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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Andrew Breitbart: Online activists on the right, unite!
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Proud Rino on March 31, 2009 at 4:48 PM
getalife on March 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Of these coordinated postings, which is from a conservative, a Republican, or a Romney supporter?
My guess: None.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Meh. It seems more like a subtle but polite jab. Like the President is finally doing what he should have done back in January. Maybe too sublte, but that’s how I saw it.
BadgerHawk on March 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I am totally lost on the problem here. Romney had the answer months ago and obviously he was right. He knew it way before Obama. The backbone comment is the remotest possible prop to Obama and is really an aside to the larger point Romney opposes continually writing checks and he was ahead of the curve calling for bankruptcy. This is all way overblown but lets just start firing up the bombs for the Romney/Palin war and see if that gets us anywhere.
msmveritas on March 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM
It’s also poor form on John Roberts’ part not to follow up and say “or who would be gone, Governor Romney,” but that’s expecting way too much…
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:27 PM
getalife doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a troll.
ProudRino tried to pretend for a while, but it was an epic fail and he finally admitted he voted for Obama and is already planning to do so again in 2012.
Not sure about The Wall.
BadgerHawk on March 31, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Odd, isn’t it, the timing. First the attempt to make Palin irrelevant, then later Mitt would be destroyed.
Ogabe will break himself eventually, I just hope there is something left for us to rebuild.
Bishop on March 31, 2009 at 5:28 PM
What ever Romney had come up with. It would have been a way better use of the money than what has happened so far and what will still be spent.
I think I remember that Romney was most concerned that the workers be supported while the companies restructured into a sucessful business model. And to help the towns survive the restructuring. So the money Romney spent would have gone to help real people not to pad the pockets of union bosses and CEOs.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:29 PM
divide et impera
Divide and rule, otherwise known as divide and conquer.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Perhaps your right and perhaps its unfair how one side gets away with this and one side does not but I can only speak for myself when I say that when I watched this clip two things came to mind:
1). I’m not totally clear on what Romney was referencing specifically.
2). It strikes me as an incomplete answer.
I’m a big boy. If Mitt attempts to clarify and speaks Rino, it will be clear to me that we should have reservations about him. But if he comes back and fills in the logic gaps in a way that rings true to conservatism then we should be smart enough to consider the enirety of the exchange rather than stick our fingers in our ears and shout about how we’ve already heard enough.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Very good comment.
tneloms on March 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Never voted anything other than republican in my life. Voted against Obama by voting for McCain…whom I despise.
Supported Romney in the primary. Extremely unhappy at how Romney was treated in the primary…McCain and Huckabiteme essentially teaming up against the conservative Romney.
I believe the flip-flop crap is an excuse….people who become more conservatives are welcomed in the party not criticized. Other factor was at hand…bigotry.
I dont believe Romney will ever be nominated and, hopefully, wont even bother running again.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Romney back in December 2008:
Yeah, this guy is all about limited government, free-market principles.
Apparently Mitt has read a different version of the Constitution than I have. What was needed wasn’t a “super-powerful car czar” or billions of dollars of taxpayer money, be it in the form of “investments” or bailouts, but for nature to take it’s course.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Well Zet, the thing is that among the Republican Party or Conservatives, we have so much internal bittering among ourselves that we don’t make room for clarifications at all whatsoever and whatever they said in the first place is proof that they’re against the party and should be banished furthermore.
The way Obama gets away with it is he caters to everyone but don’t do anything about it. That way he hasn’t taken a position if he’s against or for.
There’s little tolerance among the conservative/Republicans and that’s why we’re losing to Democrats now.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I actually didn’t read all the posts… Are some Palin folks really upset by Romney’s competence on the economy?
Exactly why?
Neither Romney or Palin are declared canidates for anything. So if you have chosen one over the other already haven’t you put the cart before the horse? There is no reason at all to pit any Republican against another at this point.
I would not blame either of those two in particular for not wanting to jump into the torture chamber the MSM has waiting for them.
I like them both I wish them both well. Plus, Palin never ran for President. The office she was running for was VP. If she had won I would have been pleased. But she would not have been making the decisions right now John McCain would have. The comparison is just weirdly false.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Bashing EVERY Republican who says nice things about Obama is stupid. Romney could have stated his point better.
But…Do I smell a hint of McCainism in the Romney camp? Will he take McCain’s road of Bi-partisanship to the nomination?
I don’t think the Republicans will fall for that little ploy again.
portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM
THAT’S IT??????
That is your “promising giving billions of dollars to the auto industry”?
Thats all you got?
Soooooooo, were you lying when you said Mitt promised the federal government would give billions to the auto industry if he was elected POTUS, or were you just talking out of your ass?
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Good points Nat Hound.
The Wall, here’s some free advice. You can take it or leave it. Be more loyal to your personal ideas/beliefs than you are to individual politician. Anything short of that and you run the risk of becoming a hypocrite. There are a lot of smart people here who will remember previous things you wrote and will call you out on them just as Nat Hound got through doing.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:37 PM
So you’re saying we shouldn’t have bankruptcy courts in the first place?
By the way, what are you talking about on the Constitution? You’re the one invoking it, not him. There are many forms of the government that were not in the articles of the Constitution so you’re saying they’re all unconstitutional?
Are you trolling for Ron Paul?
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:37 PM
And a lot of Palin supporters are extremely upset at the way she was treated and continues to be treated. Get over it. Not everyone that wasn’t sold on Romney took orders from Huckabee or was guided by some anti-Mormon bigotry. (Although I do think it’s hilarious that those who moan about Huckabee show a great fondness for his tactics themselves.) I thought the entire field of potential GOP candidates was terribly weak.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Dude, do you know what Bankruptcy judges do? Guess what? They do exactly what Mitt is talking about there.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Mitt’s reputation of talking out of two sides of his mouth hurt him in this thread.
My point, and it was my point on the headlines thread, is that Romney people shouldn’t expect Palin people to have sympathy for Mitt when he gets ganged up on for an incomplete statement, when Romney people have done precisely that, ganging up on Sarah over and over and over again.
It was a “shoe on the other foot” moment, one I hope the Romney side remembers for a little while…
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Hee Hee.
The Wall voted for Palin.
portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Mitt Romney: “I’m glad he is expressing some backbone on this and saying to those guys, hey you’ve got to get your house in order or you guys are gone; your going to have to go into bankruptcy.”
His comment, I believe he was focused on the theme of GM getting with the government program or go into bankruptcy. What he failed to do was clarify that Obama demanding the resignation of Waggoner was un-American and not acceptable, regardless of the plight that GM is in.
By the way I oppose Romney’s position on government bailout money for the auto makers.
technopeasant on March 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM
You are so out of touch with reality. You really don’t know what is happening in this country do you? Admitt it you think it is like 1965 or something don’t you. Wake up and look around you! Romney has the answers. He was right. Nobody else knew what to do. And he’s one of the good guys. He’s on our side! Quit bashing him!!!!
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Dude, a lot of these people deserve Obama. They surely do. They earned it through their own bigotry and myopia. Give them four more years to smarten up.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Not at all. What exactly do you think that “beefing up funding for automotive research and development” means? Who would you believe would get the “research and development” money?
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Exactly what it means! Reagan Style. God fuck off Paulbot.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:42 PM
You are either being intellectually dishonest or know absolutely nothing about government, business and the economy.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM
ALL SHALL WORSHIP THY SAVIOR MITT ROMNEY. BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM AND MAY HIS HAIR SHINE IT’S LIGHT UPON YOU AND GIVE YOU PEACE.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM
That’s it, Zetterson. This molding of one’s principles to fit whatever pronouncement of whatever idolized figure, instead of starting with the principles first and then trying to find a leader who most fits those principles.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:44 PM
By all means, educate me then.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Did you miss the whole messianic worship over Obama like in the last year? Glowing halo and etc?
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Mitt showed some backbone by praising the President.
getalife on March 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I’m not a long-time HA reader and a very new poster, and sometimes I’m a very slow reader and typer (age, etc.), but it seems to me that the internecine wars I read here are being started and promoted by people who are not Republicans, conservatives, supporters of their stated candidates, or believers in their stated beliefs. So, they are not doing it to support a candidate or position, but to generate division within the ranks of their enemies.
divide et impera
Why would any supporter of any candidate want to inflame the anger and opposition of any significant part of the party base? How does that win elections?
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:38 PM
What in the world are you talking about? I have never ever ever heard any “Romney people” bash Sarah. I supported Romney. And when McCain chose Sarah I took her seriously and she lost. Has Mitt Romney ever said anything against Sarah Palin or Sarah Palin said something against Mitt Romney?
I don’t see a conflict. They are both on our side!!!!
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM
What the heck is so backbone about this move? It’s more like central planning. Even if firing Wagoner was a good move, it should never have to be done by the government. Big Romney fan here but bad moment for this Gov. I don’t understand why Romney & Palin folks are fighting on here, it seems childish. Grow up folks, it’s 2009, not 2011.
youngO on March 31, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Oh that leaves a scar comming from you.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Sadly, it’s not much different when it comes to Romney and his followers.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM
great point. I’m on board with you!
youngO on March 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM
See what I mean? You want respect, you give respect.
The Romney people care far more about Sarah than the Palin people care about Mitt.
In the words of Pedro Martinez, if Mitt beats Sarah fair and square, “I’ll tip my cap and call him my daddy.” Nothing personal.
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:48 PM
In the article quoted, Romney was typically ambiguous. I don’t see how either his followers or detractors can say what he had in mind with certainty.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Because McCain was such a great candidate and should have won. Gang of 14 and all, you know?
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Proudly so. If you think I prefer Obama as TOTUS vs Palin as VPOTUS, you have misunderstood.
Hell, I dont even dislike her. I just dont like these nutcases who project perfection on this lady who hasnt given any reason for the worshipping attitude other than she is cute, gave a great speech at the convention, and is a social conservative. But, she is a very flawed candidate. We should seek the brightest, wisest, smartest, most accomplished people, who share our values, to lead us. That aint Palin.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM
You must be kidding. How could you have missed the “Dynamic Duo” (Poptech and the Wall)’s greatest hits?
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I understood perfectly. You just need to take a good high-school course in economics.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
That was directed to me? Seriously! Wow.
Do you always react to losing arguements with such a loss of self-control?
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I think Romney is in a ‘Michigan State of Mind’. This was the problem, besides the bigotry from McCain and Huckabee, that Mitt could not overcome during the primary. He could not articulate his position, he kept you wondering and when the other candidates threw mud, he never really answered the question.
Obama and company thru money into a black hole, I know, racist, and now they are probably going to go bankrupt anyway…let them go, restructure, and keep the government as far away as possible.
BTW, if they file bankruptcy, is the government still going to have their grubby hands all over the auto biz?
HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Don’t look at me. I support Romney and have nothing bad to say about Palin. I think she was judged unfairly by the media and everyone in general because she’s a woman. Ironic when democrats screams for empowerment of the woman, they tear these same women down and call them sluts, whores, leg openers, etc.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
It doesn’t. That malady comes from being more wrapped up in some personality than in clearly-stated principles.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I’ll take that as a sincere request.
Every year the US government grants billions in R&D grants that flow to universities and businesses to work on thing deemed to be in the country’s long-term interests. It’s done pretty much across the board in basic sciences. Those grants are part of the reason the US is the world leader in the sciences including health care.
Despite the fact that the Government pays for the research, universities are granted the right to license any patents that may come from the research in order to ensure that the research is turned into products or services.
That is why the government funds cancer research, semiconductor research,battery research, alternative energy research, etc.
Companies license these developments and produce new products and services from them and hence the American people derive the benefits. Many new companies are started from this funded research. I bet a lot of companies you know started this way.
The system works so well it is the envy of the world and greatly studied.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:53 PM
This is, of course, Hollowpoint’s veiled attempt at not admitting that he got his ass handed to him in this thread and that he doesnt have the slightest clue what he was talking about.
You got pwned big time in this thread, dude. Deal with it.
Or, are you going to tell us again that Romney promises trillions and trillions and gazillions to the auto industry if he was elected. HA HA HA HA HA!!!
yer a bit of a clown, me thinks.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 5:54 PM
PS – if you don’t understand the difference between this very old and successful way of doing business that has made this country what it is and cutting a check for companies to cover their operating costs then you should spend a little time becoming better informed.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 5:55 PM
like going into bankruptcy and going before the bankruptcy judge ? or is there some other “nature” ?
obviously Romney is talking about this US constitution: Bankruptcy in the United States is a matter placed under Federal jurisdiction by the United States Constitution (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), which allows Congress to enact “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
So, which version do you have ??
runner on March 31, 2009 at 5:56 PM
OK:
Explain it, Mr Oh-So-Much-Wiser-Economist.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Absolutely true. Although, I haven’t yet figured out if that is a good thing or a bad thing. As far as liberals are concerned, they have no issue proudly standing side by side with a hypocrite totally bereft of principle because for them the ends always justify the means. Becoming a liberal requires throwing all principle and logic out the window to begin with. They are driven by feelings and refuse to let any logic stand in the way of those feelings. On the other hand, Conservatives are passionate about principles and authenticity. What seperates us from the Obama cultists is that when our guy (George Bush) strayed from our defined principles on such things as illegal immigration, spending, affirmative action, Harriet Miers, etc we beat him over the head with a club and shouted out our windows about it with megaphones. After the Bush presidency we are scared to death about getting stuck with the type of president who easily strays from Conservative principles. We are desperately looking for signs of this in every potential Republican presidential candidate. We are so quick to say, nope… NEXT… because we don’t want to enter into this next run with any level of authenticity risk what-so-ever. That says something about who we are. It says we look at ALL politicians and say, “screw you, now do what you told me you were going to do in the campaign.”
Libs on the other hand can watch and smile as Obama backs away from every major campaign promise he ever made. Still in Iraq, eh, Bush is evil. Still in Afghanistan, eh, Republicans are evil. Appointing countless lobbyists in his administration after promising to appoint zero, meh, Obama is so cool. Not allowing the American people or members of congress the time he promised to review legislation before it gets signed into law, meh, I trust him. The list goes on and on and on. It just doesn’t matter to them. It never will.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Well, here’s another request for clarification. Explain to me what government-sponsored R&D and other taxpayer funds have played in auto design etc up until now.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I’ve said about all I’ve needed to about McCain when the primaries were going on. Most of it wasn’t good.
I could understand supporting Romney in the belief that he was the least bad of a flawed batch. Fred blew it (with a little help from the MSM), leaving me with no conservative to support.
However some of his supporters- particularly those who share his religious beliefs, which I consider mostly irrelevant- seem to revere him to the point of near worship.
Romney was wrong then to support government subsidies (and yes, they were subsidies) to save the auto industry, and he’s wrong now to suggest that it’s up to the federal government to save GM and Chrysler.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:00 PM
I stand by my statements that Romney knows the economy. If you think that is “worship” I find that weird and frankly don’t get what there is to worship… competence? There is a difference between crediting someone with their demonstrated competence and worshiping their person.
And for the record. I can’t say who I will support in 2012. I don’t know who the canidates will be. I supported McCain in 2000 but by 2004 and 2008 he had lost my support and I barely voted for him for his Senate seat. I think he was the best one in 2000 and history might be better if he had been the canidate that year.
What these people do between now and then could be more important than what they did in the past. I do think Romney got the short end of the stick in the Primary and I do hold a grudge against Huckabee. I’ve tried to get past it but pretty much–he is dead to me.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Big talk from someone that sounds like they stopped attending school around the fifth grade.
Grow up and explain it, genius.
HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Another candy-a$$, rino, want-to-be-everyone’s-friend steps in it. He had me fooled for a long time. Who can we trust now? We’ve got to get Rush back on that diet!!!
PaCadle on March 31, 2009 at 6:01 PM
sending a company into bankruptcy court is not “saving”
runner on March 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Quite an admission. Understand this, though. Sarah isn’t perfect, and it’s folly to think that any politico is. But, she has more potential and “upside” than any candidate we’ve seen in generations, since Reagan himself circa 1977.
Romney is what he is, and that’s fine. If he was the candidate, I’d be proud to support him. He’d be a steady POTUS – nothing special, nothing surprising. Nothing great, but nothing wrong.
Sarah has the potential to be a difference maker. One of those once in a generation talents that changes all the assumptions. Given a chance, she could singlehandly 1) revive Reaganism and 2) redefine modern feminism. Who else could do that?
I don’t know why anyone at this juncture would write Sarah off in favor of Mitt Romney. Romney is going to be what Romney is going to be one, two, four years from now.
If you don’t like the way Sarah is developing come 2012, then so be it, but it blows my mind why you wouldn’t want to encourage someone with that much potential, even if it is unfulfilled at this point in time?
Nat Hound on March 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM
WOW
Finally some sanity in a way that might be listened to.
You got it way wrong Ed.
Mitt is clearly praising the Obama lie that he would allow GM to go bankrupt. Maybe trying to push this necessary step into reality.
He is simply acknowledging that Obama considers the Constitution toilet paper to be ignored when he talks of the government stepping in. Obama is in charge and the Constitution meaningless at this point that should be obvious to all by now.
I have always prayed we would never see this day but we are here. Obama talked about ruling and obviously is ruling just like any other Dictator or King.
America is lost wake up and do something about it.
Steveangell on March 31, 2009 at 6:03 PM
When you think that Romney is just about the only “competent” one out there, yep, it’s worship.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Mitt was never the conservative he was claimed to be in the primaries.
Remember… he was pandering to the left when he governed as a big government, pro-choice, moderate Republican in Massachutsetts or…
He was pandering to the Republican base masquerading as a conservative during the primaries.
I’m just sayin…
edgehead on March 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Then you’re saying we need to eliminate the Department of Defense procurement budget. They’re subsidies. But as TheBigOldDog, that’s the concept Romney and any conservative/Republican generally support rather than Mr. “blank check here’s the money, have at it” Obama.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Allahpundid wrote this post not Ed, for whatever its worth.
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I neglected the possibility that some conservatives are so blinded by their fan worship, they become suicidal bomb throwers against all others who disagree. It just seems such a deranged liberal way to be, though.
The comment informing Palin that the WSJ is “a newspaper,” could be made by any liberal. I think I’ve read such comments on MSM threads. It’s sneering, condescending and culturally bigoted. Does that sound like a Republican or a conservative? Sounds elite liberal snob to me.
Of course, calling anyone who does not support Romney “know-nothing dunces” might be suicidal fan rapture. However, I’m still thinking liberal and I’m still remembering Britbart’s warning.
Beware of purported conservatives or Republicans bearing flames aimed at any conservative or Republican.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM
You’re doing the projecting here. You’re assuming that every Palin supporter thinks about her in the same way you think about Romney.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Virtually every aspect has been impacted in some way. That’s the way science works. Semiconductors, the onboard computer systems, the GPDS systems, the materials used in breaking systems, the accelerometers used in air bag systems, etc. etc.
Every aspect of virtually every product you use on a daily basis probably owes something to government sponsored research. For heaven’s sake, what do you think the impact of the space program was on the USA and the World?
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Give me some specifics re: the auto industry. From what I can tell, government intervention there has been disastrous.
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Irony, thy name is “The Wall”.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Look dear, you obviously havent read the thread. If you had, you would read how me and BigDog and a few other intelligent people pwned the hell out of HollowHead.
Hollowhead said Mitt promised billions to the auto industry if he was elected. I called him on it and he came back with some diversionary tactics. It didnt work.
So, before attacking me, try to figure out what you are talking about.
Mmmmmmmkay?
BTW, are you hot? JK.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:11 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. Romneycare ended up being expanded under Patrick and now they’re ending up with their foot up their ass not having a clue how to keep it in line with what they can afford. He didn’t raise taxes on the people but he certainly did raise fees which was a better alternative because fees are mostly associated with “want” rather than necessity.
Now it’s akin to saying that Romney supported gay marriage when it was legalized under his term. He didn’t grant gay marriage licenses himself but if he was ordered by the courts, his administration was forced to issue a license.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 6:11 PM
You are fundamentally missing the point. We are talking about funded R&D which has been going on for like 100 years.
One specific example would be the GPS system. The computer system that controls all modern autos. The passenger restraint systems. The emmissions products that limit emissions. Again, virtually every aspect of a modern auto owes something to R&D done through funded research.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I don’t know what America you are living in but in this one. GM and Chrysler are failing. And the government in intervening. The only real question is will it do good? I think it would if Romney was directing it. Romney is a free market guy. He is also an expert at bring companies back from the brink. That is what he has done in private life. I trust him not to break the bank the way Obama is.
I don’t know why you are so rabid against him. This is all just speculation anyway. Romney isn’t President and I doubt he will run again. I wouldn’t if I was him. I think it is the countries loss that people like you let your relious views effect seeing the talent in someone who agrees with you on all the issues.
And yes I am a Mormon. Before Romney I was a Huckabee supporter. That is probably why I felt so betrayed by his bigotry in the Primary. I was willing to over look his past attacks on my religon. But then he took it into politics and that was that.
And really is it hard to see why with that particular crop of canidates that I chose Romney? There were only a few that were serious contenders. And John McCain alienated many many Arizonans over the past 8 years. Guilani was going nowhere, Fred was asleep… Romney was fantastic on the economy.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM
That’s exactly what pisses me off. That tactic looks to be successful against conservative sites causing mistrust among others.
Kaitian on March 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Still waiting for the quote or the link to the billions and billions Mitt promised while campaigning in Michigan.
OR, you could be a man and admit that you were talking out of your OTHER orafice.
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I agree, it is a very dangerous precedent that’s been set here. And I don’t think Romney was in any way defending that. I think he was focusing on Obama’s refusal to give anymore bailout money without concessions.
Now being the skeptic that I am, I don’t believe for one second that Obama will demand any real sacrifices from the UAW. It’ll take bankruptcy for that to happen.
Doughboy on March 31, 2009 at 6:13 PM
You reputation proceeds you, dear. Mitt said a lot of things, usually unintelligible, but I would have voted for him against McCain if he was still on the ballot by the time I got to vote. However, I do remember that Mitt DID promise to bring back jobs to Michigan that had been shipped overseas. That in itself was a bit of a fib to get votes and I guess it worked.
Now, you condescending ass, I am hot, but I don’t deal with losers like you. JK
HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:14 PM
You might just consider dropping the “I’m so smart” routkine until you’ve shown there’s a reason for it. You’ve never “pwned” anyone from what I can tell. Mmmmkay?
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Hey, if you are hot, I agree with whatever you say dear. :)
The Wall on March 31, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Apples and oranges. One is to develop and manufacture goods for the US military, the other is to support a private industry that relies on private consumer sales.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM
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
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM
On the economy… Romney is the best. But many seem to find his personal style stiff and unlikeable.
For personal Charisma and ability to rev up the base and get people behind her Palin is the best. With some experience she will likely be ready to lead the country at some point. She is more ready than Obama is now but that is not saying much really.
I don’t get how there is any worship in feeling that way. I like them both but that is so not important at this point. The thread was about Romney’s comments concerning what is happening in Michigan. Romney has unique credentials on that topic. Both he and his father have street cred on bringing back companies on the brink and the auto industry in particular.
Those are just the facts and have nothing to say whatsoever about the 2012 election. Or Sarah Palin.
There very well could be a whole set of new problems such as national security by 2012 and I could be yelling for Petreus!
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM
It sounds like NorthEastern Republicans, or New York Bloggers whose initials are Allah Pundit.
portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Hey! I resemble that comment!
Zetterson on March 31, 2009 at 6:23 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
Still, other than certain military vehicles, I’ve not seen many government-inspired innovations in the auto industry that have caught fire. CAFE standards? Union contracts? Ethanol?
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Wink Wink.
portlandon on March 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I did.
However it’s irrelevant to the Mittbot crowd since $20 billion in “investments” given to the auto industry is somehow different than $20 billion in bailouts to the auto industry, even if the money gets used for the very same purpose and given for the exact same reason.
Hollowpoint on March 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM
So you’re providing the answer that Romney wouldn’t? Where ultimately would that $20 billion have come from?
ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Because you don’t really understand autos and where the components came from. How they were developed in the first place. All R&D rests upon the work of many others much of which was funded by the taxpayers.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:28 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
You’ll have to ask him. Perhaps he would have taken it from the money that funds artists (you do know the government also funds art right?). Maybe some of it would have come out of other R&D budgets like NASA and the Global warming loons.
I’m shocked to see how many people truly have no idea how this country really does business. It’s kind of sad when as a conservative our strong suit is supposed to be business and the economy.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM
I did. Go back and read.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM
This is getting as nasty as a Palin thread….without Pooptart.
Why can’t we just all realize that each one of our candidates have their good side and bad side? I just don’t want to go into 2012 with another ‘maverick’. We need a candidate that understands and lives conservatives principles. Sorry, the tent does not move for you, you have to come to the tent.
HornetSting on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Did you eat too many paint chips as a child?
Did it ever occur to you that I and the others here didn’t care to make a substantive response to The Wall’s rant?
Mike Honcho on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I guess by the Michigan Primary I was comfortable enough with Romney to know he had a workable plan to bring back those jobs.
He was all about cutting taxes and giving incentives to bring back jobs that have gone overseas. Also I think he planned to work with the unions to make the climate for business better here it would be in their interest to work with him. His father was widely liked by both business and unions because of his fair handedness. But I guess you were prejudiced against everything he said and couldn’t see any of that.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »