March 31, 2009

Okay Romniacs, Explain THIS

Filed under: Economy,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:24 pm

The transcript will follow later (maybe as late as tomorrow).

Here’s the headline and first few paragraphs at the Hill:

RomneyPraisesBHOonGM0309

Note well: There is NOT ONE WORD of criticism in the above, in the full article, or in the video at the link of President ‘Prompter’s heavyhanded, unprecedented, and clearly clearly extra-constitutional intervention in GM’s management.

Why should this surprise anyone? Mitt Romney “don’t need no stinkin’ Constitutions.” They only get in the way of him imposing his will on his peons.

Romney betrayed his alleged core beliefs at least twice while he was governor of Massachusetts, on same-sex “marriage” and tax-subsidized abortions. Both times he falsely cited constitutional constraints that not only weren’t there, but were in fact the opposite of what he claimed. In doing so, he has shown that, like the White House’s current occupant, he is Objectively Unfit to be president.

Romney’s support of Obama’s actions at General Government Motors betrays the likelihood that he would expect similar latitude to do as he pleases as President. What else could possibly explain his willingness to overlook Rick Wagoner’s sacking?

The following is the short list of Romney fans who had about 36 hours to criticize Obama for what he did before Romney went on CNN early this morning. Many have, or are surely about to: Ann Coulter; Mark Levin (I heard him rip into Obama last night), Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity (I heard him rip into Obama yesterday afternoon).

If we don’t hear them criticize Romney quickly, and strongly, it will be difficult to continue to take them seriously, or at least not to assume that they operate with a blind spot that is potentially lethal to sensible, constitution-based conservatism as we know it.

Hugh Hewitt, as usual, is keeping his principle-free options open, warning us against “falling into a fever.” This is the same Hugh Hewitt who was okey-dokey with Tax Cheat and Proven Liar Tim Geithner getting the wave-through, and, five years ago, sticking with Arlen Specter, whose support made passing the POS (Pork Over-Stuffed) stimulus bill possible, instead of Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania primary. How are those go-along get-alongs working out, Hugh?

Hewitt’s posture is reason to expect no meaningful outcry from mainstream $ocial con$ervatives.

There’s a lot of deadly silence out there. It’s not only on what Obama has done, which is bad enough. But to see the GOP’s second-most recognized figure selling out what we hold dear is really, really hard to take.

______________________________________________

UPDATE, April 1: Here’s a transcript –

Romney: I think a lot of people expected the president just to cave and to write a big check, and just hope for the better. I’m glad that he’s expressing some backbone on this and saying to those guys, “Hey, you’ve gotta get your house in order or you guys are gone. You’re going to go to bankruptcy.” That’s something I think he should have said months ago. There were a numbers of us who said that bankruptcy or a bankruptcy-like process was something that was needed to get GM and Chrysler, y’know, on their feet again. But by the way, kudos to Ford for running itself independently and apparently making a go of it on its own.

CNN Host: Now let me just bring you back to what you were saying about bankruptcy. In fact, you offered to call him on it. You said, quote, “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.” Do you still think that that’s the best idea, to allow these companies to go into bankruptcy, restructure, then emerge?

Romney: Well it’s clear that just writing checks is not the answer. It really keeps the bondholders and the UAW and other stakeholders from taking the necessary haircuts that allow these companies to be competitive. You either have to go through a bankruptcy process, a pre-packaged bankruptcy, or special legislation giving an entity the power to get these companies through these difficult times. Or, if the parties want to do it voluntarily, great, but if they can’t do that — and apparently at this stage it’s looking like they haven’t been able to — then you’re going to have to have that kind of a club to get these companies to be able to restructure their excessive costs.

CNN Host: A couple of minutes ago, Jon Stewart made the joke about the government backing warranties here. The government’s gotten involved in so many things, backing warranties, guaranteeing bank accounts, buying up toxic assets. There was an interesting line in the New York Times this morning, quote, it said, “It means that the government is not only the ultimate guarantor of saving accounts and insurance policies – it will also cover that blown transmission.” The question that I had, in the next 30 days is, why would anyone but a Chrysler product, and in the next 60 days why would anyone but a General Motors product when they don’t know what the future of these companies is going to be, regardless of whether the government is backing the warranties?

Romney: Well, that’s in fact that’s why a number of folks, myself included, pointed out, said last November, “Don’t just write checks.” Because you’re sealing the fate of these companies, unless you help them restructure. Give confidence to the American people that they’re going to be here forever. If you don’t do that, well, just putting $17 billion into them is going to be wasted, and also, ultimately, seal their fate. You’ve got to get these companies back on a track where it shows that they can be successful and viable. That can only happen if they’re fundamentally restructured. Just writing checks, just saying you’re going to protect warranties, that’s not enough.

CNN Host: …. Mary Matalin thinks you’re going to be run again in 2012. You’re doing some things that many people believe would lay the foundation for a run in 2012. Would you this morning rule out a run for the presidency in 2012?

Romney: That is a horizon too far away to possibly speculate on. I love what Yogi Berra said. I can’t get it exactly right, but it’s something like this: “I don’t like forecasting, particularly if the future’s involved.”

Share

10 Comments

  1. Maybe the republicans got a warning from the Chicago mob, the black panthers and/or ACORN, oppose our boy and your family dies.

    Comment by Scrapiron — March 31, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

  2. Good thinking, Scrapiron. Or maybe Romney has decided to put America and Americans ahead of the Party.

    Comment by Tony B. — April 1, 2009 @ 12:10 am

  3. #2, you’re just a barrel of laughs.

    A statist reveals his true authoritarian colors and you play the “patriotism” card.

    What a lemming.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 1, 2009 @ 6:18 am

  4. #2 or maybe Romney like many business people make the mistake of throwing good money after bad because they become emotionally attached to saving what should be allowed to die. What makes Romney a RINO is his emotionalism clouding what should be an unemotional calculation. What makes Romney unacceptable to religious conservatives is his compromise with morality. People like Romney are consistent in their compromise with principles and they rationalize it so convincingly making them IMO more insidiously dangerous to society than self identified Democrats. I prefer to know whom my enemies are, and actually can respect them for their honesty. A RINO is at worst a deceiver or at best deceived by their muddled thinking, both are a wolf in sheep’s clothing as it were.

    Comment by dscott — April 1, 2009 @ 10:01 am

  5. #4 – People like Romney are consistent in their compromise with principles and they rationalize it so convincingly making them IMO more insidiously dangerous to society than self identified Democrats.

    Bingo.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 1, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

  6. Point goes to #4. >;o)

    Comment by Rose — April 2, 2009 @ 9:18 am

  7. Ironic also that Romniacs do the same thing Obamniacs do when their hypocrite is exposed; only instead of claiming “racism,” Romniacs claim bigotry against mormons.

    If they take the “m” out of the middle of that word, they might be onto something…

    Comment by Rose — April 2, 2009 @ 9:30 am

  8. Nope, Romney is busy with his buddy and backer Karmanos, making sure K.Kilpatrick is living high in Dallas. After all, buba Scott Romney sits on the board of Compuwear—K Kilpatrick out of jail, heads home to Dallas to a three thousand dollar a month rental home, new car and private school for the kiddies. Wifey Kilpatrick moved to the nest in December — who was paying the rent? K Kilpatrick now has a big time job with Karmanos — working on what? Electronic medical records. To think about it–What happened to Tamara Greens medical records at DMC.

    Mitt is just smoozing trying to get on a good side with Obama.

    Comment by Rhett ;-) — April 2, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

  9. #8, Mitt is just smoozing trying to get on a good side with Obama.

    To what end?

    Comment by TBlumer — April 2, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

  10. If Romney is making a postive remarks- after all the bashing, he has a motive.
    I hear there are more working their way up to have a run for president. Newt is talking about a third party coming out of the Republcians. SC gov’s name was mentiond on NPR, yesterday. They gave a list of contenders’ and Mitts name was not mentioned.

    Comment by Rhett :-O — April 3, 2009 @ 7:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.