The headline of Mitt Romney’s November 18, 2008 piece in the New York Times was Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. He probably didn’t choose that headline, and he probably regrets that his name appeared under it. It has made it harder for him to talk about what he really recommended. Still, he cannot get away with saying that Obama did exactly what he proposed.
For context, Obama had been elected when Romney wrote that piece but he would not be inaugurated for two more months. It was President Bush who bailed the auto industry out with a $17.4 billion loan. Obama’s job was to manage the bailout.
Romney recommended that the government not provide emergency funding, which would have forced General Motors and Chrysler into immediate bankruptcy proceedings. In his column, he recommended using this opportunity to shatter the auto industry’s unions and claw back their compensation packages, including for retirees.
That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
…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.
Ultimately, both Chrysler (April 2009) and General Motors (June 2009) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as Romney had suggested they should. But that was only after the government had infused them with about 39 billion dollars. The two bailouts prevented Chrysler and General Motors from being liquidated at bankruptcy. And that is the key issue for us when we look back at what happened at the time and judge Romney’s recommendations.
Without getting into the intricacies of bankruptcy law, the problem in November 2008 was that the financial sector of the economy had collapsed and there was no one to step in and make private sector investments in the auto industry. To pay their creditors, Chrysler and GM would have had to shut down their companies entirely and started selling off their assets as scrap. Estimates at the time were that this would cause the loss of at least three million jobs. It would have destroyed the auto parts industry and taken Ford down in the process.
If you read Mitt Romney’s column, you’ll see that he didn’t anticipate this problem. He talks about restructuring labor contracts and firing the management, but he doesn’t seem to realize that the businesses were not going to survive the bankruptcy process at all. Without the government money, there would be no businesses to manage and no need for unions because there would be no jobs.
People remember the headline, and they know that the industry was saved from extinction, and so they think Romney advocated letting the industry go extinct. He didn’t advocate that. But he did advocate something that would have had that result.
I think people give him too much credit because he’s been successful in business and he should have understood that his advice was unworkable. But, the truth is that his advice was probably totally disingenuous at the time. He knew that the bailout would be very unpopular and he wanted to go on the record as having opposed it. His column was more political calculation and positioning than it was an honest assessment. It was only two weeks after Obama had been elected and Romney was already trying to set himself up to win the 2012 Republican nomination.
So, today, Romney says that the companies went into bankruptcy, exactly as he had recommended that they do. But the bottom line is that the auto industry survived and prospered because of Bush’s bailout and Obama’s careful management, and the auto industry would be extinct today if Romney’s advice had been followed.
Still, he cannot get away with saying that Obama did exactly what he proposed.
And it doesn’t even seem like good strategy wrt his base to try it – isn’t the wingnut article of faith that everything Obama has ever done is the worst thing that’s ever been done? This’d be another situation like Romneycare.
People remember the headline, and they know that the industry was saved from extinction, and so they think Romney advocated letting the industry go extinct. He didn’t advocate that. But he did advocate something that would have had that result.
The people are correct. Just because Willard was too stupid to know that his plan would have led to the extinction doesn’t let him off the hook. So yes, he did advocate that. He was trying, even then, to pander to the Teahadists(“Bust those commie unions!!”).
The NYT was entirely TOO nice to Rmoney in writing that headline.
It should have been:
ROMNEY TO DETROIT: DROP DEAD
Yeah, but a headline like that would have alerted the low info people that the Times had diddled with title of the article.
The title they DID use was close enough to the spirit of the article, that low info and high info people (such as me) actually thought Romney had come up with the title.
Sigh. Next you’ll tell me there is no Santa Clause
Eastwood explaining and grading his performance,
Just for those that harbor any illusions that he didn’t really intend to say those mean things about Obama.
Oh dear, I was giving old Clint way too much credit for having learned a bit. Sigh, I guess hope springs eternal. I haven’t liked the guy much since he had a TV show back in the 60’s – what a disappointment.
Thanks for the link.
Managed with no effort on my part to miss all Eastwood movies until “Unforgiven.” A well-made movie from a first rate script that would have been better with a younger and better actor in the lead.
A younger actor would have missed the whole point of the aging flawed character he played.
I can recommend Grand Torino, too.
That all aside, I can’t help thinking that the first thing Eastwood did after leaving the RNC stage was call Axelrod and say, “mission accomplished”
I’m not going to criticize anyone for not having ever seen A Fistful of Dollars or Hang ‘Em High or High Plains Drifter. But, if you have never seen those movies, then you can’t possibly understand why Eastwood made Unforgiven or what it means. I’d argue that you can’t possibly understand Clint Eastwood unless you’ve seen ALL those movies.
At its most basic, the character of Will Munny in Unforgiven is the man with no name in the earlier movies. He is not Clint Eastwood, but Clint Eastwood’s persona, his reputation, what he stands for. He’s a retired and remorseful gunslinger who is trying his hand at being an ordinary farmer and family man. Someone wants to hire him to collect a bounty on someone who sliced up a whore. His wife his gone and he’s terrible at farming. The cause seems just. Why not do what he’s good at and go back to gunfighting?
Well, it doesn’t turn out well. It turns out that vigilante justice is bullshit. It turns out that Eastwood’s legend is bullshit in his own eyes.
Will Munny is Eastwood’s atonement for the bullshit in his own career. And you can count Dirty Harry in that formula, too.
So, when you see Clint Eastwood adopting that persona, don’t believe it’s sincere. He called bullshit on that part of himself 20 years ago.
I’m getting tired of trying to figure out if he was “for” or “against” anything having to do with the auto rescue, since even he can’t make up his mind about it.
Of course he’s made up his mind about it. Like just about every other issue, he has in fact made up his mind a number of times.
Every time he tries to say well Obama did exactly what I recommended it invites one of two responses
1) Not at all. He infused government money which was not what you recommended
or for those less informed
2) Okay if that is the case why should I vote for you over him?
My recollection is that there was a 2nd “bailout” of the auto industry in February 2009.
Yes. Another $21.6 billion in February. That, plus the earlier 17 is how I arrived at 39.
So he didn’t actually just manage the Bush administration bailouts. He gave them another bailout this time with all the pre-conditions that helped them survive because if I remember correctly they burned through that first $17 million in a couple months.
Yes and no. I feel like Politifact.
Yes, he presided over a second bailout. But the decision to initiate a bailout in the first place was made for him. He did publicly approve it, however.
I find it hard to believe that Romney “doesn’t seem to realize that the businesses were not going to survive the bankruptcy process at all.” He had made untold millions of dollars doing just that at Bain. Creative destruction, you know.
“the bottom line is that the auto industry survived and prospered because of Bush’s bailout and Obama’s careful management, and the auto industry would be extinct today if Romney’s advice had been followed.” Right, just like so many companies that Bain sucked the blood out of.
I agree.
Let’s not forget the slavering of southern Republican senators like Richard Shelby, who couldn’t wait to do an endzone dance for the cheaper, nonunion, foreign-owned auto assembly plants in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Damn right the Republican wanted to put them out of business. Kill them off and move the labor to a cheaper, less-developed part of the world. It’s what Romney did his whole career, and what the party as a whole believes in.
Exactly. The man made a fortune by analyzing which companies could be bought and then sold off for scrap. Romney was, in fact, uniquely well-qualified for a politician to know precisely what would happen should his advice be followed.
You’re assuming that Rmoney was the analyst on the winning deals. It’s entirely possible that he was the Bain Capital fundraiser in chief and others kept him away from the analyzing and management of companies they bought and pilfered because he sucked at that. He may have been “the decider” on those deals the way GWB was. Or a few of my bosses have been.
Did you read Matt Taibbi’s article?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capi
tal-20120829
But of course.
So is this another part of the Romney camp’s “series of Obama mistakes” strategy? And to this not adding thanking troops to laundry list of important things to mention in his acceptance speech, this strategy ain’t going to well is it?
Romney Endorses Ultraconservative Congressman
Rep. Steve King takes a hard line on issues like abortion and Islam. The Obama campaign seizes opportunity to cast Romney as extreme on social issues
It seems like they are starting to push toward the “Romney is a craven coward” meme. Couldn’t stand up to Limbaugh, couldn’t stand up to a woman in an audience that called Obama a monster, can’t stand up to the extremists in his party. The word coward may not ever be uttered, but the message is there.
Biden: Obama has a steel rod for a spine.
I think you are on to something.
Of course, the comparison companies were:
BMW (South Carolina)
Honda (Alabama, Indiana, Ohio)
Nissan (Tennessee, Mississippi)
Toyota (Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky)
And not Ford.
Only up to a point. The relationship Honda,et al has with their suppliers is different. Honda and other Japanese mfg tend to have a financial stake in their suppliers and operate much more collaboratively than the Big 3.
But Romney had to know that the money was not there to help Chrysler and GM through a structured bankruptcy. Shit, the local retailer couldn’t get revolving credit any longer. For him to advocate anything other than what was actually done is a lie.
About Honda and Japanese manufacturers in general, yep but even they were worrying about the companies that were common to their supply chain.
Not only were the auto companies is trouble but the auto financial companies like GMAC were hammered by the credit default swap mess. Romney was looking for cheap takeover targets for sure.
The question is did Bishop Plutocrat EVER advocate that the auto companies receive filthy gub’mint loans of tens of billions as new capital in his “managed bankrupty” proposal(s)? Because without new funds, his proposal is basically a fire sale liquidation. It seems highly doubtful to me that he proposed gub’mint loans, since injecting these “failed” iconic companies with MORE taxpayer cash (after just bailing out the crooked Wall Street Boyz) was extremely unpopular, as I recall. And the Holy Free Market wasn’t going to do it, as car czar Rattner has said repeatedly.
Also, did the restructured companies actually massively shed pensions and benefits under the existing union contracts, as union hatin’ “conservatives” (like Rmoney) advocated? Or was Obama able to save some of those contractual benfits? If so, then Rmoney has no leg to stand on, and should look foolish in the debates—where this issue will definitely come up (duh) and could be decisive.
Rmoney always takes the easy path, and says what the ignorant rubes want to hear. Hence “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. This likely why there was such an effort (by Biden for ex) to describe Obama’s “spine” and “courage” when presented with tough choices. It’s a contrast to the flip-floppin weakness of Multiple Rmoney.
Probably as OFF TOPIC as you can get, but the following is so funny, I squirted milk out my nose as I tried to drink and read at the same time.
http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-expl
ains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it
Wow. And that’s from players in quite possibly the most homophobic athletic subculture out there. Times are indeed changing.
hey Booman,
KOS has a diary up on this, but I was wondering what you thought was up? Maybe it means nothingm, but?
“Romney cedes Ohio TV airwaves to Obama (at least for now)”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-obama-ohio-ads-20120906,0,4157574.story
I suspect that maybe the are recalibrating their message, since there is other headlines saying they will be releasing 15 ads in swing states, but still 1 week can be a lifetime right?
Is there any chance that the Romney Campaign (as opposed to the Romney PAC’s) are running short of $$$?
I can’t imagine it, but damn, 1 week at this point in Ohio is a fricking LIFETIME!
One of several theories advanced by Kos is that, given the lack of an R convention bounce, they’ve had to stop and completely retool their ads. They may have had a bunch of ads building on convention themes that didn’t work well. Of course, that doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t have played the prepared ads anyway as placeholders until they had new ones ready.
That actually makes a lot of sense. The last thing you want in a building series of ads is to confuse the marketing issue. Under no circumstances would you run the opening ads to a campaign that you decided to pull.
It’s better to not run them at all. At least then, you don’t have to explain why your tone deafness didn’t reverberate with your target audience.
You mean he didn’t decide to run while chatting with Ann at the kitchen table in 2011?
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you, that he would lie about something like that.
Romney’s position doesn’t work from his perspective as a Bain entrepreneur; doesn’t work from a manufacturer’s standpoint; a taxpayer standpoint; a capital standpoint or the global markets. He was actually for removing the free market competition as a solution.
Thank you Boo for refreshing my memory on this. Very clear and consise, now I can talk to my “rightie” buds with confidence about this issue. Good article!