Video: Obama showed some backbone on GM, says … Mitt Romney?

posted at 4:30 pm on March 31, 2009 by Allahpundit

When I first saw The Hill’s item on this, I thought the “backbone” comment was a reference to The One firing GM’s CEO. Not so, or at least not necessarily: Mitt never mentions Wagoner’s departure, leaving it ambiguous as to whether he approves or whether he’s simply thinking big picture about the need for managed bankruptcy and willing to overlook an imperious gesture or two from the Oval Office on the way there. In any case, his point about Obama’s supposed backbone escapes me. What’s so brave about The One demanding restructuring as a quid pro quo for federal money? The auto bailouts are political poison outside Michigan; Obama has to show the public he’s getting something in return for flushing a few billion more down the toilet or else support for the whole Great Society II agenda could collapse. Wagoner was simply a sacrifice to the god of “progress.” Or, maybe, a stumbling block to something more ambitious:

It also means that Wagoner was perceived as an obstacle to whatever plans the administration has for GM. And that’s the real source of concern. If getting these companies back on their feet is the objective, a bankruptcy judge can make a determination pretty quickly about the viability of the firms and the steps necessary to get there. But if the objective is something more grandiose, such as transforming the industry into a model of green production, government oversight and close scrutiny of operations will be necessary. CEOs must be compliant and pliant. It is worth noting that a return to profitability and the metamorphosis of the industry according to a government script work at cross purposes.

If that’s what Obama’s after then Romney’s comparison between this and bankruptcy couldn’t be more wrong. Exit question via Rich Lowry: If Wagoner had to go, why didn’t UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger have to go too? No need to answer; it’s rhetorical, of course.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Not quite. A big chunk goes to funded R&D.

You do know how the internet was really invented right?

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Internet: Grown from a Department of Defense R&D project.

Somehow I don’t see Chrysler or GM inventing the Next Big Thing because they got billions in taxpayer dollars.

Well, unless you consider “transmissions that don’t fail in 75,000 miles” or “cars that don’t reuse the same engine and platform for 20 years” as some huge leap in technology.

Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Well, since you’re so much more knowledgeable, give me the specific examples I asked for about 20 posts ago.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM

BTW, if it wasn’t for government funded research we wouldn;t even be having this discussion because it was funded research that developed the Internet.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Mitt in the NY TIMES

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.

William Amos on March 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Did you not read a single thing I’ve posted? If you have, you certainly did not understand a word of it and as the author, I have to take the blame for that. Hopefully, you’ll be inspired to do some independent research and become informed.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Well, since you’re so much more knowledgeable, give me the specific examples I asked for about 20 posts ago.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM

BTW, if it wasn’t for government funded research we wouldn;t even be having this discussion because it was funded research that developed the Internet.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Certainly, but we’re talking auto R&D.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM

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.

William Amos on March 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Still ambiguous, and still (I assume) taxpayer-financed.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM

This is getting as nasty as a Palin thread….without Pooptart.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

It’s getting close. There hasn’t been a paternity challenge, or Mitt’s Children slandered & brutalized yet. Give it time.

portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Thanks for playing.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM

And thank you for being as mealy mouthed as Mitt…what a disappointment, I had picked Mitt for a possible VP or cabinet, but he is just a patsy.
As weak as we was in debating Kennedy, he has shown still has no back-bone…

chpt 11 (in case sarah palin is reading, that is a controlled bankruptcy)

And just in case you are reading, it isn’t “controlled bankruptcy” it is a re-organization under the bankruptcy law.
Next time you may want to find out what you are talking about before trying to take a stab at Gov. Palin…imagine how you look trying to be funny, and end up looking like a fool.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Did you not read a single thing I’ve posted? If you have, you certainly did not understand a word of it and as the author, I have to take the blame for that. Hopefully, you’ll be inspired to do some independent research and become informed.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Yes, I did. It goes something like:

“Hey guys, government R&D money helped invent the Internet and bring lifesaving drugs, so forking over billions to the failing auto industry is just peachy with me!”

R&D is a business expense, one that all other auto manufacturers incur. Money is fungible- one dollar (of their own money) that they don’t have to spend on R&D is another dollar they can spend elsewhere.

Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Still ambiguous, and still (I assume) taxpayer-financed.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Ambigious ?

Mitt “I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research “

William Amos on March 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Still ambiguous, and still (I assume) taxpayer-financed.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Seriously you cannot be taught.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:41 PM

mitt to fire the ceo of a company is not the presidents job would even one person in washington please read the constitution

wade underhile on March 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Hence, why my previous post explained that he was in a ‘Michigan State of Mind’. I’m not from Michigan, so I didn’t give a fig about his father. I knew that Mitt was good on business and after Fred dropped out, he was my next pick. I had to muddle through all the lies and half truths being thrown at him from Huckaboob and McCain. He flipped and he flopped, he ran MA, understood. Huck did the same, and DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW MUCH I HATE McCAIN!
I knew that Mitt knew business, he ran one and he had a lot more business sense than the entire field, dem and rep, combined. But, again, by the time I voted in the primary in June, he was off the ballot, so I voted for Paul.
Now, I am not prejudiced agains everything he said, he just wasn’t that clear, like today’s item, petunia. We are on the same side.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:43 PM

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM
You did read what I wrote right? You do understand the difference between funded research and paying somebody’s operating cots right? So then why would you post that?

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Of course ddrintn didnt read what you wrote BigDog.

He wouldnt understand it if he did read it.

He prefers to put on a little girl skirt and grab some pom poms and yell “Go SARAH!! YAY”

That is what ddrintn would prefer to do.

He is a taco short of a mexican meal.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM

He is a taco short of a mexican meal.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RACIST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:45 PM

And just in case you are reading, it isn’t “controlled bankruptcy” it is a re-organization under the bankruptcy law.
Next time you may want to find out what you are talking about before trying to take a stab at Gov. Palin…imagine how you look trying to be funny, and end up looking like a fool.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Hey Not2bright, guess what? I make a living financing companies coming out of chapter 11. I think I know what chapter 11 is. Chapter 11 is a controlled bankruptcy where a judge determines which creditors, vendors, affiliates, etc get paid what and HOW THE COMPANY WILL BE REORGANIZED.

So, I guess YOU are the dumbass, arent you???

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

My guess: None.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM

the wall is a Mormon who does not think to much of the Christians…
getalife is a liberal troll…
Proud Rino is democrat, he is a proud supporter of Obama and has already stated he will vote for him in 2012…
Basically they are all three similar, or at least similar goals…all three hate Palin.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Did you not read a single thing I’ve posted? If you have, you certainly did not understand a word of it and as the author, I have to take the blame for that. Hopefully, you’ll be inspired to do some independent research and become informed.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Nah dude, it isnt your fault.

How can he possibly understand??? You used multisyllabic words. HA HA HA!!!

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Mitt Romney’s statement just confirms why he is NOT the future of the GOP.

It is NOT the job of the POTUS to fire the CEO of GM.

The future of the GOP has to be someone who knows that point.

Phil Byler on March 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Definitely a lot of Huckabee supporters in the comments today. Romney wrote in an op-ed piece months ago that he supported a controlled bankruptcy for the auto companies. Romney is taking Obama’s words at face value and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he does indeed want to restructure and get these companies back on their feet. That being said, Romney has no choice but to back Obama’s plan because it so closely mirrors his own! Should Romney trust that Obama only has the purest of intentions? No…and therein lies his folly. But if Romney had gotten on tv today and opposed Obama’s plan you all would be condemning him for flip flopping! Damned if you do….damned if you don’t.

ashofpompeii on March 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM

so I voted for Paul.
Now, I am not prejudiced agains everything he said, he just wasn’t that clear, like today’s item, petunia. We are on the same side.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:43 PM

but but but you voted for Paul???? Tee hee!

Okay I must admit that when Mitt dropped out I threatened to vote for Kucinich! That would have been a hoot at parties!

“So who did you want for President?” “Well I voted for Kucinich.” Dead silence.

But sadly he dropped out too. Depriving the election of much of its entertainment value.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM

the wall is a Mormon who does not think to much of the Christians…

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Wow, I guess you are still smarting when I kicked your ass about what a chapter 11 bankruptcy is….but to resort to lies like that, what the hell?

You are a joke, dude. You think anybody who supports Romney over Palin is a Mormon? Anybody who doesnt like the “christian right” is a Mormon. If you read much, you would know I dont follow any organized faith.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

so I voted for Paul.
Now, I am not prejudiced agains everything he said, he just wasn’t that clear, like today’s item, petunia. We are on the same side.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:43 PM
but but but you voted for Paul???? Tee hee!

Okay I must admit that when Mitt dropped out I threatened to vote for Kucinich! That would have been a hoot at parties!

“So who did you want for President?” “Well I voted for Kucinich.” Dead silence.

But sadly he dropped out too. Depriving the election of much of its entertainment value.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Only in the primary, petunia, against McCain.
I voted for Sarah when it really counted. :)

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:54 PM

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Is everything about Sarah Palin? She may not even run. She may not even be the best canidate by then. How can you have a canidate already!

This isn’t to just R2B

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers… I know it is different but not that different.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Wow, look who the big man on campus is…..now, shut up, you sound like an ass.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Only in the primary, petunia, against McCain.
I voted for Sarah when it really counted. :)

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Yes I fell in line too. But by then I was really voting against Obama.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Mitt Romney’s statement just confirms why he is NOT the future of the GOP.

It is NOT the job of the POTUS to fire the CEO of GM.

The future of the GOP has to be someone who knows that point.

Phil Byler on March 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM

So, genius, when the U.S. government becomes, in essence, the majority stockholder of a company, something that Romney disagreed with but it is a historical fact now, you dont think they get a say in how the company is being run?

Romney didnt want the feds to put in billions in the company…but now that they have, the feds are the majority stockholder and SHOULD require changes to hopefully fix the company.

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND??????????

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Hey Not2bright, guess what? I make a living financing companies coming out of chapter 11. I think I know what chapter 11 is. Chapter 11 is a controlled bankruptcy where a judge determines which creditors, vendors, affiliates, etc get paid what and HOW THE COMPANY WILL BE REORGANIZED.

So, I guess YOU are the dumbass, arent you???

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Hey, guess what, no attorney would call it a “controlled bankrutpcy” it is a re-organization.
Someone who says they do what you say should know that…and it is the creditors (usually the top 7) who “work the deal”, the “judge”, which is actually a U.S. trustee or bankruptcy administrator supervises the administration (not the “judge”)…of course if you are who you say you are, you would have known this. Often a judge isn’t even involved, as in NC, anyone can be appointed to oversee a bankruptcy (and they set up a creditors committee)…but then you would have already known that…

So, I guess YOU are the dumbass, arent you???

If you get confused again, I will be more then happy to straighten you out…or you can email Gov. Palin, she obviously knows more about it then you.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Only in the primary, petunia, against McCain.
I voted for Sarah when it really counted. :)

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Yes I fell in line too. But by then I was really voting against Obama.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:56 PM

We are on the same page, petunia. We need a good field for 2012, not the crap we ended up with before.

HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 7:00 PM

William Amos on March 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Thanks, Mr. Amos. You frequently add very relevant facts to threads.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 7:00 PM

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND??????????

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Because Obama has no business experience…none, nada, not one bit…and he is making major business decisions based on a political formula…one steeped in socialism.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND????
For someone who supposedly is involved in business, you sure are…well, let’s just say, a little weak in business knowledge.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:01 PM

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Sorry, we mere plebians are far too intellectually devoid to pay proper homage to your mellifluous omnipotence. How about you get the hell out of here and find a site where your Jupiter-sized id would be better fellated?

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 7:02 PM

My support of Romney<0

Chaz706 on March 31, 2009 at 7:03 PM

the wall is a Mormon who does not think to much of the Christians…

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Wow, I guess you are still smarting when I kicked your ass about what a chapter 11 bankruptcy is….but to resort to lies like that, what the hell?

I dont follow any organized faith.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

The swearing kind of kicked me off to you not being mormon, unless you were drinking Coca-Cola and high on all the Caffeine. Don’t get your Garments in such a bunch.

portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 7:07 PM

It sounds like NorthEastern Republicans, or …

portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Yes. They do sound that way too frequently, are too liberal for my taste, and they can’t be counted on very often to stay on our side, especially lately. But, if I remember correctly, they have come in handy every now and then when we had a majority in the Senate and needed cloture.

As to the rest of your comment, I don’t like being rude to one of our hosts.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 7:12 PM

You are a joke, dude. You think anybody who supports Romney over Palin is a Mormon? Anybody who doesnt like the “christian right” is a Mormon. If you read much, you would know I dont follow any organized faith.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

No it was based on a post where you basically called the Apostle’s Creed foolish, while defending the Mormon faith.
Because of your attack on the Creed, which is a basic Mormon tactic, and because you supported Mitt (and the Mormon faith), the three fit. They usually go hand and hand, dude…

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Actually he didn’t govern as a “big government, pro-choice” Governor. There are some myths such as abortion which were part of his laws that he signed which were inserted by the HUGELY dominated Democratic Commonwealth.

Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 6:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks
No one was twisting his arm.
Oh, and the Huckster is also a fake Conservative. The candidates we need to support are Conservative to their core. That is, they base EVERY decision or act on whether or not the Framers and the Constitution endorse such a decision or act. Part time conservatism is NOT Conservatism. Just look at GWBush. We need to nominate people who actually believe this stuff and are not simply giving it lip-service.

edgehead on March 31, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers… I know it is different but not that different.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Honey, I was attacking the wall, not so much defending Palin. Read the posts and you will understand.
Reagan didn’t “fire” the controllers, he broke the union that was holding us “hostage”.
When the controllers threatened to close down all the airports unless their demands were met…Reagan said “you’re fired”, now come back and re-apply. Meanwhile he pulled in air traffic controllers from the military, and some crossed the lines.
I doubt that Obama will “break the union” to get a better deal for GM and us…they are not only different, but polar opposites.
One president worked for the people…the other works for the unions.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:24 PM

the wall is a Mormon who does not think to much of the Christians…
getalife is a liberal troll…
Proud Rino is democrat, he is a proud supporter of Obama

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Yes regarding the second two. As to the top of your list, Mormonism might explain it. Yet, the comments are still far too inflammatory. Unless blinded by passion, it must see that such comments will only result in increased opposition to its cause. And, I have met at least one liberal Democrat Mormon who could not stand Romney. And they have supported one another in this thread. Therefore, I still think it likely that this is a liberal troll in disguise, trying to foment division.

If the base is busy dividing up into camps and firing upon one another, then we will certainly lose in the mid-terms and 2012. Who does that benefit?

We simply must hold our fire so we have ammunition left to shoot at our common enemy. That means we must learn to support our own candidates and beliefs, without bashing others and their supporters.

So, toward that end, I point out that Mormons are Christians.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM

We need to nominate people who actually believe this stuff and are not simply giving it lip-service.

edgehead on March 31, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Absolutely…

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Ah. More evidence of a liberal in disguise here to foment division:

I dont follow any organized faith.

Does it support anything conservative at all?

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 7:28 PM

You are a joke, dude. You think anybody who supports Romney over Palin is a Mormon? Anybody who doesnt like the “christian right” is a Mormon. If you read much, you would know I dont follow any organized faith.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

So? You think that anyopne who supports Palin over Romney is a ReligiousWackoFundamentalistEvangelical.

Of course ddrintn didnt read what you wrote BigDog.

He wouldnt understand it if he did read it.

He prefers to put on a little girl skirt and grab some pom poms and yell “Go SARAH!! YAY”

That is what ddrintn would prefer to do.

He is a taco short of a mexican meal.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM

My support of Palin is nowhere near your Mittolatry, I assure you. I haven’t said a thing aout the man personally.

Still ambiguous, and still (I assume) taxpayer-financed.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Seriously you cannot be taught.

petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Teach, then. Beyond “Mitt said it, I believe it, that settles it”. On one hand, Mitt talked about pumping government money into the auto industry in various forms. Then his followers here point out that government spends gobs on R&D to begin with (it created the Internet after all!), which would make Mitt’s statement from last year moot.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 7:29 PM

So, toward that end, I point out that Mormons are Christians.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Please, one is mono-theist, the other poly-theist…the Apostles Creed (and it’s cousins) are the “shorthand” that defines the Christian faith…ask any Mormon if he accepts the Apostles Creed…every Christian faith does, the Mormons not only deny it, but hold it in contempt.
Mormons are one of the Abrahamic religions, that is what we share. Jews, Muslims, Christian, Mormons, all have Abraham as a foundation, from there they begin to take different paths.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Nah dude, it isnt your fault.

How can he possibly understand??? You used multisyllabic words. HA HA HA!!!

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:50 PM

I suppose that’s your version of “reasoned argument”. Put away the crayons.

You ask for an explanation, and all you get is “Humph! You’re just so stupid.” LOL Weeeeaaaak.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 7:33 PM

I think I’m beginning to see: the more trollish Romney supporters admire Romney’s education and family background, and think that by admiring his intellect and education they too are made more intelligent and discerning, by osmosis or something — though they still can’t give a reasoned defense of whatever he stands for, or for his record as governor.

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 7:36 PM

DOES ANYONE ON THE RIGHT HAVE THE BALLS NOT TO PRAISE HUSSEIN?

WHY MUST WE BE CONTINUALLY SUBJECTED TO THESE PANDERING FOOLS WHO EXPECT US TO SUPPORT THEM?

I’m removing myself from Romney’s PAC. I’ve had with the accolades the GOP keep bestowing on Hussein.

Bunch of ass-kissing surrender monkeys!

madmonkphotog on March 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM

No matter how much I disagree with their faith, I find it difficult not to consider them Christian, because of these at least:

from Wiki:

The Articles of Faith are as follows:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Also, approve of their practices and beliefs or not, they consider themselves Christian. I prefer to work with them, rather than be hostile to them.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 8:01 PM

No it was based on a post where you basically called the Apostle’s Creed foolish, while defending the Mormon faith.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Dude, just because I find that the religious right pretend to take the Bible literally while holding to the Nicene Creed which is as antithetical to the Bible as any other political document does not make me a Mormon….it just makes me intelligent.

History teaches us that the church founded by the apostles was taken over by a political organization, constantine or something. Anyway, this political organization established the official creed. They established this creed in Nicene…hence the term Nicene Creed. I just find it funny that people who are so proud of their christianity get their fundamental creeds from nonbiblical sources.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Hey, guess what, no attorney would call it a “controlled bankrutpcy” it is a re-organization.
Someone who says they do what you say should know that…

Really? Is that so? Wow…I learn something every day. Yet, every day I hear attorneys often refer to 11 as a controlled bankruptcy.

Let me think of an attorney who would call it a controlled bankruptcy…..OH I KNOW….MITT ROMNEY SUGGESTED GENERAL MOTORS GO INTO CHAPTER 11 SINCE A “CONTROLLED BANKRUPTCY” WOULD BE IN EVERYBODY’S BEST INTEREST.

And as you know, Mitt Romney is an attorney….Harvard trained I believe.

Its not the Sarah Palin Junior college resume but oh weeell.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM

You see this is what happens. You try to have a political argument…and some jackass pretend christian holier-than-thou douche starts wanting to argue about who is a christian and who is going to hell.

Thats why I hate the christian right. They suck.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Thats why I hate the christian right. They suck.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Trust me, more than just the Christian right thinks the same of you.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 8:28 PM

Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Wow. You aren’t very experienced or very well informed.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 8:30 PM

hence the term Nicene Creed. I just find it funny that people who are so proud of their christianity get their fundamental creeds from nonbiblical sources.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 8:13 PM

You have proved you know little about business, and now even less about religion…stick with the sports pages.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Also, approve of their practices and beliefs or not, they consider themselves Christian. I prefer to work with them, rather than be hostile to them.

Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Being accurate is not being hostile.
They do not accept the Nicene Creed, there founder hated Christians, and there are many accurate quotes…only in the mid nineteen hundreds did they begin, for marketing reasons, think of themselves as Christians. Just because someone calls themselves something, doesn’t make it so.
Doesn’t accuracy, honesty, history, mean anything anymore?
Mormon’s are great people, and they are great Mormon’s…but they are not, as much as they want to be, they are not Christians…once again every Christian denomination accepts the Apostles Creed (or it’s variant), everyone…the Mormon’s hold it, one of our most precious statements of faith, in disdain.
Let’s be respectful…but honest. Disagreement and refutation is not persecution
This will help you, from the mouths of Mormon’s:

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

“I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong…that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight” (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

“The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God.” (Brigham Young, JD 8:171)

“The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon….” (Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, “Divine Authenticity,” no.6, p.84).

And so many more…but this is what the founder of the Mormon’s stated, this is his view of how Christians view Christ. Let me just say that their “christ” is different from the Christians Christ.

“You may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the Saviour, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin…I have frequently thought of mules, which you know are half horse and half ass, when reflecting upon the representations made by those divines. I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time” (Journal of Discourses 4:217).

So is stating historical fact “bashing” or setting the record straight?
Mormon’s are a fine religion, and fine people, some good, some bad, just like many others…but they are Mormon’s not Christian.
A cat is not a dog because the owner wants a dog but owns a cat…he can call it a dog all he wants, and in his home it may be a “dog”, but it is still a cat.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Are seventh day adventists christians?

how bout christian scientists?

How about Jehovah Witnesses

How bout Catholics?

How about Catholics who pray to Mother Mary?

How bout those guys in Pennsylvania that still drive horse n buggys?

Just wondering…

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 9:46 PM

How bout if you dont believe in the Nicene Creed but you believe in the Bible? Is that cool?

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Mormon’s are a fine religion, and fine people, some good, some bad, just like many others…but they are Mormon’s not Christian.
A cat is not a dog because the owner wants a dog but owns a cat…he can call it a dog all he wants, and in his home it may be a “dog”, but it is still a cat.

Argument: Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.

Rebuttal: “Christians” are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior. Since LDS do accept this, they are “Christians,” just not “Trinitarian Christians.” In other words, “Trinitarian” does not equal “Christian.”

scan-your-lane on April 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM

A cat is not a dog because the owner wants a dog but owns a cat…he can call it a dog all he wants, and in his home it may be a “dog”, but it is still a cat.

A person can say that Mormons aren’t Christians etc…all he wants, and in his home, town, state, church, blog, etc… a Mormon not be considered a “Christian”, but Mormons are still Christians.

PS
A dog and a cat are both mammals.

scan-your-lane on April 1, 2009 at 1:02 AM

A cat is not a dog because the owner wants a dog but owns a cat…he can call it a dog all he wants, and in his home it may be a “dog”, but it is still a cat.

What is Mormonism? Given the fact that it is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, one can naturally extrapolate that Mormonism is not Christian. —Richard Abanes, blog post “Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Christian,” October 9, 2008.

“And given the fact that San Diego is not Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Sacramento, one can naturally extrapolate that San Diego is not in California.”

scan-your-lane on April 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM

“Christians” are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior. Since LDS do accept this, they are “Christians,” just not “Trinitarian Christians.” In other words, “Trinitarian” does not equal “Christian.”

scan-your-lane on April 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Exactly. Only evangelicals confine the label “christians” to people who accept the Nicene Creed. I think catholics and other normal people dont have a problem with the English language the way the evangelicals do.

When you think of evangelicals, think of Mike Huckabee….there ya go.

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM

As a bonafide Huckabee supporter, all I am doing right now is laughing my ass off at everybody here eating each other.
Trust me, nobody here at Hotair, besides me, likes Mike Huckabee. Furthermore, anybody that does, knows better than to stick there nose out like that. This is a hostile evironment for my kind, so I normally don’t say much of anything in disparaging a candidate.

In regards to religion, Mormons are not Christians. Personally, I could care less whether a candidate is a Christian, Mormon, Hindu, or an athiest. As long as they hold true conservative principles, I will vote and work for them. I say, who cares if he is a Mormon or not, I will judge him by his actions, not his words.

Anyway, that comment about The Wall hating us Christians, the feeling is mutual for those of your persuasion.

Lelouch on April 1, 2009 at 2:13 AM

This is just Romney being Romney – Lukewarm, conciliatory, and….dull. Moderate in everything, passionate about nothing, he gives the impression of a conflict-avoidant CEO giving faint praise to his adversary. Managerial as all hell, and better than Nytol as a sedative.

And some of you guys think this uninspiring wonk could sway voters in a general election?

RIIIIiiiight!

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 1, 2009 at 6:55 AM

This is just Romney being Romney – Lukewarm, conciliatory, and….dull. Moderate in everything, passionate about nothing, he gives the impression of a conflict-avoidant CEO giving faint praise to his adversary. Managerial as all hell, and better than Nytol as a sedative.

And some of you guys think this uninspiring wonk could sway voters in a general election?

RIIIIiiiight!

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 1, 2009 at 6:55 AM

Oh I see…you want an ENTERTAINER!!! You want somebody to do a song and dance for you rather than just somebody who will deliver a better country for your children and grandchildren to live in.

Well…you certainly have your priorities right and I am sure the Cuda will provide us with much more entertainment…thats for sure.

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Oh I see…you want an ENTERTAINER!!!

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Like Ronald Reagan, smart guy?

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2009 at 10:08 AM

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM

(sigh) You have chosen an apt name, dude. It’s like talking to one. I charge you to find one instance in history where a dull candidate defeated an interesting one in a presidential race. The guy is a boffo executive, but he couldn’t inspire people to follow him if he had a choir of angels to back him up. He just is not very inspirational a figure, and that is vital in winning at the national level. If O drops dead and Biden is the incumbent, Romney would have a shot. Otherwise, an inspirational figure is needed. Someone who the party base WANTS to follow and who can inspire others to come along for the ride. Romney just can not do that. Period.

Put him in the cabinet or in the #2 slot, and he’ll do more good than he ever could in the Oval Office.

_______

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Didn’t you know that Reagan was just some old, know-nothing STUUUUuuuuupid actor just reading lines he didn’t really understand?

Besides, The Blank Wall up there probably wasn’t even a gleam in his/her daddy’s eye when Reagan left office, so (s)he has no idea what I mean by inspiring.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Another Republican hopeful sh*its the bed!

Au revoir, Mitt!

Sweet_Thang on April 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM

If Republicans on this site who are bashing Romney (Allahpundit included) can’t reconize an adult speaking then they hear it, then we are going to end up no better than the “BushHitler” leftie crowd, I’m afraid. This site should be better than that.

If anyone read Mitt’s op-ed about the auto industry back in November Mitt is simply reiterating that view point here. He actually advocated for a clearing out most of the executives and bring in new blood from different industries to help re-vitalize the dying companies.

If the people who really think Mitt should’ve come down hard on Obama at this stage in the game then they have no idea about strategy and are just being pre-ejaculatory stupid fools!

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM

BTW, who here would like, just f**king once, to have a Romney post that doesn’t end up being a stupid fight over Huckabee and Mormons not being Christians.

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM

BTW, who here would like, just f**king once, to have a Romney post that doesn’t end up being a stupid fight over Huckabee and Mormons not being Christians.

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM

BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN I GET AN AMEN?!!

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Argument: Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.

Rebuttal: “Christians” are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior. Since LDS do accept this, they are “Christians,” just not “Trinitarian Christians.” In other words, “Trinitarian” does not equal “Christian.”

scan-your-lane on April 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM

No, because their founder didn’t think they were…and because they are poly-theists (along with several other differences, like where “authority” comes from)…Trinity is just one defining (albeit important) part of being a Christian.
We believe in one God and only one God, Mormon’s have a God for every world, hence poly vs. mono.
And read my posts from the most coveted and beloved of Mormon leaders, they didn’t consider themselves Christians.
I will ask again…what good is history, if everyone ignores it?
The common denominator is Abraham…Jews, Muslims, Mormon’s, Christians…
Those are the four Abrahamic religions…then they branch off to their own specific religions.
Christians can be broken into several, Protestants, Catholic, etc.
Mormon’s, have LDS, Reorganised, Aaronic, etc.
Jews, have Orthodox, Reform, Hasidic, etc.
Muslims have Sunni, Shia, Sufism, etc.

right2bright on April 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM

BTW, who here would like, just f**king once, to have a Romney post that doesn’t end up being a stupid fight over Huckabee and Mormons not being Christians.

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Just f*cking once, I’d like to see a Palin post that doesn’t degenerate into the same old “she doesn’t read!” moonbat talking points. Your scenario is FAR more likely.

ddrintn on April 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Eric Cantor voting for the 90% bonus tax, Michael Steele flip-flopping on abortion, Mitt saying the Magic Marxist has “courage” for making a Soviet-style coup of our auto industry.

Eff all these freaks.

There is another … the Giant is rising … let’s roll.

ex-Democrat on April 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Romney thoroughly makes it clear throughout the clip that Obama’s bailouts have been a failure. Am I missing something here or are you guys just Huckabee supporters?

thphilli on March 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM

2) Didnt understand what Romney was saying cause it wasnt retarded.

The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM

You can always tell the Huckabee supporters. They are the ones who don’t have any understanding of the economy. And start bashing Romney with no understanding of what he is saying.

Classic. The economic illiterate huckabee supporters are bashing Romney because all they know is they are supposed to be Anti-Obama bots. So if Obama does it, it must be bad even when he does something right – as in say GM should go bankrupt.

Economic illiterate Huckabee Supporters and Palintologists are one and the same.

Poptech on April 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Congrats, Sheryl. These are the two best posts on this thread.

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 9:31 PM

In fact, Sheryl’s comments were so perfect, I will quote them for your convenience:

If Republicans on this site who are bashing Romney (Allahpundit included) can’t reconize an adult speaking then they hear it, then we are going to end up no better than the “BushHitler” leftie crowd, I’m afraid. This site should be better than that.

If anyone read Mitt’s op-ed about the auto industry back in November Mitt is simply reiterating that view point here. He actually advocated for a clearing out most of the executives and bring in new blood from different industries to help re-vitalize the dying companies.

If the people who really think Mitt should’ve come down hard on Obama at this stage in the game then they have no idea about strategy and are just being pre-ejaculatory stupid fools!

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM

BTW, who here would like, just f**king once, to have a Romney post that doesn’t end up being a stupid fight over Huckabee and Mormons not being Christians.

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Thank you Sheryl. It is nice to know that I am not the only intelligent person on HotAir.

The Wall on April 1, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Are these Republicans afraid to speak out because they might start losing elections or something?

They need to wise up and realize they aren’t playing with left of center politicos, but hardcore Marxists and powerful political machines backed by big bucks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Thanks The Wall, very nice of you to say.

I wanted to add….just think of all the billions that could’ve been saved had President Bush and President-elect followed Mitt’s advice back in November.

Think about it…..sigh…..move on….and hope that in 2012 America is done with all this stupid identity politics and will elect this gifted and wonderful leader.

sheryl on April 2, 2009 at 12:21 AM

I wanted to add….just think of all the billions that could’ve been saved had President Bush and President-elect followed Mitt’s advice back in November.

sheryl on April 2, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Damn straight Sheryl. If they had followed his advice, I think we would, at the very least, be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel at this point.

Cheers

The Wall on April 2, 2009 at 1:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3