Romney apparently subscribes to the theory that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.
Todd Spangler in the Detroit Free Press "Romney auto ad ignores the facts--and industry job growth in U.S.
The ad: Mitt Romney, on the campaign trail in Ohio, repeats a false story about Jeep moving production jobs to China, then follows it up with an ad that many say tacitly suggests the same -- even though Chrysler is not doing so. Vice President Joe Biden called it "one of the most flagrantly dishonest ads" he'd ever seen.
The background: Trailing in most polls in the key battleground state of Ohio, Romney told a crowd Oct. 25 in Defiance that he read a story that Jeep is moving jobs to China. It's not true, and officials reject the claim, noting that Jeep is adding thousands of jobs in Detroit and Toledo. Romney followed up the false claim, though, with an ad in which he says he'd do more for the auto industry than President Barack Obama and that Jeep is "going to build Jeeps in China," without mentioning its expansion plans in the U.S.
The facts: Obama and Romney have been circling each other on the auto issue for months and, if anything, the waters have gotten murkier. Obama's campaign has said repeatedly that Romney wanted to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," as his November 2008 editorial in the New York Times was headlined. Romney -- correctly -- has noted that Obama did as his editorial suggested and ran the companies through a structured bankruptcy.
But now, with this new ad, Romney appears to criticize Obama, saying he "took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians." (As far as we know, Fiat's bosses were the only folks around interested.)
The only thing clear is that Obama and the government's investment in the companies -- and, yes, the sale of Chrysler to Fiat -- is widely hailed as keeping the auto industry from all but shutting down in 2008 and 2009. As for Jeep making products in China: They are interested in returning to production there, but lots of carmakers build in China to escape high import tariffs. But both companies have chided the Romney campaign for the ads because thousands of jobs have been created and continue to be created in the U.S.
The response: After Biden made his comment last week, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, simply noted that Chrysler (and General Motors) are expanding production overseas and that: "These are facts that voters deserve to know." Again, he did not make note of the companies' turn to profitability or those hired since 2009.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 2311040343
The fake Red Cross donation campaign he staged there was just as bad as that photo op of Ryan washing the already-clean pan in that closed soup kitchen, too, and a good indicator of how useless and selfish he is during a disaster. I'll lose all faith in humanity if these things somehow give him traction in Ohio.
The fake disaster responses were a new low in politics. The challenger will always be forced to the sidelines while the incumbent is allowed to display their capabilities, but to fake a food giveaway was so out of tune that I suspect serious mental issues.
"If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- Lenin (Vladimir, not John)
I will be so glad when this election is over, and all of these smear campaigns end.
Both sides have resorted to this, and it's totally demeaning to all of us that we continue to fall in with either side, and spread the nastiness even farther...
I don't like the nasty campaigning, but there's some behavior that just can't be ignored. The Romney campaign -- not some right-wing fringe group, but the campaign itself -- has issued a training manual for election day that tells its volunteer workers how to actively disrupt and delay voting by getting in the way of voters and challenging their right to be there to cast a vote. Romney has personally called CEOs of companies and encouraged them to pressure their employees to vote for Romney and to stress that their are negative consequences for Romney not getting elected. These kinds of strong-armed tactics are reminiscent of some of the stuff that was happening in the late twenties and early thirties in Germany. If someone used these tactics on you -- if you got accosted at the polls or your employer told you who you should vote for, would you like it? Just because these tactics don't impact you doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to them. What happens if for some reason you get on Romney's list of people who should be messed with?
This goes far beyond smear campaigns; this attacks people's basic rights and goes to the core of our democracy. I'm not usually a particularly partisan individual, but the kind of behavior I've mentioned is making huge alarm bells go off in my head.
And tell me why this means we should vote for Obama instead.
We should vote for Obama because what he will do is predictable and his actions will continue to encourage the gradual economic recovery in this country and his cautious foreign policy.
Who knows what Romney will do? Attack Iran? Cut taxes for the 2 percenters? Privatize Social Security?
Turn Medicare into a voucher program which would make seniors eat future increases in health care costs without doing anything to curb the escalation? Repeal the banking regulations in Dodd Frank which, although inadequate, are designed to help prevent another meltdown like the one in 2008? Appoint a couple of Supreme Court justices, applying a repeal Roe v Wade litmus test? Prolong the war in Afghanistan? Increase defense spending beyond the request from the Pentagon? Extend our military commitments around the world?
First of all, I'm not sure what "gradual economic recovery" nor "cautious foreign policy" you're talking about. From where I sit I see a significantly stunted economy and a continuation of American militarism. Obama would be predictably bad, in my opinion.
Romney probably will attack Iran, but there is nothing to say that Obama will not - he's basically put everything on the table but diplomacy when it comes to it. The drone bombing, invading Libya and undermining governments in that area is also not diplomatic, nor "cautious". He's following Bush-ist foreign policy - there are still troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for crying out loud.
Dodd Frank is irrelevant if Obama uses the same stimulus driven, bubble-creating economic policy that caused the collapse in the first place, which he is, and Romney has said nothing to suggest he wouldn't join in on that parade either.
What's either of them doing about the police state and the drug war? Oh, that's right, zip.
He knows that it's true.
It sounds like he has some explaining to do about some of his accusations and dealings. Ohio is not looking good for Romney. http://www.gregpalast.com/did-the-romne … thics-law/
more related links in Ralph's R.I.P Romney thread.
The explanation for Romney's lies is simple. He has a disrespect and disdain for voters, reporters, and the truth.
Fiat does have plans to build Jeeps in Italy (and possibly China), according to a recent article in Motor Trend. They would then be sold in Europe, but, since it was US taxpayers who bailed out Chrysler/Fiat, and not the Italians or the Chinese, any jobs created ought to be American jobs, no matter where the Jeeps are sold.
Build new Jeep plants here in the US and do not allow Fiat to build any Chrysler product outside the US. Remember who bailed them out!
Hang on... No one bailed out Fiat they bought Chrysler after the collapse from the US treasury... Actually a good thing for the US... They don't owe us anything. It makes absolutely no sense in any way shape or form to force Fiat to make cars here to then ship to Europe, completely ridiculous.
"Hang on... No one bailed out Fiat they bought Chrysler after the collapse from the US treasury... Actually a good thing for the US... They don't owe us anything. It makes absolutely no sense in any way shape or form to force Fiat to make cars here to then ship to Europe, completely ridiculous."
Utter nonsense. Obama used US taxpayer money to bail out Chrysler, so he should have made it part of the deal that all jobs created must be jobs for Americans in America!
If he did not (and I'm sure that he didn't!), that is massive incompetence, and clear evidence that he does not know what he is doing.
It is patently absurd to bail out a company on the backs of American taxpayers, and then allow that company to send jobs overseas! That's the sort of thing leftists accuse Romney of doing, but that's exactly what Obama did with Chrysler!
You can't impose conditions on a company that hasn't even bought the thing yet, they bailed out Chrysler NOT Fiat so Fiat has no obligations whatsoever. Also as noted it would be beyond stupid for a European company (Fiat) to make cars for Europe in America and then ship them back to Europe it's just mindbogglingly dumb. DO you... Do you understand how business works? You are supposed to REDUCE overheads. Christ.
Chrysler isn't "sending any jobs overseas." Whatever they do in China or Europe will be a plus for Chrysler U.S.
Do you seriously think GM and Chrysler or any other corporation should be prohibited from participating in foreign markets? Curious position for a conservative or whatever you are.
In any case, Romney did not lie...Fiat does have plans to build Jeeps outside the US after Obama used American taxpayer money to save Chrysler! It may be in China or it may be in Italy, but the point remains the same...Romney told the truth!
Chrysler has repaid its loan from the US government.
Chrysler is not sending US jobs overseas.
GM and Chrysler execs have both denounced the Romney insinuations.
At this point, it's really weird to see anyone still defending Romney's points. They have been thoroughly debunked and denounced in the press -- and by auto industry insiders as well.
Auto companies hit back against Romney ads
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) – Democrats on Tuesday ramped up their pressure on the Romney campaign over two new ads on the auto bailout, as each side sought to sway voters in the crucial battleground state of Ohio.
Spokespeople for Obama's re-election effort pointed to quotes from General Motors and Chrysler executives blasting Mitt Romney over a new round of ads that accuse the auto giants of shifting jobs overseas.
"The ad is cynical campaign politics at its worst," General Motors spokesman Greg Martin told The New York Times. "We think creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back in this country should be a source of bipartisan pride."
The Romney radio ad, which aired in Ohio Tuesday, claims GM plans to double the number of cars built in China and that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in the same country.
"Mitt Romney: He'll stand up for the auto industry in Ohio, not China," the ad's narrator concludes.
The ad follows a television spot released over the weekend, which makes the same argument and faced wide criticism in recent days for its accuracy.
"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China," the television spot's narrator says.
Romney originally floated that idea at a rally in Defiance, Ohio last week. He quoted a report about the majority owner of Chrysler, Fiat, saying it was considering producing its signature Jeep in China.
However, the Bloomberg report to which Romney was apparently referring said that the potential move would only affect cars produced for Chinese consumers.
Chrysler Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Gualberto Ranieri emphatically denied the possibility U.S. production would be affected, writing in an online posting, "Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China."
The ad was rated "Pants on Fire" by the independent, fact-checking group PolitiFact.com.
Martin, the GM representative, said Romney's ads show that the candidate is "bereft of any fundamental understanding of the global automotive industry. "All global manufacturers, whether General Motors, Ford, Chrysler or VW, build historically in the markets in which we sell," he continued.
Romney's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
– CNN's Rachel Streitfel, Gregory
"You can't impose conditions on a company that hasn't even bought the thing yet, they bailed out Chrysler NOT Fiat so Fiat has no obligations whatsoever. '
Obviously, you don't know any more about business than Obama! It's called a 'condition of sale', and as the ones who bailed Chrysler out, we taxpayers owned Chrysler and should have made it part of the sale.
In any case, Romney was right... taxpayer bailed out Jeeps will be built outside the US!
Romney did not lie.
Obviously you struggle with the concept of "lie" it's when someone says something that isn't true.
"Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," ~ Romney
Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie
See that's Romney lying I literally cannot make this any clearer.
Chrysler did not pay back in full:
I suspect that we will soon see all kinds of new jobs under President Romney.
From the Washington Post:
"In Romney’s ad, the narrator says, “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.” But Chrysler is considering expanding its Chinese operations for the Chinese market, not eliminating American jobs."
He did not say 'all Jeeps", Josak, so if there was a lie, it is yours.
In any case, Romney was right...taxpayer bailed out Chrysler will build Jeeps overseas instead of in America.
If you read the title of the forum it's: Romney Still Lying Away in Ohio!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-5 … dustry-ad/
In a speech in Ohio:
"Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," ~ Romney
I know this is really complicated maybe you can figure it out? Try really hard.
Chrysler paid back all the money the Obama government lent them and created and kept many jobs in the US which equals a complete success. Now cars that are going to be sold in Europe are going to be made in Europe who would have thunk it!
Let's look at this another way.
We get that you are patently unable or unwilling to accept the fact checking and the auto industry executives that the claims made in Romney's speech in Defiance (Freudian, that one ), Ohio and his TV ad and radio ad.
But what you appear to be arguing now is that the United States government should be dictating how Chrysler whould manufacture and market its products. Jeeps, specifically.
You are saying that as a condition of the bailout, the US government (or the US taxpayers) should have demanded that Chrysler agree to only make/sell its products domestically.
There is a word for government control over the means of production.
You are advocating SOCIALISM.
"There is a word for government control over the means of production.
You are advocating SOCIALISM."
Not at all. I support what Romney supported and that was to let them go through bankruptcy protection, reorganize, shed oppressive union obligations, and emerge as a new and vibrant company. I never supported the bailouts.
There are 10:1 articles that show that traditional bankruptcy would not have worked. They would not have been able to come through it, given the economic times and simultaneous meltdown of the financial industry.
However, Chrysler did emerge as a nimble, vibrant, profitable company.
Adding US jobs and planning to add more.
But what you said above is that the US government should have made it a condition of stimulus funding that Chrysler agree to NEVER expand its operations outside of the US.
That's the part that is funny.
You don't agree with the stimulus.
But if they were going to do it, they should have done it your way.
Now you're criticizing Obama for NOT turning Chrysler socialist!!!
Oh, the insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop it, I tell you, stop it! I can't...........
I can't take another mo%^***&%#)_
"Do you seriously think GM and Chrysler or any other corporation should be prohibited from participating in foreign markets?"
"Participating in foreign markets?"
Funny way of saying, "build Jeeps overseas".
If Americans bail them out, Americans should build the cars. It ain't rocket science.
But now you are admitting that your original premise was false, so my work here is done.
"But what you said above is that the US government should have made it a condition of stimulus funding that Chrysler agree to NEVER expand its operations outside of the US."
I've been debating long enough to know when someone is trying to put words in my mouth. Let them expand to the Moon for all I care, but keep the jobs here in the US.
BTW, aren't you people the same ones who used to scream about moving jobs overseas?
But now that your god is doing it, maybe not so much?
So wait your two point here have been Romney didn't lie which we already proved with a sourced quote that he indeed did and that we should force a European company to build cars for Europe in America and then somehow also ship them across and remain competitive...
Yeah I think this one is wrapped up, try an economics text book and a dictionary.
I love it when liberals try to tell you what your point was..falsely of course.
But if that's all you have...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
Romney's Lie: Romney told a rally in Defiance, Ohio, that he'd "seen a story--that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by Italians, is thinking of MOVING ALL PRODUCTION TO CHINA."The truth: Chrysler is in the process of investing $500 million at a Jeep plant in...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
Robert Shrum in the Daily Beast:"The campaign has come down to a race between Mitt’s media and Mitt’s mistakes—and the mistakes are winning..."In a last-ditch attempt to crack Ohio and Michigan, Romney has now resorted to advertising an outright lie—that Chrysler’s Jeep division will soon...
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
WHat do you think?I think the Dems are finally learning to play in the mud. Yay!Democrats to Romnney: 'Stop whining' over felony remarkPosted byCNN's Kevin Liptak(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as...
by Dr Billy Kidd 8 years ago
From several exchanges, I learned why some people are voting for Romney. It is because Romney will launch a war against Iran. Generally, it is said that Muslims will attack the U.S. again. And that Iran will use nukes, maybe suitcase bombs. Muslim, socialist Obama won't stop it from happening.Now,...
by American View 8 years ago
Obama Campaing never learn, keep taking things out of context, spinning them and then present them in a false light.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … political/
by Chad Thiele 8 years ago
Will the rumors that Mitt Romney's son owns voting machines influence the election results in Ohio?There has been controversy over the presidential election results in key swing states in recent years (Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004). This year, rumors are already spreading in the state of Ohio...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|