The guy makes great sense: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2
Isn’t he one of the ones who doesn’t believe in evolution?
Dude, who cares what he believes and doesnt. If he can put the economy on the right path I dont care if he believes in Santa.
What do you mean “if he believes in Santa”? Don’t you?
chrismaths Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you mean “if he believes in Santa”? Don’t > you? What do you mean believe in Santa? Is that even an option not to believe in him? Who do you think comes down the chimney and puts presents under your tree? and eats your cookies and drinks your freshly poured cow milk?
I remember that he had to make a speech about his religion, like Obama had to make a speech about his skin color. Only difference is Obama was addressing democrats while he was addressing evangelicals (harder to convince I guess). The matchup Obama-Romney would have been much more interesting, but we would have missed out on Palin.
This is another flip flop from his position in January on the campaign trail. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302150_pf.html
I’ve always been a big fan of Mitt Romney. He does all the dirty work to bust up corruption and create a reasonable budget, and most people hate him for it.
juventurd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is another flip flop from his position in > January on the campaign trail. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic > le/2008/01/13/AR2008011302150_pf.html WHOAAAA!!! I guess I am too naive. Romney sucks. I want my post back.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > juventurd Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is another flip flop from his position in > > January on the campaign trail. > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic > > > le/2008/01/13/AR2008011302150_pf.html > > > WHOAAAA!!! > > I guess I am too naive. Romney sucks. I want my > post back. Why…his stance seems very similar. In Jan. he was opposed to a bailout, as he is now, and in favor of a ‘work out’, as he is now.
LPoulin133 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > needhelp Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > juventurd Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > This is another flip flop from his position > in > > > January on the campaign trail. > > > > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic > > > > > > le/2008/01/13/AR2008011302150_pf.html > > > > > > WHOAAAA!!! > > > > I guess I am too naive. Romney sucks. I want my > > post back. > > > > > Why…his stance seems very similar. In Jan. he > was opposed to a bailout, as he is now, and in > favor of a ‘work out’, as he is now. From reading the Jan article it seems he is saying that Washington should give Detroit money. The recent article states that he wants Detroit to restructure.
For everyone who believes in Santa Claus they are about to really think the guy sucks this year when they see a bunch of goodwill gifts under the tree
> From reading the Jan article it seems he is saying > that Washington should give Detroit money. The > recent article states that he wants Detroit to > restructure. He’s still in favor of Govt assistance. Read to the end of the NY Times article when he talks about guaranteed financing post-bankruptcy and assuring warranties.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > From reading the Jan article it seems he is saying > that Washington should give Detroit money. The > recent article states that he wants Detroit to > restructure. “Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer,” he told a group of business leaders at the Detroit Economic Club, adding that during his first 100 days in office he would convene a working group of industry, labor, congressional and state leaders to devise a national policy aimed at helping automakers. “I’m not open to a bailout, but I am open to a work-out.” As part of his plan, Romney said he would back spending an additional $20 billion over five years to federally fund research on energy, fuels, automotive technology and material sciences; modify a recently passed measure calling for U.S. vehicle fleets to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020; and ease automakers’ financial burden by expanding health-care coverage nationwide." This is from the Jan. article. If anything it’s less aggressive at 20B over 5yrs vs. 20B over 1yr for the NYT article. He speaks of the same things in both articles. In both articles he stresses that he doesn’t believe in a bailout and that a restructuring is important.
I like Mitt and do not see a big issue with the contrasting articles. The outlook of the auto industry in January and mid-November are very different.
Upon further reflection I was too quick in dissing Mitt. I think he didnt change his stance substantially.
Changing one’s mind about something (investments, politics, last night’s pull from the bar) is a perfectly intelligent thing to do. Shamelessly pandering to popular opinion is a despicable trait and one Romney can’t seem to shake and what ultimately hurt him in the nomination. I admired what McCain said in the WaPost article about how jobs that left Mich may never come back. Romney wanted the gov’t to be an active partner in reviving a poorly managed industry that couldn’t otherwise compete in a free market and now he says screw it since the auto bailout is generally unpopular. Edit: also, the fact that he is mincing words bailout/workout, etc is further evidence of wishy-washyness and pandering.
juventurd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Changing one’s mind about something (investments, > politics, last night’s pull from the bar) is a > perfectly intelligent thing to do. Except when you have flip-flopped twice on your own thread like needhelp. Then it’s just downright pathetic.
It is silly to try to bankrupt those companies just so they can technically be in a situation to renegotiate/terminate labor contracts. That makes zero sense. Ford, as a family owned car company, is not going bankrupt. The other two will lose too much in sales due to a bankruptcy proceeding. The best bet is to give them the loans and allow them an environment were they can truly negotiate for the future solvency of their businesses. No need to hide behind a bankruptcy to handle the union problem. Handle it straight on.
FIN, it’s my understanding that the UAW has rejected any and all re-negotiations of contracts. Looks like the UAW is ready to take its last stand–live or die.