Patterico's Pontifications

10/22/2012

Fact Check: Obama Challenges Us to Look Up Romney’s Op-Ed, So I Do

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 pm

Guess who was telling the truth?

Here’s the transcript:

ROMNEY: I just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me as not talking about an agenda for — for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. But the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow I would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I’m a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry. My plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they’d — they’d built up.

And fortunately…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor Romney, that’s not what you said

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor Romney, you did not…

ROMNEY: You can take a look at the op-ed…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: You did not say that you would provide government help.

ROMNEY: I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Let’s check the record.

ROMNEY: That’s the height of silliness…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Let — let — let’s…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: I have never said I would liquidate…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: …at the record.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: …I would liquidate the industry.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.

Obama 1) implied Romney said he would liquidate the industry and 2) claimed that Romney did not say we should provide government help. He later doubled down on point #2:

OBAMA: The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide, government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true. They would have gone through a…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: You’re wrong…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: …they would have gone through a…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: …you’re wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: No, I am not wrong. I am not wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: People can look it up, you’re right.

OBAMA: People will look it up.

ROMNEY: Good.

Again, Obama is saying Romney was clear that he would not provide government help.

So, I did look it up. And here, in relevant part, is what Romney said. Focus on Obama’s claims. Does Romney push for liquidating the auto industry? Does Romney rule out any government help for the auto industry? Let’s look:

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.

Romney did not indicate that he wanted to liquidate the auto companies. He did say there should be guarantees and government help.

Obama lied. Let’s see how the Fact Checkers do on this.

99 Responses to “Fact Check: Obama Challenges Us to Look Up Romney’s Op-Ed, So I Do”

  1. This was the biggest disputed fact in the debate, with each guy saying the other one was wrong.

    Romney was right.

    And so far, Politifact has not bothered to mention it. Meanwhile, they call Romney’s characterization of the “apology tour” as a “pants on fire” lie.

    I hate these fact checker people.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  2. I’m also wondering about the tale about the girl that was supposedly 4 @ 9/11 and ten now … that math doesn’t seem to work & sounded like one of those things he strays on & makes up on the fly when he has to go off-prompter.

    Steven W. (908822)

  3. Ay yai yai. And WaPo ignores the controversy that actually erupted in the debate and claims Obama has the edge because Romney’s managed bankruptcy would not have worked in 2008 with a frozen credit market.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  4. Obama lied, the economy died.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  5. Thanks to dana for that link.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  6. Kessler is extraordinarily mendoucheous.

    JD (8a1df4)

  7. Obama was coached to say: Thats not true! every time he had no answer in the last debate.
    This one he seems to have been coached to spin some flip flopper meme.
    What a tool.

    SteveG (831214)

  8. OOps another big correction — campaign(Plouffe) backpedalling on Obama’s “sequestration will not happen” statement.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-uPDPFibrUY

    elissa (3ce65a)

  9. Contrast Politifact’s bold claim that Obama did not go on an apology tour, with their attempt two years ago to just claim that since Obama never said the word “sorry”, it wasn’t an apology tour.

    Politifact fails.

    SPQR (768505)

  10. Obama just didn’t understand Romney’s op ed because the way business operates is over his head.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. obama’s approach guaranteed that never again in my whole life will i spend monies on anything produced by piggy piggy united autworker scum… and that includes crap made by Ford

    that’s really the thing that matters in the final analysis

    happyfeet (a1806d)

  12. sorry that should be piggy piggy united *autoworker* scum

    happyfeet (a1806d)

  13. 0bama lied, teh truth died.

    Colonel Haiku (f6c71d)

  14. Frank Luntz’s collection of mutants, misfits and bedwetters actually had it right – Obama looked like he won on points because the POTUS always has a huge advantage in a foreign policy debate (and in this case, because he lied repeatedly) but in the end, no one in this election is voting on foreign policy.

    Obama was attacking because he is behind and knows it. Romney just needed to get a draw and look Presidential and he did both.

    Kaisersoze (0e24e7)

  15. Romney missed a big slam-dunk on “liquidation”:
    “Mr. President, you’re the one who liquidated hundreds of viable auto dealerships, three-quarters of whom were registered Republicans–I’m sure that was a coincidence.”

    It’s not so much that Mitt missed wide-open slam dunks: he dribbled for possession time.

    He’s better than Obama, but all this stuff about “renewable energy” and “working across the aisle” makes my blood run cold. I hope he wins. But if he does, we’re going to have our work cut out for us, because he’ll be Bush Act IV.

    Calcon10 (3b6fbf)

  16. Politifact just rated Bob Schieffer’s statement of “Obama Bin Laden” as “Mostly True”.

    #notreally

    But it is the headline I’d love to see tomorrow.

    Kaisersoze (0e24e7)

  17. If you will, let us try for a minute to think with a clear mind. Looking at this post, we see the first bold statement where the Governor said “… they can get government help and government guarantees…” after which the President attacked claiming its not true. For whoever read the op-ed or the excerpt would notice the only help the failing auto-industry would get according to Gov. Romney, was government guarantees of post-bankruptcy financing for warranties. Which does not mean buying bonds to support the companies (as the bailout did). So Obama was wrong in ignoring the fact that Romney supported government assistance through guarantees and he wasn’t completely honest. Now the real issue lies in how else could the industry have avoided liquidation. Now I’m going to quote, if I may, Bob Lutz(former Vice chairman at General Motors and also a republican) – “Nobody had any money after the ’08 financial meltdown. The banks were as broke as the auto industry…” (link)
    The point I am trying to make is that although Romney did not directly say he would liquidate the companies, but not bailing them out at that time where we were in a recession worse than any other since the great depression would have led to that end.

    “Thus, while not a preferred solution, the Treasury-financed bailout was (read my lips) the ONLY solution.” Bob Lutz.

    And in just the same way Obama did not make it clear that Romney’s plan included government assistance via guaranteeing warranties, your article does not make clear what the consequence of not having a bailout would have been. I would contend that if Gov. Romney was in the President’s shoes, he would have done the same in the end.

    ASM (c6af7e)

  18. ASM-

    Are you now or have you ever been–related to Sammy F.?

    elissa (3ce65a)

  19. elissa-

    I do not know who Sammy F. is, so it is very likely I’m not related to her.

    ASM (c6af7e)

  20. Obama interrupted every time Mitt was scoring with the truth, like in the discussion above.

    I would have preferred a knockout, but Mitt did what he had to do, to look presidential and not like a petty teenager like O.

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  21. The government has no business bailing anyone out. If Romney wanted to guarantee things on the back end after there had been a real bankruptcy then that is better than what we did which was to keep all of the factors that drove GM into bankruptcy in the first place and just hand them cash to burn through… while stiffing the private individuals and companies who had already loaned GM money.

    But if we didn’t learn our lesson about guaranteeing against losses from the mortgage meltdown then we didn’t learn anything and we are doomed to repeat the lesson over and over again. The government created incentives for banks and others to make bad loans. That house of cards inevitably came crashing down. Now we are close to institutionalizing a guarantee against bankruptcy for our car companies. There is no way that can end well. GM’s business plan is no more sustainable now than it was before.

    The best thing that could have happened to GM was for it to be bought out or broken up if it couldn’t get anyone in THE ENTIRE DAMNED WORLD to lend it money other than the idiots in the US government. When the only people who will give you money (the taxpayers) have to be forced to do so at the point of a gun then you really have no right to continue operating.

    This is why Romney is Obama-lite. We have to elect him because he is better than the alternative but let’s not pretend it is anything but a half-measure in a situation that calls for a radical downsizing of the government’s size, influence and power. He understands how to work within the system and optimize it but not how it needs to be fixed.

    We will have to fight Mitt’s worst impulses every step of the way once he is in office. Getting Obamacare repealed is the only thing that really matters since it is one more unsustainable program on top of a bunch of others and is a necessary first step to giving the economy breathing room and buying us time to address the other serial idiocies that the government has engaged in over the years. But we will have to fight just as hard to keep Romney from proposing and passing Romneycare.

    Voluble (0b86d9)

  22. I watched the debate a second time. To my memory, for the first time since maybe 1992, one candidate neither said nor did anything petty, but was wholly dignified. The candidate was Mitt Romney. Obama offered a strong defense of his policies and took pointed jabs (and lied here and there). But Romney offered a steady vision. There was no pettiness anywhere — I haven’t seen a that in a long, long time.

    Joseph D (beda48)

  23. our SCOAMF is a lying liar, so it is no surprise he lied. he’s desperate, and he’s going down.

    i hope they put extra cutouts in the PAL system that controls our nukes.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  24. For a guy who thinks throwaway boilerplate about terrorism covers his as* regarding Benghazi, the President is an amazing stickler for detail when it’s someone else speaking.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  25. I almost wore out the pause button on the TV remote so I could point out to my wife each and every lie and misrepresentation Obama made tonight. It took us almost 40 minutes longer to view the damn debate that way. But saved me from hurling a shoe at the screen…

    in_awe (7c859a)

  26. I wonder what it would sound like if Romney opened up on Obama’s 2nd grade economics the way that Obama talked about the Navy. Obama seems to think that “arithmetic” and “math” are synonyms.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  27. We have the same result at WeCheck, the Fact Check anyone can edit and improve. If you have some time please help us complete more fact checks on the debate:

    http://wecheck.org/wiki/Did_Mitt_Romney_say_that_government_assistance_would_be_available_during_a_managed_bankruptcy_of_the_auto_industry

    Mark Devlin (d5ce39)

  28. Yo may be interested in the Washington Post’s Glenn Kesslers’s ‘fact check” fail where he all-but-ignores the op-ed and focuses instead on “independent analysts” who said Romney’s plan would not work.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/fact-check-the-auto-industry-bailout/

    Mark Devlin (d5ce39)

  29. OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.

    I don’t know what Obama could have said to make it clearer; one of the largest accomplishments he touts was done for the simple purpose of pandering to the electorate of one city. One union.

    The guy’s small beer.

    It’s how he plays the game. He was a third-stringer in high school basketball, and he still plays that way. To further mix my metaphors, we got a guy who bragged about slowing the rise of the oceans, but when he steps up to the plate the best he can hope to do is draw a walk. Maybe lay down a bunt.

    Erdogan. Morsi. Netanyahu. Putin. Ahmadinejad. I could go on. Everyone’s figured out this guy doesn’t belong in the league.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  30. When Scheiffer asked him if an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States, Obama voted “present”. ’nuff said.

    Icy (855d27)

  31. Krauthammer on Romney’s ‘unequivocal’ win: ‘Romney went large — Obama went very, very small’ Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/23/krauthammer-on-romneys-unequivocal-win-romney-went-large-obama-went-very-very-small/#ixzz2A7zBoyqr

    Krauthammer said Obama made a mistake by focusing on “small” matters, while Romney successfully discussed the “big picture” and avoided getting lost in the weeds on Libya details.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/23/krauthammer-on-romneys-unequivocal-win-romney-went-large-obama-went-very-very-small/#ixzz2A7zTCRQg

    Krauthammer, too, goes on to use a baseball analogy. But that’s not important. What is important is that Obama didn’t make a mistake by going small. Small is what he’s capable of. The only thing he’s capable of.

    Well, uttering some grandiose generalities. Then off to the golf course.

    He’s capable of that.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  32. 33. When Scheiffer asked him if an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States, Obama voted “present”. ’nuff said.

    Comment by Icy — 10/23/2012 @ 6:23 am

    It’s above his pay grade.

    We got a guy in the White House who has been convinced he can repair entire ecosystems. Or, at least, our relations with other countries. While “fundamentally transforming” the Ewe Ess of Aay.

    At best he could put together a Leggo house.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  33. No, no, no. Obama didn’t imply that Romney wanted to liquidate the industry. “Liquidation” was all Romney’s words in the transcript above.

    And #18 said all the rest.

    Kman (5576bf)

  34. yeah it’s unusual for a candidate to use a foreign policy debate to try to win a mandate to indulge his or her fervent passion for “working across the aisle”

    happyfeet (a1806d)

  35. MITT’S FALL. Let’s start with the blindingly obvious: President Obama won… so says that oracle of liberal wisdom The New Yorker. Couldn’t get beyond that. Do note the few Euroweenie papers I checked online opined that Romley was Presidential and won. The question for me is how many clueless dingalings with the Lovey mindset will vote. I also caught that chrissie matthews is playing the race card again. You evil conservatives hate obama worse than you do the terrorists! Saw a few others referencing GOP use of racist dog whistles. Thank God that mcgovern, gore, kerry etc.were not black or half-white; otherwise quite possibly they’d have been elected.

    calypso louis farrakhan (dc363b)

  36. 36. No, no, no. Obama didn’t imply that Romney wanted to liquidate the industry. “Liquidation” was all Romney’s words in the transcript above.

    And #18 said all the rest.

    Comment by Kman — 10/23/2012 @ 6:36 am

    Look, Kmart. Liquidating entire industries has never been a Preeezy’s call.

    Nor has it ever been the point of bankruptcy.

    Airlines have been through bankruptcy. Railroad companies have been through bankruptcy. We still have an airline industry and we still have railroads.

    I admit Romney could have handled the question better. But sometimes I think that Romney fails to deal with Obama effectively because he can’t quite believe just how far out of his depth Obama’s operating. Like President Fisher Price has some sophisticated plan up his sleeve. When, no, he really just cares that deeply about Big Bird.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  37. I agree with Steve. GM going bankrupt would have been an opportunity for companies to pick up the pieces and build cars without some of GM’s ineffective policies.

    That’s much more difficult if entrepreneurs have to compete with a taxpayer supported GM, of course.

    The GM bailouts did not help America’s manufacturing ability. They harmed it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  38. gm is still going bankrupt

    they’re not a viable enterprise… this is why nobody wants their stock

    happyfeet (a1806d)

  39. In the end, Baracky put them through bankruptcy, and screwed folks like secured creditors, Delphi pensions, while propping up his union buddies. Win win.

    JD (8a1df4)

  40. Airlines have been through bankruptcy. Railroad companies have been through bankruptcy. We still have an airline industry and we still have railroads.

    But unlike the car industry, airlines and railroad companies didn’t go backrupt in that economy, where credit was, in effect, frozen. That meant that our major companies would need to be liquidated.

    Or are you suggesting that another GM-like or Chrysler-like company (in terms of size and global reach) would have popped up in GM’s and Chrysler’s place? Not likely. Not for way too many years.

    Kman (5576bf)

  41. Here’s an important message for all the remaining so-called undecideds: Stay Home!

    If you haven’t been paying attention for the last 4 years and you just can’t bring yourself to acknowledge Barack Obama’s mendacity, his failures, his treachery, and his rampant corruption, then it’s best if you don’t participate in the election.

    Lazy, stupid, busy, turned off, or distracted, either way, you shouldn’t stick your uninformed nose into important matters of surpassing national consequence if you don’t know what the hell is going on.

    Do the Republic a favor and sit this one out.

    ropelight (d927f9)

  42. That is pure speculation, Kmart. Aggressively so. And assuming that is true, just for the sake or discussion, please outline for us all of the circumstances that would demand govt takeover of a company. The idea that this saved an industry is laughable, by the way. They propped up one player. Who is now headed right back to where they were, at a $24,000,000,000+ loss to the taxpayer. Ford, Honda, Subaru, Toyota, et al survived fine without the govt.

    JD (8a1df4)

  43. Oman,

    American Airlines filed bankruptcy last November in this woeful economy. Delta and United also filed bankruptcy after 9/11, another difficult economic era. They managed without massive government bailouts.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. we r nevy evy evy

    gonna buy a chevy

    happyswift (a1806d)

  45. Baracky put them through bankruptcy, and screwed folks like secured creditors, Delphi pensions, while propping up his union buddies. Win win.

    Comment by JD — 10/23/2012

    They never let a crisis go to waste.

    And look at the impact this had on GM’s current state of affairs. Would you want to invest in a company that breaks its word to its investors in highly politicized and corrupt ways?

    Obama’s solution was a short term political one, at the cost of GM’s long term health.

    I still think it would have been much better for the automotive industry to have some new thinking invest in components of GM in a bankruptcy firesale.

    Dustin (73fead)

  46. If it’s too big to fail, it should already have been broken up. That includes you, government.

    htom (412a17)

  47. ______________________________________________

    Are you now or have you ever been–related to Sammy F.?

    Speaking of which, the following comment at the New Republic reminds me of the type of reaction (and rationalizations) he would have. This is from a writer who I’m guessing is a supporter of liberals/Democrats and said that a line from Obama about Israel was memorable (ie, “And when I went to Israel as a candidate. I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself [of] the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”) Yet the commentator apparently had mixed emotions about what that supposed zinger necessarily says about Obama, and, in turn, the way it contrasts with the approach taken by Romney.

    tnr.com, Marc Tracy:

    I am not sure why Romney held back. I don’t think hammering Obama on Israel is poor politics, except in the sense that it takes time away from discussing the economy.

    …But this was the first time I had heard Obama accuse Romney, even implicitly, of supporting Israel disingenuously. After all, to say, “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers,” is to say that when Romney went to Israel as a candidate, he did take donors, and he did attend a fundraiser…. [B]ut the contrast is clear: Obama went because he felt he should; Romney went because he felt he needed to.

    A final note on that Obama line: I really wish he had stopped after “fundraisers.” Invoking Yad Vashem and the Holocaust felt like a step too far…. Israel has a Holocaust memorial, but it is not itself one. But instead Obama pandered on the Holocaust, much as Romney, to a lesser extent, pandered on the Palestinians. Strange evening.

    ^ I think only the most deluded of liberals are not aware of (or couldn’t care less about) how at such moments they’re being played for fools and suckers by Obama.

    Mark (8b953a)

  48. In the early 20th century, despite their thuggish origins, unions did help save and build lives through pushing for increased safety, better wages and other protections for workers. But by the mid/late 20th century unions had become pure shakedown artists in industry after industry which directly caused the catastrophic loss of American manufacturing and middle class jobs more than any other reason, save technology.

    elissa (8d73e3)

  49. Who the hell told Romney that it would be a winning gambit to call for more ships because we have “fewer” now than 100 years ago?

    Does he think people are that stupid?

    He came across as an out-to-lunch moron whose lived his life inside a bubble of privilege and wealth and doesn’t even realize that ONE guided missile destroyer in todays Navy is worth a hundred iron-clad clunkers from the past.

    He really does think it’s a game of Battleship…

    What. A. Nitwit. On stage under the bright lights for all the world to see, and cringe over.

    I woudn’t even pick this guy to be on my side in a game of paintball let alone allow him to get anywhere near the position of commander-in-chief.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  50. And just for a laugh I went over to Faux after the debate to watch Hannity spin furiously in his alternate reality world of Hate.

    Here’s what he said:

    The US still uses horses and bayonets so Obama was wrong.

    LOL…can you believe this moron? Oh, I forget, that’s a primary source of info for you rubes….no wonder.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  51. Do you play paintball much, P. Tillman?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  52. Petey – Was the U.S. a global power in 1916?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. Who the hell told Romney that it would be a winning gambit to call for more ships because we have “fewer” now than 100 years ago?

    Does he think people are that stupid?

    Do you think the people driving those ships are stupid?

    Obama line about horses, bayonets fails fact-check

    The Marines still have a mule-packing school. I don’t know anyone who goes without a knife.

    And one thing spending a bazillian dollars on one ship doesn’t get you?

    Two places at one time.

    I honestly don’t know what country President Jerkwater hallucinates he presides over. Belgium might get by with the Coast Guard he proposes for us.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  54. By the way, numbers still matter, even with our modern military. Did you know we lost six Harriers last month in Afgahistan and even that loss hurt our ability to complete the mission? Can you imagine what losing dozens of ships might do? Not to mention how it might impact our humanitarian missions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  55. By the way, numbers still matter, even with our modern military. Did you know we lost six Harriers last month in Afghanistan and even that loss hurt our ability to complete the mission? Can you imagine what losing dozens of ships might do? Not to mention how it might impact our humanitarian missions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  56. I still think it would have been much better for the automotive industry to have some new thinking invest in components of GM in a bankruptcy firesale.

    Comment by Dustin — 10/23/2012 @ 7:29 am

    I passed on EDI and GM as well as Ford, early in my career chosing the steel industry instead,however I had extensive interviews and with ford was shown every major plant in the US.

    The problems however as they expressed to me was the Same thing that ended Bethlehem Steel, too high and too much retirement expenses and liability expense.

    The rollover case hurt ford deeply, as well as the side saddle gas tank fiasco, that coupled with taxes and rising costs of union medical care nearly pushed ford into bankruptcy long before Gm was in trouble.

    Dodge always was in trouble – if not for the minivan – would have long dissapeared.

    It was time to unshackle the majors from the union deathgrip, and you will see them all go bankrupt again very soon

    EPWJ (4380b4)

  57. Kman (43):
    Airlines didn’t go bankrupt “in that economy”? According to the Wikipedia page on “Airline bankruptcies in the United States”, Frontier Airlines filed for bankrupty in April 2008 and “exited bankruptcy” in October 2009 – exactly the period we’re talking about. Apparently it was possible for an airline to survive banktruptcy “in that economy”. It was bought out by Republic, but the planes are still flying and the employees are still employed.

    Here’s an interesting line from the Wikipedia article on the airline (the present tenses are “historical” and refer to 2008): “Its operation continues uninterrupted, though, as Chapter 11 bankruptcy protects the corporation’s assets and allows restructuring to ensure long-term viability.”

    Everyone, not just KMan:
    I think Obama is actually so ignorant of economics that he thinks that bankruptcy means that a company ceases to exist, all its locations close down, and all its employees file for unemployment. The fact that in many cases bankruptcy means reorganization and survival (possibly under new ownership) is apparently a complete mystery to him.

    Dr. Weevil (47927d)

  58. I still think it would have been much better for the automotive industry to have some new thinking invest in components of GM in a bankruptcy firesale.

    Comment by Dustin — 10/23/2012 @ 7:29 am

    I passed on EDI and GM as well as Ford, early in my career chosing the steel industry instead,however I had extensive interviews and with ford was shown every major plant in the US.

    The problems however as they expressed to me was the Same thing that ended Bethlehem Steel, too high and too much retirement expenses and liability expense.

    The rollover case hurt ford deeply, as well as the side saddle gas tank fiasco, that coupled with taxes and rising costs of union medical care nearly pushed ford into bankruptcy long before Gm was in trouble.

    Dodge always was in trouble – if not for the minivan – would have long dissapeared.

    It was time to unshackle the majors from the union deathgrip, and you will see them all go bankrupt again very soon

    EPWJ (4380b4)

  59. Kman (43):
    Airlines didn’t go bankrupt “in that economy”? According to the Wikipedia page on “Airline bankruptcies in the United States”, Frontier Airlines filed for bankrupty in April 2008 and “exited bankruptcy” in October 2009 – exactly the period we’re talking about. Apparently it was possible for an airline to survive banktruptcy “in that economy”. It was bought out by Republic, but the planes are still flying and the employees are still employed.

    Here’s an interesting line from the Wikipedia article on the airline (the present tenses are “historical” and refer to 2008): “Its operation continues uninterrupted, though, as Chapter 11 bankruptcy protects the corporation’s assets and allows restructuring to ensure long-term viability.”

    Everyone, not just KMan:
    I think Obama is actually so ignorant of economics that he thinks that bankruptcy means that a company ceases to exist, all its locations close down, and all its employees file for unemployment. The fact that in many cases bankruptcy means reorganization and survival (possibly under new ownership) is apparently a complete mystery to him.

    Dr. Weevil (47927d)

  60. Quantity has a quality all it’s own, DRJ.

    As we were once wont to say of the Soviet threat. In another life.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  61. Quantity has a quality all it’s own, DRJ.

    As we were once wont to say of the Soviet threat. In another life.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  62. I didn’t do the double post on purpose. I got an error message, “connection was reset.”

    Next thing I know, double post.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  63. I didn’t do the double post on purpose. I got an error message, “connection was reset.”

    Next thing I know, double post.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  64. The idea that today’s missile destroyers are worth hundreds of ironclads is nonsense. Because our missile destroyers’ missions are not defeating ironclads.

    The problem with a shrinking surface fleet is that we don’t have the ships to meet all of our commitments (commitments that Obama has done nothing to reduce). A missile destroyer you don’t have at all can’t patrol the Red Sea against pirates. Neither can a submarine.

    The 600 ship navy was structured against a worst case Cold War getting Hot scenario, with convoy defense (surface escorts and HK subs) and power projection (CV task forces) against the USSR prominent. But today our commitments have changed and the Navy’s mission has changed. But it has not disappeared.

    The thing about horses was not that horses are militarily important, its that Obama’s snark was intended to make Romney look ignorant but really made Obama look ignorant.

    SPQR (768505)

  65. The idea that today’s missile destroyers are worth hundreds of ironclads is nonsense. Because our missile destroyers’ missions are not defeating ironclads.

    The problem with a shrinking surface fleet is that we don’t have the ships to meet all of our commitments (commitments that Obama has done nothing to reduce). A missile destroyer you don’t have at all can’t patrol the Red Sea against pirates. Neither can a submarine.

    The 600 ship navy was structured against a worst case Cold War getting Hot scenario, with convoy defense (surface escorts and HK subs) and power projection (CV task forces) against the USSR prominent. But today our commitments have changed and the Navy’s mission has changed. But it has not disappeared.

    The thing about horses was not that horses are militarily important, its that Obama’s snark was intended to make Romney look ignorant but really made Obama look ignorant.

    SPQR (768505)

  66. Obama’s foreign policy is a Disney theme song. Disarm, apologize, appease and lead from behind.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. Obama’s foreign policy is a Disney theme song. Disarm, apologize, appease and lead from behind.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. Obama’s foreign policy is a Disney theme song. Disarm, apologize, appease and lead from behind.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. …our missile destroyers’ missions are not defeating ironclads.

    Far be it from me to say they couldn’t get the job done, if the situation required it.

    This President thinks he’s profound asking the questions he does.

    I wonder, what sort of people does he think he leads? We send our aviators off with missiles, rockets, guns, tons of avgas, and how many pounds of thrust?

    And then a pistol and survival knife.

    Just saying. The idea you could have been wrong ain’t a natural one to somebody who slept through Air Combat Maneuvering 101.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  70. The problem with a shrinking surface fleet is that we don’t have the ships to meet all of our commitments (commitments that Obama has done nothing to reduce). A missile destroyer you don’t have at all can’t patrol the Red Sea against pirates.

    Truer words have not been spoken.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  71. Kman #36:

    No, no, no. Obama didn’t imply that Romney wanted to liquidate the industry. “Liquidation” was all Romney’s words in the transcript above.

    Here is what Obama said (at page 22 of Patterico’s first link):

    If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

    Romney appropriately understood that to mean Obama thinks Romney’s plans would result in the significant curtailment or liquidation of the American auto industry.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  72. Democrats don’t want the truth, the fact that Obama is a liar will not change the mind of most democrats.

    Most Democrats go to 1 source for their information, ex NY times or CNN NBC etc.

    Bringing facts into this discussion is useless. If they wanted the truth they never would have voted for Obama the first time

    Jerod (ec87f2)

  73. He came across as an out-to-lunch moron whose lived his life inside a bubble of privilege and wealth and doesn’t even realize that ONE guided missile destroyer in todays Navy is worth a hundred iron-clad clunkers from the past.

    Someone’s knowledge of naval strategy and their wealth are totally unrelated topics.

    Your comment says more about your jealousy and anger than it does about Mitt Romney.

    Besides, Romney is right. The planet hasn’t gotten smaller and our commitments and need for presence is larger than it was when Obama took office. We can’t just omit large numbers of vessels, even with awesome technology.

    Apparently Obama is willing to take more risks with our security than Romney is. I don’t think it has anything to do with their personal checking accounts.

    Dustin (73fead)

  74. He came across as an out-to-lunch moron whose lived his life inside a bubble of privilege and wealth and doesn’t even realize that ONE guided missile destroyer in todays Navy is worth a hundred iron-clad clunkers from the past.

    An A-6 was worth more than a squadron of B-17s.

    To make the equation is to misunderstand the concept.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  75. Redeploy to Okinawa for VICTORY!!!!!!!!11!!11ty!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  76. Tillman plays paintball by himself . . . in a closet

    Icy (855d27)

  77. #79

    And looses.

    Bill M (e0a4e5)

  78. People are going on as if 0bama had said we don’t use horses and bayonets any more, which is obviously false. But what he said is that we don’t have as many as we did before WW1. We certainly don’t have nearly as many horses as we had then, and they’re a lot less important than they were then. I don’t know about bayonets, we may still have a similar number, but they’re surely less important than they were. His analogy is that we also need fewer ships than we did then, or since, which is a lot more dubious. But simply pointing out that we still use bayonets and horses is irrelevant.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  79. =yawn=

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html

    Bush was right.
    Obama was right.
    Rattner was right.
    Grateful Ohio voters believe they were right.
    Grateful Michigan voters believe they were right.

    And believe Romney was wrong.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  80. Oh, dear Lord. Someone who has an, um, tenuous grasp on reality (remember how often this person has lied about his own background, in self-aggrandizing and quite silly ways) is going to seriously weigh in on politics?

    On the other hand, folks who see the President as a successful “do no wrong” kind of leader…well, that is his demographic.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  81. Simon – He’s sort of Lost in Space.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. Correction to my previous comment. He’s right on horses, but wrong on bayonets. US forces have hundreds of thousands more bayonets now than in 1916.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  83. We certainly don’t have nearly as many horses as we had then, and they’re a lot less important than they were then. I don’t know about bayonets, we may still have a similar number, but they’re surely less important than they were. His analogy is that we also need fewer ships than we did then, or since, which is a lot more dubious.

    Admittedly bayonets and horses have fewer uses than they did 150 years ago. They’re hardly obsolete.

    Horses, for instance, cut down on the amount of gas you have to fly into A-stan.

    But that’s one thing. Which I believe I touched on by mentioning the pistol is still relevant, if insignificant.

    But to compare warships to whale oil and buggy whips is something else entirely.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  84. People are going on as if 0bama had said we don’t use horses and bayonets any more, which is obviously false. But what he said is that we don’t have as many as we did before WW1. We certainly don’t have nearly as many horses as we had then…

    I’d have to see an actual accounting. It’s conceivable we have more of both. The Army has more boats than the Navy. The Navy has more aircraft than the Air Force.

    For a while the Air Force operated a pretty considerable fleet, intended to pluck downed aviators out of the drink.

    If only because the DoD had some long-standing contracts for bayonets and horses I’d be inclined to believe they’re piling up in numbers inconceivable during the age of the Indian wars.

    It’s the gub’mint, after all. You guys are aware, are you not, that the Detroit water district has a union-mandated horse shoer on staff. But hasn’t had a horse since the 1920s.

    The union won’t let the city eliminate that position.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  85. If only because the DoD had some long-standing contracts for bayonets and horses I’d be inclined to believe they’re piling up in numbers inconceivable during the age of the Indian wars.

    It’s the gub’mint, after all. You guys are aware, are you not, that the Detroit water district has a union-mandated horse shoer on staff. But hasn’t had a horse since the 1920s.

    Exactly; if you told me that the DoD has brigades of horse-shoers I would believe it, but not actual horses. You can’t just pile them up in warehouses like bayonets (which, as I linked above, isn’t necessary, since they are in fact used in far greater numbers than they were before WW1).

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  86. IMP starred in Lost In Space, Daley.

    JD (8a1df4)

  87. Or was that Spaceballs?

    JD (8a1df4)

  88. Milhouse, I’m sorry if I labor under what I consider an entirely non-partisan impression.

    Bayonets? They last a long time. Horses? Not so much.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  89. =yawn=

    The President said it exactly right.”Steve Rattner, ‘Hardball w/Chris Matthews,’ MSNBC, 5:20 PM EDT, 10/23/12

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  90. IMP – dont you find it shocking that Rattner supports Teh One?! Or that you lie about Romneys position?

    JD (8a1df4)

  91. Duckcrap wouldn’t know a fact if it crawled up his …!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  92. I wonder if 0 ever carried a knife in his pocket.

    There were a lot of auto dealerships that closed. A lot of parts suppliers and manufacturers. Has anyone ever totaled up the “cost” to the economy of the “bailout”?

    htom (412a17)

  93. Just yet another example of how wrong Obama was;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/benghazi-suspect-held-in-tunisia.html

    narciso (ee31f1)

  94. The idea that we might be able to limit the fight to a “one front war” pretty much ignores the reality that the USA has at a minimum two fronts to defend — the east coast and the west coast. Other, additional, fronts (Pacific Ocean, Mexico, European, African, Asian, … may be required.

    Truly twits. 0 and anyone who buys into that nonsense.

    Big expensive ship (and support) vs. lots of little cheap ships … there are war games for that.

    htom (412a17)

  95. Nothing focuses the mind like being awakened out of a deep sleep by a flyover of FA-18′s from the CBG sitting off-shore, and the American Ambassador knocking on your palace door saying “We’ve got to talk!”

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  96. Big expensive ship (and support) vs. lots of little cheap ships

    Helos. Soon to be replaced by UAVs.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3649 secs.