The Candidates
Featured Archives
(UPDATED. Some of the comments before #50 or so might not be relevant, as ambiguous wording led me to mistake part of the article for something that it didn’t mean. A flip-flop, however, is still evident in Romney’s piece. The article has been corrected for the error.)
(UPDATE 2: Some of you have been speaking of “changing contexts” in that we’ve hit a financial crisis since January. I issue the same challenge to all who make this point: state his original thoughts, the changing context, and then how the newer thoughts specifically address the changing context. I don’t see how this can be done. The shift in political posturing clearly has nothing to do with the credit crisis. If anything, as I note below, this new position makes even less sense, in every context but one: trying to appeal to free marketeers for the 2012 race.)
With that in mind, here is the original post…
—
We’re not even out of 2008 yet and we already have our first Mitt Romney flip-flop of 2012. Here are the relevant quotes:
Romney, January 2008:
“I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back’…I’m going to fight for every single job. I’m going to rebuild the industry. I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”
Romney, January 2008:
“Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry?”
Romney, January 2008:
“Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive manufacturing industry to disappear? … As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff.”
Fast-forward ten months, and in a piece entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Governor Romney writes:
“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”
More…
Romney, January 2008:
Romney proposed increased government spending for research on advanced fuels and vehicles, aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees, and tax cuts for most taxpayers to help them buy new cars.
Romney, November 2008:
I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
So now the twenty billion isn’t for the auto industry in particular anymore. And furthermore, he’d rather see a managed bankruptcy than fight for every job and “take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”
Sorry, Michigan, but thanks for those primary votes!
At the risk of overstating my case — the quotes in themselves are rather damning — we should recall that John McCain stated, truthfully, in January, that the lost jobs were not coming back and that Michigan would need to innovate to find a way to create new jobs — that’s simply how the market works. Romney disagreed, saying that McCain was being a cranky pessimist and that he would “fight for every single job” while offering a $20 billion aid package specifically to the auto industry. He’s still dropping the $20 billion number, but he’s doing it in a very tricky manner: what he’s proposing now and what he proposed before are not the same package. Pretty slick, and psychologically savvy.
The new context, really, makes this new $20 billion arrangement make even less sense: since we’re talking about solutions at this moment for the auto industry specifically, why would Romney shift his proposal from the exact focus to the general issue of energy? The answer is obvious: he’s backing away from his original interventionist plan to try and curry favor with free-marketeers.
(PS: I actually rather like the article, ironically. I just wish that I could trust the man who wrote it.)
November 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I see no flip flop here.. Did you read the whole article Alex. I did! Post the whole thing in context, as well as what he said previously in context. Bottom line, no flip flop at all, and very conservative position with solutions, not rhetoric.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I knew that you were going to whine about “context” as soon as I posted this, IllinoisGuy.
Do you see no flip-flop in saying that he’ll fight for every job on the one hand, and saying, on the other, that the auto industry needs to lay people off? Please. He’s pandering to whoever he needs to pander to.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I’ve been trying to access the site all morning, something’s up with my browser. Someone mind posting?
In general, I’m not unsympathetic. I always thought Romney’s Michigan rhetoric was the lowpoint of his campaign (but ironically it worked).
November 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Here is the article:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:09 am
The only layoffs I see here are upper management being replaced with those capable of actually managing an industry of this size.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year,
Please note that he wrote this to cover his a**. He thinks that if he drops the term ‘20 billion’ it will look like nothing has changed.
But what he talks about in the article and what he proposed in January are two very different things.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
to: Mitt Romney
wellcome to jingle jungle politics
wish you the best .
November 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Alex,
You are looking for something “damning” for your own neurotic pleasure. In January 2008 the national economy had still not fallen to dismal proportions. In January 2008, the national government had not loaned $700 Billion to numerous financial institutions.
As Illinoisguy said, show some intellectual honesty and display the entire article in context.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Brett, could you explain why the changing context made him change from the position he had to the position he now holds? Why should Washington have fought for the auto industry then, but not in the midst of a crisis? It just makes no sense.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Alex,
Do you suppose that must maybe things have changed somewhat in a year’s time? That perhaps the facts on the ground in Jan 2008 don’t match the facts on the ground in Nov 2008?
Is that even a remote possibility?
Abraham Lincoln
November 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Well, its seems that Romney, Sanford, the Congressional Republicans, and I presume, most of the other 2012 candidates have all decided that there is a path to 270 that does not go through Michigan and Ohio.
Do any of you guys know what that path is?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
If you do all that Romney says, and a couple more things, the industry is saved:
. Solicit moderate conscessions from union labor agreements
. Cut Salaried wages and benefits in line with labor union concessions
. Cut lower and middle management somewhat more than union and salaried
. Replace key players of upper management, simulaneously reducing the salaries and benefits of the incoming team of management.
. Go to suppliers and ask for price concessions holding over their head that without such they go bankrupt along with the car industry. Their supplier are totally dependent on the car industry for their survival.
. Ask Government for some tax incentives for new buyers as has been done in the past.
. Cut the wasted portion of business trips and unnecessary expenses
. Overturn legislation favoring foreign car makers over domestic
These are just a few of a long list of things Mitt is talking about or insinuating. I worked for a company on the verge of bankruptcy. We did the above list of things and today remain the world’s leader in our industry. Don’t tell me it can’t be done: We’ve done it.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The 20 billion in January, and the 20 billion now are for the same things, research, etc.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
On reading the article, Alex’s complaints seem to rest on one statement about shedding excess labor. But the article is mostly in line with Romney’s January solutions.
I think Romney would argue that rebuilding Detroit would bring the jobs back.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
If the car companies are bailed out they will still be stuck to a disfunctional and dying model.
The domestic auto companies can only be saved by going through bankruptcy and being purged of onerous contract obligations.
Otherwise all the “bail-out” will have accomplished is kick the ball down the road. We can have the auto companies go belly up in 5 years instead of this year.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Isn’t it shedding excess labor costs, not excess labor? Do you realize that the age of the work force enables a huge reduction in costs without actual layoffs? A little retirement incentive would go a long way toward getting rid of all that is necessary to bring labor in line with current demands. If we do the other things also, our products will soon be selling at a rate that will actually cause us to need to hire to replace those retiring.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It’s simply guys. GM has no future with its current obligations.
It either goes bankrupt now, or later. GM has 5 times the dealorships of Toyota despite having the same market shar
It can’t get rid of the contracts with those dealorships absent a bankruptcy. GM has dozens of other contracts it needs to get rid of to compete profitably.
Until GM goes to bankruptcy we’re wasting our time trying to help it.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I don’t buy that. The dealerships are separate entities, not ran by GM, right? How does having more of them hurt GM?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Why the attack on Romney Alex? Any thinking person who actually reads the whole article can see that it’s a smart and
dead on analysis of the siutation and most importantly 100% consistent with his precious statements in the primaries. Why are
you trying to make Romney look bad?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I hate Mitt Romney as much as the next person.
But lets not hash out presidential issues just yet. Keep it in your back pocket for a couple years. Pull it out then. This is a minor flip-flop, if it is one at all.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I’m still waiting for Alex to point out ‘flip-flops’, now that we’re actually putting the full articale in front of us.
Nice try Alex, but where has the intellectual honesty gone?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I’ve read Romney’s article in the WSJ, and I also thought of the debate he had with McCain, where Romney said the jobs aren’t going anywhere. What he proposed in Nov. ia qualitatively different than what he proposed in January, and a contradiction. In January, he wanted a bailout package. In November, he says no bailout package.
As to the idea that the money spent on the financial bailout is the reason Romney flip flopped….
HOGWASH!
Romney doesn’t mention that at all in the WSJ. In fact, the reason he gives is that the bailout WOULD DOOM THE DOMESTIC AUTOMAKERS BECAUSE IT WOULD CONTINUE THEIR BAD PRACTICES, instead of forcing them to change, as Chapter 11 might. In other words, he opposes the bailout ON THE MERITS, not because we can’t afford it after the financial sector bailout.
Funny what happens to Romney when his audience changes.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
So, let me get this straight?
Romney said he would ‘fight for every job’, right?
Why do you think that calling for some restructuring, some pay cuts, some new executives means that he has flip flopped on this stance of ‘fighting for every job?’
November 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
It is Mike Huckabee’s fault huh Rombots he is the reason for the Auto Industry having issues and he is making Romney out to be a flip flopper. I find it funny the public took issue with the bailout and now Romney has issue with bailing out the Auto Industry. Hello I am Mitt “never met a side of the issue I didn’t like” Romney>
November 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Alex,
I hardly post, but when I do… I try to make it important. Seems to me you are presto to critic Mr. Romney, and that Romney has always had the same solution in mind. Make the auto industry be competitive again and eventually the auto industry will grow to new higher levels, in that sense you got to get rid of the excess. The auto industry needs to get on a diet to be healthy again, there is no doubt about that, and the goverment can help assisting with research for new technologies.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
MWS – you are bordering on an outright lie, or putting forth something without facts. SHOW ME where in January Mitt Romney said anything about a bailout, or anything close to it. You’ll find he indicated he thought it proper for Government to spend the 20 billion for research etc. that would benefit the whole USA population, not the auto industries by themselves. That’s still what he is saying now, 20 billion for the same purpose.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Why do you think that calling for some restructuring, some pay cuts, some new executives means that he has flip flopped on this stance of ‘fighting for every job?’”
“Restructuring” is corporatese for “layoffs.”
November 19th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Wow, Illinoisguy made Alex look absolutely idiotic. I’ve always been a Mitt guy, but when I read Alex’s post, I was worried that he was actually changing his position. Then I read the whole article, and as Illinoisguy points out, there is no flip-flop whatsoever. He talks about cutting labor costs. Alex conveniently used the logical fallacy that we all learned in college of “putting an ellipses wherever you damn well please to make a quote suit your argument”.
If you read the actual article, you can see that his core argument is that there will have to be sacrifice (a solid conservative principle) and that with evidence of that sacrifice, government can and should step in to help support the industry, rather than giving handouts (another solid conservative principle) by supporting research into new fuels and vehicles and by supporting the burden of retiree benefits (remarkably, exactly the same thing he said in January).
So basically he is saying the exact same thing now that he was saying in January, only this time framed in terms of the current economic climate. He is not threatening any employee’s job; he is asking for fiscal sanity and sacrifice from the top down so that the companies can rebuild and stay fiscally solvent. This article just goes to show why a guy like Mitt is who we really need in the White House in a time like now.
Alex, I have watched as you have posted more and more on this site and with each passing post, you better show your intellectual naivete at best or dishonesty at worst. Next time think before you post, or have somebody proof-read your ideas.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
In January 2008, Detroit had a very bad cut. It was bleeding badly. Doctor Romney was consulted and he urged stitches and antibiotics. Now, in November 2008, the wound had developed gangrene and has now infected the entire limb. He is now talking about amputation.
Romney’s January advice went unheeded. He lost the primaries, remember? Is it Romney’s fault the wound went gangrene?
It is Romney’s fault he has to now talk about amputation as opposed to sutures and antibiotics?
You anti-Mitts, you would prefer Doctor Romney continue talking about sutures and antibiotics in the face of a life-threatening situation?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
24:
When was Romney for bailing out the auto industry? Near as I can tell his government aid stance ($20 billion in research) is identical to what he was asking for in January.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I don’t see any flip flop here.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Illinois,
“SHOW ME where in January Mitt Romney said anything about a bailout.”
Romney:
““Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry?””
““Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive manufacturing industry to disappear? … As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff.””
A bailout by any other name would smell just as sweet… Well, we know that Washington is already spending money on alternative fuels and to help Detroit come up with those vehicles, so he couldn’t have been talking about that in January. He promised as President, he “would not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff….”
Letting the industry go Chapter 11 is the resting position.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Falz,
“I don’t see any flip flop here.”
Of course not. You’re the one who repeatedly calls for Huckabee’s death.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am
27,
that’s not the point.
Mitt promised to fight for every job.
He didn’t say, ‘i promise everyone who is currently working will always have a job.’
Fighting for every job isn’t the same as guaranteeing every job.
I think Romney presents good ideas that will build a stronger Detroit that will employ more people in the future. I think Romney genuinely cares about the place he was born. And I think it’s disingenuous to put the words ‘I will never fire anyone or cut anyone’s pay or restructure anything’ in his mouth.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I don’t see how anyone can not see a flip-flop here, and I don’t see how the article provides any context whatsoever that would make the quotes reconcilable. Either he’s for fighting for every job, or he wants the auto industry to trim itself of “excess labor.”
Romney criticized McCain heavily in January for suggesting that the jobs weren’t coming back and that the industry would just have to evolve and some people would have to find new lines of work.
Now Romney is saying the exact same thing he called McCain a pessimistic crank for.
Earlier, he proposed specific governmental interventions to help the auto industry specifically. Now he’s calling for intervention that would help the auto industry “among other” industries.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
This is rediculous. Anytime someone says something bad about Romney they have “pre-conceived notions”, or they are catering to their own “agenda”. Don’t all of us do that? I think it’s crap that people criticize Huckabee for a book that he wrote, which by the way books are supposed to say controversial things. THAT’S WHAT MAKES THEM SELL DAMNIT! Huckabee isn’t making an attempt at the political arena right now. He’s got a talk show and radio show. He’s pretty entertaining too. It’s like the clean conservative version of Jerry Springer. He even says a thought at the end that makes the show seem more genuine. PUKE! I like Huckabee, but really he is doing what he is best at right now. He should keep doing it. And if Romney or any other politician, republican or not gets hit hard by a blogger on here, or by the press for something they contradict themselves on….then we should stop whining. Don’t you guys watch Hannity? I hate that guy, he’s rediculously biased. Fair and balanced my butt. Its this kinda pestering that is going to make their candidacy stronger for next time. Maybe Governor Romney will become more aware of what he says, and stop flipping and flopping like a fish. It’s rediculous for crying out loud. The Romney bias on here is pretty overwhelming. With more than 60% of people on this site supporting Romney for President. How can we be fair to any of the potential candidates. But then again, it’s not about fair is it? It’s about pushing our agenda with the information we have. I have a myspace blog that I do largely for the benefit of my friends and family. It covers topics from religion to politics, and I have a Jindal4prez blog….which is obviously biased because I’m pushing an agenda. Though I make my best attempt at shining a POSITIVE light on the other republicans that a major party players right now. Why? Because I want the party stronger! So lets stop this feeble minded idea that its wrong for someone to be criticized because they are our guy okay? I don’t support Romney as a presidential candidate but I support him as a republican. That’s probably the nicest thing i will say about him. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE PRIMARY IN 2012! If he wins the primary, then i will vote for him in the general. But if he is the ONLY candidate in the primary, I will probably vote third party or write in someone.
Did he flip or not? Isn’t that up to us individuals to decide?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Alex, you have failed to take into consideration all that has happened since Jan 2008. Like a RECESSION. Your continued defense of a poorly written, biased article makes you sound like a whiny b****. Especially when you use the sentence: “Please.” Maybe when you start college you’ll mature a little more.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
#36 is what happens when you lose an argument. Total Meltdown.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Alex, you have failed to take into consideration all that has happened since Jan 2008. Like a RECESSION. Your continued defense of a poorly written, biased article makes you sound like a whiny b****. Especially when you use the sentence: “Please.” Maybe when you start college you’ll mature a little more.
I’ll pose the same question to you as I posed to the others, who have failed to answer the question: please explain Mitt’s first position, and then how his new solution is better for a recession.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
35:
No, Illinoisguy is right. Romney used the phrase “labor costs” and defined what that meant early in the article.
You are twisting his words.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
#36 is what happens when you lose an argument. Total Meltdown.
Easier to say that than to reply to anything that anyone says.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Talk about straining at a nat! The CLEAR thrust of Romney’s position in the primary was that he would not allow the domestic auto companies–the big three– to disappear. That he was going to “rebuild the industry.”
Now,he has explained how that needs to be done — not by cutting jobs (except perhaps management) but by cutting the excessive labor costs (the $75.00 compensation package) and the other things Romney discusses. Where is this huge flip flop?? Get over it.
At the same time, is there some pandering done by all of the candidates? Sure. All of a sudden they are all anit-illegal immigrant and McCain is now trying to become best friends with the “agents of intolerance.” LOL.
By the way, you never address the merits of Romney’s proposal or is this just a weak attempt at an attack? This article shows why Romney is best qualified to lead in these economic times. Do you really want someone like a Palin or Huckabee trying to figure out how to save and rebuild our domestic auto makers?? Thought so. Romeny’s paln is brilliant and demonstrates an understanding of the problem that most of the other candidates just don’t have. The plan will “rebuild” the industry and ensure it does not disappear. Get it?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Absolutely I’ll explain it. Mitt wanted to give 20 billion to the industry to support research, revitalization, and restructuring to improve the industry while still enabling workers to keep their jobs. That was before a recession and before we promised a 750 billion dollar package to the federal reserve to do as they deemed fit to save our economy. Make sense?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:07 am
marK in #29
Nice analogy.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:07 am
No, Illinoisguy is right. Romney used the phrase “labor costs” and defined what that meant early in the article. You are twisting his words.
Ah!
You’re right.
I misread that part, actually. OK, let me switch it.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:07 am
#32 – he was talking about moving the current 4 billion for those purposes to 20 billion. You can’t put words in his mouth to act as if you know he was thinking about something he didn’t say!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
marK,
Clever analogy, but it doesn’t work here. The reasons Romney gives in the WSJ- the retirement benefits, legacy costs, pay scale, etc…- are all structural problems that existed last January. So in reality, Dr. Romney is now prescribing a different treatment for the same “disease.” If he is half the economic genius that many here make him out to be, he knew full well that the causes he discussed in the WSJ were causing problems then too. These structural problems have been in place for years, and people have been discussing them for years. GM and Ford bonds have been getting downgraded for years, and they have both been rated junk for quite some time. The global slowdown in auto sales merely accelrated the problem.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
#42 Good point. I’d like to Know what Alex thinks of the plan. Do you think it’s a sound policy? Do you think the auto industry
needs to go into a managed bankruptcy or do you support the bailout? Do you approve of the 20 billion Romney proposes in research
as part of the industry’s restructuring? Does it even matter to you what the merits of his proposals are?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:11 am
#36 Then let the pro Romney make a case with our agenda: Romney 2012. The man is remarkably qualified for the job, and proposes real solutions with a plan on how to do it. How come we are not taking Dr. Romney’s prescriptions? The auto industry will only collapse if it doesn’t do exactly that.
Romney is fighting for every job in that regard, least you want to see the entire auto industry disappear.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Did I lose an argument? I don’t think I was arguing with anyone. I was making a statement. ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD BE OPEN FOR ATTACK! It’s what makes them stronger for the future. We shouldn’t be unwilling to allow the attack on “certain” candidates, just because your opinion of their apparent “flip” is that it isn’t a flip at all. It’s for all of us to decide for ourselves. I think the charge was a good one, even though it is stretched a little. The man didn’t directly contradict himself. But he did promise to fight for every single job, and even if he’s now willing to sacrifice the jobs of mindless executives….it is still a contradiction.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Whta flip are you taling about?? A flip-flop would be for Romney to now say that there is nothing we should do to help the auto makers and we should just let them die — and the jobs. Boy, talk about trying to make something out of nothing! Has Romney now announced his candidacy or lauched an attack on your favorite candidiate? Whats your problem? His article demonstatres an understanding of the economics at work and makes sense to me. Whose plan to you prefer?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Ogre,
“That was before a recession and before we promised a 750 billion dollar package to the federal reserve to do as they deemed fit to save our economy. Make sense?”
Where in the WSJ did Romney give those as reasons? The problems Romney says need fixed through bankrupcy have been there for years.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
47 – I January, Mitt was talking about what Government should do. Now, he has added what GM needs to do. Its called amplification, not changing a darn thing.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Altering the post as I type…
November 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
wateredseeds – why did you bring Huckabee into this discussion?….he knows diddly squat about conservative economics, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one night, might bad!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Oh, I did want to say one other thing. I agree with Romney’s plan. I think that he is right and it would be better for the auto industry to go his way. But there is still a slight contradiction that he has made. I wouldn’t count it against him though…..it’s not like anyone other than the 8 or so of us that are arguing about it now would ever even know about it.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
There is no flip flop here. Romney has been consistent with his previous position. He never called it a bailout back in January. It was for research, innovation, and development just like he is talking about in the article. His is a solution that will preserve the auto industry and maintain as many jobs as possible and help us get through this ASAP.
This article is awesome by the way, I couldn’t agree more. Romney is brilliant at recognizing problems and coming up with pragmatic and effective solutions. That why he has been successful at everything he has ever attempted and that’s why he will be what we need in 2012 after Obama screws everything up over the next 4 years.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Updated.
Flip-flop is less serious, now, but still exists.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Alex – isn’t it you that keeps harping on Kristofer’s intellectual dishonesty?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
G,
“Fighting for every job isn’t the same as guaranteeing every job.”
The bailout Romney opposes isn’t guaranteeing every job either.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Alex, the arrangement of sound bites was disingenuous. Not impressed…
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I oppose the auto bailout (because it would hurt American industry in the long-run).
GM needs to go to bankruptcy. I’m not sure if Mitt is calling for that.
I could care less whether Mitt flipped or flopped. The fate of American industry is a bit more important than a puerile game of gotcha.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
MWS – You’re reaching almost as far as Alex! I suggest you bail out of this discussion.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
As Republicans we should be trumpeting his plan, not undermining it. This is a great issue for our party and a chance for us to
regain some seats in 2010 if we can again become the the party of ideas.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Why do the Rombots bring up Romney every time there is a Huckabee post? I’m not a Huckabee fan….i’m a “2008 candidates sucked” guy. We had very weak candidates in 08′. Had Newt jumped in, had hagel jumped in, had someone with a freaking clue and actual conservative principals acrossed the board jumped in…..maybe i would think differently. But when you are forced to pick between Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and who the hell else even cares….isn’t it kinda pointless. I mean, aren’t we just feeding our infants to the fire here? Romney is a smart guy, but he came a little late to the party in 08. By that I mean, he wasn’t a conservative until it was time to run for president. In 12′ it might be different. 4 years of building on the conservative conversion might be enough for him. Huckabee on the other hand didn’t even bother converting. Why would he? He had a locke on the evangelical vote….or at least most of it. I really hope by the time we get to 2010 we have some better people to exploit for our entertainment.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
(PS: I actually rather like the article, ironically. I just wish that I could trust the man who wrote it.)
I wish you could too Alex, then you could always use sound logic!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
waterdseeds, I think yesterday proved we’ve moved beyond Huck. He’s irrelevant to any discussion on economic matters, anyway.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
waterseeds
Why do RomNots make false claims every time some one is impressed with Romney?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I didn’t make a false claim.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
For starters, not that romney’s comments are but what’s wrong with flip flops in fluid situations like the economy or foreign affairs? As for romney, some folks just don’t like him…it happens with pols, see bill clinton, al gore, W bush, etc…whatever they did, some just didn’t like them and nothing was gonna change their views about them.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Obviously, as Alex has so generously shown, the main talking point back in January for Mitt was “saving the auto industry with Government help.” Now Romney appears to be talking about how the industry needs to save itself AND how government needs to stand back and LET THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAVE ITSELF. Romney does throw in the bit about getting Government-funded research there at the end of the article.
Obviously, the EMPHASIS in Romney’s mind has changed. I’ll grant that.
As for quote #4, here’s the quote in context…
“Romney said he opposed the new mileage standard, describing it as an anvil tossed to Detroit by a government that did not understand the auto industry or care about its workers. “As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff,” he said.
Romney proposed increased government spending for research on advanced fuels and vehicles, aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees, and tax cuts for most taxpayers to help them buy new cars.”
I have no problem at all with the first part of the quote. If government is going to require higher and higher fuel standards, then Government can and should back some research which is NOT privately owned to ensure that oil companies don’t buy the rights and bury the technology.
I do wonder about the “aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees.” I wish there were more to the story. Perhaps someone could better define what Romney was talking about when he said that?
Bottom line:
EVERYONE in the World knows this is a belt-tightening time. Romney proposes BOTH management and labor tighten their belts in order to save the domestic auto industry in America/Michigan/Detroit. He also says that without such belt tightening, GM and Ford just can’t survive for very long the way they’re going. Does anyone really disagree with that?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Can we get a front page rebuttal to Alex’s claims?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
As Republicans we should be trumpeting his plan, not undermining it. This is a great issue for our party and a chance for us to
regain some seats in 2010 if we can again become the the party of ideas.
The plan itself is fine. I’m not attacking the plan.
Why do RomNots make false claims every time some one is impressed with Romney?
“RomNots” was always a lame term.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Don’t retype it. Just admit that you thought there was something there and now, upon further reflection, see that there really isn’t? Certainly nothing worth trying to lauch an attack for. Right? Otherwise you are simply going to look like trying to make something out of nothing. We all goof sometimes and this was one of yours. Its OK. We all do it.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I agree with 70. Just like I agreed with what Mitt Romney is telling the auto industry to do. Duh? Guys I’m not a Romney guy, but he has some good ideas. I was miffed about how everyone jumps on all these other candidates, but when romney is criticized it’s like “oh, you didn’t just criticize my guy. He’s next in line you know?”
November 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
EGS,
“GM needs to go to bankruptcy. I’m not sure if Mitt is calling for that.”
I think the title of his piece is “Let Detroit go Bankrupt,” or something of the sort, and then he goes on to explain why its better for Detroit to go bankrupt.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
?_?
EDIT: Aw, the alt-codes don’t work.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I can’t decide if I like Martha or Shawnie the most! hmmmm….so tough a decision!
you two are great.
Btw, listen to Romney tonight on Fox’s “Your World” with Neil C. tonight.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I think the title of his piece is “Let Detroit go Bankrupt,” or something of the sort, and then he goes on to explain why its better for Detroit to go bankrupt.
Not that it changes anything, but it’s almost always the case that editors assign titles to pieces, not the authors of the articles. (It’s rather frustrating, really.)
November 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Alex, I think what you did here today is to make the case for Romney even stronger. Your flip-flop charge has been completely and clearly defeated. The truth is, Romney is exactly the kind of leader we need.
Kudos. I’m predicting that by 2011, you are a Romney fan.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Obviously, as Alex has so generously shown, the main talking point back in January for Mitt was “saving the auto industry with Government help.” Now Romney appears to be talking about how the industry needs to save itself AND how government needs to stand back and LET THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAVE ITSELF. Romney does throw in the bit about getting Government-funded research there at the end of the article.
…
I do wonder about the “aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees.” I wish there were more to the story. Perhaps someone could better define what Romney was talking about when he said that?
It’s intentionally vague.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Kudos. I’m predicting that by 2011, you are a Romney fan.
Kristofer has predicted that I’ll vote for Palin in the primaries in 2012. Are you going to predict that I vote for Romney?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Man. Had Romney campaigned as “Mitt Romney, brilliant executive” instead of “Mitt Romney, generic 1980’s Republican”, he would be our president-elect right now. This must be how the left felt when it watched Al Gore turn into a charismatic and energetic fellow AFTER he lost an election.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Martha, I’m predicting that by 2011 the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire will show Romney with a 40 point lead again. Only for him to lose those leads once again to weaker candidates respectively….though I really hope it’s Jindal that snaps romney in half this time. He will attack Romney on merrit not on useless dribble that drains brain cells.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Alex, no. We don’t know who’s on board yet. But I do think you will have altered your opinion of Romney to a more favorable view.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
My respect for Alex and his posts have gone down today. First, he posts without thoroughly reading the subject matter. Second, he defends it without thoroughly reading the subject matter. Third, when he realizes he was wrong, he claims he was only “half-wrong” and still criticizes Romney’s idea, which is better than anything else we’ve heard from ANYONE.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
waterseeds – Romney and Jindal are worthy opponents. May the best man win, but Romney still has a large advantage over Jindal in many areas.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
#82, if you don’t it will be from stubbornness!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Pop quiz: Who was the last Republican that supported handouts to wealthy farmers in form of subsidizes?
Answer: Mitt Romney (or at least when he was in Iowa). Even McCain was more conservative on that issue.
This latest flip-flop example is nothing new. Romney turned into Mr. Government Handout when he was campaigning in Michigan too.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Sorry, that should be *Subsidies* not “subsidizes”
November 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Ben, are you sure about that? I didn’t think anyone was calling for ending those subsidizes.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
From January (first link): “Romney also proposed spending $20 billion a year on “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”"
From November: “I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today.”
That’s almost word-for-word identical. Where’s the flip-flop, Alex?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
My respect for Alex and his posts have gone down today. First, he posts without thoroughly reading the subject matter. Second, he defends it without thoroughly reading the subject matter. Third, when he realizes he was wrong, he claims he was only “half-wrong” and still criticizes Romney’s idea, which is better than anything else we’ve heard from ANYONE.
The wording of the article was a little ambiguous. I mistook ‘labor’ for being detached from the word ‘costs’ in the later ‘real estate costs.’ I don’t think that it’s such an unforgivable mistake, especially since I swiftly corrected my error.
I praised Romney’s article. What on Earth are you talking about?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
And this is news??????
This is merely flip-flop #95492829 version 4
November 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Well, I followed your lead, Ben and spelled it wrong. Oops!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
For what it’s worth, I think that Romney will be our 2012 nominee.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Then why don’t you retract your accusation of flip-flopping? He didn’t flip flop. Or are you not reading any of the comments people are posting about your article.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I wish wiseguy would live up to his name tag a little better.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan
November 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I think if you compare Mitt Romney to the absolute perfect ideal candidate, than you can find numerous faults and bash away…if you compare him to every other actual candidate, than he isn’t that bad…i do find a chunk of folks that don’t like romney hold him to that ridiculous standard that nobody can deliver, thus its easy for them bash him.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
92 – From an article above:
“Romney proposed increased government spending for research on advanced fuels and vehicles, aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees, and tax cuts for most taxpayers to help them buy new cars.”
As I understand it, he was trying to specifically help the auto industry, as opposed to now, when it’s more general. He’s moving away. I still want to know what happened to:
“I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back’…I’m going to fight for every single job. I’m going to rebuild the industry. I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”
“Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry?”
“Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive manufacturing industry to disappear? … As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff.”
November 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Sorry Alex.
You have just taken a hit in the credibility department by still trying to attack Romney for flipping on this. You admit his plan for saving our domestic auto industry is just fine but are trying REALLY HARD AND ADMIT YOU MIGHT BE OVERSTATING THIS BUT ARE TRYING to find some way to show a slight change in emphasis on what Romney said in January about rebuilding the industry to ensure it was not going to disappear.
You would have been much better off simply pulling the article and say that you now don’t really see much of an inconsistency. Or is your apparent dislike for Romney such that you are going to be straining at the nat for the next 4 years — despite that Romney has not announced his candidacy not lauched any sort of political attack.
And you really like Romney’s plan. Good grief!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I have to disagree with you again, Alex. If things continue the way they are now with the Mormon church’s terrible PR, Romney won’t stand a chance in 2012. I think Gingrich will win it.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ohio – just so he doesn’t take down the thread…its been a huge boost for Mitt!
November 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Illinoisguy, Thanks~
You’ve certainly done the heavy lifting today. Good job.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I agree with 100
November 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Alex
It’s only a couple of weeks and you are back into the Kool AID. It’s obvious why the GOP lost so badly in November. We can’t find concensus if we are dicing erevy problem so many times that no GOP candidate with any real ideas is EVER acceptable. Welcome to the minor leagues, Alex.
After you actually run a business like Romney ( and not like GM ) you will find that you sometimes have to eliminate 2 jobs to gain three. This is called adding jobs. GM hasn’t ever figured this out.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I haven’t read all the comments, but I think Alex’s contention is wholly inaccurate. I recall the Michigan primary rhetoric quite well, and we had a number of debates on the issue at the time. Alex and co then, as now, decided that Romney was proposing what amounted to a bribe (I guess you could call it a bailout) for the automotive industry. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now. Romney was proposing a massive research and development program, focused on alternative energy, renewable sources, technology, etc. It was geared towards the auto-industry, but it was anything but a “bailout”. Instead it utilized precisely the principles he outlined in his new article; he wanted to help the automotive industry get back on it’s feet by encouraging them to shed their worst practices and policies. I don’t see the slightest inconsistency in actual policy, though I’ll concede that the “fight for every good” stuff was rhetorically bolder then the plan he was actually outlining at the time.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Can I just say that I am a Matthew Miller groupie?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Can I repeat my request for a front page rebuttal?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Alex,
” “I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back’…I’m going to fight for every single job. I’m going to rebuild the industry. I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”
“Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry?”
“Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive manufacturing industry to disappear? … As president, I will not rest as Detroit gets to see layoff after layoff after layoff.””
How is any of that inconsistent with his current position? The New York Times article makes it very clear that Romney definitely believes that auto-industry needs to be helped, in some fashion. He just thinks that a bailout will perpetuate a broken model. So he favors something else; 20 billion dollars in research and development, plus an attempt get GM, Ford, etc to shed labor costs and reorganize management.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
LOL – craig, if you’re the same craig that has been in high management levels of a top 100 company, I, ofr one, would welcome your comments about the auto industry situation.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
#108 Matthew E. Miller
Take it to the front page.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
If I didn’t care about the abortion issue before any other issue, than I would probably be on board with Mitt now. As it is in reality, Mitt will only become my guy if he wins the nomination. I won’t support a pro-choice candidate, or someone that I don’t “trust” on the issue.
On the issues with Mitt Romney:
GovWatch: 2002: “preserve & protect” right to choose. (Feb 2008)
Supreme Court had said feds should stay out of abortion. (Dec 2007)
I took action as governor to preserve the sanctity of life. (Dec 2007)
No punishment for women who have partial birth abortions. (Dec 2007)
Outlaw embryo farming, but allow using surplus embryos. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: TV ad ignores recency of conversion to pro-life. (Dec 2007)
Was pro-choice, now proudly pro-life. (Dec 2007)
Would be delighted to sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)
Two-step process: overturn Roe; then change hearts & minds. (Sep 2007)
2005: Vetoed availability without Rx of morning-after pill. (Aug 2007)
Firmly in the “legal but rare” camp. (Aug 2007)
Following in Reagan’s footsteps in converting to pro-life. (Aug 2007)
Iowa attack phone ads are not true; I am pro-life. (Aug 2007)
Tired of holier-than-thou attitude about becoming pro-life. (Aug 2007)
Absolute good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. (May 2007)
Personally pro-life, but government should not intrude. (May 2007)
Was effectively pro-choice until cloning changed his opinion. (May 2007)
Altered nuclear transfer instead of embryonic stem cells. (May 2007)
Breach of Constitution for justices to adjust Constitution. (Mar 2007)
Now firmly pro-life, despite 2002 tolerance for abortion. (Dec 2006)
Anti-abortion views have “evolved & deepened” while governor. (Jul 2005)
Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002)
For safe, legal abortion since relative’s death from illegal. (Oct 1994)
Stem cell research lofty goals don’t justify destroying life. (Mar 2007)
Voting Record
Defining mistake: supported abortion law despite opposing it. (Aug 2007)
Would welcome overturning Roe v. Wade. (Mar 2007)
Committed to not change law on abortion as Gov., and did not. (Mar 2007)
Opposes Roe v Wade, but won’t tamper with abortion laws. (Dec 2006)
Vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims. (Jul 2005)
Vetoed stem cell research bill. (May 2005)
Endorsed legalization of RU-486. (Mar 2002)
Does he even know where he stands? Pro-life, or panderer? This is why i will never support him in a primary. Reagans flip wasn’t so back and forth. He had one piece of abortion legislation come to his desk and made a complete conversion. Romney didn’t want the political battle of standing up for life. I personally think he was always pro-life but lied to mass. citizens.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Nate G,
I have class soon, but I’ll try to address this more fully on the front-page sometime after lunch. This won’t go unanswered. I’m not a Romney booster anymore, and probably won’t be in 2012, but I think Alex is just wrong here.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I would rather a pseudo-politian wake up to reality (after pandering in Michigan) than continue to pander.
On some level we should praise pseudo-politicians when they move in the right direction.
I could care less about Mitt Romney. I care about the issue and the influence he can have on it for good or ill.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
After you actually run a business like Romney ( and not like GM ) you will find that you sometimes have to eliminate 2 jobs to gain three. This is called adding jobs. GM hasn’t ever figured this out.
Well, duh. I agree with this. But that’s not what he was saying in January! And that’s my point.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I haven’t read all the comments, but I think Alex’s contention is wholly inaccurate. I recall the Michigan primary rhetoric quite well, and we had a number of debates on the issue at the time. Alex and co then, as now, decided that Romney was proposing what amounted to a bribe (I guess you could call it a bailout) for the automotive industry. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now. Romney was proposing a massive research and development program, focused on alternative energy, renewable sources, technology, etc. It was geared towards the auto-industry, but it was anything but a “bailout”. Instead it utilized precisely the principles he outlined in his new article; he wanted to help the automotive industry get back on it’s feet by encouraging them to shed their worst practices and policies. I don’t see the slightest inconsistency in actual policy, though I’ll concede that the “fight for every good” stuff was rhetorically bolder then the plan he was actually outlining at the time.
You’re bordering on putting words in my mouth. I never accused him of advocating a bailout.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Alex, part of growing up to be a man is admitting you made a mistake, and apologizing! Otherwise, it causes people to think you are either stubborn, or not as smart as you purport to be.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
However, promising to “rebuild the industry” from his perch as president sounds awfully bailout-y.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Alex, part of growing up to be a man is admitting you made a mistake, and apologizing! Otherwise, it causes people to think you are either stubborn, or not as smart as you purport to be.
I already did so. But I will certainly not “apologize” for the post in its current form.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
It seems someone was more eager to write the title than actually read and think about the points Romney has made and is making.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
#122 pretty well says it.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
It seems someone was more eager to write the title than actually read and think about the points Romney has made and is making.
The article itself is fine. My piece is not about the content of the article. I can write a piece about the content of the article if you wish. But should that bar me from writing about the political posturing?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Romney’s article is great. He really gives the sense that he understands the problem and has great solutions (better than anyone else seems to articulate) to it. Until a week before the Michigan primary I doubted that Romney’s blue-blood, rich boy background would allow him to connect with the blue-collar folks in Detroit. You know what? I was wrong. Romney’s proving himself as an idea man and a fighter for the GOP. I never thought I would support the guy a year ago but I’m happy to support him now. This sort of problem-solving approach is what the GOP needs to restore its repuation. The guy comes from a clean as a whistle background. He’s smart. The Democrats won’t be able to paint him as intellectually lacking, like they did to Bush and Palin.
Tano, the mathemetician with the best interests of the GOP at heart, is right when he says that the map is tough without Ohio and Michigan.
Here’s the bootom line:
I don’t believe the GOP is going to go along with the bailout. If Republicans don’t go along with the bailout they sure as hell better get someone up there that can explain why this bailout is a bad idea and why it’s better not to go along with it. If the party nominates someone that cannot sell this issue or at least convince a good chunk of the electorate that the conservatives are right in opposing this goodie bag from the Dems – then we WILL LOSE Ohio and Michigan for a long time.
This issue right here could make or break Republican hopes to retake the White House in 2012 and 2016. We better choose wisely in the 2012 GOP primary.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Thanks Matthew.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
First off, I do not think it does any good to take cheap shots at Wiseguy or MWS anymore than it is wise to call Mr. Romney a flip flopper on the bail out issue. I am not actually concerned about whether Mr. Romney is a flip flopper on the bail out issue or not. I also think it misses the point to get into a Romney versus anti-Romney contest. The main point is that some of us are getting sick of all these bail outs. I for one am not looking to blame Mr. Romney or anyone else per se for all these bail outs, I just want end. The big three in Detroit is the last thing I want to bail out. They and their shenanigans make Mr. DeWine look like a good Manager. Detroit made their own bed and at ther risk of sounding cold hearted, let them sleep in it. The tax payers only have so much money.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
125 – How about Sanford, who’s been against government intervention both in theory and in practice, and has been an advocate for free-market principles for ages, without equivocating?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#42, it’s really not the government’s job to “save and rebuild the auto industry,” they’re supposed to be the heads of industry…let them figure it out.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
OHIO, they were not cheap shots, they were jokes, thus the winking and smiles.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Alex,
If he can sell it, then fine. But this issue is going to be one giant club the Dems will use against us in ‘12. A McCain or Palin won’t be able to block the blows. Romney could. If Sanford can then that’s great. Whichever candidate gets the nomination better be able to combat this.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
alex
lets try reason with those incapable of reason.
Reason Romneys position has changed-
1- in jan 2008 we didnt have a credit crunch
2- the auto industry was hurting not dying and talking about making changes
3- we had a GOP president
4- we hadnt just spent $700 Billion on a financial bailout (the real sum is closer to $3 trillion with the fed actions from spring on)
5- we werent looking at becoming a socialist country by nationalizing every industry that we have or who wants us to spend our $ on them.
bottom line is that things change and positions change. In 2000 Bush was not advocating going into Iraq or afghanistan to get al Qaeda but in 2001 he was, is that a flip flop? according to you yes because you wouldnt allow for a little something like sept 11 to effect a change in opinion.
Would you prefer someone who looks at the world of 1985 and says thats how it is always going to be so I will behave like its 1985 and ignore anything that should cause me to evaluate whether my base belief(that it is 1985) might just not apply any more.
your attempt to continue to keep the mantra on Romney of flip flops just goes to show your disdain for him. Why is it that you cant advocate for your person “on the merits” but instead you , kris and some commenters persist in the vein of attack the other guy.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Simply saying — our answer to everything is the free market — is not a winning answer. See 2008.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The incessant anti-Romney and anti-Huckabee posts from the various camps is growing very, very tiresome.
Neither of these guys is very likely to be the GOP candidate in ‘12, and if either one of them are, it’s only because the new (i.e., untarnished) candidates completely fail to impress.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’ve seen first hand that the UAW will go along with concessions, as long as they see that others are making a commensurate concession, i.e. salaried, management, top management, suppliers, trip expense reductions. If they see they are not taking it all on their own shoulders they are disappointed, but willing participants.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
132 – Same challenge I give to everyone else that says that the situation has changed: what about the current situation called for Romney to shift to the position that he did? I explain in the original post that even if you do want to consider the context change, then it makes even less sense for Romney to have shifted.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
OK Illinoisguy, I think they were trying to make some good points. I do think it is more important to save the tax payers money than to get into a contest as to who is to blame. We can deal with credit and blame later.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
fredo, you’re kidding? Romney has a very good shot, even better than 08 where he came in 2.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Exactly right. Those stupid kids, the under-30 crowd that voted for Barry in droves, how many of them even know what socialism is? And if they don’t know now, they’re not going to read up on it. Someone will have to sell the message to them in their living rooms during the debates before they switch their X Boxes back on.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If he can sell it, then fine. But this issue is going to be one giant club the Dems will use against us in ‘12. A McCain or Palin won’t be able to block the blows. Romney could. If Sanford can then that’s great. Whichever candidate gets the nomination better be able to combat this.
Gingrich, Jindal, and Sanford all could.
Sanford opposed the bailout unequivocally from the very beginning, too, rather than wetting his finger and putting it to the wind like Mittens did.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
let me add that it must be Romneys nomination to lose cause everyone is already hitting him.
must be good to be Mitt Romney
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Sanford?? Isn’t he the guy who couldn’t talk his way out of a paper bag when trying to surrogate for McCain (and they had to take him off the campaign trail)? We better at least have someone who can articulate a conservative, free market based economic messgae. As the Obama election shows, despite the appeal to some of what is now known as “populism”, we really do like our Presidents to be a little smarter than the average Joe next door.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
141 – Absolutely.
As of today, I would place the odds of Romney being the nominee at better than 50%, really.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
If Mitt hasn’t flipped on this issue, give him time, he will surely flip on this or another issue. The man can’t keep himself on the side of an issue for long…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Getting the UAW Union to relinquish some of their pay and benefits is unlikely, in any way that will make a major difference. I personally think both sides are right on this one. Romney is talking the gentler side of layoffs now…but he did use a little bit of a different rhetoric when he was running. I rarely agree with Alex, except when it comes to Giuliani, but in this case Romney does appear to be choosing a different political posture…it doesn’t mean that Romney is wrong it just means he is working a different angle. In the primaries he was using generalizations to appeal to a certain voter now he’s using specifics to show his vast knowledge of business and economics but it definitively is political posturing in some fashion or another.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
alex I just gave you 5 valid reasons why things have changed. if in your mind those are valid enough well than nothing I say will be able to help you move from your beliefs.
although I am remembering that nothing ever got you to change your positions. Must be nice to have the luxury of always being right.
btw nice job we have over 150 comments on your post. thats what a blogger should do, get people to comment and think.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
alex I just gave you 5 valid reasons why things have changed. if in your mind those are valid enough well than nothing I say will be able to help you move from your beliefs.
I’m asking you why those changing contexts would lead him to the new position, though. State the old position, the changing context, and then why the new position addresses that context. I don’t see how his shift addresses the change in context.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
#146
should say “arent valid”
November 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
#147
Alex.
give me a few minutes and I will have that for you.
cheers
November 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Alex,
I like Romney now. I’m open to other candidates. For now, the only candidates we are reasonably sure that are running are Romney and Palin. There is no contest in my mind between which of those two I will support.
Gingrich and Jindal probably could sell the idea of not gong along with the bailout. Let’s see if they run. Better for us if they do. The greater the number of articulate, intelligent, capable candidates we have in the primary, the better the chances are that one of them wins against Joe Sixpack’s dream girl.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’m not sure that Sanford has the “articulate” thing down though…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“I rarely agree with Alex, except when it comes to Giuliani, but in this case Romney does appear to be choosing a different political posture…it doesn’t mean that Romney is wrong it just means he is working a different angle.”
Don’t you really mean that you rarely agree with Alex unless he happens to be attacking Romney? I thought so.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Talk about taking things out of context.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I’m not sure that Sanford has the “articulate” thing down though…
Based on that one interview in which he botched the McCain answer? I’ll give him a pass for that. Some people are just not as good at being a surrogate as sticking up for their own ideas. Sanford falls into that camp.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Can someone tell me who Alex supported during the primary? Looked him up in Race’s staff directory but didn’t see him listed. Trying to figure out what his angle is or why he is trying to attack Romeny for something that is clearly just not there.
Cracks me up. Trying really hard to make a case for flipping but he agrees with the article. Nothing like eating your own for no apparent reason other than he sees a possible angle for attack and gets that nice article title. And now he is name calling with “mittens.” Whose great economic message did Alex favor in the primary? Inquiring minds want to know. thanks.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I for one, do not want my tax dollars going to postpone the inevitable. The unions have destroyed Detroit, just like they are destroying Boeing in WA. The bailout will simply fund retirement benefits that the auto makers can no longer afford to pay. This won’t build a single new car, or make them leaner. The only thing that will help them succeed is bankruptcy and reorganization into a viable business.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
#152, I do not mean that but I think the outrageous response to his post shows that there are many a people on this board who have a slight mancrush, or womancrush, on Governor Romney.
Do you really believe Romney is not playing angles? I think the problem with this entire discussion is that the two sides are arguing totally different things. It appears Alex is showing a change in political posture by Romney…which is evident. The other camp is showing why Romney is right to have modified his position. Alex argues the fact that there is a different posture while the other camp is arguing Romney’s motive…the whole thing is pointless…you both may be right.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Alex,
Please describe how what you’re doing is any different from what Club for Growth does in their “mean campaigning” that you complain about.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Huckabee is a very small man with a very large head.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
#156, great point. How many industries are we going to bailout, when do the heads of industry have to take responsibility for their own failures? The last thing we want is the gov’t running another industry…and we know how well the gov’t runs things.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Alex,
Yes it was just based on that. It was a doozy though.
h++p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nNSMZKv_A
I guess after eight years of Bush struggling in this arena, and then McCain’s deficiency in this area, I’m leery of going with a candidate that will have to go against the very articulate Obama. I’m open to Sanford, but lets make sure this was just one isolated brain fart before we go with him.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I want to make myself clear…Romney makes some valid points and I am not here to defend Alex or take some sort of conspiratorial anti-Romney side.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Why did Romney support the $700 billion bailout if he is a Conservative? Justifying a different position because the times have changed can be a justification for not keeping campaign promises, right?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
155 – I supported Rudy, with Fred as my second choice. Wasn’t crazy about McCain, but preferred him to Schmuckabee and Romney.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
How dare any of you criticize Alex! That guy is the epitome of intellectual honesty and you’re all a bunch of Rombots!
/sarcasm.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
#163, nobody wanted to be on the wrong side of the issue…so I’m assuming, they assumed if they were all on the same side then there’d be no real partisan, blame to throw around.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Alex, as my mother would have said, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You obviously started with the premise that Mitt is a flip-flopper and then went through this very good article of his to look for evidency to back up your preconception.
You apply the same “test” to everything Mitt says or does.
You seem unable to judge things on their own merit without trying to twist them to fit your preconception that there has to be a flip-flop or duplicity or something in there because it is related to Romney
I can’t stand Huckabee, but I can give him credit when credit is due, which is often is.
Surely not even Romney is all bad all the time.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
What the unions have to realize (and I once was one in my early years) is that labor builds great cars in Tennessee, Kentucky, and other Southern states for far less money. They can yield some and still have great salaries. , and still save a ton of money for retirement, as well as still have nice medical and pension coming in. They know they can, and they will, as long as they see others taking it on the chin along with them.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Good point Illionoisguy. Why keep a plant open in one state if you can save $5 an hour on labor costs by moving south of the border.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Alex, you think you have caught Romney in your trap. You have caught yourself. There is no flip flop in his suggestions to turnaround the auto industry. His plan will save jobs in the long term. He intends for federal government to help with innovation and research and removing regulatory burdens. Just because he doesn’t want to throw tax-payer money at an unprofitable industry does not mean he wants them to disappear. Only a close-minded fool could think he would risk alienating the entire upper midwest by doing what you assert. He offers help to Detroit to become profitable again and they better listen to the guy who can see their demise on the horizon and has the skills to prevent it.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Jersey,
“Getting the UAW Union to relinquish some of their pay and benefits is unlikely”
I haven’t followed the auto industry all that closely, but my understanding is that the UAW has made several concessions the last few years relating to pay, retirement benefits, health care, etc…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
If only would use this energy to criticize “moderately conservative” Republicans like Wayne Gilchrest, Elizabeth Dole, Lincoln Chafee, Ted Stevens…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
If only Alex would use this energy to criticize “moderately conservative” Republicans like Wayne Gilchrest, Elizabeth Dole, Lincoln Chafee, Ted Stevens…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
The cost of living in Michigan is much higher than in Tennessee, Kentucky or other Southern states…so they will not be able to yield a whole lot but they will yield some to keep their jobs. The part of Romney’s plan I have the most problem with is his larger cuts to middle management. His plan/ideas are valid but they are a bit vague and have a lot of leeway for the Execs to make major cuts in labor…the devil is in the details. Sure it’s a different time now but why were labor costs not the problem then but now they are. Maybe “fighting for every job,” Romney meant he will try to find a way to keep people employed…the question is will the labor force like his ideas to keep the workers employes…obviously hypotheticals since Romney will have no say in what the auto industry does unless he is hired as some sort of consultant.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Thanks Alex,
Was beginning to think you must be for Huckabee. Rudy (despite a deplorable personal life/example) and Fred are great. Won’t add further to the discussion other than to say i have my doubts on whether Romney runs in 2012 and just don’t see the big inconsistencies you think are there as so many have explained. If that is flipping, we are in for a long 4 years of looking for ways to devour our own — over nothing!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hey! Leave Mrs. Dole alone.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Illinois,
I appreciate your point that unions will actually work with management and consider the big picture. Too often, conservatives have the notion that unions are completely irrational and are willing to sink companies over unreasonable demands. Anecdotally, my brther heard from a labor arbitrator in one of his MBA classes at the U of Michigan. One of the students asked who tends to be harder to deal with in labor negotiations, management or the unions. This guy (whose whole job is to be a neutral third party) said that contrary to popular perception, management is generally far more irrational and difficult to deal with. I thought that was interesting.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Yes MWS, and they will be willing to do more as long as they are being treated fairly.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
174 – yes, the devil is in the details…..when times are tough, they call for tough measures…..not everyone will like it….including union guys. It hurts, but sometimes you have to sacrifice to keep your job.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
As for the supposed inconsistency of Romney’s support for the $700 billion “bailout,” I don’t think you people are thinking this through.
Romney supported saving the financial system–the system– not the people who caused the problem. Read up on the Great Depression and the other banking collapses before then (happened quite often until the post-1929 Crash controls were put in place) and then tell me that letting the financial system collapse will somehow be a good thing for the man on the street.
Romney repeatedly said there should be no bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, etc., etc., for the people who caused the problem and who knows, maybe even some jail time for the hucksters who made the bad loans in the first place.
Taking a knee-jerk reaction in the name of class warfare to “stick it to those fat cats” to appease our jealosy and outrage in a fit of ignorant rage will just end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.
We have to be level headed, clear thinking, and unemotioinal about it and get to work fixing the problem for everybody instead of spending our time and energy trying to overthrow the bourgeois.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
If only Alex would use this energy to criticize “moderately conservative” Republicans like Wayne Gilchrest, Elizabeth Dole, Lincoln Chafee, Ted Stevens…
Loathe all of ‘em, but they have a place in the party.
My problem mainly lies with hucksters and charlatans.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
#91:
Yes, McCain did not support subsidies to Iowa farmers during the same time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24419123/).
Subsidies are one of Romney’s many “I was for it, before I was against it” issues. In his 1994 campaign he supported cutting subsidies (I guess there are not many farmers in Mass)[http://iowaindependent.com/434/romney-once-called-for-cutting-farm-subsidies-virtual-elimination-of-usda]. But in the 2008 primary he changed his mind and now supports them. [http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=87BBF2FB-FB00-EB86-12507705294DB493]
November 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
#173. Rather than Alex using his energy (obviously he is not going to admit error regardless of all of the well-thought out comments), I want to see Romney use his energy to respond to our other economic problems and articulate what, if anything, can or should be done.
And, of course, we will have Alex to examine every word to see if, just perhaps by overstating things a bit, he can think of a context where a flipping accusation could possibly be made.
We all have our callings in life. . .
November 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Since we’re sitting here and speculating why don’t we try a little more. What is Romney’s motive for this article? Do you believe it could hurt or help him in the future?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Brian said:
If that is flipping, we are in for a long 4 years of looking for ways to devour our own — over nothing!
Yep.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
183,
He wants to stay visible and relevant to the political discourse.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
#173. Rather than Alex using his energy (obviously he is not going to admit error regardless of all of the well-thought out comments), I want to see Romney use his energy to respond to our other economic problems and articulate what, if anything, can or should be done.
And, of course, we will have Alex to examine every word to see if, just perhaps by overstating things a bit, he can think of a context where a flipping accusation could possibly be made. We all have our callings in life. . .
Sorry, but I’m not about to bow down to the party gods and mindlessly let any one of them that talks the talk simply stroll into a leadership position.
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em, and I sees a charlatan.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Count me in as yet another reader who does not see a flip-flop here. Coming out against a government bailout check is not inconsistent with wanting to fight for every job, because there may be other (more conservative) solutions to accomplish the latter. Further, you would have to define if you mean jobs in the short run (which may be saved by a proposed bailout) or in the long run (which would still be in jeopardy even with the bail out). Case closed!
November 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Ben, that was so thoroughly discussed at the time…wish you could have been here!
November 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
This is a very sorry attempt to try to unfairly pin the “flip-flop” label on Mitt. Once again, this is a baseless claim that is easily refuted with minimal research. Unfortunately, most people refrain from doing the minimal research necessary to come to an educated conclusion.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Alex said: I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em, and I sees a charlatan.
And most think you look like a fool for trying to expose Romney as a “charlatan” with this allegation. Fortunately for Romney supporters, I think your attack here failed and it has hurt your credibility. Keep up the good work and bringing intelligent articles by Romney (that, of course, you think is fine) to light.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Well, thanks for sharing a great Mitt Romney article. Can’t say I agree with your flip-flop premise in this case, but enjoyed reading the comments.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
And most think you look like a fool for trying to expose Romney as a “charlatan” with this allegation. Fortunately for Romney supporters, I think your attack here failed and it has hurt your credibility. Keep up the good work and bringing intelligent articles by Romney (that, of course, you think is fine) to light.
Shocking that Mitt’s people think that I look like a fool for attacking Mitt.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#186, but can taking a stance hurt him in the future? I undertand the relevance notion…I’ve argued it would be difficult for Romney to remain relevant, and I commend him for attempting to do just that. I find it interesting that he’s willing to put on public record, something that could backfire on him in the future. Why bother…it’s not like the industry is going to read his summation of the situation and adopt his plan or that they haven’t thought of his ideas yet…so why not sit back and let what happens happen and not end up being on any wrong side? Could this be an example, that at this point, Romney has no intention to run for President in 2012? Or is he taking a gamble and showing he is a leader and has the credentials to fix economic problems in the nation?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
#189:
As were the Huckabee issues, but there seems to be no problem with bringing all of those up again.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Maybe he is loking to fill the governor of Michigan spot. Does he own a home there?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Alex said:
Shocking that Mitt’s people think that I look like a fool for attacking Mitt.
Fortunately, former anti-mitts seem to be reaching the same conclusion(except, of course, for Hucksters)from reading the other posts and articles. So, the old “what do you expect from Romney supporters” doesn’t really work.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Alex (in 101, responding to my post in 92):
If you are interpreting essentially identical words from Romney to mean two different things, then you are welcome to do so. However, this is not a change in Romney’s position, but in your interpretation of Romney’s words.
For what it’s worth, here is my understanding of the quotes you mention in 101: (The quotes from Jan in italics, the quotes from Nov in bold.)
I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back’…I’m going to fight for every single job. I think Romney makes clear that the present path of the industry (as he sees it) is one headed towards destruction. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Romney is advocating for a different course which will stop this job loss. Opposing the bailout IS fighting for auto industry jobs because the present path of lost jobs will only continue with the bailout.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
#195. The anti-Huckabee stuff is brought up because Huck has just come out with his politcal attack on “everyone that dun him harm.”
Here, Alex simply is going out of his way and trying to strain at a nat to find someway to attack Romney a few weeks after the 08 election. As I said, if that is flipping it is going to be a long 4 years as we look for ways to devour our own leaders. And Romney did nothing but campaign hard and effectively for the ticket — and would have done so for Rudy if he had won. Fortunately, Alex’s attempt was a total failure and seems to have even brought other candidate’s supporters to Romney’s defense.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Aw, nuts, my italics didn’t work. I hope the quote is obvious.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
[...] Alex takes issue with Romney’s New York Times article on the Detroit bailout, claiming that Romney has somehow “flip-flopped”. I think this is ludicrous. First, some quotes and commentary from/on Romney in the primaries: [...]
November 19th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
FROM THE HEADLINE, I TOO THOUGHT THIS WAS A FLIP-FLOP. AFTER READING THE ARTICLE, MY VERDICT IS: NO FLIP-FLOP.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Alex,
Don’t u have something better to do?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:28 am
LOL, this isn’t the first article Alex has missed on…..
November 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It’s not just Mitt’s people. You’re a loose cannon Alex. It’s time for you to learn to be a grown up. Perhaps with a little more real-world experience you will understand that you just can’t attack people you personally don’t like all the time. You only destroy your own credibility and reputation (like Huck has partially done with his new book). It’s time you moved past your hatred of Mitt Romney; I don’t even think he’s going to run in 2012 so get over it.
I’m looking towards Jindal in 2012. Let’s call the attack-dogs off and cool down a little for the good of the party (and country).
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
[...] Romney and bashing [...]