"Romney Campaign Misled Reporters" - No surprise there.!..Willard's entire campaign is based on misleading - misleading the media AND voters. Does ANYONE know yet what Willard stand for, other than fulfilling his dream to get into the oval office?
Romney Will ‘Take A Lot Of Credit’ For Auto Industry Comeback That He Mocks Obama For Daily
These are all Italian.
HE ALSO CURED POLIO
by Liz Colville 12:30 pm May 8, 2012
In 2008, blight on society Mitt Romney called for the government to “let Detroit go bankrupt” in none other than a New York Times op-ed called “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt [ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html (second item at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69577859 )],” published a week after the loser he lost to lost to Obama. Romney continued to hold the beliefs ghost-written in that article well into late 2011 or so. What Romney called for — “managed bankruptcy” — did end up happening, in addition to, as you will recall, government bailouts authorized by Presidents Bush and Obama. Romney was fully against bailouts. AND YET! Now Mr. Mitt has announced [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-auto-industry_n_1498520.html ] that he “takes a lot of credit” for the auto industry’s recovering. THIS GUY IS GOOD.
Romney did a cozy little interview [ http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/political/Mitt-Romney-says-manufacturing-can-come-back-to-Ohio-and-explains-how ] with the Ohio news station WEWS-TV on Monday. During the interview, he said basically that now that the auto industry is doing well, you can thank him, Mitt Romney, a two-time failed president (your Wonkette is a soothsayer but you may kill her if this particular sooth turns out to be rubbish). Via the Huffington Post:
I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.
Haaaaaa so classy. As Huffington Post observes,
According to the federal judge who presided over Chrysler’s bankruptcy in 2009, the company would not have survived without the bailout.
The Obama camp appropriately is not psyched, releasing a statement saying that Romney is a “fool.” Oh, no, unfortunately they just said that Americans won’t be “fooled” into thinking that Romney is a pioneering thinker of things.
Mitt Romney may think he can fool the American people by hiding his belief that we should ‘let Detroit go bankrupt,’ but the American people won’t let him,
says Obama spokesperson Ted Strickland. Well, the guy does know a lot about making companies disappear, and also about how you can always be right about everything, truly everything, just by looking at it in a certain way.
It’s a common thing for a presidential candidate to pontificate about an issue of the day. It’s quite another for one to take credit for something he had no discernible role in.
In the television interview, however, Romney takes his role further than just proposing an idea. Here’s what he said:
“My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.”
There were Republican players who took part in the discussions, including Tenn. Sen. Robert Corker [ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13union.html ], who insisted that UAW members’ compensation be adjusted to reflect that of transplant auto workers, such as those he represented. Michigan’s former Republican governor, John Engler, now president of The Business Roundtable [ http://businessroundtable.org/about-us/brt-president/ ], did his best to round up support on Capitol Hill, before a Congressional bailout died in the Senate.
And of course, President George W. Bush got things rolling with the first assistance to the car companies, which kicked in just before Barack Obama took office and moved the ball further down the field.
If Romney was indeed pushing for the idea of a managed bankruptcy in the manner he describes, he wasn’t doing it where the automotive and political press corps could see it, beyond the op-ed page.
I don’t recall any of the lawyers, bankers, lawmakers, union leaders and others we all talked in the course of our reporting bringing up his name. In fact, one of the key bankers I spoke with regularly is a high-powered financier for GOP candidates, and he surely would have detailed Romney’s role, if he played one.
Maybe we all missed something. Or maybe, Romney is revising history. But it’s always a good idea to make sure there’s nobody around who was actually there before you claim to have done something.
Awkward! Republicans Who Opposed Auto Bailout Stumped By Romney Claiming Credit For It
Brian Beutler-May 8, 2012, 1:57 PM
As long as Mitt Romney publicly claims credit for the auto industry’s recovery, he’s going to put his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill in an awkward position. Nearly all of them have attacked the Obama administration’s bailout in exceptionally harsh terms, despite the fact that the administration’s actions are widely understood to have saved the industry.
In the Capitol on Tuesday, two Senate Republicans struggled to respond.
“Romney said that he was responsible for the auto bailout?” asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in disbelief, unaware that Romney had told a local affiliate in Ohio he should be credited for having saved the industry. “I’d have to look at the context of his remarks. I know that if the auto companies had gone into bankruptcy like thousands of small businesses had to do across America, they could’ve emerged without the sweetheart deal for the unions like was orchestrated by the Obama administration.”
Scrape away the inconvenient history, and there’s a way for McCain and Romney to claim they’re on the same page here. Romney’s fond of noting that he wanted the car companies to undergo a managed bankruptcy in 2009, and since that’s a component of what the government ultimately did, all credit should go to him.
At the time, though, the government was the only lender positioned to step in, which meant it managed the bankruptcy, provided financing, and took equity stakes in Chrysler and GM. Private investors wouldn’t or couldn’t step up.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who declared relatively early in the primary that Romney would become the nominee, tried to finesse this.
“I think the idea of restructuring … look what happened to save the companies in question,” he said. “Franchises were closed, efficiency was brought to the table. I think that’s what Governor Romney was talking about in bankruptcy. That if you go into bankruptcy, you reorganize the company, you shed excess cost, you get leaner and you get more affordable. So in that regard it makes perfect sense that the model he was proposing is exactly what they did. What did they Obama administration do? They closed franchises. There was a big pushback up here. That made the companies more efficient.”
But even if you assume Romney would have backed using government dollars to backstop the industry, doesn’t that still leave him on the wrong side of most Republicans?
“Ford made it without any money,” Graham said. “My problem with the government — I was all for stabilizing banks because we all need banks. I’m not going to stabilize every industry through government dollars because it could effect a region electorally or unemployment numbers. The banking system would have brought the whole economy. When they started applying these funds to the car companies they lost me. Because we’ve got car companies in South Carolina got no federal dollars and they’re doing fine. They received no federal funding and they’re doing very good.”
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.
Romney’s plan for a bankruptcy devoid of government financing has been blasted by auto industry insiders and reporters as “truly reckless, detached from reality [ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/17/427489/insiders-slam-romney-autos/ ], and dishonest.” “Romney’s take just doesn’t square [id.] with the facts as I lived them,” said Yahoo! Autos reporter Justin Hyde. The Economist wrote that Romney “conveniently ignores [id.]” history with his position on the rescue.
U.S. autos bailout 'was crony capitalism on a grand scale'
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney campaigns in Portland, Maine. The candidate contends that the Obama administration should sell its ownership in GM and return the money to taxpayers. (Robert F. Bukaty / Associated Press)
By Mitt Romney February 14, 2012 at 1:00 am
I am a son of Detroit. I was born in Harper Hospital and lived in the city until my family moved to Oakland County.
I grew up drinking Vernors and watching ballgames at Michigan & Trumbull. Cars got in my bones early. And not just any cars, American cars.
When the president of American Motors died suddenly in 1954, my dad, George Romney, was asked to take his place. I was 7 and got my love of cars and chrome and fins and roaring motors from him. I grew up around the industry and watched it flourish. Years later, I watched with sadness as it floundered.
Three years ago, in the midst of an economic crisis, a newly elected President Barack Obama stepped in with a bailout for the auto industry. The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business. The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama's management of the American economy are evident in what he did.
Instead of doing the right thing and standing up to union bosses,Obama rewarded them.
A labor union that had contributed millions to Democrats and his election campaign was granted an ownership share of Chrysler and a major stake in GM, two flagships of the industry.The U.S. Department of Treasury — American taxpayers — was asked to become a majority stockholder of GM. And a politically connected and ethically challenged Obama-campaign contributor, the financier Steven Rattner, was asked to preside over all this as auto czar.
This was crony capitalism on a grand scale. The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.
My view at the time — and I set it out plainly in an op-ed in the New York Times — was that "the American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing." Instead of a bailout, I favored "managed bankruptcy" as the way forward.
Managed bankruptcy may sound like a death knell. But in fact, it is a way for a troubled company to restructure itself rapidly, entering and leaving the courtroom sometimes in weeks or months instead of years, and then returning to profitable operation.
In the case of Chrysler and GM, that was precisely what the companies needed. Both were saddled with an accumulation of labor, pension, and real estate costs that made them unsustainable. Health and retirement benefits alone amounted to an extra $2,000 baked into the price of every car they produced.
Shorn of those excess costs, and shorn of the bungling management that had driven them into a deep rut, they could re-emerge as vibrant and competitive companies. Ultimately, that is what happened. The course I recommended was eventually followed. GM entered managed bankruptcy in June 2009 and exited it a month later in July.
The Chrysler timeline was similarly swift. But something else happened along the way that was truly egregious. Before the companies were allowed to enter and exit bankruptcy, the U.S. government swept in with an $85 billion sweetheart deal disguised as a rescue plan.
By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.
Thus, the outcome of the managed bankruptcy proceedings was dictated by the terms of the bailout. Chrysler's "secured creditors," who in the normal course of affairs should have been first in line for compensation, were given short shrift, while at the same time, the UAWs' union-boss-controlled trust fund received a 55 percent stake in the firm.
The pensions of union workers and retirees at Delphi, GM's parts supplier, were left untouched, while some 21,000 non-union salaried employees saw their pensions slashed and lost their life and health insurance. And so on and so forth across the industry.
While a lot of workers and investors got the short end of the stick, Obama's union allies — and his major campaign contributors — reaped reward upon reward, all on the taxpayer's dime.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," is what Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said as the economy went into free-fall. The auto bailout is a case study of Emanuel's maxim in operation. American taxpayers have been left on the hook for billions to benefit unions and the union bosses who contributed millions to Barack Obama's election campaign. Such a state of affairs is intolerable, and as president I would not tolerate it. The Obama administration needs to act now to divest itself of its ownership position in GM.
The shares need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation's taxpayers.
We should not be back on a road like the one that brought us Freddie Mac and the housing crisis. It is a road with endless hazards. It is not the American way of making cars.
The dream of the Motor City is and always has been one of ideas, innovation, enterprise, and opportunity. It started with Henry Ford and continued with visionaries like William Durant, Walter Chrysler, and the Dodge Brothers. These giants never envisioned a role for government in their business, but relied on the hard work and commitment of private individuals.
Their dream is alive in all of us who have ever called Detroit home. And with a Detroiter in the White House, that dream can be realized once again.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a Republican candidate for president.
“I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet,” Romney told a Cleveland TV station [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-ill-take-lot-of-credit-for-auto ] while visiting a local auto plant Monday. “So, I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back.”
“I’ve read, I think, everything Romney’s had to say on this subject, and the level of flip-flopping and dissembling is truly mind-boggling,” Steve Rattner, the “auto czar” who advised the White House on the auto rescue, told TPM. “He’s been on every side of the auto rescue at different times and said different things, so it’s hard to know what he honestly thinks.”
This isn’t the first time Romney has courted credit. He applauded Obama in 2009 for showing “backbone” in implementing certain aspects of the initial bailout, and called it “a course I recommended a number of months ago [ http://www.ldjackson.net/mitt-romneys-speech-at-the-heritage-foundation/ ].” Romney’s position was vague enough then, despite a high-profile “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed, to make a plausible case he and Obama were on the same page. But during the 2012 Republican primary he clarified that the measures he would have supported then were nowhere near what was needed to actually fix the problem at hand.
Both Romney and Obama agreed the car companies should be put through bankruptcy, which is what ultimately occurred. But the key difference was who would pay to keep the companies alive as they restructured. Experts say that without the tens of billions of dollars in federal loans, the companies would likely have been liquidated, as the private financial industry was in a meltdown of its own and completely unwilling to step in with loans.
“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse,” Romney wrote in an op-ed in the Detroit News in February [just above]. “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
Rattner told TPM that Romney’s initial opposition to President Bush’s emergency loans in his 2008 New York Times piece should have instantly disqualified him from claiming credit.
“The idea he deserves credit is preposterous since the op-ed he wrote in 2008 said ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,’ meaning the government should stay out — and that would have been a disaster,” he said. “I just think he’s somewhere out in the ionosphere.”
Rattner penned a New York Times op-ed [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html ] at the time savaging Romney for claiming credit for the most popular aspects of the bailout while disowning the loans that were necessary to make it work, an approach he said was a “fantasy.” He publicly challenged Romney to name a single private investor who’d say they were willing to finance the auto industry at the time.
Democrats rushed to hold Romney to his original position after his latest comments Monday. The Obama campaign distributed a statement from Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), one of the strongest advocates for the auto rescue in 2009.
“Mitt Romney is on a hook of his own making because of his vocal opposition to the auto rescue, which saved General Motors and Chrysler from liquidation and prevented hundreds of thousands of job losses in a vital industry,” Levin said. “Governor Romney should have the courage and integrity to say he was wrong instead of trying to pull off another flip-flop.”
“Romney has been vocally opposed to the auto loans for the past 3 years,” King said. “He criticized President Obama as recently as February, 2012 in his opinion article in the Detroit News saying, 'The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.’ But now he’s claiming credit for President Obama’s intervention to save the industry.”
Romney will likely be asked to clarify his position further Tuesday as he returns to Michigan, the state most affected by the auto rescue. But at this point, he’s taken so many twists and turns, it’s impossible to have any clear idea what exactly he would have done.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney addresses the audience at Lansing Community College's Dart Auditorium on Tuesday, May 8, 2012. He pitched his vision of less government and more innovation to help Americans get back to work. (Dale G. Young / The Detroit News)
By David Shepardson Detroit News Washington Bureau May 9, 2012 at 1:00 am
Washington— Democrats on Tuesday criticized Mitt Romney's claim that he deserves a "lot of credit" for the rebound of the U.S. auto industry.
Romney, the son of a former American Motors CEO and Michigan governor, has repeatedly criticized the $85 billion auto bailout, saying former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama were wrong to give General Motors and Chrysler billions in bailouts before they went through bankruptcy.
Romney didn't repeat his claims of credit for the auto bailout or discuss the bailout Tuesday during a campaign stop in Lansing. The presumptive Republican presidential candidate's only reference to autos in his 20-minute speech at Lansing Community College was to the fact GM killed its Oldsmobile brand in 2000 that had much of its operations in Lansing.
Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a Lansing newsletter, said Romney needs to find a better message on autos and said it was odd he didn't repeat the claim.
"I think he's floundering with this issue, and I don't think he's given a plausible explanation that's caught on with the public," Ballenger said. "He needs to find an intellectually coherent message that at the same time connects with voters. This is an albatross around his neck."
The Lansing area is still home to several auto and supplier plants.
Romney, who narrowly won the state's Republican presidential primary on Feb. 28 and has since become the presumptive Republican nominee, will face the incumbent Obama, who has said the revival of the domestic auto industry will be a pillar of his re-election campaign. Michigan is considered a must-win state for the president. But Romney has vowed to aggressively compete for Michigan even though no Republican presidential candidate has won the state since 1988.
Romney on Monday told Cleveland TV station WEWS-TV that Obama and the United Auto Workers union delayed a bankruptcy filing.
"The auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that's finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy," he said.
"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."
UAW president Bob King dismissed the claims, saying the industry's 200,000 new jobs in recent years wouldn't "have happened if Romney had been the one making the decisions."
Obama's press secretary, Ben LaBolt, blasted Romney for taking credit for the automakers' recovery. There have been a lot of unbelievable statements, LaBolt said, but this one might be "the most preposterous of them all."
Added former Obama auto czar Steve Rattner: "Romney is nuts. He has said repeatedly that he was opposed to what President Obama did and now he wants to take credit for it?"
Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg defended the claims.
"President Obama's allies are resorting to false and misleading attacks in an attempt to distract Americans," she said.
"Mitt Romney proposed the right course for the automakers — a structured bankruptcy process to allow them to emerge as sustainable and profitable enterprises."
Then-President Bush in December 2008 gave GM and Chrysler and their auto finance companies a $25 billion bailout. Bush rejected the idea that with GM and Chrysler on the brink of collapse in late 2008, there were any private funding alternatives to a federal bailout.
After taking office, Obama added about $60 billion and put GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy, swapping much of the government loans for equity stakes in both automakers.
The administration has sold its shares in Chrysler — booking a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout — but holds a 26.5 percent stake in GM. The government forecasts it will lose $21 billion and is not expected to sell its GM stake before the November election.Had GM and Chrysler gone through traditional bankruptcies, they could have remained under court protection for months or years. The Obama administration touted its bankruptcy restructurings because they lasted just 40 days and people had raised fears that Americans wouldn't buy cars from bankrupt automakers.
Romney described the bankruptcies as payoffs to Obama allies like the UAW that hurt bondholders by placing the union's claims ahead of theirs.
dshepardson@detnews.com (202) 662-8735
Detroit News Staff Writer Marisa Schultz contributed.
Mitt Romney said he will "take a lot of credit" for the auto industry recovery. But he wasn't always in favor of the policies that gave Detroit a new lease. The Huffington Post's Howard Fineman joins Ed Schultz to explain why Romney thinks he should get credit for a policy he didn't support.
Romney takes a huge pair of opposing positions on Detroit
The Rachel Maddow Show [video] May 8, 2012
Rachel Maddow marvels at Mitt Romney's chutzpah in claiming credit for the revitalization of the American auto-industry when his record so plainly shows his preference that it be allowed to fail.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
