Romney should have nailed and explained the basis for the lie that Obama and his admin/campaign have been using all week by referencing the specifics of that one sentence. Instead, he went with a question and doubt that was a big hanging softball for Candy.
Also, as whenever the auto companies come up, Romney gets into his ‘yes, I advocated bankruptcy but that’s what you ended up doing yourself—and it was the right thing to do’ mode. That ends up leaving Romney endorsing and praising what Obama did. Absolutely incredible.
Romney ought to tie the fact that Obama took the companies through bankruptcy with that he violated contract law and used crony-capitalism powers to coerce bondholders to give up their standing and to give a great big sweetheart deal to the unions, while also assuring that they didn’t take a necessary haircut through the bankruptcy process and therefore the companies are still not competitive. Oh, and in the meantime, he forced the closing of all those dealerships across the country that happened to be owned by conservatives.
This gives him an opening for all kinds of anti-leftist and anti-corruption points. But no, he didn’t do that at all.
Finally, in another example, we’ve got the energy discussion and A123, one of Obama’s biggest pet/donor ‘green energy’ companies, having filed for bankruptcy this week—taking down all of the borrowed money from China that Obama gave them with it. But Romney didn’t raise this issue or link this point at all.
Why not?
It drives me crazy that Romney has SO MANY openings but won’t use them. As you point out:
* Illegally tossing centuries of contract law in the dustbin in favor of unions and destroying life savings of bond holders
* Crony-driven closing of dealerships
* Failing to properly restructure GM and Chrysler as a true bankruptcy would, again in favor of unions
* Favoring Delphi union retirement plans and robbing Delphi white collar retirement plans
* A hundred billion dollars flushed down the “green energy crony hole” with A123 going bankrupt THE SAME DAY as the debate.
Romney is too cream-puff on these point. Or maybe he and his advisors think the public won’t understand them. Or make him look too wonkish. Who knows why they won’t use them.
I have no doubt Romney knows the bankruptcy business far better than does Obamugabe, and he may well have OTHER REASONS he doesn't want to talk about it on a national broadcast.
You are only partly correct. Romney wants to carry Michigan and Ohio. He'd have done fine with accusing Zero with robbing Delphi pensions and killing the jobs in dealerships, and then there's the bogus crap about the heavily subsidized Volt still costing over $50,000 and still losing a bundle.
Addressing how their jobs might have been more secure after the bankruptcy process is just too complex for a debate setting. Worse, while it is the economically correct option, advocating bankruptcy might well cost him the election with working class voters in those States.
Is that what you want?