November 25, 2008
This is How You Communicate Conservative Economic Principles
Gov. Romney talks about the auto bailout on CBS’s The Early Show:
http://race42008.com/2008/11/25/this-is-how-you-communicate-conservative-economic-principles/trackback/
November 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You’re Hired!
November 25th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
There should be an car getting crushed in background while he talks.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mitt also did a good job on Sunday’s “Late Edition” on CNN.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
In 2-3 years, I don’t think it very likely that another candidate will equal or exceed Romney’s readiness for POTUS. I can’t see Palin ever being able to speak beyond simple soundbites on the isues.
Romney seems to have the whole package. He is viewed favorably by both conservative and moderate republicans, while Palin is viewed favorably only by conservatives, moderates being very skeptical of her. It’s pretty clear that we need everyone to win, effectively cancelling Palin out from the get go. If she’s our nominee in either 12 016, we’ve lost from day one. America thinks she’s unqualified, and she seems hell-bent on proving it over and over. (Turkey fiasco.)
November 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I meant to write 2012 or 2016.
The turkey incident is not important, but it does show Palin isn’t aware enough to know better than to stand there while a turkey is slaughtered. Kind of like the prank Sarkozy call. She seems clueless much of the time.
Gallup poll – 67% of repubs want Palin to run, 62% for Romney. But for moderates, Palin is much lower (can’t remember exactly) and Romney still has 59%.
No brainer.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Romney knows this industry, but can speak with intelligence on virtually every issue. Of other potential nominees, who else can do that?
November 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Sarah had 48% of moderate/liberal…
November 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Oh why have you forsaken us in our hour of greatest need, Dale Carnegie?
November 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
This is where Romney shines. The Economy. Its a shame he can’t be in charge right now.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I find this strange.
First off, its a total strawman argument. No one is proposing just giving them a check. Everyone is demanding a restructuring and a profoundly different way of doing business.
Whats missing from his analysis are any specific issues on which the automakers should be blamed – for instance – the way in which they have spent the last few decades working so hard, with Republicans, to avoid building fuel efficient cars, and avoiding CAFE standard increases. That is one of the reasons they are so unprepared for todays world.
As to “shedding excess labor costs” – what does this mean? Especially for a politician? He wants to declare war on the working class?
I can see one way in which that makes sense though. If you releive the automakers of their obligation to provide health care to their workers and to all those retirees, by instituting a national health care plan like their competitors have, then the companies can be profitable.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
#9 who are you?
and who thinks romney will win michigan now? heck, i’m not even talking about the general, just the primary?…there is an escape clause for him though, that would be if obama pretty much follows his advice…no ? what romney is advocating is the right path but its not politically viable till the big 3 roast through some more $’s courtesy of congress…maybe romney should just forget about running for the white house in 2012 and be named ceo of gm…it is a catch 22 for him from that spot, if he does very well, the economy will be doing well which = dems doing well at the polls…but he could flip gm around and run in 2016 against hillary
November 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Here’s the rub: If you implement national health care, everyone will have to pay a fixed portion of their income to pay for it. This fixed rate of confiscation leaves everyone with less disposable and discretionary income to buy a car or make payments on one.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I actually think it helps Romney that people in Michigan are saying falsely that Romney is calling for the big 3 to fail. All he has to do (like he did in this interview) is politely point out that he isn’t/wasn’t calling for failure or liquidation, he is/was calling for restructuring to make the companies profitable again. Bankruptcy isn’t necessarily a bad thing when a company is terribly broken. It’s more important to get the companies stable over the long run which sadly may include cutting a few jobs.
Ironically, there were lots of people on this site that were upset at Romney for calling for a Detroit ‘bailout’ during the primary when those were never the terms he used; and the same people seem to be attacking him today when his intention is clear that he wants conservative principles to rule the day to bring the businesses back to profitability, perhaps in partnership with the government, but not in the form of another check, bailout money, etc.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
#10 he addressed some of that on late edition with wolf. If you take all the recent interviews regarding this, he is pretty thorough. Although, he can’t address every specific item in these short interviews.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
This guy is selling me. Why oh why did he have to run as “generic Reagan ripoff” instead of “brilliant executive”? The economic meltdown would have played right into his hand, instead of Obama’s hand.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It has taken too many people too long to figure this out eric!
November 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s interesting that while pandering for votes in the Michigan primary, Romney promised a big-goverment bailout for the auto industry. I guess since he’s not seeking an office right now he is free to promote conservative prinicples. Although he has little other than rhetoric when it comes to conservative principles, I guess we should beleive Slick Willard this time, right?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Have to give the man credit… he knows this issue through and through and I think should run GM.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I think it is time to stop the labels of Libreal and Cons really and look at the person. You see, sometimes cons and liberal can be good or bad things. On the liberal side, No Death Penality for out of control people who are not rehabitable and keep killing is wrong, and another is the conservative party of years past wanted to keep segreation legal.
Rush Limbaugh and the like is not a good face for a party that needs to grow and find a way to incorp all groups of people but at the same time standing up for vaules that the party agreess upon.
Lets face it Geroge Bush was one of the worst rated presidents ever. Regan and Lincoln were not. Kennedy and Rosv were not, carter was a bad rated president too…..for Limbaugh to first say the stock market is doing bad because of Obama and then to say when it rebounded for several days is because Bush is in office shows the problems with the party.
If you don’t give credit for where credit is do, ,makes both side seem fake, and not realistic. Limabaugh KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT RACE REALATIONS IN THIS country for blacks, hisp etc and shoud get the HELL off that wagon the name calling at Obama needs to stop too.
Hell if you dont like his politics fine, thats up for debate. but to call the man CODE word names that mean certain things in certain parts of this country and all over is not cool….if you are not a minority or have ever experienced the CODE words and name calling, then to try to coment or relate is not credible its like a pro basketball player trying to tell a pro football player how to play ball in the trenches.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
#17 – He promised a bailout? No, he promised government help, intervention and a turn around. And this man has made a lifetime career of just that. No slick words, real experience, real ability.
I understand that Romney rubs some the wrong way, and he is not the ideal candidate for a lot of folk, but your accusation is so far out in left field that it looks silly.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Great interview Mitt. Now if you can shore your economic message up with a little bit of empathy and understand to us socons, than we’ll be pulling the lever for you instead of the alternatives.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Who would know more about how to turn the Big 3 around than a man who successfully turned around more than 150 different companies? Detroit spends $73 an hour on labor costs, most of which are embedded. Transplants spend less than $50 an hour. It’s no big mystery as to why the prior is failing while the latter is succeeding. Romney understands that this imbalance needs to be corrected or bailouts would simply postpone the inevitable. Would that others were as bright.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Waterseeds,
Romney IS a SoCon. He’s also a defense hawk and a laissez faire capitalist. Those are the 3 legs of the stool, and that is the platform he ran on. Maybe you weren’t following the campaign.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Why is Rush being attacked so often on this site?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Notice all the people who say Romney promised an auto bailout never post quotes to back it up. He didn’t. He did say he would “fight for every job”, but how does that equate to a bailout? The only way to fight for every job is to make the industry profitable again.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“Detroit spends $73 an hour on labor costs, most of which are embedded. Transplants spend less than $50 an hour.”
Most of this is legacy costs. Retirement and health care benefits for retirees.
“Romney understands that this imbalance needs to be corrected ”
Everyone understands that the field needs to be leveled. The question is how do you do it? By denying or cutting benefits to those who have earned them?
Or by relieving the businesses of the costs of health care through a national health care system?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
25 – Nate
“The only way to fight for every job is to make the industry profitable again.”
huh? The standard way that Romney, and those of his ilk, make industries profitable again is to fire people. Not to fight for their jobs.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I miss Mitt!
The 2012 primaries are going to be most one-sided in history.
And mark my words he’ll go very close to beating Barry too.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Go to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/15/romney_michigan/ there you will find an article detailing Romney’s promise of $20,000,000,000.00 in big-goverment help to the auto industry.
You wanted a quote, I gave you a quote.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
That’s plain horse manure Tano…If you were to look at all the businesses he saved, there are a whole lot more employees in those companies today than there were before he saved them from going under. I can put up with your socialistic tendencies, but not your lies.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Most of this is legacy costs. Retirement and health care benefits for retirees.”
It does not matter. It is still a bill that must be paid that others who have been making cars over 30 years don’t have to pay.
“Or by relieving the businesses of the costs of health care through a national health care system?”
Impossible to to without passing those same cost off to another group. Tell me Tano, why should all others have to pay for it?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
30 Illguy
from a Politico profile:
” In 1992, the firm [Bain Capital] acquired American Pad & Paper. By 1999, the year Romney left Bain, two American plants were closed, 385 jobs had been cut and the company was $392 million in debt.
The next year, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy.
• Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs bought Dade International for about $450 million in 1994.
The firm quickly fired or relocated at least 900 workers. Over the next several years, it sunk increasingly into debt and laid off 1,000 workers.
In 2002 — after Romney had left Bain — it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
• A 1997 buyout of LIVE Entertainment for $150 million resulted in 40 layoffs, roughly one in four of the company’s 166 workers.
The job cuts affected all aspects of the company, from production and acquisition to legal and public relations.
• In 1997, Bain bought a stake in DDI Corp., a maker of electronic circuit boards.
Three years later, Bain took the company public and collected a $36 million payout.
But by August 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, laying off more than 2,100 workers.
Four months after the bankruptcy, unhappy shareholders sued company executives, the initial public offering underwriters and Bain for mismanaging the IPO and failing to disclose company financial information. (Romney was not named in the suit.)
In March, all the defendants settled for $4.4 million.
Some job losses can be a natural part of the private equity business.
Firms like Bain Capital buy controlling stakes in troubled companies, then revamp them and sell them for a profit — a process that can include management changes and “cost-cutting,” often code for job cuts.”
Watch who you call a liar, punk.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
31 cwpete
I dont understand the point you wish to make.
Of course legacy costs have to be paid. Unless you go into a bankruptcy court and have all those obligations wiped out.
In fact that is the only reason one would go into a bankruptcy court – to use the court’s power to invalidate contracts to suppliers and to labor. I.e. to stiff the workers and the contractors.
So what is your solution?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“The standard way that Romney, and those of his ilk, make industries profitable again is to fire people. Not to fight for their jobs.”
Absolute total liberal spin.. The fact of the matter is Romney created tens of thousands of tax paying jobs and saved businesses which all pay taxes. These were all businesses that would have been extinct had it not been for Bain’s restructuring. This is one reason why Romney is regarded as an expert on most all things economical. Anyone who suggests otherwise plays with the truth to suit their own ideology.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I’m tallying up the numbers, and all of them put together are not a dent in the 65,000 Staples employees we have today, thanks to Mitt Romney, not to mention Dominoes, and dozens of other companies. He has readily admitted that he was not able to save all companies. You were lying, maybe not on purpose, so if the shoe does not fit, down’t wear it, but do your research.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Romney is right on with his approach. Of course, in three minutes he cannot list every specific detail as to how he would complete the auto industry turnaround, in its entirety. However, his general approach seems to be logical and consistent with the long term sustainability of the American auto industry.
If the big three do indeed get loans, which will never be repaid, it will only contribute to the systemic downfall of an industry that is stuck in the past. Throwing 25 billion at the big three will only be a first step of a continued decline by several embedded and structural problems.
There are several reasons why Toyota and Honda produce better quality automobiles than any of the big three. Management at all levels matters.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Tano #33:
If you operate any business where you are forced to pay costs that are 50% more than your competitors, I guarantee you will be bankrupt. That is the case with the big three and their union contract largess.
Face the facts Tano, the writing is on the wall. The big three are bankrupt already, they can’t continue this without my tax dollar. Why should I subsidize union largess for the Big Three when the foreign transplant automakers are weathering the storm just fine?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
#29 – Dan, there is nothing in that article having anything to do with 20 billion for a ‘bailout’. There was, and still is an advocacy on the part of Mitt for the federal government to raise their current expenditure of 4 billion on research of various kinds including alternatives fuels etc. The car industry would have been one of many beneficiaries of this money being spent, similar to how our space exploration benefitted many industries. These kinds of expenditures are perfectly in harmony with a conservative position, especially if they are giving out unfunded mandates for fuel economy, etc. Force the efficiency, pay for some of it to provide the way.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Here is just one list of
jobs created by Bain. Staples, Sports Authority, Pizza Hut to name a few..
The insinuation that Romney is a greedy corporate tycoon is pretty outlandish..
November 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Yikes, did I say Pizza Hut? That was actually Domino’s..
November 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Fewer jobs are certainly far better than no jobs. It is severely misguided to blame Romney having doe the clean-up and repair work. Romney was just the janitor, Romney did not create the problems – he resolved them. Tano’s #32 post should be blaming the former CEO’s and board of directors for wrecking their companies that caused the job losses, not Romney. It is severely misguided to blame Romney any of these job losses.
Detractors pick & choose ‘facts’ that are manipulative to their positions. Any fair-minded person would judge Romney by his entire tenure at Bain as a whole which is clearly unimpeachable. Romney worked some major miracles in many of these situations.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
dave 23,
I understand what he “ran” as, and I was following the campaign since 2004 after bush won re-election. The fact is, it doesn’t matter what you “run as” to me…I want proof that that is what you are going to govern as. He has no real conservative government experience. He is winning me over little by little, but I still don’t understand how so many people could just toss out all of his liberal statements from the past without a clear and concise record of governing as a conservative.
Why do i even bother? You rombots will never understand what goes through my head. All you see, is that someone isn’t lovey dovey about this guy, and so “I” must be wrong rather than someone else. That’s crap if you ask me. My opinion of his legacy is just as valid as his supporters. I GET TO DECIDE HOW CONSERVATIVE HE IS, WAS AND WILL BE! Just like you guys get to decide for yourselves the same things about any candidate. If Romney really is as good as you think, than he WILL win me over, but i’m not on board yet so until then….stop acting like you get to be the jury for the rest of the republicans.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Dan,
You are a lying sack of poo. This is the quote directly from the source that you listed:
‘Romney also proposed spending $20 billion a year on “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”‘
Exactly where in that sentence does Romney use the word “bailout”? Answer: Nowhere. I love it when dimwits like yourself fail to list a source and when you do you change the words around.
I want $20 billion going towards energy research, thank you very much! I want my car to run on cleaner fuel. I don’t want a bailout and neither does Mitt. Get your facts straight and then come back.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I always say with Romney, the devil is in the details. Is he promoting national health care as a substitute for the Auto industry’s large health care costs…I’m not sure, if he isn’t then what is he saying? Is he saying that these people should lose their health care or go into some HMO to regain some capital? The Union already said they wouldn’t negotiate so by filing bankruptcy all contracts will be null and void. Will they, in his plan, attempt to renegotiate all contracts with the union or leave Detroit all together? I’d like some more details.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Waterseeds,
When Mitt ran for governor of Massachusetts, he had his staff keep track of every single one of what turned out to be 63 promises he wound up making to the electorate. When he took office he worked that list until he had kept all of them. If he ran as a SoCon, as you acknowledged he did, he would have governed as a SoCon. BTW, the only thing he ever really flipped on was Abortion, and if you check out his platform when he ran for the senate in ‘94, you will see that he mostly ran as a SoCon even in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. He certainly governed as one from ‘02 through ‘06. So in addition to being an economic genius, he’s also a good conservative.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Jerseyrepublican,
Mitt’s approach to restructuring companies starts with an in-depth audit. This takes 2 or 3 months, but by the end of this process he knows the details and knows how to turn things around. He favors a Federalist approach to health care and has never suggested that he would be the one to turn Detroit around, but it’s obvious that bankruptcy would provide protection from creditors while solutions are found to correct the problem of labor cost differentials and save as many jobs as possible.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
#29 – Dan you are so disingenuous:
” Romney also proposed spending $20 billion a year on “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”
That is not writing a check to the Big 3 – that is improving the industry for future jobs and competitive security for our workforce.
Again, your statement is so far out in left field, it is silly.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Because Limbaugh is part of the problem with this party. he is good for the white, southern, skin head, app mountains and evangelicals but to other ethnic groups he is turning off them 4 to 1. He sits up and calls people names, which by the way if you want to bring other voters over who may have slightly diff views then the Rush type will not win them over
Why do you think as far as Bush is concerned his ratings are if not the worst ever second or third worst ever.
he put pepople around him who were yes men and women or who kissed his ass. If you disagreed with them you were gone. Colin Powell, McCllelan and others……………along with other stuff, but I am not hear to Bash Bush……I am making a point……..Limbaugh uses code words like PUNK AND THUG but those are not as obvious. If you have never been through people calling you code words or obvious degrading racist names then you wont get what I am talking about…….that type of stuff has to stop……….I am not hear to argue race realtions I am here to say that if you want other groups of people to help this party win in the future then it has to be presenting a message or at least a part of the party does to make it stick
November 26th, 2008 at 12:52 am
For those who are starting come around to Romney I would highly recommend reading the book he wrote about is experience as head of the Olympics in Salt Lake called “Turnaround”. The most interesting thing of it to me is how he restored confidence in the community and ultimately the sponsors, without whom the Olympics just don’t happen. Also interesting is method of restoring confidence through complete transparency. Read it and it will give you big insight as to who Romney is and what he is like. Interesting also in the books are the few references to McCain before they were primary rivals.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Brett – I’m glad you want $20 billion more in government spending because now that Obama is President, you’re going to get that and billions upon billions more. The fact of the matter is that government giving money to private industry to cajole them into certain behaviors is a government bailout. This is true regardless if Slick Willard calls it “investment in new technology” or if President Elect Obama calls it “middle-class relief.
My point was very simple – now that Slick Willard doesn’t have to pander for votes in a primary, he is free to speak his mind (or, more likelly in this case, pander to the larger conservative establishment) by advocating a free-market solution. Now he wants to let the Automakers go banrupts, when he seeking their votes, he promised them $20 billion. This is of course but one of a litany of examples where Romney said whatever he thought would win him votes.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Dan- You fail to see that there is no change with Romney’s position regarding the big 3. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean losing jobs. It means long-term sustained job growth, complete course correction instead a short-term patch. The $20 billion he promised in the primaries wasn’t a grant check. It was an investment in technology to help keep the companies competitive, not to bail them out of failing profits.
This is of course but one of a litany of examples where Huckabee supporters will say whatever they think will draw away votes from Romney. They have eyes but will not see, ears but will not hear.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
How can anyone say he ran as a social conservative against kennedy in 94? That’s just a dumb statement.
“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”-Mitt Romney 94′ debate with Ted Kennedy
How is that a social conservative?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”-Mitt Romney 2002 interview
November 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
To be fair the more i learn about him, and the more i watch his videos, the more convinced of his sincerity i become.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Nate – Huckabee was the only major candidate this past year that I actually didn’t prefer to Romney. I was a Rudy supporter and later on a McCain supporter.