Four words may determine the presidential election
Four words may determine the outcome of the presidential election. Which four words remains to be seen.
Will it be ‘You didn’t build that.’
Or will it be ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt.’
Democrats believe that the Romney campaign was dishonest in characterizing the president as giving government the credit for the success of businesses. They argue that when the president said ‘You didn’t build that’ he was pointing to the value of government-built infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, as essential to the success of the nation.
Republicans say that Mr. Romney wanted Detroit to go through a structured bankruptcy with private equity firms buying the assets rather than government picking the winners and losers. So in saying ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt’ they believe he was promoting true capitalism over government intervention, and Mr. Romney maintains this would have worked.
It’s clear that the auto worker unions in Ohio don’t believe Mr. Romney’s plan was in their interest, and they’re out to support the president in the election.
It also seems clear that Mr. Romney wants to dispute the success of the president’s bet on the American car industry. For example, his campaign this week produced radio and TV ads claiming that Jeep production is moving to China. He says he’ll stop this outsourcing.
Both General Motors and Chrysler have flatly disputed the recent Romney campaign ads. Vice-President Biden today called them lies.
The people of Ohio get to decide who’s lying. But it’s hard to see how the Romney ads will do anything but alienate people who depend on the car business and have seen real progress in the industry’s revival in their state.
Maybe Romney’s plan would have worked. But it appears from polls that the people in Ohio believe Obama’s plan already did work.
Will the voters decide that government intervention in a crisis is sometimes necessary? Will they conclude that by building infrastructure government creates opportunities for businesses to thrive and that this is what the president meant?
We’ll know next week.
JR Beillenhouser
6 months, 3 weeks agoDidn’t anyone tell you. The election is over. Romney will win.
The firewall is gone, now Romney is taking states that were once considered blue,
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoWe’ll see….we’ll see In the mean time huff and puff and bloooooow the house down!
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoI think the 4 words George are “I need a JOB”.
the big 0 has added trillions to our national debt and employment is less then when he took office…
Romney will let our economy grow vs. jimmy II who has stifled growth with his job killing regulations….
Bob Jackson
6 months, 3 weeks agoThe quote attributed to Romney was actually the headline that was written by the New York Times for his op-ed article in November of 2008.
I pointed this out to D.D. at The Star & in 3 seprate e-mails & while he responded - he fails to acknowledge that The Star mis-quoted Romney.
The article’s headline (“Let Detroit go bankrupt”) was written by The New York Times…not Mitt Romney. No where in the op-ed does it say anything like “Let Detroit go bankrupt”
Therefore, that quote (“Let Detroit go bankrupt”) attributed to Romney by The Kansas City Star is inaccurate.
It is IN FACT written by The New York Times & it does not accurately summarize Romney’s sentiments in the article.
Direct quote from Romney’s op-ed states: “A managed bankruptcy MAY be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.”
The Washington Post gave the “Let Detroit go bankrupt” line two Pinnocios.
Wow…how can The Star even try to portray it as a quote from Romney.
Answer me this…..
Would The Kansas City Star find it permissible to take a headline written by Fox News summarizing a speech by President Obama & use it as a quote for President Obama as a headline on the Opinion Page ?
Never - nor should they - so why do they allow a headline written by an editor at NYT to be used as a quote at the top of the Opinion Page at The Kansas City Star ?
This is sad.
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoBob,
the star has never let FACTS Romney to cloud their unbridled support for the loser the big 0…..
George Harris
Kansas City
6 months, 3 weeks agoBob, yours is a fair criticism; the quote was from the headline of Romney’s op-ed. The problem is that there wasn’t any private money to see the companies through the bankruptcy process, and the effect of this would have been liquidation. No one stepped up to buy GM and Chrysler, and so the government stepped in. Why won’t Romney just compliment the president on a successful strategy, say there might have been another way that would have worked as well and then argue about what to do next time something like this happens. Instead, he attacks Obama for using the power of government in a crisis. The Democrats’ argument is that Romney through his business model was accustomed to liquidating businesses and that his criticism of government intervention ignores the terrible price we would have paid if private capital, even with government guarantees, didn’t materialize, as it appeared it would not.
Both Democrats and Republicans distorted/misrepresented each others’ statements. Obama never meant that people didn’t build their own businesses. The voters will decide who has distorted the truth more.
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoDoes the abbrogation of contracts in any way bother you George? I think this may be the greater longterm damage caused by the bailout.
Admit it, it was a payoff to the unions George.
George Harris
Kansas City
6 months, 3 weeks agoGeorge, I’m not sure I understand your point. Wouldn’t it be abrogating an agreement to strip union members of pensions and benefits earned in contract negotiations? BTW, I’ve often wondered how much money the govt pension benefit guarantee paid out on Bain liquidations.
It’s pretty clear that the “managed bankruptcy” that Romney proposed in the NY Times article did not include government money before the bankruptcy but rather “post-bankruptcy.” The effect of this would have been liquidation, not restructuring. Here’s a quote from the article:
“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.”
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoGeorge,
the bond holders were SECURED creditors. This means that the property that the auto cos owner was committed to the bond holders in the case of default. the big 0’s administration said no to that, and in essence gave the unions this propety, thus abbrogating contracts.
Bankruptcy law SPECIFICALLY says that union contracts are not enforceable in bankruptcy court. This is being played-out in the American Airlines bankruptcy this year. Obama’s abbrogation of these contracts unilaterally reversed decades of precedent, without a wimper from the lsm, which is of course no surprise….
To think that other companies, as Fiat did, would not have picked-up GM & Chrysler manufacturing facilities is a real stretch IMO George. Granted, the unions would not have fared as well, but they AND the management put the companies in the crapper, so they should have suffered as the stockholders and certainly the bondholders did….