The 2012 Republican Primary thread, early edition

[calicoug]

GM and Chrysler eventually went through bankruptcy anyway, no?

Mitt will just point out that he was right. The companies went through restructuring of their obligations through bankruptcy and now they can move forward. The mistake was wasting all that time and money trying to avoid bankruptcy.

Not all bankruptcies are created alike. GM and Chrysler were going to go through a firesale, not an orderly transition through Chapter 11. Yes- they went through bankruptcy, but the only reason they weren't sold off piecemeal was due to government intervention. The orderly process was what was sought- not an avoidance of bankruptcy.

You can argue whether that was a good or a bad thing, but voters in Michigan might have a different opinion than you.

[San Juan Sun]

Not all bankruptcies are created alike. GM and Chrysler were going to go through a firesale, not an orderly transition through Chapter 11. Yes- they went through bankruptcy, but the only reason they weren't sold off piecemeal was due to government intervention. The orderly process was what was sought- not an avoidance of bankruptcy.

You can argue whether that was a good or a bad thing, but voters in Michigan might have a different opinion than you.

I live in Michigan, and have followed Romney closely for the last five years. He was for an orderly bankruptcy process, rather than the boondoggle American citizens got. I'm sure that Mitt and his financ background will be ably to reasonably explain his position.

I don't sense any major antipathy to Mitt here, although I readily admit that I wouldn't feel comfortable predicting a win for Mitt in Mi yet.

Also, in a previous post you mentioned GM and Ford as needing government intervention. FWIW, Ford has done well over the last decade and did not take any federal assistance.

[LA Ute]

Not all bankruptcies are created alike. GM and Chrysler were going to go through a firesale, not an orderly transition through Chapter 11. Yes- they went through bankruptcy, but the only reason they weren't sold off piecemeal was due to government intervention. The orderly process was what was sought- not an avoidance of bankruptcy.

You can argue whether that was a good or a bad thing, but voters in Michigan might have a different opinion than you.

Mitt was proposing a managed bankruptcy, not the garden-variety Chapter 11 proceeding. There's a pretty balanced analysis of that here:

Was the auto bailout Mitt Romney's idea?

Mitt Romney is saying that the auto bailout looks a lot like what he suggested in 2008. Yes, and no. But there are good reasons why Romney's bringing it up – and why Dems are fighting back....

[calicoug]

I live in Michigan, and have followed Romney closely for the last five years. He was for an orderly bankruptcy process, rather than the boondoggle American citizens got. I'm sure that Mitt and his financ background will be ably to reasonably explain his position.

I don't sense any major antipathy to Mitt here, although I readily admit that I wouldn't feel comfortable predicting a win for Mitt in Mi yet.

Also, in a previous post you mentioned GM and Ford as needing government intervention. FWIW, Ford has done well over the last decade and did not take any federal assistance.

You're right- Chrysler, not Ford.

[calicoug]

Mitt was proposing a managed bankruptcy, not the garden-variety Chapter 11 proceeding. There's a pretty balanced analysis of that here:

Was the auto bailout Mitt Romney's idea?

Kind of. Mitt used the phrase managed bankruptcy, but he was clear that he wanted no government cash to go to the auto companies. Those concepts quickly became incompatible.

Nobody had responded to my point on economics. Clearly economics needs to be his issue, but what's his plan? When you think of Republican economic proposals, whose plans come to mind? I don't think Mitt's.

[LA Ute]

Kind of. Mitt used the phrase managed bankruptcy, but he was clear that he wanted no government cash to go to the auto companies. Those concepts quickly became incompatible.

Nobody had responded to my point on economics. Clearly economics needs to be his issue, but what's his plan? When you think of Republican economic proposals, whose plans come to mind? I don't think Mitt's.

If he becomes the nominee, we'll hear plenty about them.

The Wall Street Journal was kind of lukewarm about his 59-point plan, and you may find that reassuring.

Here's what his campaign says about it. Amazing what Googling "Mitt Romney's Economic Plan" will show you.

All that said, I have a hunch that no matter what, you won't be voting for Mitt. This renders our attempts to respond to your demands that we defend all his policy positions somewhat...pointless.

[calicoug]

If he becomes the nominee, we'll hear plenty about them.

The Wall Street Journal was kind of lukewarm about his 59-point plan, and you may find that reassuring.

Here's what his campaign says about it. Amazing what Googling "Mitt Romney's Economic Plan" will show you.

All that said, I have a hunch that no matter what, you won't be voting for Mitt. This renders our attempts to respond to your demands that we defend all his policy positions somewhat...pointless.

You missed my point entirely. I know he has a plan and I have read it (and the WSJ article). That's not his issue. His issue is that his plan is far less known than the competing plans of other Republicans despite the fact that Mitt is supposed to be the economics candidate. Mitt is allowing others to take up a big presence in his territory and he isn't, so far, being aggressive enough to reclaim the territory.

Of all Republicans running, Mitt would definitely be the best president. Unfortunately for him, he is also among the worst of the group at campaigning.

[Jacob]

I don't like Rick Santorum. I wish he would go away.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”:
SANTORUM: [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

I wouldn't mind a candidate opposing funding contraception on federalist or limited government grounds. But do I want a president preaching Catholic doctrine on contraception? Hell no. And that appears to be exactly what Santorum is saying he'd do.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/

Disclaimer: I wouldn't mind a president getting more than a little preachy about family values like the importance of marriage before having children, fathers taking care of their kids and families, etc.

[LA Ute]

You missed my point entirely.

I don't think so, but we can agree to disagree.

[woot]

I don't like Rick Santorum. I wish he would go away.


I wouldn't mind a candidate opposing funding contraception on federalist or limited government grounds. But do I want a president preaching Catholic doctrine on contraception? Hell no. And that appears to be exactly what Santorum is saying he'd do.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/

Disclaimer: I wouldn't mind a president getting more than a little preachy about family values like the importance of marriage before having children, fathers taking care of their kids and families, etc.

I agree that Santorum is way out of line with that stuff, and I would further argue that the supposedly freedom-loving republicans should despise him for thinking the government should be in the business of controlling sexual behavior. Incidentally, I would say the same about marrying before having children, etc. That's simply none of the government's business.

[il Padrino Ute]

I agree that Santorum is way out of line with that stuff, and I would further argue that the supposedly freedom-loving republicans should despise him for thinking the government should be in the business of controlling sexual behavior. Incidentally, I would say the same about marrying before having children, etc. That's simply none of the government's business.

Agreed 100%.

[YOhio]

Trump to moderate GOP debate. Do Republicans have any interest in being taken seriously? I wonder if any candidates are willing to boycott the event.

[Jacob]

Trump to moderate GOP debate. Do Republicans have any interest in being taken seriously? I wonder if any candidates are willing to boycott the event.

Absurd. But no more absurd than having Jim Cramer ask a few questions in a debate, which CNBC recently did. Or having a youtube debate. It's all quite absurd. I'd guess trump gets a question or two a la Cramer or the tolkein latino journalist who inevitably asks about immigration policy and whether you would really deport 11m, or 20m people and break up families. But if Trump is moderating an entire debate, I'd hope some candidates would boycott.

[LA Ute]

Trump to moderate GOP debate.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

[Moliere]

Trump to moderate GOP debate. Do Republicans have any interest in being taken seriously? I wonder if any candidates are willing to boycott the event.

Awesome! I might finally watch one of these things.