Thread: Romney Flip Flops again. Auto bailout was "his idea"

"For months, Mitt Romney has been dogged by a 2008 New York Times op-ed he wrote entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But now, the same adviser who claimed Romney’s extreme views wouldn’t matter in the general election because it will be “almost like an Etch a Sketch” is doing some serious Etch a Sketch-shaking of his own.
Romney strongly opposed the “bailout” of General Motors, writing: “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.” He doubled down on that in February, saying that his “managed bankruptcy” proposals would have been vastly superior to the Obama administration’s “crony capitalism plan.” Now that the federal intervention by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations has proven a huge success, the Romney campaign is trying desperately to change its tune.
On Saturday, Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said:
[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that… The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice. … The fact that the auto companies today are profitable is because they’ve shed costs. The reason they shed those costs and have got their employee labor contracts less expensive is because they went through that managed bankruptcy process. It is exactly what Mitt Romney told them to do.
Fehrnstrom has made the same claim before. “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” he said last May. “Mitt Romney argued that instead of a bailout, we should let the car companies go through a restructuring under the bankruptcy laws.” This, of course, flatly contradicts Romney’s February editorial, in which he wrote of Obama’s efforts: “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
As industry experts have noted, however, exactly following Romney’s plan would have led to the collapse of the auto industry, since the private sector wasn’t willing to lend GM and Chrysler the money they needed to get to managed bankruptcy. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a Romney endorser, said in February. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.”"

Romney Adviser Now Claims GM Bailout Was Romney's Idea | ThinkProgress

Originally Posted by Flippinfunky

"For months, Mitt Romney has been dogged by a 2008 New York Times op-ed he wrote entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But now, the same adviser who claimed Romney’s extreme views wouldn’t matter in the general election because it will be “almost like an Etch a Sketch” is doing some serious Etch a Sketch-shaking of his own.
Romney strongly opposed the “bailout” of General Motors, writing: “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.” He doubled down on that in February, saying that his “managed bankruptcy” proposals would have been vastly superior to the Obama administration’s “crony capitalism plan.” Now that the federal intervention by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations has proven a huge success, the Romney campaign is trying desperately to change its tune.
On Saturday, Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said:
[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that… The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice. … The fact that the auto companies today are profitable is because they’ve shed costs. The reason they shed those costs and have got their employee labor contracts less expensive is because they went through that managed bankruptcy process. It is exactly what Mitt Romney told them to do.
Fehrnstrom has made the same claim before. “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” he said last May. “Mitt Romney argued that instead of a bailout, we should let the car companies go through a restructuring under the bankruptcy laws.” This, of course, flatly contradicts Romney’s February editorial, in which he wrote of Obama’s efforts: “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
As industry experts have noted, however, exactly following Romney’s plan would have led to the collapse of the auto industry, since the private sector wasn’t willing to lend GM and Chrysler the money they needed to get to managed bankruptcy. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a Romney endorser, said in February. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.”"

Romney Adviser Now Claims GM Bailout Was Romney's Idea | ThinkProgress

so tell us-what causes you to basically sound like a paid advertisement for Obama

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

so tell us-what causes you to basically sound like a paid advertisement for Obama

Do my posts bother you? Or is it my support for Obama? Tough ****, deal with it.

Originally Posted by Flippinfunky

Do my posts bother you? Or is it my support for Obama? Tough ****, deal with it.

Well primarily because you are acting like a newsbot. You quoted the article from thinkprogress verbatim and added no thoughts of your own. Makes you look like a paid bot than a real genuine poster.

BTW Romney's assertion that the auto companies would get their costs under control after bankruptcy is true. They did so after the government takeover, his position hasnt changed. But then again I do my own thinking, I dont let thinkprogress do it for me.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

Well primarily because you are acting like a newsbot. You quoted the article from thinkprogress verbatim and added no thoughts of your own. Makes you look like a paid bot than a real genuine poster.

BTW Romney's assertion that the auto companies would get their costs under control after bankruptcy is true. They did so after the government takeover, his position hasnt changed. But then again I do my own thinking, I dont let thinkprogress do it for me.

Is there some rule that says I have to add my own thoughts? My thoughts were in the title "Romney Flip flops again"...pay better attention next time.

And of course you would see it the way you do, you're conservative. ANYTHING posted against Romney you'll argue and sugar coat. Tell me, is Romney care different from Obama care?

Originally Posted by Flippinfunky

Is there some rule that says I have to add my own thoughts? My thoughts were in the title "Romney Flip flops again"...pay better attention next time.

And of course you would see it the way you do, you're conservative. ANYTHING posted against Romney you'll argue and sugar coat. Tell me, is Romney care different from Obama care?

Youre not very good at this. I support Romney now that hes the nominee. I did not support him in the primary. If he were flip flopping, Id be agreeing with you. Ask anyone on this forum---my support for Romney is tepid at best.

Secondly, I thought this post was about the auto bailout, not health care? Stay on topic.

It's a painfully obvious flip flop.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

Youre not very good at this. I support Romney now that hes the nominee. I did not support him in the primary. If he were flip flopping, Id be agreeing with you. Ask anyone on this forum---my support for Romney is tepid at best.

Wow, I would never support someone "just because" they were the nominee if I didnt support them to begin with. That's rather....sad.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

Secondly, I thought this post was about the auto bailout, not health care? Stay on topic.

Who are you? My daddy?

Originally Posted by Flippinfunky

Wow, I would never support someone "just because" they were the nominee if I didnt support them to begin with. That's rather....sad.

Who are you? My daddy?

Im sure not going to support Obama.

Ok, Ill just report your post next time, noted.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

Im sure not going to support Obama.

Ok, Ill just report your post next time, noted.

Lmao! I'm scared, really.


And no one said you had to support Obama. I didnt support Kerry or Bush. I held true to my convictions and didn't waver.