It is amazing what people say when the get on Television and why they learn to posture forever.
Romney's aim in the article, "Let Detroit go bankrupt" - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
was straightforward in 2008. He was going to shore up his credentials to a pro-Business Republican party.
He wanted to say, "Limit Bailouts to the Auto" industry. When a guy makes a second paragraph that says,
"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."
he is saying that a bailout was not good for Detroit. He is looking to shore up his credentials to the anti-bailout Republican base. He is trying to appeal to the Dick Armeys and Richard Shelbys of the world. That is good and Jack Welch must accept that. This was 2008 Nov mind you, and it was a courageous stance for a Presidential Wanna-bee who wants to secure his conservative credentials.
Romney swerved right. Jack, this is the paragraph, that sends a clean message. You have to pin your own lapels to this paragraph or the other way round as a Romney supporter. You have to say, "I stand by this message" and go with it.
Come 2012 Nov, you cannot disavow a statement like, "Detroit needs a turnarond not a check".
The country needed a turnaround and it was delivered by bailing out a range of industries - after
as you put it , "those damn investment bankers ! ....". And that turnaround came in the form of a
bailout check!!!! And that is what turned around the American Auto Industry - not RomneyNomics of 2008.
Jack, you can't be on both sides and stand tall. What's so clever about being on both sides of an argument. Romney in 2008 stood for something. Either he still stands for the same thing or he stands for ObamaNomics. Its time to take one position, not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
Romney's aim in the article, "Let Detroit go bankrupt" - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
was straightforward in 2008. He was going to shore up his credentials to a pro-Business Republican party.
He wanted to say, "Limit Bailouts to the Auto" industry. When a guy makes a second paragraph that says,
"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."
he is saying that a bailout was not good for Detroit. He is looking to shore up his credentials to the anti-bailout Republican base. He is trying to appeal to the Dick Armeys and Richard Shelbys of the world. That is good and Jack Welch must accept that. This was 2008 Nov mind you, and it was a courageous stance for a Presidential Wanna-bee who wants to secure his conservative credentials.
Romney swerved right. Jack, this is the paragraph, that sends a clean message. You have to pin your own lapels to this paragraph or the other way round as a Romney supporter. You have to say, "I stand by this message" and go with it.
Come 2012 Nov, you cannot disavow a statement like, "Detroit needs a turnarond not a check".
The country needed a turnaround and it was delivered by bailing out a range of industries - after
as you put it , "those damn investment bankers ! ....". And that turnaround came in the form of a
bailout check!!!! And that is what turned around the American Auto Industry - not RomneyNomics of 2008.
Jack, you can't be on both sides and stand tall. What's so clever about being on both sides of an argument. Romney in 2008 stood for something. Either he still stands for the same thing or he stands for ObamaNomics. Its time to take one position, not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
