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.
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 Next »
He’s toast.
Starlink on March 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Anyone surprised? ‘Cause I’m not.
ZJPolitical on March 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Romney = traitorous, closeted liberal, commie-hugging, RINO socialist.
cornfedbubba on March 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
When is the Obama honeymoon period ending?
Republicans continue to spoon with this bed crapping, two-bit imitation of a love child of Malcolm X and Robert Mugabe.
Obama could be standing next to a burning building with a torch and an empty gasoline can and the Republicans would remark, “gee, isn’t that great how he’s lighting the way for the fireman”?
Great job Romney. Now we can cross your dumb ass off the list of 2012 hopefuls.
NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Romney is another tool of the banksters….
Constitution1st on March 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Romney is a money man.
He knows if he tells Obama what he want’s to hear, BOOF! Instant money!
Best investment ever!
cntrlfrk on March 31, 2009 at 4:35 PM
What did Sarah Palin say?
Go ahead, just ruin my day. Again.
ctmom on March 31, 2009 at 4:36 PM
However, when I first saw the AP story about Palin visiting DC during the stimulus debate, I immediately ran with the story claiming that Palin was in town to lobby for the stimulus, without making sure hotair readers were made aware that the Associated Press did not cite anything for their allegations.
I did not take the time to do any research into Palin’s press releases and only made them available to Hotair readers after numerous commenters pointed out that the story was ill-sourced and that information was available from Palin’s office suggesting that she was seriously concerned about the stimulus being passed, which included a letter to her congressional delegation warning them about the effects of the stimulus.
joey24007 on March 31, 2009 at 4:37 PM
When is the Obama honeymoon period ending?
Republicans continue to spoon with this bed crapping, two-bit imitation of a love child of Malcolm X and Robert Mugabe.
Obama could be standing next to a burning building with a torch and an empty gasoline can and the Republicans would remark, “gee, isn’t that great how he’s lighting the way for the fireman”?
Great job Romney. Now we can cross your dumb ass off the list of 2012 hopefuls.
NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM
ernesto on March 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Mitty Mouse is just helpin’ a brotha out….
When push comes to shove politicians seem to care more about making nice with other politicians than protecting the country from destruction.
Whores, every last one of them.
MrScribbler on March 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM
ROFLROFLYOFLMYWAFFLPOFL! Romney rocks!
There, now poopdeck can stay in bed.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM
It’s been nice knowing you, Mitt.
That’s really too bad.
Oink on March 31, 2009 at 4:40 PM
A structured bankruptcy is the only way out for GM and its suppliers. I only hope the “structure” will not fall on the side of the union jerkoffs.
TexasJew on March 31, 2009 at 4:40 PM
He’s just kowtowing to Obama because he’s afraid he’ll get whacked as CEO next…
Skywise on March 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Unfortunately when I commented on this earlier in the headlines I didn’t watch the video. Now that I have, I don’t think Romney was talking about Obama’s “backbone” vis a vis firing the CEO at all. He was talking about the managed bankruptcy which happens to be in line with what Mitt has been suggesting since the original auto bailout.
In my opinion, what he’s trying to express here is a polite form of “I told you so” rhetoric. It doesn’t work. He’s trying too hard. And he needs to be far more specific clear in terms of what he’s talking about. Definitely was not on his A-game this morning.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I think people are making much more of his comment than there is. So what he says that finally Obama is showing some backbone, you know that isnt a compliment. 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
The TOTUS may ultimately do just that.
I seriously doubt this president will allow tens of thousands of dues paying United Auto Workers to lose their jobs.
Mitt should have held his tongue.
Mike Honcho on March 31, 2009 at 4:43 PM
I was a big Mitt supporter… no more.
beatcanvas on March 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I think the gutsy move would have been to tell GM to F’off since they failed to come up with a different business plan. Instead we will fund them another 60 days then let them file bankruptcy. Unless of course bailout #4 occurs.
But this time we mean it dammit!
trs on March 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM
“Weapons of unusual lethality”.
The minute he uttered those words, I could only have nightmares about what would be next.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I hope y’all are wearing red noses cause y’all are a bunch of sad, pathetic clowns.
A few months ago, Mitt wrote a well-regarded editorial which ran in the Wall Street Journal (that is a newspaper just in case Sarah Palin is reading this).
In his editorial, he wrote that the company should go into chpt 11 (in case sarah palin is reading, that is a controlled bankruptcy) so that union contracts and supplier contracts and the like could be restructured.
Since Obama didnt take his advice, and instead just popped billions into the company, then at least the government should require that the management that got them in the hole should be replaced. That is the price for taking billions from taxpayers (in case Sarah Palin is reading this, a taxpayer is the person who pays for your unethical junkets and your per diem to live in your house).
How is that not intelligent. If Mitt had his way, NO MONEY would have gone to GM. But since it did, the taxpayers should expect restructuring.
All you know-nothing dunces waiting for a chance to jump on Mitt just made total jackasses out of yourselfs.
Thanks for playing.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Well done.
Proud Rino on March 31, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Thank you for your honesty Mitt.
The President is not failing.
getalife on March 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Palin also writes editorials in the Wall Street Journal, as well as the NY Times
I suggest you lose that talking point because it is not very good
joey24007 on March 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM
You would be far more effective if you weren’t so damn condescending.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM
I hope y’all are wearing red noses cause y’all are a bunch of sad, pathetic clowns.
Red noses? What? I don’t get it.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I was at the quick stop today, filling up my giant diesel truck. Went in to pay, the yelling and screaming over the hike in cig’s price, almost couldn’t contain myself. Near $8 a carton hike.
In the parking lot was a bumper sticker Obama 08 …
ROFLMAO, it’s for the kids don’t you know.
tarpon on March 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Once a liberal always a liberal, huh Mitt?
jencab on March 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Today we’re discussing “projection”.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Meantime Sen. Bob Corker was on Kudlow last night talking about how a bright red line was crossed by Obama into central planning and how dangerous it is for the country.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Knock it off you Huckabee lovers. Seriously watch the video again and understand what the hell Romney’s getting at.
Would you have preferred the alternative and giving GM/Chrysler/Ford another check of x billion dollars here while they’re still failing? Right now the decision of firing that GM CEO looks about right because BECAUSE the current CEO is now leaning towards Chapter 11 which is exactly all free market conservatives have been calling for. So that way the bankruptcy courts would have probably broken up GM into more manageable structures. Afterall, we know that Romney did in his career manage companies that were failing and turned them profitable.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Romney is just being what he’s been for quite a while: a chameleon.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM
well he was the gov. of commieville…
Kaptain Amerika on March 31, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Says the Mittbot sitting in front of his Romney shrine.
Mitt campaigned on the idea of giving billions to the auto industry- at least while he was campaigning in Michigan. He was very much for giving money to GM, couching it in terms of “investments”.
Many of us were pushing for structured bankruptcy rather than bailouts; Mitt apparently wanted both- but taking both sides of an issue is something Mitt does frequently.
That he’s not bothered enough by the prospect of the President deciding who should head private corporations to even mention it should be beyond disturbing to anyone not a faithful worshipper at the feet of FlipFlop Mitt.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Of course, those of us who read papers know it’s “yourselves”.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
All you know-nothing dunces waiting for a chance to jump on Mitt just made total jackasses out of yourselfs.
A person should be more careful with their posts when disparaging the intelligence of others. Jus’ sayin’.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Romney made some good fireproofing suggestions. Obama didn’t listen and the house is now on fire. Does that mean we should try to put the fire out with jet fuel?
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The decision, yes.
The fact that the decision was made by the the head of the government, and not the board of GM?
Looks about wrong, in so many ways.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Romney is just another RINO fraud…..Prediction, The GOP will nominate Romney in 2012 and lose because, face it, the GOP NEVER learns.
nelsonknows on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
High five.
O-^-O
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM
nuts call it marxism, the CEO calls it backbone. go figure.
sesquipedalian on March 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Before berating people for being “know-nothing dunces”, it might be a good idea to learn how to spell simple words.
Mike Honcho on March 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Would you have preferred that they’ve done nothing? Wagoner’s been the CFO and CEO of GM for more than a decade so there’s GM politics too that plays into this. He’s just been asking for more money so it was the same game over and over again because it was inevitable that they were going to ask the government for more help.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Romney’s exactly right. Anyone seeing this as kowtowing to Obama is delusional.
D2Boston on March 31, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Like i have always said.The liberal side of this guy will always raise it.s head from time to time.Turn out the lights Mitt the party over for you.( Thank God )
thmcbb on March 31, 2009 at 4:59 PM
How could you assemble the following events and not consider it failure?
* US pours $14Bn down a toilet bowl called GM.
* The President considers it in GM’s best interest that Wagner leave, eg fired.
* Since Wagner was forced out he now can collect his $20m retirement package.
* The new GM CEO is recommending that GM file for bankruptcy.
So lets see we piss money away never to be seen again. Obama could have recommended reassignment of the CEO to not have the retirement kick in. Then suggested to the board == “Get me somebody that can rebuild this company.” But we can’t have none of that.
Abject failure on all counts.
Nice try getalife.
Dr. Dog on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
The government? YES. Laissez-faire. Heard of it?
The company is going to flounder. Let it do so. Stop giving them my money in order to keep their insolvent raft afloat.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You’ll notice that Gettlefinger still has his job.
“So there’s politics” is about right.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Geez, people! Did you actually watch the clip? It’s a backhanded compliment at best. He pretty much says Obama got it right(with regard to not giving more money, not firing the CEO) after getting it wrong a few months ago.
Is that the required template for every GOP hopeful who comes along? They have to call Obama the anti-Christ and badmouth him no matter what position he takes? If so, we’re no better than the left-wing nutcases who blamed everything(including a hurricane) on Bush.
Doughboy on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
He seems like a younger George H.W. Bush, but without the war service and with a religion a lot of social cons hate.
Speedwagon82 on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Most of the coments are just BS. Romney was right last november and he is right now.
Falz on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Okay, what gives? In the headline thread on this, pretty much everyone was stating that Allah was misrepresenting Romney here. Now, though Allah hasn’t changed anything, everyone is jumping all over Romney. What’s the difference?
Vanceone on March 31, 2009 at 5:02 PM
How about the third alternative? Let ‘em sink or swim on their own without the federal goverment micromanaging private corporations down to who should get paid what and who should lead the company?
That’s a shareholder / board of directors decision, not one that belongs to the President.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Once again, you accuse Mitt Romney of “talking out of both sides of his mouth” when in reality you are talking out of your ass.
Romney NEVER “campaigned on the idea of giving billions to the auto industry”. Ya hear me? NEVER.
He did say the government would help save the U.S. auto industry. You know, stuff like Reagan conservatives believe in like giving tax breaks for new investments or tax breaks for investment in technology or, perhaps, partnerships with government run special entities to create new technologies. THOSE are the things he was talking about.
Tell you what…why dont you LINK where he said he would direct the government to “give billions to the auto industry”. OK? Find it and link it.
If you dont link it…well then to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino…I will “take that as a yes cause if I have to come back here (and explain this again to you) things are going to get F—–G UGLY!!”
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I hope Mitt wasn’t talking about Obama’s termination of Waggoner’s employment at GM as ‘backbone’.
That’s like saying that Hitler had ‘backbone’ to kill Ernst Rohm because the SA was standing in his way of achieving his goals and implementing his agenda.
Mitt, if I were to advise you to do one thing to further your political career in the GOP: stop being cozy with the Messiah.
technopeasant on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM
She cannot write an editorial. An editorial reflects the opinion of the newspaper. What’s the maximum IQ allowed in Sarah Palin’s fanclub?
radiofreevillage on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Yes, the fact that he misspelled “yourselves” means that the rest of his comment had no validity whatsoever. You should pat yourselves on the back for noticing the spelling error while managing to fail utterly in making a substantive response.
For the record
The comma goes inside the quotation mark. Your comment thus has no validity.
“Jus’” is not a word, and neither is “sayin’.” You should say, “Just saying.” Except that’s wrong too, because it’s a sentence fragment. EPIC FAIL.
The period goes inside the quotation. This means you’re not very intelligent.
Proud Rino on March 31, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Ya, who cares if he flushed 20 billion down the tubes to reach the point we could have been at months ago?
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I’ve heard of it yes. I also opposed funding GM but right now bankruptcy declaration can come sooner rather than later and prevent more havoc from being wreaked on the entire economy mind any stupid Obama HOPE AND CHANGE that will make anything in life illegal.
This is Laissez-faire at work in a way if you look at what the new CEO is saying. “Shit we got to declare bankruptcy.” “You know Bob, that sounds like a mighty fine idea”
vs
Scenario 1: Wagoner: “I like my 20 million dollar salary. Hold on, let me ring up the government for another 20 billion.”
Scenario 2: Seizure of General Motors and put under 100% government management and funding which I don’t doubt Obama would have done.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Hey dummy, that time is past. Billions have already been given. So that is a dead issue. Now that the billions have been given, it is right to expect the company to restructure.
Why is that hard for a rocket scientist, like yourself, to understand?
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Oh, and I really wish many of those applauding Romney would show some brains: Romney may well have messed up here. It’s cold comfort to have to be on the side of some of you.
That said, for the Obama worshippers–if you praise Romney here, I’ll take it as a given that you are admitting Obama had no backbone until now…..
Vanceone on March 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM
If he said that, find it. Because I know my brother who voted for Obama at first supported Romney when it was still primary season and he knows that Romney didn’t say that. Romney supported government tax breaks on new ideas and investment ala Reagan style.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I agree with your point that in principles Romney has always advocated a more conservative approach out what’s available on the table.
However, I am concerned that his words may be interpreted as tacit support for Obama’s future actions. This is not what he is saying explicitly but there’s too much wiggle room.
For example, I think Allah’s question about the UAW chief is critical. It’s not about punching a lefty in the face. It’s about what shape this supposed restructuring will take. Clearly, unions are a problem, and yet so far nobody has touched them. That’s a big problem in my view.
Romney and others in the sane wing of the Republican Party must maintain constant pressure on Obama, not give appearance that his economic policies are more or less acceptable.
radiofreevillage on March 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Better exit question… when is Romney going to stop gracing us w/ his phony flip-flopping presence and go back to RINOville?
davek70 on March 31, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Because Romney never has, never will and in fact is incapable of being wrong about anything, right?
Talk about delusional. Romney could be caught snorting blow off a dead prostitute while strangling an orphan and we’d have his faithful defenders admire his buisness skills in avoiding having to pay her while reducing entitlement spending.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It was a horrible idea to begin with. Obama and Geithner should have been nowhere near GM. Wagoner should have kept up his celebration of all things dumbass, gotten his keister thrown out by the stockholders, and all without a huge chunk of the taxpayer’s money in his pocket. Instead, Obama is making it worse by establishing a standard for centrally-controlled economics. Scenario 1 should have occurred independently, but oh no, they’re too big to fail. Bull.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Then I assume this is not an editorial in the WSJ. Note the mast head says Opinion which happens to be WSJ editorial context.
Dr. Dog on March 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Clearly some flunky does the writing. Does that woman even know how to write?
capitulus on March 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Ya, who doesn’t want the President of the United States managing a large auto company. I mean, who is better suited to manage GM than Barack Obama? Who’s better suited to manage a shotgun wedding between Fiat and Chrysler than Brack Obama? Who is better suited to choose the products they will produce that Barack Obama. Thank you God for sending us such a business genoiuse in our hour of need!
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM
F*** off.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Are you kidding me? Are you seriously going to split hairs between the unsigned editorials and the columns on the “editorial page” or “opinion page” of the paper?
Fine, if it suits you, she has had several opinion pieces in the NYT and WSJ, to say nothing of the writings she has published in the ADN on a routine basis.
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I think it’s that not many seem to be very much bothered by the sight of a president sacking the CEO of a private company. The fact that GM received government funds is an excuse. A line’s been crossed; and pretty soon they won’t even need the “we have to protect taxpayers’ money” excuse. They’ll dictate to all of us.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I was a big Romney backer. He appeared to be a tough love prototype capitalist, in spite of evidence to the contrary i.e., his waffling the bailout.
No more – ya lost me Mitt.
At least these times allow us to distinguish the talkers from the walkers.
Quetzal on March 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Proof that even when you are dreadfully wrong…you can write funny posts. That was meant as a compliment.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM
In fairness to Romney, it’s an ambiguous statement.
He says “…or, you’re gone” without being clear as to who the “you” in the sentence refers to, Wagoner or GM.
God bless him if he was giving tacit support to POTUS firing the head of a private corporation.
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM
She must know how to do something. She’s a governor; you’re just typing snarky comments on a blog. What are your shortcomings?
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM
My how things change. Back during the primaries, certain talk show hosts, pundits and bloggers backed Mitt like he was Ronald Reagan himself. You remember, they decided that Juan McCain wouldn’t do, so Mitt was the “True Conservative.” Guess not so much anymore.
AYNBLAND on March 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Forget about testing that angry rabble’s collective IQ. I’d test for rabies and mad cow.
capitulus on March 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Absolutely correct. Mitt should have been hammering that point home.
I think people are being hard on Romney here more for what he didn’t say than what he did say. Like I said before, he was trying to be gracious while at the same time throw out a big “I told you so.” It didn’t work. He didn’t address points that needed to be addressed. Bottom line again: He wasn’t on his A-game this morning. Prediction; he’ll get plenty of chances to clarify what he was saying. Give this exchange a few days to settle. I have a feeling more is to come.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Aye Madison. They are still horrible ideas in the first damn place regardless of what Hope and Change comes up with today, tomorrow or next year. The stockholders were approving of Wagoner’s actions in the first place since the 2008 Proxy vote put him back in long after they were losing billions of dollars.
Right now, we’re better off with a Do-Nothing President but because the House and Senate are democrats, he’s blowing so much shit that at the rate they’re going, we won’t have any freedom, rights, etc left.
Right now, if that new CEO throws GM into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, I won’t have an issue with that. The world’s screwed up and we’re in for a hell of a ride.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Exactly right Doughboy. Regarding these clowns spouting stupidity, they either:
1) Didnt watch the clip
2) Didnt understand what Romney was saying cause it wasnt retarded.
3) Dishonestly look for any reason to rip Romney because they prefer presidential candidates that will ensure complete democratic rule…you know, like Sarah Palin.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Am I mistaken or was Romney for TARP last fall? Bush and Obama’s bailouts may have been a failure, but anybody who thinks Romney would have not have pulled a Bush and “chucked his free market principles to save the free market” is delusional.
davek70 on March 31, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Do I really need to tell you to ignore capitulus?
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Wow…now I’m really sorry about all the disparaging comments I made about Mormons in the Beck post.
Blueneck on March 31, 2009 at 5:17 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.
I wish Romney was there at the G20 meetings in Europe. This could have been the time we put a stake throught the heart of European Socialism! The Europeans are ready! But no, we are the leftists now.
So this madness will continue. Of course Romney is right about the bankruptcy.
I hear… that the reason Obama fired Waggoner was because he had a personal interest in keeping GM out of bankruptcy. He stood to lose his 20 million dollar retirement if the company went into bankruptcy on his watch.
That is a huge conflict of interest. I don’t like what Obama did but I think I want some more information before condemning it altogether.
Why didn’t the board fire Waggoner? Was their pay dependent on keeping the company out of bankruptcy too?
It is obvious that Chapter 11 is the only way to overcome the blood sucking of the unions. And yes the head of the union should be fired! He should be fired for causing GM to have to declare bankruptcy. In fact I’d back a law that would make that kind of nogotiating criminal. No one is served by driving GM into bankruptcy. How blind are the unions? They apparently think money is found at the base of rainbows.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:17 PM
The problem with that is that Republicans or Conservatives don’t get second chances when it comes to “clarifications”.
Whereas if it’s Obama, he gets a passed, he simply “misspoke”. That shit is so prevalent on the internet that the internet trolls Brietbart’s talking about uses that excuse constantly.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Correct. He very diplomatically said, “I told you so” and applauded Obama for allowing them finally to go into bankruptcy as they should have “months ago.”
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Exactly right, Petunia. I would just add Palin supporters to that group as well.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Sound familiar?
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:19 PM
$20 billion to the auto industry whether sold as bailout loans or as “partnerships” or “new investments” is still $20 billion. Either way it’s taxpayer money being given as corporate welfare.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM
No he should not have held his tongue. This is great. We want to go into 2012 with eyes wide open! Better now than later.
PrincipledPilgrim on March 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM
You may be right on all 3 counts but at the same time, you have to agree, Romney was not at his best here. He had a good opportunity to drive some important points home but missed out on doing so. And again, stop being so condescending. Acting this way drives people away from agreeing with you. If that is the result of your efforts why bother arguing in the first place?
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:21 PM
And now for something completely unexpected… a voice of reason… thank you
gatorboy on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM
You can always tell Romney supporters as well: anything the man says is full of rare economic insight that is beyond the ken of us mere mortals and can only come through having been the offspring of a famous father and having an expensive education.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Everything is relative. Compared to McCain, Romney was a Reagan conservative. Compared to a certain one who is likely to run in 2012 (I won’t mention a name), he’s a RINO through and through.
davek70 on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM
You missed that part Hollowpoint? Of course you did.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM
It has nothing to do with backbone. GM was told back in December that if they got some money to keep them making payroll for a few months, they would have to use that time to get some real concessions or face consequences…such as bankruptcy. I think the only reason they got what they did when they did was the fear that letting all those people go at once right then would trigger some larger collapse.
In the end, they probably should have just filed bankruptcy months ago and tried to restructure their debt.
Terrye on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Dishonest? You were spinning that it was just fine if Romney was supporting Obama firing Wagoner. In fact, you wrote:
Now you change your tune. It’s an ambiguous statement on Romney’s part, I think any fair reading of what he said supports that.
Your record shows that you’re not willing to extend Sarah the same courtesy of a fair hearing, chosing instead to spew talking point after talking point.
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:23 PM
What’s the maximum IQ allowed in Sarah Palin’s fanclub?
radiofreevillage on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Don’t concern yourself, yours isn’t high enough.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Zetterson–I think “The Wall” is a bit of a plant. He sounds like a few Huck supporters who thought the best way to drum up support was to insult everyone they could. It didn’t work for them, and the Wall isn’t making it better for Romney. I support Romney, but I don’t insult Palin people.
Vanceone on March 31, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »