18 replies to this topic

[Flying_Mollusk]

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea, The Hill reports.

Said Fehrnstrom: "His position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that. The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."

The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in the New York Times, headlined, "Let Detroit go bankrupt."

http://politicalwire...mneys_idea.html

Interesting. I thought the auto bailout was a socialist government takeover of the private sector. As it turns out, its actually a legit idea from the republican presidential candidate stolen by the evil president.

[EricWiener]

'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' recommended a managed bankruptcy, which is what GM went through. i would advise people to read before they claim a shift. As for the claim that Obama took his advice? Lots of people have opinions and ideas, in many cases they are the same opinions and ideas.

Romney Op-Ed

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.

Obama Press Conference:

Chrysler:

When my administration took office and began going over Chrysler's books, the future of this great American car company was uncertain. In fact, it was not clear whether it had any future at all. But after consulting with my Auto Task Force, industry experts, and financial advisors, and after asking many tough questions, I became convinced that if Chrysler were willing to undergo a restructuring, and if it were able to form a partnership with a viable global car company, then Chrysler could get a new lease on life.

Well, that more promising scenario has now come to pass. Today, after taking a number of painful steps, and moving through a quick, efficient, and fair bankruptcy process, a new, stronger Chrysler is poised to complete its alliance with Fiat. Just 31 days after Chrysler's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, a court has approved the Chrysler-Fiat alliance, paving the way for a new Chrysler to emerge from bankruptcy in the next few days.

GM:

Exiting a restructuring of this scale, however, requires not only new investment. It also requires giving GM a chance to start anew by clearing away the massive past debts that are weighing the company down. And that's why earlier today, GM did what Chrysler has successfully done and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the support of its key stakeholders and the United States government.

In all likelihood, this process will take more time for GM than it did for Chrysler because GM is a bigger, more complex company. But Chrysler's extraordinary success reaffirms my confidence that GM will emerge from its bankruptcy process quickly, and as a stronger and more competitive company. And I want to remind everyone that if you are considering buying a GM car during this period of restructuring, your warrantees will be safe and government-backed.

[Flying_Mollusk]

So that which Obama did, and which was characterized as a government takeover of the private sector, is exactly what Romney would have done?

[EricWiener]

I do not consider the managed bankruptcy to be a government takeover of the private sector. The previous fat checks written by Congress at the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obama's presidency were.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I do not consider the managed bankruptcy to be a government takeover of the private sector. The previous fat checks written by Congress at the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of Obama's presidency were.

Oh ok. Well Romney has also said he agreed with the TARP program issued by the Bush administration. So he is saying that he agreed with, what you now characterize, as government takeover of the private sector. So Romney would be ok with government take over of the private sector.

[EricWiener]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not recall advocating Romney thus far. At this point he looks just good by comparison, which is not saying much. I am just a fan of calling bulls***, especially when it is defeated with less than 30 seconds of effort.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not recall advocating Romney thus far. At this point he looks just good by comparison, which is not saying much. I am just a fan of calling bulls***, especially when it is defeated with less than 30 seconds of effort.

I dont think you defeated anything. I just see squiriming attempts to defend Romney. I cant imagine its easy.

[EricWiener]

"Let them go bankrupt" is not the same as "let them go out of business" and the Obama campaign's obfuscation on the issue is being politely passed along as if it were accurate. in fact, GM and Chrysler did indeed go bankrupt, and their new found health is being trumpeted as a success.

I did not defend Romney, I revealed a misleading attempt to miscast his position. There was no squirming on my part, at all. At most, I dismissed your efforts to place me in alignment with others. In fact, there is little space between Romney's opinion and Obama's actions on the matter. So little space, in fact, that near identical language was used as regards to the manufacturer's warranties.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Where did I say anything about "let them go bankrupt?" Pretty sure you chose to fight a strawman on this one. But keep swinging at air.

My point is that conservative sh*t their pants over stuff Obama does, but when a republican does it or claims they would have done it the say way, they let it go.

[EricWiener]

The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in the New York Times, headlined, "Let Detroit go bankrupt."

[el penguino]

My point is that conservative sh*t their pants over stuff Obama does, but when a republican does it or claims they would have done it the say way, they let it go.

I wouldn't vote for Romney even if a gun were pointed at my head, but I find this to be rather silly.

Obama's policies pertaining to the "war on terror" are every bit as egregious in terms of violating civil liberties as Bush's were (in fact, I would argue they are even worse) and yet you hardly ever hear a peep from leftists about any of that. They pretty much shrug their shoulders or make some unconvincing excuses. Such policies were basically the heart of the "anyone but Bush" mentality.

If a Republican president had signed recent NDAA into law, the left would certainly have erupted into outrage. We would have seen MSNBC pundits breaking out into monologues about the US degenerating into an Orwellian dystopia (just like Olbermann used to do when Bush was in office). Instead the left either ignores all of it or squirms to make excuses.


Yeah, the right has to make a ton of excuses and do a lot of squirming to get behind Romney, but it's pretty foolish to pretend that the left isn't just as disingenuous.

[EricWiener]

I require neither excuses nor squirming to support Romney over Obama. He looks good by comparison, and unfortunately he is the only viable option to remove Obama who is a far larger version of the big government jackass. Would I have preferred somebody else? Sure, though I do not think that any of the viable options were any better and some (Sanctorum, Gingrich) were worse.

I do not like McDonalds, but I prefer it to Burger King and if I am hungry, pressed for time and only have $3.18 I will choose McDonalds.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I require neither excuses nor squirming to support Romney over Obama. He looks good by comparison, and unfortunately he is the only viable option to remove Obama who is a far larger version of the big government jackass. Would I have preferred somebody else? Sure, though I do not think that any of the viable options were any better and some (Sanctorum, Gingrich) were worse.

I do not like McDonalds, but I prefer it to Burger King and if I am hungry, pressed for time and only have $3.18 I will choose McDonalds.

The better analogy would be a PETA person who protests outside McDonalds against meat eating, then says he is hungry and goes to BK because its the closest non-McDonalds options.

Thanks for proving my point though. The past 3 years of Obama is the devil was basically all for show. If Romney is elected and does the same thing, conservatives wont make hay out of it. Just like they dont care how Bush created government programs or spent beyond his means.

[EricWiener]

If Romney "does the same thing" then I would support an in-party revolt.

[el penguino]

Thanks for proving my point though. The past 3 years of Obama is the devil was basically all for show. If Romney is elected and does the same thing, conservatives wont make hay out of it. Just like they dont care how Bush created government programs or spent beyond his means.

'
That's basically the pot calling the kettle black.

Liberals are not any different.

[Flying_Mollusk]

If Romney "does the same thing" then I would support an in-party revolt.

Romney is already doing the same thing.

[EricWiener]

If Romney "does the same thing" then I would support an in-party revolt.

Romney is already doing the same thing.

That would be a neat trick, given that he is not President of the United States. But, just because two men may agree on an issue does not mean that two men will agree on every issue, nor will they agree upon matters of degree.

[Hotcorner]

I've heard next he's going to take credit for Obamacare.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I've heard next he's going to take credit for Obamacare.

It's a fascinating world that this guy lives in. I mean he reminds me of George Costanza in that, its not a lie if you really believe it.