PLANK OCTOBER 28, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
How desperate is Mitt Romney to win Ohio? Before you answer, pay attention to what he and his campaign have been saying about the auto industry in the last few days.
As you may have heard, Romney on Thursday scared the bejeezus out of Ohio autoworkers when, during a rally, he cited a story claiming that Chrysler was moving Jeep production to China. Thousands of people work at a sprawling Jeep complex in Toledo and a nearby machining plant. Many thousands more work for suppliers or have jobs otherwise dependent on the Jeep factories. It’s fair to say that they owe their jobs to President Obama, who in 2009 rescued Chrysler and General Motors from likely liquidation. If Chrysler moved the plants overseas, most of those people would be out of work.
The story turns out to be wrong. As Chrysler made clear the very next day, in a tartly worded blog post on the company website, officials have discussed opening plants in China in order to meet rising demand for vehicles there. They have no plans to downsize or shutter plants in the U.S. On the contrary, Fiat, the Italian company that acquired Chrysler during the rescue, just spent $1.7 billion to expand Jeep production in the U.S. That includes $500 million to renovate and expand the Toledo facilities, with 1,000 new factory jobs likely to follow. On Monday, about the same number of people will report for their first day of work in Detroit, when Chrysler adds a third shift to a Jeep plant it operates there.
Did Romney intend to mislead Ohio voters? I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Presidential campaigns are chaotic, particularly in their final weeks. Maybe somebody on Romney's staff read the story, which bubbled up in the right-wing press and included a genuinely confusing statement from Fiat, and gave it to the candidate without checking its veracity. But, even after Chrysler clarified its intentions, the Romney campaign refused to answer questions from reporters about the erroneous claim. Now I think I know why: A new Romney ad references the same story.
The campaign does not appear to have announced the ad. The Obama campaign captured video of it, during a broadcast in the Toledo area. Here's how it ends:
Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.
Although the statements about Chrysler are true individually, together they imply that the Obama Administration's action led to the outsourcing of American jobs. That is obviously false, both in the specific sense of what Chrysler is doing and in the more general sense of what the entire auto industry is doing. Just look at the numbers (or the graph below). 
According to the Bureau of Labor of Statistics, the number of autoworkers fell almost in half between 2002 and 2009, from around 1.1 million to around 600,000, as the industry was in something like a death spiral. Then, as Chrysler and GM were on the brink of true collapse, the Obama Administration stepped in with federal loans and a managed bankruptcy. Almost immediately, the automobile manufacturing sector started growing again. Since July, 2009, the workforce has risen by about 150,000 jobs and that's purely in vehicle manufacturing. If you include parts and other related jobs, it's 250,000.
And that's the net increase. By providing Chrysler and GM with the financing they needed to avoid liquidation, the Obama Administration prevented those companies from putting more people out of work Overall, according to estimates by the Center for Automotive Research, the rescue probably saved at least a million jobs.
Of course, this kind of deception is emblematic of the campaign Romney and his supporters have waged in the last few days. They insist that Romney never thought government should let Chrysler and GM collapse. But Romney's vague and inconsistent rhetoric included statements that he would have opted for a “private sector bailout”—something that was not possible in 2009, because private investors were in no position to make the necessary loans.* As Detroit Free Press columnist Tom Walsh wrote on Friday,
Throughout the primary campaign, [Romney] joined other Republican candidates in a chorus of bailout-bashing and union-bashing when the auto bailouts came up, painting the Obama administration's crisis-management effort as a reckless campaign to run up the national debt and do favors for labor unions.
Romney’s advisers have also tried to downplay the importance of the issue altogether. A Romney strategist recently told Politico’s Mike Allen that Obama’s constant invocation of the rescue makes the president a “one-trick pony,” even though one of eight jobs in Ohio is tied to the auto industry.
The auto industry rescue was a huge, complex undertaking. Reasonable people can quibble with individual decisions the president and his advisers made, whether it was which dealerships to close, what concessions to demand from unions, or how much to pay different bondholders. And it'd be nice if Chevy started selling a few more Volts. But overall the rescue has been a success, particularly when it came to saving and creating jobs. As Greg Sargent put it the other day, “Obama got it right on the auto bailout, and Romney got it wrong.” That reality helps explain why Obama has held a slim but persistent lead in the Ohio polls—and why Romney will say just about anything to confuse the issue.
* The fact-checkers at Politifact have challenged Obama for suggesting, during the final presidential debate, that Romney opposed government assistance for the industry. Their rationale: Romney did propose government guarantee of "post-bankruptcy" financing. I respect Politifact for doing a difficult job and generally doing it well. But I think they're making unnecessarily fine distinctions here. The real issue with the auto industry crisis was whether the government should make loans directly—and whether it should do so on the front end, rather than as companies were preparing to exit bankruptcy.
Updates: David Shepardson, who has been following this story closely for the Detroit News, reported Sunday that the Romney campaign on wouldn't answer questions about the advertisement. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post did get a response: The Romney campaign pointed him to news reports that Jeep was expanding operations in China. "The campaign's defense, in the end," Stein wrote, "rests on the fact that the ad never technically says that Chrysler is moving production to China—just that it is going to build Jeeps there."
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
76 comments
What? Would Mitt Romney mislead the people? My goodness. How could this be.
- Sophia
October 28, 2012 at 12:55pm
Romney is trashing his and his family's reputations. His rampant lies are demeaning to the office of president. And the Federal Communications Commission needs to do something about allowing known lies and distortions to be broadcast. Romney is openly mocking his stupid backers by feeding them ever larger lies, way to big to swallow. He must think we are all stupid and never heard of his big op-ed moment asking for Detroit to go bankrupt. And if no one knows what he really meant three years later, that is a good enough reason to make sure he never gets near the Oval Office. He is craven. To call him a religious man at this point is to mock all organized religions. Stop embarrassing the US in front of the world you stupid, cynical old gray faced, spineless liar.
- smabry03
October 28, 2012 at 2:05pm
Old memories. Obama deceived and lied often and uninhibitedly during the Hillary debates. Romney can not be denied to speculate and explain. This Obama supporting journalist can try to insult our intelligence, by many of us will not for Obama for the second time.
- sf4200
October 28, 2012 at 2:58pm
"He must think we are all stupid and never heard of his big op-ed...." No, he thinks enough of us are stupid and that enough of us never heard of his op-ed. And that much is true. Romney is a cynical liar. That was essentially what the Salt Lake Tribune said when it endorsed Obama, rather than the expected Romney. "Too many Mitts", they said.
- scrubby
October 28, 2012 at 3:05pm
There's a remarkable congruence between this particular incident and Romney's infamous statement back in September that Obama "supported the terrorists" in the Benghazi attack. The key common factor is the wild flinging around of an obvious lie designed not to convince anyone but rather to leave a residue of implication in the air after eventually backing away.
- ironyroad
October 28, 2012 at 3:33pm
"The key common factor is the wild flinging around of an obvious lie designed not to convince anyone but rather to leave a residue of implication in the air after eventually backing away." That's exactly how the anti-Obama bigots have been behaving ever since Obama won the Presidency.
- arnon1
October 28, 2012 at 3:46pm
Fuck 'em. It won't make any difference. Horseshoes...hand grenades...
- AaronW
October 28, 2012 at 4:57pm
Fuck 'em. It won't make any difference. Horseshoes...hand grenades...
- AaronW
October 28, 2012 at 5:25pm
Sad to say, but it might make a difference...especially with the unfolding natural disaster that is represented by Hurricane Sandy. I would fully expect those treacherous bastards (i.e., Romney's campaign and the Republicans) to utilise it as a context for virulent disinformation and perhaps worse. So, I hope that the President and his team have a tactical alert team ready to counter what I would expect to be an assault of deadly daily missiles... ...There should be no underestimation of the desperateness to remove President Obama.
- vst
October 28, 2012 at 5:31pm
vst I share your concerns.
- Sophia
October 28, 2012 at 6:17pm
President Obama struggled with the decision whether to bomb Bin Laden's compound or to put men in harm's way in what could have been a catastrophe. Romney glossed over the difficult choice and said anyone would have taken out Bin Laden. President Obama put taxpayer dollars at risk in an environment where the decision could be a catastrophe. Romney pretends he would have done the same. When does Romney ever take such risks? Where is the risk in claiming such things for himself after a positive result? Where is the risk in closing companies to make himself a profit? Where is the risk to him of lowering his own tax rate (and eliminating his kids estate tax) and pretending it will help us?
- Nusholtz
October 28, 2012 at 7:57pm
I really don't see how Sandy is going to work in Romney's favor. At least not enopugh in his favor to swing the election. Yes, low turnout favors the GOP, but with the exception of Virginia--the state in the Sandy penumbra likely to see the least damage--the storm-affected are all deep blue. (Yeah, Ohio may see some heavy precipitation, but what's new?) The GOP's low-turnout advantage is worth a point or two at most, thus even if turnout is significantly down in affected states (which I rather doubt it will be), that isn't going to flip NY, NJ, MD or PA into Romney's column. Also, the worst of the storm will be past by election day. You could even make the case that to the degree that natural disasters tend to make people more mindful of the ways that the federal government is of service to them, the storm might actually tend to increase support for Obama. Here's a wild call for you: Hurricane Sandy throws both Florida and North Carolina into the Obama column. How, you say? Well, in both states the race is a true toss-up, and both have experienced major hurricane disasters within the past two decades (Andrew and Floyd) and both relied on big time federal assistance for their storm recovery, PLUS you've got well-liked, former REPUBLICAN Florida governor Charlie Crist talking about all the benevolent attention Obama has paid the Sunshine State during the oil spill and the housing crash and several past hurricanes and Sandy, while bypassing Florida, is just one more occasion for Crist to make his points.
- AaronW
October 28, 2012 at 8:43pm
If Romney's campaign has been dishonest about the auto bailout, it should be condemned. However, Mr. Cohn has no proof that the Obama bailout GM has been a success. What about the article in Forbes that states GM will need to file a second bankruptcy? How much on the hook is the federal government for GM? The GM bailout helped the unions and cheated the secured creditors. GM's stock is far below its IPO. Please identify the sought-after GM vehicles. GM has nothing to compare to the Ford Fusion. Mr. Cohn also overlooks the fact that a substantial number of Americans buy Fords over GM vehicles, because Ford did not take federal money. Consequently, GM is also known as Obama Motors. By the way, the Des Moines Register, which has not endorsed a Republican since 1972, endorsed Romney. Are the left-wing partisans going to insult the Des Moines Register editorial board by calling these members Nazis or fascists? Such a tactic would be right from Stalin's playbook. Or maybe they will follow the lead of Obama, whose last hope to be reelected is to call Romney names and use vulgar language about Romney to a six year old.
- john336
October 28, 2012 at 8:44pm
If the bailout was not an unqualified success, why is Romney claiming it was his idea?
- Nusholtz
October 28, 2012 at 8:47pm
John336, please read this before claiming GM is headed for a 2nd bankruptcy. The Forbes "contributor" you site is an idiot wrapped in moron: http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/08/17/chicken-littles-second-gm-bankruptcy-the-gold-medal-for-silly-op-ed-pieces/ GM has their problems but isn't headed for round 2 in the courts. You only believe that if you're delusional or a pube that can't stand it that the Obama administration did the right thing. Don't be fooled by the pubes, who as usual lie and do stupid things. They lie, a lot, like Romney and Lyin' Ryan. GM still is the biggest vehicle seller in the US (and globally) so obviously someone buys them. Like me. I love our 20120 Chevy Equinox, a fantastic vehicle that's been vastly more reliable than the Japanese-built Mazda 3 that sits next to it in my garage. The only people who call it "Obama Motors" are bitter, small minded trolls and morons who can't stand it that this president kept the country from sliding into a full-blow depression, unlike that paragon of the GOP, Hoover. They're people who hate American and Americans, wishing nothing but ill towards their fellow countrymen, like, um, the GOP.
- tmmats
October 28, 2012 at 9:01pm
Typical partisan hatchet job by Mr Cohn. First, Romney based his Jeep statement on a solid source - a Bloomberg article: Here is what Romney actually said: "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China." Governor Romney was referring to the Bloomberg (hardly a right-wing organization) piece which stated, "Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers' operations in the region." In Mr. Cohn's typical misleading fashion, the word "Bloomberg" appears nowhere in the article. Instead, Mr Cohn refers to a story which "bubbled up in the right-wing press". It is still widely believed in the industry that Fiat will move at least some of Jeep production to China. Not because of some nefarious plot, but because it makes economic sense. General motors, for example, has already announced that it will be moving its electric vehicle platform to China. Yes, Romney should have researched the article better before making claims. A foible not uncommon for politics and pales in comparison with true public deceptions, like the Benghazi systematic coverup and misinformation campaign waged by the Obama administration. The Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html
- Nicomachus
October 28, 2012 at 11:37pm
and nico lacks basic reading comprehension again. It was publicly debunked by Jeep so why does Romney have any mention of it at all except to mislead. Jeep wants to build jeeps in China for China and now that is somehow Obama's fault and the Romneybot will somehow prevent this from happening. The man is a total dirtbag. He left office with a meager 30% approval rating in Mass. and knew he could not win again. And why the hell should Cohn list bloomberg as the source for the article that Romney read? What evidence do you have that it was, in fact, the one that Romney read? Did he say he read it on Bloomberg and do you imagine that Bloomberg is the only place it could have been read? Should Cohn have cited every goddamn article that mentioned this plan? You obviously know nothing about the Chinese market. Jeep can not produce cars there on their own, they must have a partner to do so which eats big time into profits. You also have not got a clue how woefully inefficient car production is there, Shanghai GM only is very profitable because the government there makes vast purchases for their fleet, otherwise the saving differential is non-existent due to fraud, waste, and other inefficiencies. China exports virtually no assembled cars to the United States. That is right, virtually none. Your utter stupidity on this I get (I did some subcontracting work for GM in Shanghai about 10 years ago so I know first hand what the score there is as I worked in the headquarters) however for Romney not to know is inexcusable. But I have no doubt he does know that Fiat would never move production over there for the export market as there is no export market to the United States. So yeah, for being a total gullible ass Cohn is right to point this out, and Romney is banking on people as downright ignorant as you to win the election. God help us if he is right.
- blackton
October 29, 2012 at 12:54am
Romney and the GOP are primordial slime oozing across America. They no longer know the difference between the truth and a lie, nor do they care. God help us if these Pod People gain control of our government. That means that those who voted for them are Pod People, too. Be careful who you talk to. Be careful what you say.
- magboy47.
October 29, 2012 at 2:31am
Jeez dude (Nicomachus) what Romney said was so bad he was repudiated by Chrysler on its own blog. Why is he allowed to get away with this?
- Sophia
October 29, 2012 at 2:36am
Blackton, Sophia, the closer the election approaches, the more Romney moves up in polls, the more hysterical you people get. First, Romney's original statement predates the Fiat response (lets not mistake Fiat for "Jeep" or "Chrysler" which are now mere foreign owned brands). His statement is at the very least plausibly true. The article stated that Fiat "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country". Second, I do not entirely trust Fiat's statement. Many industry insiders believe that the move of Fiat US manufacturing operations overseas is inevitable (more on that later). And since when do liberals have such strong faith in what corporations say? Especially when their statements are in the interest of their patron benefactors? Your trust seems to improve when Obama's interests are at stake. "And why the hell should Cohn list bloomberg as the source for the article that Romney read? What evidence do you have that it was, in fact, the one that Romney read?" I think that is a reasonable assumption given that Romney quotes the article in his political adds. Since you bring it up, what "evidence" does Cohn have that the source was "right-wing press"? You seem to afford a great deal of journalistic leeway to authors that echo your positions and apply strict scrutiny only to dissenters. Blackton goes into a hysterical diatribe about how Fiat would never move to China, complete with name calling and other personal attacks. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but many industry experts disagree with you. China is the world’s largest auto market and the second-largest for the Jeep brand, behind North America. Most global auto makers, including Chrysler, GM and Ford have extensive manufacturing operations in China, almost entirely focused on serving China demand. Jeeps sent to China from the U.S. are subject to tariffs (one of many Obama trade relations failures), so it makes economic sense to move production to China. Fiat and Chrysler executives have been signaling their desire to revive Jeep production in China for months. “To be truly successful in China and to truly grow your volume business, which we are, you have to be localized, you have to be able to produce models locally,” Mike Manley, head of the Jeep brand, said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. “The future for Jeep has to be on a local basis.” Blackton, if you removed your head from Obama's rectum long enough too look in the mirror, you would see that it is not me who is "ignorant"
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 4:02am
"...the closer the election approaches, the more Romney moves up in polls, the more hysterical you people get": That's right! Doesn't everyone realize that Sandy was conceived by Karl Rove, funded by the Koch brothers and carefully timed to hit the liberal east coast now to suppress voter turnout? It's OBVIOUS, and true because I say so.
- Claris
October 29, 2012 at 7:15am
How many times does Romney have to say something completely untrue before Republicans believe he's saying things that are completely untrue on purpose? If elected, Romney will be telling us that the British have learned something about Iran as a reason for attack, except he won't be mentioning that our own intelligence contradicts what he is saying. Romney would cut his own taxes and the taxes of his kids and tell us its good for us. What does it take to realize who he is?
- Nusholtz
October 29, 2012 at 7:58am
"...the closer the election approaches, the more Romney moves up in polls, the more hysterical you people get." Hehe. Not me, Nic. No hysteria here. I'm chilly chill. Of course, there's a problem with your formulation: Romney isn't moving up in the polls. I'm with the others in thinking Romney is a lying sack of shit, but it makes no difference. The world is full of lying sacks of shit who, like Brother Mitt, are of trifling consequence. Pure desperation, this Chrystler lie. I like to see it, to tell you truth; I like to see it because shows Romney up as the craven nulity that he is--or at least that he has become since taking up his pursuit of the presidency more than eight years ago. The time is fast approaching when accepting the GOP presidential nomination is so obviously damaging to one's reputation and one's legacy with such anemic prospects for reward that the best the party can do is enlist some two-bit clown like Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain who knows he cannot win but is game to inflate his post-election speaking fees.
- AaronW
October 29, 2012 at 8:11am
To people who don't pay attention, or those whose attention is marginal, one Romney ad is about as good as the other. Both all but state, and then reinforce, the 'mistaken' impression that Jeep is moving/shifting/sending [selling] it's job's, er, Jeeps in China. What's in a word, Romney's advertiser's say, isn't one 'almost as good' (or, almost as bad) as the other, what's the difference. You see what Obama's campaign is up against. Then there's hurricane Sandy, a real attention-getter...
- Tgossard
October 29, 2012 at 9:43am
As someone else asked (can't remember where), why would Romney frame an ad at this point in time with a focus on his weakest plank? It's strange, and echoes that problem he had a few months ago of not wanting to talk about his wealth but finding himself repeatedly talking about it unawares.
- ironyroad
October 29, 2012 at 9:58am
And Obama is in the news, looking and sounding calm and in control. I'm with you Aaron: there is nothing Romney can do right now that would affect the election in Ohio. Without Ohio, he is toast. Even with Ohio, he is likely toast, but that is a different issue.
- icarus-r
October 29, 2012 at 9:59am
"but many industry experts disagree with you." That is hysterical. What next, 4 or out 5 doctors you "surveyed" said you can eat anything you want. That was a complete non rebuttal rebuttal. I will repeat it to you so that you understand it clearly. Romney's clear implication is that Jeep will move all, repeat ALL, or its production to China which, ipso facto, means production of cars destined for export to the United States. NOT ONE "expert" agrees with you that this is the case. Now is it possible in 20 or 30 years that this can happen, sure, but it is not remotely happening now. And instead you go into a lengthy discourse how the US makes cars in China for the Chinese market as though that rebuts my main point in the slightest. How utterly bizarre a thing you are. Again, as you are so thick headed as not to understand it, there are virtually no assembled cars made in China that are exported to the United States. Did you know this before and did you know why? Of course not. And no, I am not remotely hysterical just completely contemptuous of your opinion as it is not remotely based on fact. As I said before I expect idiocy out there on free blogs, I just can't imagine someone who actually pays to subscribe to a magazine that they do not agree with at all. I can see perusing the free articles (as I do with Conservatives sites) I would not shell out money just to comment. As to myself I really have to learn not to read what you write as I end up wasting my time like with this.
- blackton
October 29, 2012 at 10:43am
Irony: I think it has to do with the Right's information feedback loop. Up until the third debate, for example, I think Romney and the gang had persuaded themselves that their image of Obama-as-Carter had resonance in the larger population. Hence the stupid Libya remark, when it happened, and then again in the second debate. They have an image of Obama as feckless and incompetent in foreign policy, when he is not positively supportive of Muslim ragers, and so they go on the attack, even then all reason should tell them not do so. What is happening with the bail-out is, I think, more of the same. I think they really think that this is a weakness for Obama. After all, Obama represents Big Government and Big Government is all bad; Obama produced Solyndra, and therefore any public investment in the private sector must be corrupt; Unions are evil and so any concession to Unions is evil. And so on. Romney should be changing the subject in Ohio - he is good at that, generally - but the feedback loop is too strong, I think.
- icarus-r
October 29, 2012 at 10:44am
I find it curious - apropos the question of whether Romney supported the Obama approach to rescuing the auto industry - that no one points out that as a private equity heavy-hitter, liquidation of the automobile interest was entirely in Romney's interest. Liquidation would have led to fire sale disassembly of not just the big 3, but of the supplier network, creating huge opportunities for PE to swoop in, buy up, restructure and collect massive fees. Would even Romney have been so cynical as to deliberately favor liquidation for this reason? Maybe not consciously - I don't think the man completely lacks all sense of civic duty. But one thing I've learned in a long life in business is that through some combination of conscious and sub-conscious reasoning, business people always move in the direction they think contains the biggest payout for them. The exceptions are roughly as common as black swans, and I know of no such exception in the financial industry during my lifetime. This is one reason I deeply distrust the very idea of an MBA-CEO president: they don't have the DNA to think about global welfare; everything in their very being is about maximizing success measured in narrow terms. Business, and again, particularly the finance business, is not good training for public service. Of course politics has the same fault - it's a fault of ambition after all - but at least people who rise through public service generally see their "best interest" as satisfying the electorate sufficiently to be re-elected. (Although the tea party Republicans kinda turn this on its head and make it about ideological purity - meaning we probably don't have to worry about them in the long term)
- IowaBeauty
October 29, 2012 at 10:44am
Jonathan: "A likely liquidation"???? Talk about irresponsible journalism! There was zero chance that a pre-packaged Chapter 11 would have had ANY effect on auto production. It would have, however, restructured the companies in accordance with the rule of law, in this case the federal bankruptcy code, which establishes priorities among creditors, and legally protected contract rights, something that all business people depend on and without which business can not function...obviously something the UAW and their government protectors could care less about.
- SSciaretta
October 29, 2012 at 11:45am
Jonathan: "A likely liquidation"???? Talk about irresponsible journalism! There was zero chance that a pre-packaged Chapter 11 would have had ANY effect on auto production. It would have, however, restructured the companies in accordance with the rule of law, in this case the federal bankruptcy code, which establishes priorities among creditors, and legally protected contract rights, something that all business people depend on and without which business can not function...obviously something the UAW and their government protectors could care less about.
- SSciaretta
October 29, 2012 at 11:45am
SS: if you are right, then let Romney run on that platform. But he is not, is he. He is running on Obama's platform now. In the first debate, on domestic policy, he denied he had ever been a sever Republican; in the third debate, he transmogrified himself into a Democrat. And now, he is running on Obama's record in Ohio. Surely, if you are right, instead of me-tooism, he should be running on "let Detroit go bankrupt". Or some such claptrap.
- icarus-r
October 29, 2012 at 12:25pm
"Romney would cut his own taxes and the taxes of his kids and tell us its good for us. What does it take to realize who he is?" An electorate that has a modicum of education about politics, economics, and psychology--which it doesn't.
- magboy47.
October 29, 2012 at 12:30pm
"There was zero chance that a pre-packaged Chapter 11 would have had ANY effect on auto production. It would have, however, restructured the companies in accordance with the rule of law" That's exactly what happened in reality, as GM and Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 with debtor-in-possession financing and then restructured in accordance with the US bankruptcy code. The difference from what Romney (and SS) is suggesting is that the financing could have come from the private sector -- whereas there is approximately zero evidence that any private sector lender of investor, whether commercial banks, private equity, hedge funds or foreign governments, was prepared to give that sort of financing to GM or Chrysler. The only lender out there was the Federal government, which came through with the loans and assisted labor and management to work out new contracts that could make the products more competitive. And note that neither Romney nor anyone else could come up with evidence of private lenders who were at all willing to step up and lend the money when it was necessary. Mitt Romney is a very smart man, and he knows how credit works, especially for distressed companies. If there is no private credit to be had on reasonable terms -- or any terms, as in the case of GM and Chrysler in 2008-09 -- the company doesn't go into Chapter 11, it goes into Chapter 7 liquidation. And if GM and Chrysler went into liquidation, the very real fear was that all of their parts suppliers would follow as their massive debts from GM and Chrysler would be canceled out. Since those same suppliers also provide parts for Ford and foreign auto makers with factories in the US, those companies would have been seriously harmed as well, possibly leading to their own bankruptcies. There was a very genuine risk of a chain reaction that would have wiped out the American auto industry wholesale in the course of 6 months. And the auto industry is not like the Internet, where a bankruptcy leaves some empty office space and investor wallets but has little other physical effect -- you would have had acres upon acres of empty factories, dealerships and transport facilities all around the country, thereby slamming state and local tax coffers even more. And who would have been willing to step into this state of distress and get auto factories moving again?? Foreign manufacturers who were without American parts suppliers? Brand-new US auto manufacturers, capitalized by who-knows-what money? Bain Capital?? Look at the US steel industry, which suffered a similar (though less drastic) collapse in the late 1970's and early 1980's -- it is a shell of its former self. Bottom line, there was no way for the private sector to save the US auto industry in 2008-09, and Mitt Romney is lying when he says there was. His own friends on the Street know if and so does he. He only lies because telling people the truth would hurt him more.
- wildboy
October 29, 2012 at 12:52pm
It takes ~30 hours of human labor to assemble a car. GM is paying $70/hour for labor (including benefits). I'll guess and say a worker in China making a car would earn $5/hour. Thus, the China Jeep can be made for $1800 less. That means on the car lot in Denver, the Chinese-made Jeep would be $3000+ less for the same Jeep. It won't take too long until the US market folks decide they'd like to have a jeep that they could sell for $3000 to 4000 less to the customer. And once they decide that, the detroit jeep is gone. Companies always say they are setting up a Chinese factor to serve the domestic market. But make no mistake, once that hard work of getting the factory running is done, it's very easy to get that substantially cheaper product in the US. You set up a factory in China FOR china to work out the kinks and get the quality where it's needed. Not an easy task. And once that's done, you use that factory to ship to your markets that demand a high quality product at a substantial savings. The bloomberg report was right. PS. GM still faces a massive structural cost problem. If anyone thinks that was fixed by the bailout, then your wrong. GM is just not cost competitive anyplace EXCEPT their very high end (where margins are sky high anyway and costs don't matter nearly as much).
- seattleeng
October 29, 2012 at 1:04pm
Blackton, given your latest pivot to the “ALL” argument, I am gratified to see that you have ceded the principal case which is that Romney was being factual when he warned Ohioans that Fiat manufacturing jobs may potentially be impacted by relocation to China. Your only remaining dispute is with extent of the damage – whether it is “all” production or merely “some”. Romney was referring to what the article said, which used the term “all”. Obviously, the term “all” is not accurate. It is politics as usual for Romney to exploit a poorly written article. Obama has certainly told far worse lies, but of course you don’t ever complain about those. I never made the claim the Fiat cars assembled in China are making their way to the US market. Not sure why you keep refuting arguments I never asserted. To quote William Buckley, you are akin to “a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.” > “And no, I am not remotely hysterical just completely contemptuous of your opinion as it is not remotely based on fact.” It is very much based on fact. I gave you the Mike Manley, head of the Jeep brand, quote. I gave you supporting industry details. In the meantime, you have offered no evidence except for straw man arguments and personal insults. > “I just can't imagine someone who actually pays to subscribe to a magazine that they do not agree with at all.. As to myself I really have to learn not to read what you write as I end up wasting my time like with this.” I did not realize that one had to subscribe only to publications that were agreeable. In any case, I happen to concur with a good third of the publications on TNR (recently, there was a superb article by Amy Sullivan). I do disagree with the remaining 2/3, which in my opinion mostly consists of partisan bickering and intellectual dishonesty. Is that ok with you? Can I subscribe with only 1/3 agreement? Should I ask TNR for a 2/3 discount? ;-) You are welcome to ignore my comments as you suggest. That way you can consume a steady diet of unchallenging recapitulated ideas that you already agree with.
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 2:17pm
Most of the above commentary is moot. Romney as good as claimed Jeep was shifting production to China. Chrysler is not so doing, said so publicly, and one wonders why Romney made his rather panicky lunge at a barely supportable interpretation of some news bulletin.
- ironyroad
October 29, 2012 at 2:28pm
"Typical partisan hatchet job by Mr Cohn." Nico, I don't get how you justify that statement. Even your own comments seem to suggest that you would agree with the following summary of this issue: 1. Romney read an article that was vaguely worded enough that he misinterpreted it. 2. He and/or his team decided they could make some political hay out of it. 3. They incorporated the story into their stump speech. 4. Later they were shown to have misunderstood the article. At this point, the Romney team had two options. 1. Say, "Oops, our bad," and move on or offer corrective remarks. 2. Refuse to retract any of their prior comments. Cohn is criticizing them for choosing option two. How is that a partisan hatchet job? Shouldn't anyone who values intellectual integrity be dissatisfied with option 2?
- Fishpeddler
October 29, 2012 at 2:42pm
"Romney was referring to what the article said, which used the term “all”. Obviously, the term “all” is not accurate. It is politics as usual for Romney to exploit a poorly written article." What the article said is that Jeep "may eventually make all of its models in that country." The word all qualifies "models" not vehicles. If I said "Apple may sell all of its products in China" no one would conclude in any sense that Apple was going to stop selling in the US, only that they would now offer their full product line up in China. The last line in the Bloomberg article makes it perfectly clear that this is what the Chrysler spokesperson was understood to mean - that Jeep would manufacture at least of some its production of every model in its lineup in China, for the Chinese market. That's very different than saying they would roll back production in the US. Now did Romney really lie in what he said? I don't think so. I think he let his listeners infer the lie. I don't think that's any more honorable than an outright lie, and is in some ways sleazier, but I'm not sure it differs much from what the Obama campaign has done on a number of occasions. This is a pretty dirty campaign, but compared to the outright falsehoods Romney has rolled out earlier, I wouldn't classify this as particularly dirty.
- IowaBeauty
October 29, 2012 at 2:55pm
Blackton, given your latest pivot to the “ALL” argument, I am gratified to see that you have ceded the principal case which is that Romney was being factual when he warned Ohioans that Fiat manufacturing jobs may potentially be impacted by relocation to China. This is utter effing nonsense as there is absolutely not a goddamn thing that Romney could do to affect Fiat's choice to manufacture in China for the Chinese market being that cars manufactured within China get a far more preferable treatment. Can you at least read what I write? It is like you are manufacturing comments in your head and then having a discourse on them. I will repeat it again: Romney's clear implication is that Jeep will move all, repeat ALL, or its production to China which, ipso facto, means production of cars destined for export to the United States. Look at the ad. It explicitly states Jeep will move production to China, not add new production facilities in china for the Chinese market. Now you can pretend, hey, everyone would automatically know that, but I have not self lobotomized myself as it seems that you have done on this issue. Here is the actual language on the ad: and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China There is absolutely nothing Romney can do about it, nor is there anything he should do about it, nor is it remotely clear that Jeep will only add production facilities. So spin away. But I really should take my own advice and not bother with you as you are not remotely prepared to argue in good faith. I myself am prepared to admit any ad that highlighted Romney's "I like to fire people" is being dishonest, but you can not remotely do the same with Mittens Ah well, just a week to go and I will be free in any event.
- blackton
October 29, 2012 at 3:17pm
Iowa, the problem with the ad is he said absolutely nothing true as it relates to himself. He blames Obama for taking GM into bankruptcy when he himself wrote an article calling out for it, he claims to have a plan for the automakers but apart from giving rich people tax breaks he has not mentioned it at all (and in fact if he believes in the primacy of the markets he should absolutely not have a plan), and then he misleads people into believing that either Fiat is moving to China and taking jobs away from us, or that he can somehow prevent or would even want to prevent Fiat from doing so. We should call him SAM as in say anything Mitt. The ad is pure bullshit and being that Obama has been moving up in the polls in Ohio does reek of desperation.
- blackton
October 29, 2012 at 3:32pm
Wildboy, you can't be serious that there was a bankruptcy in accordance with the rule of law. Did you even look at the priorities the various creditors were given, i.e., general unsecured, bondholders, and other secured?? It was all turned on its head for crass political purposes. And to say the bondholders consented ignores the arm-twisting / breaking that was going on by, who else, the federal government. Why were the parts suppliers put lower than the UAW? It's obvious. And to say there was no private financing possible ignores that Romney's original proposal in the WSJ at the time was to provide Federal guarantees afterwards. There's no reason to feel this would not have been sufficient to attract private financing. By the way, wasn't the subsequent Fiat (Fix It Again Tony) acquisition of Chrysler "private financing," and didn't that turn Chrysler, once again, into a non-domestic auto company, no different than Toyota, et al, with significant manufacturing operations in the US??
- SSciaretta
October 29, 2012 at 4:10pm
"one wonders why Romney made his rather panicky lunge at a barely supportable interpretation of some news bulletin." IronyThat is being way too kind, but let me guess. Is it because the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein? That was one of my favorite covers for what seemed to be purposeful dishonesty.
- Nusholtz
October 29, 2012 at 4:12pm
SS: "Fix It Again Tony" Even if your name is Italian, this idiotically bigoted statement disqualifies you from being heard.
- icarus-r
October 29, 2012 at 5:15pm
Irony, I don't believe what Fiat says. Here is what they said before their benefactor was implicated in a political issue.. “To be truly successful in China and to truly grow your volume business, which we are, you have to be localized, you have to be able to produce models locally. The future for Jeep has to be on a local basis.” Mike Manley, Jeep CEO and President
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 6:22pm
Irony, I don't believe what Fiat says. Here is what they said before their benefactor was implicated in a political issue.. “To be truly successful in China and to truly grow your volume business, which we are, you have to be localized, you have to be able to produce models locally. The future for Jeep has to be on a local basis.” Mike Manley, Jeep CEO and President
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 6:22pm
SS, whatever world you're living in is not the real world. So what if Romney wanted Federal guarantees post-private loan or investment? No private investor or lender was interested in GM or Chrysler in 2008-09, with our without Federal guarantees. Lord knows, the Bush Administration (and Obama later) tried, as Steven Rattner pointed out. There was just no interest in it, and they were in fact floating the idea of Federal guarantees as with Chrysler in the early 1980's. There was just no interest. Sure, the Federal auto rescue was a cramdown to the bondholders and parts suppliers -- but those businesses (all of whom were pretty sophisticated parties) ended up accepting the deal because the alternative was going to be a Chapter 7, in which the bondholders would have gotten cents on the dollar and the parts suppliers nothing except likely their own Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 to follow. As for the UAW, it was hardly some kind of sweetheart deal as it brought pay for their new workers more or less in line with what Toyota, Honda, BMW et al. are paying their non-unionized American workers, as well as reduced the companies' responsibilities for the crushing employee health costs. So the UAW made some pretty major concessions to boot. And if they didn't, and GM and Chrysler went completely out of business, do you really think that some other auto worker wouldn't have had to deal with all those laid-off UAW workers if they wanted to re-open some of those factories? And if they didn't want to do that, why would they re-open those factories to begin with and not just go ahead and manufacture cars in China or elsewhere and just import them to the US, like they do with consumer electronics or toys? Maybe that's what some Americans would really like ... but there are probably very few Americans like that in Ohio or Michigan or elsewhere in the Midwest. That's why Mitt Romney is lying to those voters now and claiming that he always wanted to rescue the US auto industry and it's Obama who wants to make cars in China.
- wildboy
October 29, 2012 at 6:34pm
Nico, you're free to believe or not believe what Jeep say, but as what you quote them saying isn't what you apparently believe they said, I'll stick awhile with my reading of the situation, which at least has the advantage of coherence.
- ironyroad
October 29, 2012 at 9:03pm
It was an obvious lie by Romney, notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing by Nicomachus to justify it. And that is how it is understood. The objections of whatever his name is up there that there was no bankruptcy according to law are frankly ridiculous. No court violated any law. Lenders into a bankruptcy get to make demands on the interested parties that the latter can either accept or reject, suffering the consequences either way. If they don't like it, they can put up the money themselves. Of course, this the creditors were certainly not willing to do. Hence, they chose to accept the terms offered to them by the Federal government. That is no different than any other work-out. What is most important about this incident is that the Times is now reporting a backlash against Romney's disgraceful ad. With that, Romney has likely killed any slender chance he had in Ohio. That is all I really care about. Nicomachus can argue his points in defense of Romney, the failed Republican candidate, until November 2013 for all anyone should care. The consequences of Romney's lie are what matter, and they are all to the good.
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2012 at 9:38pm
And without Ohio. Romney is finished absent some late general wave of voter sentiment in his direction. That is already quite unlikely. In a few days, it will be all but impossible. Bye-bye Mittens. You won't be missed.
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2012 at 9:40pm
With Obama's second term coming into view, I think the most important question is whether, particularly after Denver, Obama has finally learned the lesson that his only avenue with the Republicans is relentless political warfare, conducted every day. That does not imply a shrill tone at all times, or necessarily at any time, but it recognizes that they will never cooperate willingly, will never cease obstructing and lying without any restraint in the effort to bring him down. His only viable response is to make his case with the American people so that, with the club of public opinion, he can beat the rabid Republicans down and keep them down with his boot on their collective neck at all times. Nothing else will do as the Republican party is a beast driven wild with bloodlust. Any hope of Obama's that, with victory, he can cease to campaign is forlorn. I hope he has finally learned his lesson.
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2012 at 9:44pm
Irony, you misunderstand either Fiat or me. Give me a fair chance to explain. Manley is saying, in corporate speak, that in order to achieve growth in global markets, sales and production must be collocated. In other words, vehicles consumed by the Chinese must be produced in China. This is a common rational for outsourcing by corporate America. China is the the world's second largest consumer of Jeep brand vehicles. Currently, vehicles bound for the China market are produced in the U.S. If that production moves to China as Manley indicates, then there will be a corresponding decline in redundant production capacity in the U.S. Ergo, moving production to China results in fewer jobs in the U.S. (ceteris paribus). So, the Bloomberg article, which Romney referenced, was almost correct. Had it replaced the word "all" with "a significant number", it would be entirely correct. Given the political pressure that has erupted over this story Fiat (a.k.a. Chrysler, a.k.a. Jeep) has backpedaled on its previously clearly stated intentions. Am I still crazy?
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 9:52pm
Roid, you are back, Salutations! Honest question for you and whoever else would like to chime in. You seem very confident of an Obama victory. Are you being optimistic or do you have a specific reason to believe this? I see some ominous signs for Obama. He is currently 5 points behind Romney in the Gallup national poll of likely voters. No presidential candidate who led the Gallup poll by 2 or more points has lost since 1956. This data point does not concern you?
- Nicomachus
October 29, 2012 at 10:19pm
No, it doesn't concern me. First of all, the poll average is much more reliable than any single poll. The poll national average is about tied or very slightly leaning toward Obama, and the movement lately has been in Obama's direction. Second, I don't have particularly high regard for Gallup. (Gallup is +4 Romney, not +5.) It has not been very good in recent elections and seems to me to show a clear Republican bias (there is a nice analysis you can find on Kos). Their likely voter screen is quite suspect in my opinion. If Gallup is +2 Romney, I consider that a tie. If Rasmussen (they are really bad), +3 Romney, I consider that a tie. But that is subjective. In the end, the best evidence is the average. That washes out most of the noise, because the number of people polled by the polls collectively reduces the statistical error, and most of the biases as they tend to cancel out. More important, however, is that the popular vote is not what decides the outcome. The Electoral College does. Nevada is lost for Romney. Iowa and New Hampshire are probably both lost for Romney. That means that Romney must win ALL of Virginia, Colorado and Ohio. Nate Silver does a great job of tabulating all of the polls and I find his odds very reasonable. Virginia and Colorado he rates as Leaning Obama, and all you have to do is look at the polls coming in to see that they are shifting in Obama's direction. Ohio has been very, very stable for Obama. Silver rates it as Likely Obama. The polls rolling in confirm this, hardly a blip in the wrong direction. It is possible that for some reason a late wave toward Romney could develop in the next week the force of which would shift all three of those states to Romney, but there is absolutely no reason to expect such a thing. If you look at Silver's recent blog post on the states, not one has shifted columns since June. Romney has deepened his support in the red states, he has made some slight inroads in the blue states where it doesn't matter. In the swing states, where the race will be decided, NH, IA, NV, VA, CO, and OH, Romney has made no headway at all. The only one that he might have shifted enough to flip is NH (although it doesn't appear so), which isn't going to change the outcome. And, by the way, Romney has not lost the contested states, FL and NC, where he had the lead in June. If these states have been so stable for so long, not a single shift between red and blue, I think it is pretty clear in which column they are going to vote absent some strange problem with turnout. Obama has Romney way outgunned on the ground, so I don't expect that either. To be clear, Romney has to win FL, NC, VA, CO, and OH, the latter three of which are leaning Obama and the last of which, OH, has been very stable for Obama. Seems like that is too much for Romney to hope for with a week left before the election. Indeed, Romney's only hope would seem to be that the opinion polls are, for some unknown reason, systematically wrong. That's why I am pretty confident. Nervous, sure. But the clock for Romney is rapidly running down. He is behind, not gaining ground right now but losing it. I think the Chrysler ad is a measure of his desperation, and I expect it to backfire. He will only ending up giving Obama a closing opportunity to highlight, again, the basis of his strength with the Ohio electorate.
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2012 at 11:55pm
Nicomachus: What in the world are you talking about? You quote Jeep's CEO saying, “To be truly successful in China and to truly grow your volume business, which we are, you have to be localized, you have to be able to produce models locally. The future for Jeep has to be on a local basis.” Which is entirely consistent with Cohn: Jeep plans to make vehicles for Chinese customers with Chinese workers in China ("produce models locally"), just as it plans to continue making vehicles for US customers with US workers in the US. But the point is that Romney's ad falsely implies something Jeep NEVER said: that manufacture of vehicles for the US market is being transferred to China.
- dmishkin
October 30, 2012 at 12:10am
A small correction. Just looked at RCP and saw the Monday Gallup poll showing Romney +5 nationally. But Nichomachus's question is a typical case of cherry-picking (which every Romney supporter I hear from does all the time -- cherry picks the poll results he likes and ignores the rest). There are other polls: Pew, Tied, ABC/WashPo, Tied, Politico/GWU, Obama +1. Then you have Rasmussen, Romney, +2, which I really do consider either a tie or Obama +1, but that is just my take, and, finally, Gallup, Romney + 5. Gallup is a huge outlier. When I see a huge outlier (and I do statistical work), I tend to ignore it for being obviously a flawed result because I have no idea how to adjust it or what to make of it. My sense of the Monday national polls would be a dead heat, not just within the margin of error, but a dead heat. In that environment, it is perfectly possible for at least one of three swing states leaning or likely Obama in their poll averages, OH, VA, and CO, to go for Obama even if he loses the popular vote by a bit. Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 and still lost the Electoral College. The Real Clear Politics Electoral College map with no toss-ups, meaning they call the race for the opinion poll leader, no matter how slight the lead, gives Obama 290 EC votes, well more than enough to win. RCP gives Obama both Colorado and Ohio, Virginia to Romney. Silver predicts 294 EC votes for Obama. The best evidence at the moment is that Obama is going to win the Electoral College. As the clock ticks with no movement toward Romney in the three states he must win, this begins to rise toward certainty. My seat of the pants today is 80-20 Obama, because I don't believe the sudden wave possibilities that Silver takes into account. If we get to Friday with no polling change in those three states, I would say 85-15. And if we get to Monday with still no polling change in those three states, I would say 90-10. Ten percent for the unknown unknowns. I am nervous because even a 1 in 10 bet will come in 10% of the time. Not exactly rare. But I think there is ample reason for rising confidence. And the Romney-ite spin that he is gaining is complete nonsense. He has clearly been slowly and steadily giving up ground since Oct 12. Romney has zero momentum. He failed to breakthrough after the first debate and has been slowly slipping back since then. Biden and the second debate stopped the bleeding and then reversed the Romney momentum. That's how I read it. Now we need to get through the next week with no sign of movement.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 12:50am
Roid, I frequently visit Nate Silver's blog, its certainly interesting. His 2008 prediction record is impressive. On the other hand, Gallup has done a fairly good job of predicting presidential winners over the years. Here is their record: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx Either they are really off this year or all the others are. Then there are various "pollsters" who are predicting big wins for either Romney or Obama, typically siting some set of unquantifiable considerations, depending on what "team" they are on. The most audacious I have heard is Dick Morris, who predicts a big win for Romney, in the order of 4-8% and 300+ EC Anyway, politics aside, it will be interesting to see who turned out to have the right formula or at least got very lucky.
- Nicomachus
October 30, 2012 at 2:36am
I think Silver's math is pretty sold, as is his record. He gives O about a 73% chance of winning. Another source I like based on methodology is InTrade. They've got O's chances set at about 63%. These are pretty good odds. Most of the rest of the polls are badly flawed--no calls to cell phones, robo-calls that count even hang-ups as part of their database, and etc. All things considered I feel quite confident of the President's re-election.
- Robert Powell
October 30, 2012 at 10:38am
It is remote in the extreme, Nicomachus, that Gallup is correct about the spread. The election will be close in the popular vote, as the body of evidence pointing in that direction is enormous. Even if Gallup is correct about the winner of the popular vote, Romney will still lose Ohio, probably Virginia, and has some positive likelihood of losing Colorado as well. Therefore, Obama will be returned to office, with the Republicans screaming bloody murder.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 10:54am
Nico, for convenience's sake I'll just endorse what dmishkin says above at 12:10 a.m. EDT. Expanding slightly, I would note that Romney's ad also implies that he would be willing and able to do something about it even if it were true that Jeep is moving US market production to China -- which as many posters above and Jeep themselves have pointed out, is either a deliberate or accidental misreading -- which seems an odd thing for Mr Free Market himself to suggest. His philosophy would clearly oppose government interference in business decisions. And, as there are signs today of a doubling-down on this message by the Romney campaign, giving them the benefit of the doubt on an innocent misreading of a news item would appear to be now moot.
- ironyroad
October 30, 2012 at 5:37pm
This is Romney's Hail Mary pass. He is out of time and out of options, and without Ohio he is out of office. I hope the Obama campaign is hammering him on his lies with good counter-advertising. My political mentor taught that most such rhetorical contests are fought to a draw. That will be more than good enough under the present circumstances.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 6:11pm
Not to mention the fact that, but for the auto bailout, all these jobs would now already be in China or somewhere other than here, for all Romney gave a damn.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 6:12pm
irony, dmishkin, did we watch the same ad? Nowhere did the add say that Jeeps for US markets will be produced in China. The ad said "Obama sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China". So lets deconstruct this statement. "Obama sold Chrysler to Italians [i.e. Fiat]" absolutely true, not even in dispute. Fiat is "going to build Jeeps in China".. this is not certain, but plausible based on what the Jeep CEO has been saying. The ad did not say anything about which Jeeps, how many Jeeps, for what market, etc. Now, you could argue that this is "lying by omission", but in that case we would have to consider countless Obama ads as lies as well. This has been my point in many a posts at TNR - you guys take such umbrage at Republican shenanigans, but totally ignore or rationalize Obama equivalents. Its disingenuous petty partisan bickering. "Romney's ad also implies that he would be willing and able to do something about it" Absolutely, and it does not at all involve government interference in the private sector. For starters, the US can demand the China lowers or eliminates its tariffs on US car imports. Romney has been saying this all throughout the campaign. The US can also actively oppose China's currency manipulation tactics. The Obama administration, finally tried to do something in this area in July. Also, Romney can help Fiat lower costs in the US by reducing taxes, regulations, and union domination.
- Nicomachus
October 30, 2012 at 10:46pm
Protesting way too much, Nichomachus. It is completely irrelevant whether there is some way to parse the ad that makes it not untrue. The clear intention is to mislead Chrysler workers and the people of Ohio that their jobs are being moved to China. It is untrue. That qualifies as a lie. Doesn't even matter what words are used or even if words are used. The intention is to mislead and the thing is being understood in the misleading manner intended. End of story. If you have some specific complaint over an Obama ad or lie, go right ahead. But you cannot defend this piece of slime on that basis. I hope Obama is taking advantage of the opportunity to stick it to Obama.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 11:05pm
Stick it to Romney. Getting a little late.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 11:05pm
Stick it to Romney. Getting a little late.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 11:05pm
Seems like Mittens may have finally jumped the shark. He now has the CEOs of both Chrysler and GM basically calling him a liar and despicable. Meanwhile, Gov. Christie, who gave the keynote address at the Republican convention (albeit one for which he was criticized for talking about himself rather than Romney), has been on national TV effusively praising Obama for Federal disaster assistance. Small things, perhaps, in the scheme of a long campaign. But my sense is that the political system has now decided to spit Romney out and is starting to turn on him with a certain fury as a result. When a lover becomes a disappointed lover, that is what happens. People realize Romney is done, no longer fear offending him, and want to disassociate themselves from him.
- roidubouloi
October 30, 2012 at 11:58pm
nico, then what the hell is the point of the ad? Is it simple education? Then why did GM call the ad something from the twilight zone? You simply can not admit Romney blew it big time on this. The guy has a habit of re-litigating past positions where he initially blew it as though he is trying to convince himself that he was right in the first place. He did that with Benghazi and got totally demolished in the second debate, whereas if he kept his mouth shut that first night and was cautious the second he could have gotten Obama in the third debate. In any event with Sandy Romney is now toast, people in Virginia and likely Florida will realize that hey, we actually need FEMA.
- blackton
October 31, 2012 at 10:59am
blackton, roid, Chrysler and GM are both in the pocket of their arch benefactor Obama, who funneled billions in tax payers money to them. It is not at all surprising that they now return the political favor. I have also established that prior to the controversy, the CEO of Jeep made a clear statement that some Jeep production was moving to China. Here is a good article outlining GM outsourcing: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/08/12/outsourcer-in-chief-obama-of-general-motors roid, I don't think anyone can really divine the intention of the add beyond the words. Given a plausibly honest explanation, most people will interpret intentions based on their predisposed political leanings. However, I would be willing to apply a strict standard to Romney, if you are willing to apply it to Obama as well. Here comes the test.. >> If you have some specific complaint over an Obama ad or lie, go right ahead Let me give you a sample of just a few.. #1 Benghazi as not a terrorist attack #2 Fast & Furious was started under previous administration #3 The insurance mandate is not a tax #4 Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle class families #5 Ryan blocks "Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012" #6 "You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it." #7 Obama ad: "To fund his tax cuts for millionaires, Romney could take away middle class deductions for childcare, home mortgages, and college tuition" #8 Obama: “I didn’t raise taxes once.” #9 "The president’s proposed budget “will help reduce the deficit by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.” #10 Under President Barack Obama, the United States has “doubled our exports.” Roid, I agree to classify the Romney ad as a lie on the basis that it is suspiciously ambiguous to which Jeeps are to be produced in China. Also, it has not been fully established that there is a plan to move Jeep production to China and the manufacturer is currently denying that any such plan exists. Given the strict standard we apply to Romney, would you agree that the 10 examples above, or at least most of them, are Obama lies?
- Nicomachus
October 31, 2012 at 1:39pm
Sorry to post twice, something went wrong with the previous post.. blackton, roid, Chrysler and GM are both in the pocket of their arch benefactor Obama, who funneled billions in tax payers money to them. It is not at all surprising that they now return the political favor. I have also established that prior to the controversy, the CEO of Jeep made a clear statement that some Jeep production was moving to China. Here is a good article outlining GM outsourcing: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/08/12/outsourcer-in-chief-obama-of-general-motors roid, I don't think anyone can really divine the intention of the add beyond the words. Given a plausibly honest explanation, most people will interpret intentions based on their predisposed political leanings. However, I would be willing to apply a strict standard to Romney, if you are willing to apply it to Obama as well. Here comes the test.. >> If you have some specific complaint over an Obama ad or lie, go right ahead Let me give you a sample of just a few.. #1 Benghazi as not a terrorist attack #2 Fast & Furious was started under previous administration #3 The insurance mandate is not a tax #4 Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle class families #5 Ryan blocks "Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012" #6 "You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it." #7 Obama ad: "To fund his tax cuts for millionaires, Romney could take away middle class deductions for childcare, home mortgages, and college tuition" #8 Obama: “I didn’t raise taxes once.” #9 "The president’s proposed budget “will help reduce the deficit by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.” #10 Under President Barack Obama, the United States has “doubled our exports.” Roid, I agree to classify the Romney ad as a lie on the basis that it is suspiciously ambiguous to which Jeeps are to be produced in China. Also, it has not been fully established that there is a plan to move Jeep production to China and the manufacturer is currently denying that any such plan exists. Given the strict standard we apply to Romney, would you agree that the 10 examples above, or at least most of them, are Obama lies?
- Nicomachus
October 31, 2012 at 1:42pm
Well, Nichomachus, you run true to type. If you poke a conservative with the facts, you inevitably get back a conspiracy theory. I don't think the explanation for Romney's ad is "plausibly honest." If even it were prior to the repudiations issued by Chrysler and GM, it surely has no plausibly honest explanation after. As for your list I would say that 4, 7, and 9 are true, not even arguably lies. Rather, it is Romney and Ryan who lie about these matters. 2 is also essentially true. "Gunwalking" by the ATF began in 2006, although the particular operation, Fast and Furious, was during the Obama administration. #1 is a Republican lie and smear. Obama identified the Benghazi attack as a terror operation early on. 3 has no objective value as true or not. The terms of the mandate are the terms of the mandate. Whether that is or is not a tax is not an objectively determinable fact. I don't know about 8, but I am not aware of any instance in which Obama raised taxes. He wouldn't even let the Bush tax cuts expire. Enlighten me. 6, I don't know, possible though. If they were said, 10 and 5 would be untrue. I don't think you are doing very well, Nicomachus. In any case, the important thing is that I am pretty sure Romney's lie is backfiring, now that Chrysler and GM have repudiated him and his claim. Worse for Romney, he then continues to remind the voters of Obama's rescue of the auto industry, without Obama having to boast about it. The actually has more credibility on the point than Obama does because his claims are inevitably seen as self-serving, even though true. I think Romney has thrown away whatever slender chance he had in Ohio. I am willing to bet that Obama's final margin there will beat the current poll average of +2.3. Also, the national polls are now quite clearly absolutely tied. That is perfectly consistent with Obama winning the swing states. I think Mittens is finished. He has five days to turn the race and I see no reason to believe that anything he does or says can do that. To win he needs one of two things: that the polls are and have been for months systematically wrong or some external event that casts the administration in a bad light.
- roidubouloi
October 31, 2012 at 7:30pm
Roid, LOL. Like I said in previous posts, its impossible to argue logically with partisans. You live in a bizarro alternate reality world where all facts are twisted to suite the given partisan position of the moment. Partisans are prosecutors of the opposition and defense lawyers for their candidate of choice. No matter the weight of the evidence, they will zealously argue in defense of their candidate, making logical contortions to the point of absurdity. Of course, they never afford such charity to "the enemy" and tirelessly work to find fault with just about everything. The ironic part is that despite the perceptions of partisans on both the right and the left, they are very similar. Partisans are pathetically predictable. Lets assume that your premature crowing is correct and Obama inches out a victory. After all of the bad blood created by partisans, half of the population will bitterly oppose him. Thus, we can expect to see more acrimony and national paralysis over the next four years. The acrimony is of course a feedback loop for the partisans. After 2-4 years, frustrated with the nonsense, the voters will likely return whoever is perceived to be the opposition party to power and the cycle will repeat. Romney's election would undoubtedly lead us to the same outcome since he used similar tactics to Obama. So what exactly do partisans get out of an election like this? The loosing partisans get a target to relentlessly blame for all that is wrong with the world for the next four years. They get sadistic satisfaction in thwarting their opponent or watching him squirm in some scandal. The victorious partisans get a temporary sense of satisfaction, minor policy tweaks, and four years of defensive bickering. Everyone else gets screwed. In my native country there is a saying "when the gods wish to punish us, they grant us our wishes". Whether Obama or Romney wins, we all get screwed in the end. Now if you will excuse me, I have to make the same post, with "Obama" and "Romney" inverted on redstate.com
- Nicomachus
October 31, 2012 at 9:32pm
I'm the one who is laughing out loud, Nicky. You don't bother to establish the truth or falsity of the things you claim as Obama lies and then work yourself into a terrible tizzy when you are called on it. What is really so very funny, however, is that you like to imagine yourself as something other than a rabid partisan. Well, your post-partisan act just died. Right here. May it rest in peace. As far as the partisan gridlock, that is guaranteed already. Haven't we all learned by now that any offer of compromise by the Democrats is only the occasion for even more relentless obstructionism by the wacko right that the Republican party has become? Are we supposed to buy David Brooks's politics as protection racket argument when it comes from you instead of him? That the only way out of our current mess is to appease the obstructionists? No sale. No, the only way out of the political mess we are in is to kick the asses of the wacko right wingnuts, kick them non-stop until they are down, then place a boot firmly on their necks, and keep it there. We will have nothing but extreme partisan warfare until rightwing extremism is defeated and descredited. The left has only two choices: to appease it as you advocate and allow the wackos to run the country or to resist fiercely. If the best we can do for now is keep Democrats in control of enough of the government, the White House and the Senate, so that the rightwing crazies don't destroy this country -- as they bid fair to do under Bush -- or get to pick any more Supreme Court justices, I am perfectly fine with that. I only hope that Obama has finally learned the lesson that he will only succeed by rallying public opinion and using it to crush the extremist right -- which means pretty much the entire Republican party these days. Your tears about partisanship are the biggest laugher of all. Tell it to Boehner. Tell it to McConnell. Tell it to the Tea party. There is no reason for anyone on the left to do other than laugh at you.
- roidubouloi
November 1, 2012 at 12:09am
Roid. It's no use trying to prove something to someone whose mind is filled with anger rather than logic. Someone who rants of boots on necks is beyond persuasion. You have a good grasp of technical matters, but your political positions are not consistent and frankly not serious. Your endgame seems to be to somehow subjugate the other half of our citizenry and compell them to change their value system entirely... good luck with that. I agree that partisans inhabit both parties, but the way forward is not to out-partisan the other partisans. Such an approach only leads to further polarization. Any short term political gains are entirely ephemeral. The right way to govern at the national level is by national consensus and total transparency. If 90% of people want national healthcare, then we will have it. If 49% do not want an individual mandate, then we won't force it on them. etc. Unlike this election, which tought us nothing other than which candidate was more imaginative at fabricating half true negative attacks, we should have real and honest discussion on major issues. We should be spending our energy not on petty partisan bickering, but on convincing people that there is a better and more thoughtful aporoach to national politics. And yes, this means you have to make short term sacrifices and allow an occasional numbskull to win a tactical victory. The partisan approach is a dead end. It's time for the real change Obama promised us when we voted for him in 2008.
- Nicomachus
November 1, 2012 at 3:10am
This lovely story of de-polarization and a "better, more thoughtful approach to national politics" is for an alternate universe, Nichomachus. The right has shown itself to be utterly implacable, unwilling to compromise, more than willing not only to ignore the general welfare but actively to try and destroy it -- the debt-ceiling hostage crisis for example -- in order to destroy the opposition party that represents more than half of the country. The Republicans do not any longer recognize the principle of majority rule. Did they ever hesitate to tell preposterous lies -- Moslem, socialist, Kenyan or death panels -- in their bid for power? They do not. As or more important, do you imagine that, if the Republicans seized the majority and the White House, they would bother themselves at all over the concerns of the minority, even if it were 49.5%? Hardly. As they proceeded to do when Bush gained office through the intervention of a conservative Supreme Court while losing the popular vote, they would proceed with their agenda. Do you recall all those editorials about how Bush would be forced by his narrow victory to govern from the center? Those were written by people believing, as you appear to, that we were still living in the world before reactionary Republicanism in which political compromise was not only possible but regarded as necessary. Have you failed to notice the purging of the Republican party of all its moderate elements and the emergence of extremists in control? Faced with a radicalized Republican party, the single most important thing we have to do is prevent them from seizing power. That is not an ephemeral victory, although no political victory is ever final. It is an essential victory if we are to preserve are country from the depredations of true nuts, people who believe in creationism, who deny the reality of rising temperatures, who insist in the face of uniform evidence to the contrary that austerity is the path to prosperity, who are unrestrained in their willingness to increase debt so long as the wealthy pocket the proceeds, who salivate at the prospect of destroying social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Every day that they are kept from the levers of power is a day closer to the recovery of the economy and therefore to discrediting them and relieving the misery that is always the soil for radicalism. Then, perhaps, the fever can break and we can find ourselves back in the world you imagine. It is not going to come about by political appeasement of the radical right. Obama tried that. It failed miserably and very nearly led to his own undoing. Political campaigns must be fought for the electorate we have, not for the electorate we wish we had, using the weapons that work in our political culture. Unilateral political disarmament by the left is simply out of the question. Its only justification would be the argument advanced here by drofnats, that we should open the doors to the radical right and let them trash the place so that the public can finally see who and what they are and reject that insanity. I don't accept the necessity or inevitability of succumbing to these wreckers, but his argument at least makes more sense than yours. He understands the destruction they will wreak but thinks that we must endure it to go forward. You, on the other hand, are oblivious to it and expect the left to offer its neck to the savages. No. We have to summon ourselves to defeat them politically. And not just in the election campaign, the very mistake that Obama made, thinking that once the campaign was over he would be allowed to govern if he offered his hand. No. The campaign must be continuous to persuade the American people that the way forward is sanity and moderation, that we must eschew the craziness of Republican proto-fascism. The boot is not for the necks of half the American people, but for the necks of the radicals who control the Republican party. We have to find the way to broaden the appeal of the Democratic way, if not the Democratic party, to 60%, 65%, and that will be a fight. The first step in that fight is beating off the Republican bid for power. It appears that we will accomplish that and I have not a shred of regret about it or how it was achieved. It is a great victory for decency and humanity.
- roidubouloi
November 1, 2012 at 9:09am
"if the Republicans seized the majority in the Congress and the White House"
- roidubouloi
November 1, 2012 at 9:11am