Democrats are trying their best to celebrate Chrysler’s freedom from federal loans by recalling the Republican presidential candidates’ statements from 2008-09 in opposition to any Washington assistance.
Now that the Chrysler loan program is an unqualified success, this strategy may work in the upper Midwest, or at least in Michigan.
The resurrection of past statements also brings up a whopper of a flip-flop from the 2008 campaign by Mitt Romney, son of George Romney, an auto executive. Just prior to the Michigan presidential primary in ’08, Romney jumped all over opponent John McCain for “a little straight talk” in which the Arizona senator said most of the lost auto jobs won’t be coming back. That statement seems fairly tame by today’s realities.
Romney blasted McCain’s gloomy view in January 2008 but later wrote an opinion piece in which he essentially advocated letting the Big Three automakers die, rather than handing out bridge loans.
Earlier today,  former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, and UAW President Bob King discussed the outcome of  President Obama’s decision to expand the bailout loans for automakers that were initiated by George W. Bush. 
They talked about the positions taken by Romney and Tim Pawlenty to let Detroit go bankrupt and contrasted that stance with Chrysler’s remarkable turnaround.
Here’s a part of Granholm’s statement:
“President Obama’s strategic and smart intervention saved more than a million jobs. He saved the manufacturing backbone of America. GM and Chrysler are profitable again. They are hiring workers, they are adding shifts, they are bringing back workers who were laid off, and we can feel it in Michigan.
“There were a lot of prominent Republicans who criticized the president’s (2009) decision. Mitt Romney wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times, ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,’  and said helping the auto industry would hasten their demise.
Now look where we are today. So, when Michigan families needed support the most, Mitt Romney decided it was a good time to earn some conservative credentials and abandoned those who needed a pragmatic solution. It was the president who stepped up.
“If Mitt Romney and these other Republicans had their way, Michigan families, and Midwestern families, would have been left out in the cold and would have lost their jobs and their way of life.  These voters aren’t going to forget who stood with them when needed it.”
Here’s an excerpt from Strickland, referring to his home state of Ohio, perhaps the most strategically important state in presidential politics:
“Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, (Gingrich) and Pawlenty were all adamant that this assistance to the auto industry shouldn’t have happened. But what we’re seeing in Ohio is 6,000 jobs added from March 2010 to March 2011. There was a recent announcement that Chrysler and GM are investing more in Ohio, in new manufacturing plants and that will mean more workers.
“… Anyone who says President Obama’s decision to help the auto industry out is anything short of a success is crazy. 
“So, we’re asking those naysayers who want to be pPresident, how are you going to explain your position when you come to Ohio and ask these workers for their vote? They’ve got some explaining to do.”
And here’s King from the UAW:

“Manufacturing affects businesses across the country. These jobs sustain families and communities. I couldn’t believe how Mitt Romney, coming from Michigan, his dad playing such a big role in the industry, could say just let the industry go down the tubes?
“…We’re going to make sure our membership remembers who stood with them. Salaried, hourly, union, non-union — all these workers — they’re going to remember the president stood up for them and helped save their jobs.“
Sure, it’s propaganda, but in a few Midwestern states where voters already perceive an attack on unionized workers, including Wisconsin and Indiana, this sales pitch could have an impact.

Recent Posts: