The 2012 US Presidential Election - Who will run, Who will win???

Its like visiting the inlaws when the weird uncle that hasnt been right since woodstock is there. You learn to nod a smile a lot.

 

I hope not Obama or Hillary Clinton ....

 

Mitt Romney --


It looks like he's announcing that the auto bailouts were all his idea...

[video=youtube;8bceTAi1pHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bceTAi1pHQ[/video]


Ron Paul tells Mitt Romney to read the Constitution at 1:34 in response to Mitt's hemming and hawing about whether he would get authorization from Congress before going to war:

[video=youtube;r3BbIPbLSRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BbIPbLSRw[/video]

 

Seems like he could his spokesperson could have saved that quote for after the primaries, especially considering GM paid off it's government debt with government grants and loans from the government. After all, the government backed the paper, why not loan them money if only for political reasons. Its an albatross he'll have to carry through the primaries, though I suspect it won't knock him out of first place. I doubt it will hurt him in the general election.

If you are interested in something other than MSNBC propaganda, you can find a more complete description of what Romney's spokesperson was talking about in context here. You might want to also read this article by the same author to get a feel for his less partisan nature.

Even in the NY Times article used as a source for your MSNBC video, the Romney spokesperson followed up with this quote:

That hardly sounds like a claim that "the bailouts were his idea", as the MSNBC piece leads one to believe.

 

In response to the recovery of the American auto industry, Mitt Romney's spokesperson is now trying to take credit for Mitt by saying, "“Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

Here is the Times opinion article they are referring to: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Mitt Romney was adamantly against any bailout saying that it would spell disaster for them. He was wrong. Rather than admit that, he wants to take credit for their success now. He did advocated a managed bankruptcy, but as the video I posted says, they were already about to go through bankruptcy. The bailout was a big part of the plan. Even your own source at the bottom, where it says "update" says:

 

Romney spelled out his plan for GM with crystal clarity in the Mother Jones article I linked. Let them go bankrupt is exactly what he called for. Bankruptcy court would have made legal and binding decisions about how GM would have gone about paying it's debts to the bondholders, stockholders, etc. It is a legal and established process we have in this country for individuals and entities large and small who are unable to meet their debt obligations. Obama allowed GM to bypass bankruptcy court, acting as judge and jury over who would get paid and who would take a loss as GM collapsed. It was illegal by every definition of the word. It is a poster child of the very cancer that is eating our government.

Democrats seem to think that, because Unions are special interest that sometimes represent the needs of the "working class", they should be exempt from the wrath being thrown at other special interests like AIG and Goldman. Truth is, its just another way to rip off the general population while feeding a special interest.

So no, Romney was not wrong. Romney also made recommendations as to what actions a bankruptcy court might take in the case of GM. As it turns out, the President acting as judge and jury, implemented about 80% of the things Romney recommended.

These are all facts. Now for the talking points:

1) Should Romney get credit for the decisions made on the restructuring of GM?
A) No. The President made those decisions on his own, and should obviously get the credit for them, along with all that implies. Spinning up credit, if that is what Romney is trying to do is just typical politics.

2) Did Romney recommend a bailout(infusion of Govt. money) for GM, now, or at any time in the past?
A) You have not presented a single piece of credible evidence to that effect, and I doubt you will find it. If you do, you should send it to MSNBC, as it would damn his chances in the primaries.

3) Is GM a success story?
A) Hardly. Even the left leaning politifact acknowledges that GM repaid government money with money from the government. If the government loaned me a billion dollars, and then gave me another billion dollars to repay the loan, I could be selling ice to Eskimos and be called a success. The whole story is an embarrassment, partially for Romney, and entirely for the president. The only people who come out looking good are the folks who work for Ford.

 

Romney's plan was spelled out in the link I gave, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." So, yes, Romney was wrong. He was adamantly opposed to Obama's plan at the time. Now that its worked, he wants to take credit for it. As far as your statement:

I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about here, but it indicates you haven't even read my posts. If you go back to the post you responded to, it says "Mitt Romney was adamantly against any bailout saying that it would spell disaster for them." So, obviously, I'm not trying to argue that Romney supported a bailout.

 

Oh really?

 

I don't even think Romney deserves to be mentioned. He's never consistent on anything. Unless he gets is act together, the American people are going to see him as a phony.

 

Yes really. If you read my posts they are pretty clear. I'm not trying to argue Romney supported a bailout, obviously. He didn't. He is trying to take credit for the fact the auto industry is doing so much better now, when his spokeperson says, “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.” Romney would have let them go bankrupt without any financial assistance. Romney stated in that article that I linked to "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 was wrong. He wrote some fairly vague remarks of advice to the auto industry about reducing benefits, getting rid of management. Anyone can check that article that his spokesperson is referring to. It's nothing special, anyone, even on DP could have written similiar advice at the time. So, to adamantly condemn Obama at the time for his actions, then come back around when the auto industry is doing better, and make a statement that sounds like he's taking credit for it, absolutely, 100%, outrageous. But, if you're wanting to split hairs instead of have an actual conversation, no, I didn't really mean to say Romney wanted to provide any financial assistance to the auto industry.

 

The unemployment rate matched the figure from July 1987.


Rick Perry's calling card on unemployment appears to have taken a step in the wrong direction.

What the "July 1987" figure tells you is Texas historically must have lower rates of unemployment than the Country in general, well before Perry became Governor.

 

If Hillary runs I'll vote.

 

Romney is in favor of supporting whatever is popular, even if he didn't support it last week. He is the Republican version of Senator John Kerry, in that both of them will tell the audience anything they want to hear.

In other news... earlier today I watched a short on CNN on "GOP debate heats up" where they discussed Bachman, Romney, Perry - everybody except the guy that almost beat Bachman, Ron Paul. Ron Paul - the guy that criticizes the banks. Ever notice how banks advertise a lot on CNN and Fox? Notice how CNN and Fox never, ever want to talk about the guy that criticizes the banks?

 

The mainstream media does tend to snub Ron Paul. Did you see this video on the Jon Stewart show?

[video=youtube;cUXBz6AGJFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM[/video]

 

@Rebecca: I'm not trying to split hairs. You and I agree with on the facts of the situation. Romney never supported a bailout. Romney did layout recommended bankruptcy court actions. Obama followed most of them. Romney is trying to take some credit for GM's "appearance" of success.

The only area I think we have disagreement stems from this quote:

Which was the primary talking point of the MSNBC video you linked immediately after. Since, as you admit Romney never supported a bailout, the idea of him trying to take credit for something he never supported is absurd. Lets be honest. Real or claimed support for a bailout would be political suicide for Romney in the primaries. MSNBC was fairly clever in the construction of their straw man. First they claim he is trying to brag about something that would end his election chances, then they call him a liar as they prove he was never really a fan of a bailout.

Frankly, the only thing I find surprising here is your posting of anything from MSNBC as if it is meaningful. In the world of cable news entertainment, their credibility hold's junk bond status. It would be like me posting some monologue by Hannity and calling it news. Its just more partisan spin and, in the case of your MSNBC video, a fallacious straw man argument built on a lie.

If you think Romney trying to grab some cred for GMs continued existence is slimy, I think that is a legitimate complaint. On the grand stage of slimy acts committed by a politician, I suspect it doesn't rate higher than 5th page news, but we all have our pet pigs. Obama is mine.

Remember this one? When news outlets pressed Obama on why he was spending so much time passing contentious and unpopular medical legislation instead of dealing with our struggling economy he responded with something like: "We have to pass Obamacare if we are to save this economy!"

 

Kind of. But, still, not exactly. By "layout recommended bankruptcy court actions", you make it sound as though he was part of the solution. He wasn't. Obama had an Auto Task Force, and, it doesn't appear Romney was even on that. Because he wrote an op-ed piece in the NYT's with a few general ideas on how the industry could do a "turnaround", he wants to take credit that the auto industry is much better today? Do you think the Auto Task Force was scanning opinion articles in the New York Times to come up with a plan? His opinions were few, and again, fairly vague, like get rid of management, lower benefits. And again, someone on DP could have written similar advice at that time, just as well. Anyone can read it here. He also said that financial assistance would virtually guarantee their demise. He was wrong.

Here are comments from "Steven Rattner that served as Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury until July 2009 and led the Administration’s efforts to restructure the auto industry." (About Romney's statement):

Ii's absurd for them to take credit, with Romney's spokesperson making statements like “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.” Bailout may have been the wrong word for me to use, but this is where your splitting hairs. I think it was clear in the context of my posting that I wasn't trying to say Romney wanted to provide financial assistance for the auto industry. No, I think he would have let them go bankrupt. That would have been a fair stance to take, but now that they're doing better, most likely due to the financial assistance, he's going to come around and take credit, pretending as if Obama copied from his op-ed piece - and, that they just needed his NYT article advice to survive? Totally ridiculous.

I really don't have a problem with MSNBC.

Thank you for that.

No, I didn't remember that one. Seriously. Ha Ha.

Do you remember this one? Michelle Bachmann said, “What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward,” - LATimes

I just read that today. I would say her first sentence is kind of right. I'm not sure about the "unstoppable decline" part, but most of us care about the economy and jobs. China isn't exactly my favorite country, but I'm not really worried or fearful about them. I wish India the best. But, the funniest part, is she thinks Americans are sitting at home worrying about the rise of the Soviet Union. LOL.

 

That is funny, I saw the headline but did not read the article......not taking these people seriously keeps repeating itself and is hard to overcome.

 

@Rebecca: I won't address most of your post, simply re-iterates why you think Romney's claim should annoy everyone as much as it clearly annoys you. I get it, its annoying. I stated as much in my last post.

Personally, I would rather have seen those companies go through bankruptcy, and if that meant out of business rather than restructuring, so be it. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses and quite a few large ones(remember Borders Books?), have been enjoying that process right now, and strangely, their employees manage to find other jobs. Perhaps GM's employees were so bad, so incompetent, so overpaid, spoiled and worthless, that they absolutely would never have been able to find other jobs with any other company under any other circumstances. Perhaps that is the reason we needed the president to pick them out of the line up and say, "Hey, you guys are special!! We are going to provide you billions upon billions of dollars of credit in a market where no credit could be found anywhere. AIG, you get to stay. Lehman Brothers, sorry guys, not enough in political donations, you all will actually have to look for new jobs. Main street, sorry guys, you don't even have lobbyists, you are all f*cked."

Sorry, didn't mean to sh*t on a "success" story. I'd really just prefer to wipe my ass with it.

It was, but to be fair, you really just borrowed it from the MSNBC video you watched. Its how the echo chamber works.

Me neither. I actually watch more MSNBC than I do Fox, which I also don't have a problem with. I just acknowledge them for what they are, and I most definitely try and find other sources when trying to make a point. When MSNBC builds a story like this one, built around a straw-man(lie), it works great at firing up the small number of party faithful. They eat it up, while the rest of the planet scratches their heads trying to figure out why they are being served bullsh*t while being told it is caviar. At some point, you turn into someone like Bushranger who, while not really knowing too much about American politics or the Republican candidates, opines with statements like, "Obama will win 2012 because, while he's horrible, he doesnt have an (R) next to his name which makes him better". The alternative is you turn into someone that assigns a level of scrutiny to everything you read and hear on TV, double checking the actual facts behind the story(which you have done here), and comparing those facts to the presentation of the story(which you have yet to do in this case). It is probably just me, but I find MSNBCs presentation of the story far more annoying than I find the story itself.

See, I don't even get why that quote concerns you. The characterization in your last sentence implies she is stupid, which I completely disagree with and is not at all represented by the quote. I didn't read the article because I don't really care about Bachmann. I already made up my mind that I won't be voting for her, and the polls show most other Republicans wont either. Her numbers peaked in early July.

Its off topic, but I always get a chuckle out of liberal obsession with successful conservative women. They are hell bent on destroying them, tearing them down, and making them into lunatics. The comedy of watching CNN dig through 2 years of Sarah Palin's email on live TV, only to come up with a picture of a hard working, caring, and motivated leader was both sad and funny all at once. They treat black guys in the GOP the same way. They may not use the words "Uncle Tom" on national tv, but I guarantee it's said behind closed doors. Then again, after watching what they did to Hillary in the 2008 Democratic primaries, there are obviously quite a few elements of good old fashion sexism at work, having nothing to do with partisanship.

 

LOL.

You don't? Personally, I couldn't care less if she knows when Elvis died, if she knows John Wayne's birthplace, and to an extent, even where the battle was that began the Revolutionary War - but, this statement about Americans feeling threatened by the "rise of the Soviet Union" - this is very relevant to look at. After all, she's running for President of the United States. If that doesn't seem concerning, In the same article they write about her claiming that "Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating validated her belief that the debt ceiling should not have been raised", when the rating agency said that exactly the opposite was the case.

Right after you're implying that I'm calling Bachmann stupid, you say, well, this is off-topic, but liberals want to tear down conservative women. I wonder if your implication is that it's somehow sexist to analyze or criticize the statements made by Bachmann as well. If so, I would disagree. I think that I could have done without the picture of her eating the 12-inch long hot dog, but discussing issues related to her potential position are important, including ill-informed statements. Of course, this applies to all potential presidential candidates.

 

Yes. Actually I haven't been paying much attention to the straw polls. I never really wondered about Ron Paul until I saw the above Daily Show bit.

Believe me, take it from someone who worked in Detroit in the 1990's selling to the Automotive industry, that task force was a joke. It was a political gambit to save unions jobs, nothing more.

As I've written before, Ford makes quality cars and is really concerned about Quality, Chrysler was a great company until Mercedes gutted it and all the best engineers left, and GM just sucks. At General Motors, the unions are paid 30% more than automotive workers at Ford & Chrysler. GM's cost of overhead is suffocating. When I was in Detroit, GM bought low quality CHEAP parts and their management was just so clueless they put themselves in an adversarial position with their vendors and screwed us over whenever they could. Then, when GM had problems, they threw temper tantrums when us vendors wouldn't give them virtually 0% loans to pay off what they owed us. Yes, we did that for Chrysler in the 80's, but Chrysler always treated us vendors fair. I could look in the eyes of a manager at Chrysler and know I could trust him. Meanwhile, I could look in the eyes of a manager at GM and know, KNOW that he wanted to screw me over just for the fun of it. Being born in Brooklyn and not Kokomo, I always got the deal I wanted. Meanwhile, GM's lawyers were sucking the company dry in fees as they sued (and LOST) any vendor they couldn't intimidate into lowering prices. That ended when they sued Texas Instruments. Suing Texas Instruments is like kicking a rabid hungry pitbull, they bite back and don't stop until you're dead.

I know this would have cost thousands of jobs, but GM should have been allowed to fail because they can't compete. In the past ten years, so many companies have approached GM to buy them out, but once they got a good look at their operations, they ran away screaming.