obama has been playing this card to the hilt regionally which is why he'll hopefully win those states and thus deprive Romney the presidency andAmerica of his bad judgment on auto matters.

 

Hey Mitt, you tried to fock us over when we could have used your help, now when you need us, we're happy to return the favor and fock you over. So I'd say we're even then, no? Now go join your Massachussetts buddies Dukakis and Kerry in obscurity and irrelevence, thanks in advance.

[Reality 2,710]

Thankfully President Obama rejected the awful advice from a politically compromised source. The bailout were/are incredibly successful and thankfully went through despite Romney's objections ... for this we can all be grateful America rejected him in 2008 and hopefully will do so again in 2012.

 

I know folks Texas you don't give a sh*t about the American auto industry and for that, they can go fock themselves. Thankfully, the influx of Mexicans there is improving the genepool. As for Romney backstabbing his "(wink-wink)homestate" and neighboring Ohio at a time when we could have use the support - hopefully that's the straw that breaks the weathervane's back, the one that comes back to haunt him the most and tilts the election away from him the election. Obama has been playing this card to the hilt regionally which is why he'll hopefully win those states and thus deprive Romney the presidency andAmerica of his bad judgment on auto matters.

 

Hey Mitt, you tried to fock us over when we could have used your help, now when you need us, we're happy to return the favor and fock you over. So I'd say we're even then, no? Now go join your Massachussetts buddies Dukakis and Kerry in obscurity and irrelevence, thanks in advance.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thankfully President Obama rejected the awful advice from a politically compromised source. The bailout were/are incredibly successful and thankfully went through despite Romney's objections ... for this we can all be grateful America rejected him in 2008 and hopefully will do so again in 2012.

 

I know folks Texas you don't give a sh*t about the American auto industry and for that, they can go fock themselves. Thankfully, the influx of Mexicans there is improving the genepool. As for Romney backstabbing his "(wink-wink)homestate" and neighboring Ohio at a time when we could have use the support - hopefully that's the straw that breaks the weathervane's back, the one that comes back to haunt him the most and tilts the election away from him the election. Obama has been playing this card to the hilt regionally which is why he'll hopefully win those states and thus deprive Romney the presidency andAmerica of his bad judgment on auto matters.

 

Hey Mitt, you tried to fock us over when we could have used your help, now when you need us, we're happy to return the favor and fock you over. So I'd say we're even then, no? Now go join your Massachussetts buddies Dukakis and Kerry in obscurity and irrelevence, thanks in advance.

 

So you didn't read Romney's article.

[patweisers44 697]

Not to pile on here, but in the past haven't we tried to remind folks that President Bush actually provided the first "bridge" loan to the automotive companies?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Not to pile on here, but in the past haven't we tried to remind folks that President Bush actually provided the first "bridge" loan to the automotive companies?

Sssssssshhhhhhhhhh.

[shovelheadt 60]

Not to pile on here

 

Please do. RP thinks it's an orgy.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Not to pile on here, but in the past haven't we tried to remind folks that President Bush actually provided the first "bridge" loan to the automotive companies?

 

Surprisingly, Obama isn't blaming Bush for this one.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

Um, my response was to point out his link relied on the opinion of a guy who's job was created by the bailout, and also relied on the opinion of a guy who fukked up his company so bad he looked to the taxpayers to bail out his failures.

 

Nice rebuttal of my points by you though, Sport.

 

Points, what points, you made an ad hominem attack and ignored all points made in the article.

[Voltaire 4,552]

So you didn't read Romney's article.

I've read it a half dozen times over the years.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Points, what points, you made an ad hominem attack and ignored all points made in the article.

 

Where did I make an ad hominem attack?

 

I pointed out the points made in the article relied on the OPINIONS of:

 

1. The guy who ran GM into the ground.

 

2. The guy whose job was created by the govt bailout.

[Voltaire 4,552]

Not to pile on here, but in the past haven't we tried to remind folks that President Bush actually provided the first "bridge" loan to the automotive companies?

 

It's more than myth. Somewhere in the stratosphere of Horseshi*t Mountain, after five days of climbing, really does exist this single kernel of corn.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

So, Obama's first "Car Czar" (who's job was created because of the bailout) and the clown who ran GM into the ground and wanted the taxpayers to save his ass thinks bailing out GM was a good idea.

 

I'm shocked.....shocked I tell ya!

 

 

Where did I make an ad hominem attack?

 

I pointed out the points made in the article relied on the OPINIONS of:

 

1. The guy who ran GM into the ground.

 

2. The guy whose job was created by the govt bailout.

 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.^[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,^[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.^[5]

 

 

[donhaas 18]

Somebody drag Shoop Pilot out of here, please....

 

This beatdown is inhumane

[KSB2424 3,082]

What a great article. Sometimes there are hard truths and hard choices to be made in business. I found this rather interesting:

 

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

 

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

 

With all the talk of Romney being ONLY for the 1% he was talking just the opposite 4 years ago. True change is changing the culture, fixing the root of the problems. What its not is putting band aids on broken arms.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What a great article. Sometimes there are hard truths and hard choices to be made in business. I found this rather interesting:

 

 

 

With all the talk of Romney being ONLY for the 1% he was talking just the opposite 4 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons for the recent major shift in the polls. With the debates, America had a chance to see the real Romney, and not just the fictitious Romney portrayed in all the lying ads and stump speeches by Obama.

 

Obama is running his campaign exactly as laid out in my sig.

 

The bored libtards are on tilt because of it.

[IGotWorms 3,297]

What a great article. Sometimes there there are hard truths and hard choices to be made in business. I found this rather interesting:

 

 

 

With all the talk of Romney being ONLY for the 1% he was talking just the opposite 4 years ago.

 

Really? Then why was he willing to let a million auto workers lose their job rather than bail out the industry? Hell, he WANTED those companies to go bankrupt so they could break the unions. I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Really? Then why was he willing to let a million auto workers lose their job rather than bail out the industry? Hell, he WANTED those companies to go bankrupt so they could break the unions. I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

You are obviously not a pretend bankruptcy attorney since you have no clue how it works.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

I always turn to sports editors for my info on intricate financial matters. Thanks for the info.

I always turn to Mitt Romney for my opinions about the correctness of Mitt Romney.

[jerryskids 5,165]

Really? Then why was he willing to let a million auto workers lose their job rather than bail out the industry? Hell, he WANTED those companies to go bankrupt so they could break the unions. I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

Where did he propose that a million auto workers lose there jobs?

[jerryskids 5,165]

What a great article. Sometimes there are hard truths and hard choices to be made in business. I found this rather interesting:

 

 

 

With all the talk of Romney being ONLY for the 1% he was talking just the opposite 4 years ago. True change is changing the culture, fixing the root of the problems. What its not is putting band aids on broken arms.

 

That part caught my eye as well. The other part was where he described the $2,000 additional cost of every car due to labor costs, and why that makes a comparably-priced Avalon feel nicer. That's a pretty simple argument that most people can understand. Well, maybe not most people here though.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Somebody drag Shoop Pilot out of here, please....

 

This beatdown is inhumane

Lessee....I bring an article from 2008 where Romney clearly spelled out his plan for the auto industry. A plan that exposes Obama's blatant lies about Romney on the subject in the last debate.

 

The rebuttal: An article with opinions from the guy who ran GM into the ground, and the guy who got his job due to the Govt bailout.

 

Beatdown?????

 

Run along to dance class, Donnie.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Really? Then why was he willing to let a million auto workers lose their job rather than bail out the industry? Hell, he WANTED those companies to go bankrupt so they could break the unions. I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

I don't want to speak for Mitt Romney, but after reading the article it sounds like to me that its not that he WANTED people to lose their jobs. Nobody wants that. Its that he sees an industry in real trouble. And a quick influx of money is only delaying the enivitable unless real changes (as he laid out) are done.

 

Romney is looking at how to fix the ROOT CAUSES of the problem, not just try and help ease the side effects while the root causes still exists.

 

It's a very well written, thought out op/ed. Anyone that's been to business school will read it and appreciate it.

[KSB2424 3,082]

I know you probably support union-busting but think what it would of meant for the families dependent on those middle class jobs.

Personally, I think unions very much had their place in history. That can't really be debated. And I think they may still have a place. However what needs to change is unions need to understand they have to sacrafice too. If they want to stick around then they have to meet in the middle. Unions purpose was to protect the American worker from being taken advantage of and get 'fair' pay and benefits. That is fine, but the pendulum has swung where those union workers in some cases are recieveng benefits that are beyond 'fair'. They are recieving benefits that no one else in the country can get. Unions have their place, but they've been and are spoiled. If they want to stick around they need to give a little too and understand its in their own best long-term interest to do so.

[MDC 5,875]

I don't want to speak for Mitt Romney, but after reading the article it sounds like to me that its not that he WANTED people to lose their jobs. Nobody wants that. Its that he sees an industry in real trouble. And a quick influx of money is only delaying the enivitable unless real changes (as he laid out) are done.

 

Romney is looking at how to fix the ROOT CAUSES of the problem, not just try and help ease the side effects while the root causes still exists.

 

It's a very well written, thought out op/ed. Anyone that's been to business school will read it and appreciate it.

 

It sounds to me like Romney wrote the article to come off like an Ayn Randian free marketeer back when he was running for the GOP nomination in 2008. Now that the auto bailout has been a huge success and he's running in the general election, he's trying to spin the Op/Ed as something it's not.

 

That's the problem with guys like Romney. He's taken every position on everything for the past 4 years and many of his former comments contradict his stated policies today. Shaking the Etch-A-Sketch doesn't remove articles you wrote and quotes you made.

 

Romney is banking on the American public being so ill-informed and stupid that they'll buy his latest act.

[donhaas 18]

This is one of the reasons for the recent major shift in the polls. With the debates, America had a chance to see the real Romney, and not just the fictitious Romney portrayed in all the lying ads and stump speeches by Obama.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r6TA1PNG_M

 

 

Agreed, Shoop. America has gotten to see the real Romney.... a flip-flopping, zero backbone, say anything-to-get-elected, zero concrete plans (besides EAT CAKE;LOSE WEIGHT....NO DETAILS! ), 30 lies in 30 minutes kind of d!ckweed that they are going to reject...

 

 

Great video, btw!

[jerryskids 5,165]

It sounds to me like Romney wrote the article to come off like an Ayn Randian free marketeer back when he was running for the GOP nomination in 2008. Now that the auto bailout has been a huge success and he's running in the general election, he's trying to spin the Op/Ed as something it's not.

 

That's the problem with guys like Romney. He's taken every position on everything for the past 4 years and many of his former comments contradict his stated policies today. Shaking the Etch-A-Sketch doesn't remove articles you wrote and quotes you made.

 

Romney is banking on the American public being so ill-informed and stupid that they'll buy his latest act.

Actually, Obama is banking on the American public being ill-informed by taking Romney's position on managed bankruptcy and turning it into a strawman of "Romney wanted GM to go out of business." Exhibit A: Worms' belief that Romney wanted 1 million auto workers to lose their jobs.

 

Also, GM is not a huge success. Any success they are showing now is built on a house of cards. My BIL was an engineer there for 20 years, and he left a few months ago. Things are not as good as you may think.