You wanted the map from hootsbox, so here it is: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=... Winner: Romney
Electoral Votes: Romney 290; Obama 248
General Vote: Romney 52%; Obama 47% Other 1%
Rationale: States up for grabs: Romney wins: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and New Hampshire. Obama wins: North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Iowa
Yes, he didn't say he wanted the auto industry to go under, just a different bankruptcy avenue. I agreed with the auto bailout (which differs from many from my camp), but I don't agree with what happened to the preferred bondholders who got "screwed" in favor of the UAW. They should have gotten their cut somehow. However, I did agree with the bankruptcy judge, "In the absence of a manufacturer, the rest is a mute point". Remember, Mitt's dad was President of American Motors prior to becoming governor of Michigan. So, Mitt is a car guy too! I think he clarified this issue in the debates if one can "throw their partisan bias" aside and listen.
Eh, Romney said that Detroit should not get a federal injection of capital and should literally go bankrupt. He said that the Federal loan Obama approved would seal their fate. That clearly and unequivocally did not happen. A LOT of jobs were saved directly because of Obama on that one. Not just at the automakers, but at the hordes of auto suppliers in the rust belt. Michigan is a labor state that usually goes with the Dem in the election, and none of them have forgotten what Obama has done here. Romney can attempt to go into minutiae all he wants, but he had a VERY different prescription than Obama for our auto industry, and he delineated it with a giant bold lettered headline that read 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt'. I find it rather amusing that his conscious choice of bombast and bravado in choosing that headline is rightly biting him in the ass. You reap what you sow, and now he is battleing his own rhetoric. But as I said, it's really besides the point. They had very different policies, which was the whole point of Mitt's article, no matter how much he tries to spin it as the President adopting his policy now.
I then I stand corrected. He had no say in that, huh? At any rate, as I said, the whole confrontational headline isn't the issue as his solution was very different than the adminsitration's on substance. If he wasn't allowed to overrule that headline or have any say in it, then he certainly isn't guilty of rhetorical bombast, and in this case, he is getting flack for words that were not approved by him. Although I think it is totally insane that papers run editorials by authors word for word, except the title itself. I had no idea that was common, -really stupid in fact. Guess every publication need their own version of link bait. This is, after all, a business, isn't it?
I only know that because they had a story about the editorial in another newspaper recently and they pointed that out. But you're right that a rose by any other name still smells as, well, terrible in this case. Private capital was as good as dead at that time. Ford did themselves a service by hedging a year or two previous. Bush and Obama did what they had to do for GM and Chrysler. Anyway its not as if precedent doesn't exist. Bush bailed out the airlines after 9/11, and that was the right choice there, too edit: sorry tons of typos on draft one of this post. Its really hard to type on a phone while flying through heavy turbulence. Thank god for autocorrect.
You should complain to the stewardess, "look, I don't mind a little turbulence, but its really fucking with my ability to comment on Hubski". You flying Delta? Have a ginger cookie for me. LOVE those things.
That's what Xanax was invented for -they go particularly well with alcohol. Good luck pal.
Sorry you had a bad flight, I don't get "scared" either but Xanax can be fun ;) Never really tried it much but I have a buddy that swears by it for flying purposes. Sleep, wake up and you're there.
I can see the perspective, but I doubt it will win Michigan for him. The problem with Mitt's argument, IMHO, was that the private capital wasn't there at that moment of freefall. Due to the credit crunch, it would have been a very disorderly bankruptcy, and a lot more suppliers and dealers would have gone under as a result. But in any case, I don't think Romney has much of a shot here in MI. He hasn't been running ads for some time.
Interesting. I'd be shocked if Romney won Michigan. I'd also be shocked if Obama won North Carolina. It will be an interesting evening, no doubt about it.