GOP candidate backstabber Romney: “Make all the promises you have to...”
Posted on 03/31/2009 10:16:27 AM PDT by MaestroLC
Romney was my choice in 2008 and I donated some money to him. I liked his initial response on GM and Chrysler, which was bankruptcy, with the government working WITH them, but a bankruptcy nonetheless. But since he came out agreeing with Obama on this, even just part of what Obama proposed, I’m done with him. There are true conservatives available in 2012 who will now have my support and need to be the standard bearers of a rejuvenated Republican Party.
Sadly, I must agree.
Farewell, Mitt. You had great potential.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
There wasn't much to pick from.
Mitt Romney discusses the latest with the auto industry
http://wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1248357&spid=6552
Is there no one worthy of the highest office of the land?
Mitt is off the list.
Ok, I`ll bite. So what are you for, an auto industry bailout?
Bankruptcy is the conservative solution here. Many people seem to have lost their bearings.
From Hot Air:
The Vault Gear About
Video: Obama showed some backbone on GM, says … Mitt Romney?posted at 4:30 pm on March 31, 2009 by Allahpundit
When I first saw The Hill’s item on this, I thought the “backbone” comment was a reference to The One firing GM’s CEO. Not so, or at least not necessarily: Mitt never mentions Wagoner’s departure, leaving it ambiguous as to whether he approves or whether he’s simply thinking big picture about the need for managed bankruptcy and willing to overlook an imperious gesture or two from the Oval Office on the way there. In any case, his point about Obama’s supposed backbone escapes me. What’s so brave about The One demanding restructuring as a quid pro quo for federal money? The auto bailouts are political poison outside Michigan; Obama has to show the public he’s getting something in return for flushing a few billion more down the toilet or else support for the whole Great Society II agenda could collapse. Wagoner was simply a sacrifice to the god of “progress.” Or, maybe, a stumbling block to something more ambitious:
It also means that Wagoner was perceived as an obstacle to whatever plans the administration has for GM. And that’s the real source of concern. If getting these companies back on their feet is the objective, a bankruptcy judge can make a determination pretty quickly about the viability of the firms and the steps necessary to get there. But if the objective is something more grandiose, such as transforming the industry into a model of green production, government oversight and close scrutiny of operations will be necessary. CEOs must be compliant and pliant. It is worth noting that a return to profitability and the metamorphosis of the industry according to a government script work at cross purposes.
If that’s what Obama’s after then Romney’s comparison between this and bankruptcy couldn’t be more wrong. Exit question via Rich Lowry: If Wagoner had to go, why didn’t UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger have to go too? No need to answer; it’s rhetorical, of course.
*****
Check out Romney video here if someone doesn’t believe what he had to say: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/31/video-obama-showed-some-backbone-on-gm-says-mitt-romney/
Suck....slurp....lick
GOP candidate backstabber Romney: “Make all the promises you have to...”
He's been consistent in advocating a bankruptcy process for GM & Chrysler. The only thing he praised Obama for was the fact that he is leaving bankrupcty as an option on the table.
You are taking him out of context. The "backbone" Romney is referring to is Obama's statement that he is leaving open the possibility of forcing GM & Chrysler into bankruptcy, something Romney has been advocating consistently for the last 4-5 months.
He supported no such thing. You obviously did not listen to what he had to say. The only thing he supported was Obama's willingness to put GM & Chrysler through bankruptcy, which is the conservative thing to do.
ROMNEY: Well, it's clear that just writing checks is not the answer. It really keeps the bondholders and the UAW and other stakeholders from the necessary haircuts that allow these companies to be competitive. You either have to go through a bankruptcy process, a pre-packaged bankruptcy[b] or special legislation, giving the - an entity the power to get these companies through these difficult times. Or if the parties want to do it voluntarily, great. But if they can't do that, apparently at this stage, it's looking like they haven't been able to. Then you're going to have to have that kind of a club to get these companies to be able to restructure their excessive costs.[/b]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.