Skip to main content

 This is the first diary that I've written in over four years. Could you help me point out to CNN and Politico that Romney did say, "Let Detroit go bankrupt"? After the vice-presidential debate, those two news outlets were quick to rate Biden's charge that Mittens wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt as false. As they put it, Romney authored an op-ed, but it was the editors of the New York Times (those liberal bastards) who decided to title it "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". The only problem with that is that Romney DID say, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." In fact, he preceded his statement with, "That's exactly what I said." It was in an interview on one of the networks, and it's even in this Obama ad (45 seconds mark): http://www.youtube.com/...

  Could you please join me and email CNN and Politico to point this out to them?

  Find the video of the mendacious CNN fact check here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/... (it's the one for "The Facts Behind Romney's..." post) and the politico "fact-check" can be found here: http://www.politico.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Title Of Mitt's New York Times Editorial (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeteZerria
    Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
    By MITT ROMNEY
    Published: November 18, 2008

    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.

    Not exactly hidden away in a private house conversation.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 11:37:46 AM PDT

  •  Depends what the meaning of "bankruptcy" is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belzaboo, johnny wurster, distraught

    Fact checkers have been parsing around that all along, it's nothing new. The thinking goes that Mitt didn't mean bankrupt as in "out of business"; but bankrupt in the financial reorganization sense where you can fire workers and strip pension benefits and stiff creditors; then pick yourself up and keep going in a new "leaner and meaner" form.

    "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 11:45:42 AM PDT

    •  yep. key passage is here: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, VClib
      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.
      I agree w/ the factcheckers.  What Mittens proposed then is more or less what wound up happening.  Of course, I'm sure he took several other positions on the matter, so the question of whether Mitt said Detroit should go bankrupt really depends on which Mitt we ask.  2008 Mitt?  2010 Mitt? 2012 mitt?  They all say different things.
      •  As I recall, Romney supported private reinvestment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jedennis, Catte Nappe

        in the auto industry, with government guarantees of these private loans.  He opposed direct government investment in the recapitalization of Chrysler and GM.  The problem was, at the time the credit markets were frozen so tight that private capital wouldn't have been forthcoming, even with the government guarantees.  Then net result?  Under the "Romney Plan," Chrysler and GM would have gone bankrupt the old fashioned way -- they would have run out of cash with which to do business.

        Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. --Margaret Mead

        by The Knute on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 12:20:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Knute - private investment is always (0+ / 0-)

          available with government guarantees. There are non-bank lenders that would have done an auto rescue with government guarantees.

          There were many of us, even here on this site, who in Nov 2008 suggested that the Bush administration only provide financing as part of a Chapter 11 process and we were right. It was clear that there was no way that either GM or Chrysler could ever restructure without bankruptcy court protection because state laws were written that severely restrict auto manufacturers from terminating dealer relationships, unless they are part of a bankruptcy settlement. Both car companies had too much capacity, too many brand, too many dealerships and extraordinarily high legacy costs baked into their labor rates to ever again be profitable without a total restructuring. I knew that, and I don't even follow the auto industry. The Bush administration made a mistake by providing $14 billion of unsecured, pre-bankruptcy TARP funds in Dec 2008 which went down a black hole and the taxpayers will never see a dime of it. The short term Bush administration financing did allow the companies to survive and present a new business plan that included Chapter 11 to the Obama administration. My beef with the Obama administration is that the taxpayers got a terrible deal for lending the companies significantly more than they were worth at the time of the loans.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:18:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  CN - that's what GM and Chrysler did (0+ / 0-)

      because they had to. It just took them longer to get there and cost the taxpayers an extra $14 billion. See my longer post in this stream.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:20:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even worse... (5+ / 0-)

    When the guy was fact checking it on CNN last night he said that Mitt was asking for a "managed" bankruptcy which the Obama Administration eventually did.  What a crock of shit.  Mitt argued that the car companies should've filed for bankruptcy and go out into the private market and find funding.  There's one little problem with that.  There wasn't a private funding source around that would touch the autos at that time, including Bain.  I work in the Capital Markets arena and I can tell you pointblank that there was not a creditor during the financial crash who was going to dump precious capital at the time into an industry that was on its last leg.  Mitt knew this better than anyone else.  Steve Rattner has hammered Romney time and time again on this point.  

    Last week CNN also had a bad fact check when they said that President Obama’s claim that Mitt’s tax cut would be $5 trillion was false.  In fact, they were so excited that they fact checked it before the debate even started.  Their rationale was that Mitt said that he would close loopholes so there is no way that it would cost $5 trillion.  My thoughts are that if your tax cut costs $5 trillion and you don’t communicate specifically how you will offset it beyond magic fairy dust and don’t come up with one actual dollar amount in offsets then how else is your opponent supposed to come up with an actual cost number other than the 20% across the board number which equates to $5 trillion?  Pure bullshit.  At worst the claim should’ve been True, but incomplete.  

    This shit scares me with CNN’s Candy Crawley moderating the next debate.  I rather her pull a Jim Lehrer and don’t talk at all than to have her use her CNN provided fact checking machine.  Hopefully she watched the master class by Martha last night and how to inject yourself into the debate to press guys for actual facts and not CNN facts.  

    •  I think technically the reduction in taxes (0+ / 0-)

      (which is $5 trillion) is the size of the tax cut and closing the loopholes (tax expenditures I think is the word) is the mechanism of paying for it. Of course, when it gets down to us, the closing of the "loopholes" (deductions and credits) means we won't likely get much or any tax cut.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:52:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good catch nt (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 03:05:49 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site