Twitter Wars: Chrysler Exec Tweets Romney “Full of … Well, You Know.”

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

No word yet if the Moon is in the seventh house or if Jupiter has aligned with Mars but something curious is happening among the monied gentry that form the Republican base. Seems Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is being called out and dissed by the “family.” First, NJ governor Chris Christie, once thought of as a possible Romney running mate for VP, praises Obama for his FEMA support after Hurricane Sandy (and juxtaposed with Romney’s call to end FEMA), and now Chrysler exec. Ralph Gilles calls Romney a liar and full of something rhyming with Mitt.

What prompted Giles’ ire was a tweeted claim by the candidate that, “Obama is a terrible negotiator. He bails out Chrysler and now Chrysler wants to send all Jeep manufacturing to China–and will!”  The responding electronic  salvo from Gilles was blunt and scatological, “”You are full of sh*t!”  Gilles later apologized for his language, but his sentiment was backed up by Chrysler Group LLC Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne who emailed employees that, “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

Romney had claimed at a speech in swing state Ohio that he read a news article flatly stating that all Jeep production was moving.  Jeep has a huge assembly facility in Toledo, so the claim hit like an Arctic blast to a state with 7% unemployment (down from 10.5 % in 2010). Marchionne, who heads both Chrysler and Fiat, seemed to blame Romney’s possible dyslexia saying Jeep production in China would be for the Chinese market, and that the company would not take any production away from Chrysler’s U.S. plants. Rather, he said, Chrysler is adding jobs and investment at its Ohio plant.

No word yet on what Romney read. Maybe the polls in Ohio showing him trailing by 3-4 percentage points.

What makes the two circumstances interesting is the public nature of the family dispute. It’s rare that any Republican strays from Ronald Reagan’s cult like (and faintly un-American) “11th Commandment’ that,  “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Even more rare is upsetting the guy you think might be the next President — unless, that is, you don’t ….

Source: Huffington Post

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

114 thoughts on “Twitter Wars: Chrysler Exec Tweets Romney “Full of … Well, You Know.”

  1. Mitt, Mitt, bo bitt
    banna fanna fo fit
    Fee fi fo bit
    Mitt shi_

    If the first two letters are ever the same you drop them both and say the name
    Like ,,,

    -name game

  2. Aaaaah Finally, someone willing to tell the truth…. Too bad we don’t have a few politicians like this man….

  3. We dont need no FEMA. New Orleans can take care of New Orleans in Katrina. Fly over and look, thats enough. New Yorkies can take care of New Yorkies. Same with them Jerseyites.
    Now, if the storm ever takes out the banks in the Cayjmans then the U.S. will have to help out. Or if Pakistan needs some money or Iraq needs to “Rebuild” in the words of Bushie Two.
    Yes folks, vote for the gypsie and he will do your driveway when it gets washed out by some schmuck named Sandy.

  4. In order to garner a few votes Romney was willing to trash Chrysler’s hard won market share with falsehoods he could then slough off on some mysterious news article that can’t, to date, be found. Romney must really hate American Auto.

  5. Apparently, Romney made Christie mad by not only not picking him for VP but also not telling him that he had already chosen Ryan. If Romney had chosen Christie, he probably would be winning not losing Ohio.

  6. blouise17

    Its not that Willard hates American auto manufacturers. Its that he simply loves himself so much more. Anything he damages or destroys was worthless anyway as long as he gets what he wants. See: Bain Crapital.

    Sociopath has become the dominant feature of todays GOP sadly.

  7. Sometimes republican Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama. He believes that climate change is occurring and cannot support a party that is anti-science.

  8. I’m not surprised by this campaigning method from the GOP nominee. When their surrogates state that fact checking is of little importance, this is the end result; more lies.

  9. So Gov. Crisco (sic) talks about storm aid and disaster relief — something reality-based — and the Fux people follow it up with a political spin question. Un-reality based. As much as I dislike that bullying tub-o-lard, I gotta give him credit for being able to overcome petty partisan differences and saying a few decent words about a president from the other faction who helped out the people living in Christie’s state. That’s reality. Too bad that spin and illusion are what matter most on TV so-called “news.”

  10. So the folks here only give Christie credit for being direct when he praises their guy. But, I see it’s also w/ fat/bully comments as a qualifier. B eing nonpartisan, this is very consistent w/ my take on Christie. He is the governor of NJ and he’s taking the duties of that office seriously. If you can’t give a sincere compliment the classy thing to do is say nothing.

  11. Nick, Ohio is the only swing state in which Obama leads with white males. Christie would have more than likely picked some off.

  12. It’s not over until the fat lady sings.
    Or, for gender neutrality and political correctness,
    It’s not over until the fat man speaks.

  13. nick,

    “So the folks here only give Christie credit for being direct when he praises their guy. But, I see it’s also w/ fat/bully comments as a qualifier.”

    Who are all “the folks here” who have done that?

  14. The tweet was by Donald Trump. The article was Bloomberg. Romney & Co. taking some big liberties in interpreting that they’ll be “making all models in China” with “moving all production to China”. That would be bad enough, but considering how wrong they are, they’ve once again resorted to doubling down and making it even worse on themselves.

    The Romney personality and “leadership” traits are horrible, before you even mix in his low-IQ grasp on policy.

    The most striking difference between Obama and Romney at Harvard is you can see a guy who made it there with his mind and on the merits and a guy who was only there because of who his daddy was.

  15. If you can’t give a sincere compliment the classy thing to do is say nothing.

    Sorry. I have never claimed to be too classy. I’m more biased than most people. I just like to think my biases are based in reality. Besides, snarky backhanded compliments are part of the “Internet Tough Guy” pose that many of us males adopt.

    Wait, did I just out myself as NOT being reality based by writing that about my pose?

  16. Look no further than Colorado to see how some Repukes in office are biased, subjective and slaves to their well heeled donors or well connected party members.

    I know many Republicans who are voting Democratic this election.

    Mitt Romney speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Look at his actions, don’t listen to his words. Ryan is more scarey than Romney. Voters should be RUNNING, not walking, from this terrible duo. Republicans, at least in Colorado, stand for the three ‘c’s’ : cronyism, corruption, coverups.

    Congratulations to Governor Christie for taking his job seriously and for giving praise where praise is due.

  17. Mr. Gilles,

    You had it right the first time …

    Mittens (and by extension his partner-in-crime, Ryan) are full of SH*T. No need to apologize — aptly stated !!!!

  18. Elaine, Add Streetwise to the list. You love to give assignments don’t you teacher? That’s a good natured ball bust which I hope you understand.

  19. SWM, Blouise knows Ohio better than me. I look upon Ohio as midwest although I sense it’s bifurcated geographically w/ Cleveland being easternish, Cincy being midwesternish. So maybe Christie would have done better w/ the easternish, but again I defer to the Cleveland swami.

  20. A lot of subtle and unsubtle ideas whizzing around today. That sounds so smartassed that I will finish my parody by saying “Carry on”.

    You all know where that was used first, before being used here?

  21. SWM, I stand corrected regarding Christie, mea culpa! You may be right about Wi. but all of the attention Obama is giving it these last few days it’s almost like he’s running for guv. Being an investigator I listen to what people say but focus on what they do. We often use language to deflect, disguise and deceive. We DO what is important to us. Romney has left Ryan to work Wi. and some folks may take offense to that, you know “Why isn’t the main actor on stage.” We’ve had Uncle Joe, Jill, Michelle and Obama here almost daily. That tells me it’s up for grabs.

  22. “Chrysler Group LLC Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne who emailed employees that, “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.””

    I wonder how many jobs Romney saved?

  23. Christie, after his services, did not get his longed for Veep nod. Somebody told Romney that he needed more T-bag help, so as usual he flipped on previous promises.

    Now Christie persona-wise is a mix of Jersey mobster, bought union boss, and Joe the Plumber.

    A good solic appealer to the small businessman contingent.

  24. Ryan is not even a big name in Wisconsin and probably won’t deliver Wisconsin for Romeny as suggested earlier. Tommy Thompson who was/is a big name statewide in Wisconsin is looking bad as well.
    Great story Mark. Mr. Mitt must be really worried that the Super Pac millions are going down the tubes to be blatantly lying about Chrysler.

  25. idealist,

    1) I posted no video.

    2) I asked Nick a question. I gave him no instructions. Nick is a big boy. He can take care of himself. He can choose not to answer my questions.

    3) My granddaughter is the light of my life. I am fortunate that she has a pleasant disposition. She is a happy, well-loved child who rarely cries. She is a pleasure to care for.

  26. Rupert Murdoch: Chris Christie Must ‘Re-Declare’ For Mitt Romney ‘Or Take Blame’
    The Huffington Post
    By Peter Finocchiaro
    Posted: 11/03/2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/rupert-murdoch-chris-christie-romney_n_2068630.html

    Excerpt:
    Publishing titan Rupert Murdoch sent New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie what appeared to be a warning message on Friday, telling Christie to reaffirm his support for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney “or take blame for next four dire years.”

    The admonition, by way of a tweet from the Murdoch’s verified Twitter account, was presumably in reference to the warm relationship Christie, a Republican, showed with President Barack Obama this week, as the two toured New Jersey in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

  27. Let’s talk about some of the issues raised by this excellent post in terms of the response of comments.

    The Romney phony ad needed to be responded to forcefully by Chrysler because it was stupidly hurting that auto company’s image. It painted the company as un-American by moving jobs to China and also remember it referenced that the stake by Fiat was a foreign one, thus implying it was not a American Company to be supported. A third thing it showed was a lack of understanding of the auto industry by a supposedly “smart” businessman. The current thinking in the World Wide Auto industry is that you build cars in the country where you want to sell them, not for export. This is obvious because with shipping costs and trade restrictions it is less costly to build on site. GM piled on because the ads were attacks on the American Auto industry in general and therefore needed to be countered. These ads, like his ads disparaging the economy, show Romney and his campaign to be so intent on winning that they are willing to damage the country’s economy to accomplish it. If you think about it, it is really a stupid position for business friendly Republicans to take.

    Chris Christie earned my respect in his remarks because they were one of a Governor looking first to protect his state, rather than slavishly devoting himself to party solidarity. This is a stance not taken often by today’s Republicans who are in the thrall and fear of, the tea baggers and fundamentalists. Many Republicans are beginning to jump the tea bag ship, realizing that it is only an effective strategy for mobilizing a minority of the vote. Economic self interest, or perception of same, is the real glue of the Republican Party. Being tied to people with antediluvian ideas of personal freedom and science is ot a formula that will continue to be a winning strategy.

    Also what is effective about Christie is that his verbiage is closer to the common man, rather than the “Statesman” pose adopted by too many pols. Clinton is a more articulate example. Obama and Romney both attempt the same thing but Obama comes across as too professorial which bores some, while Romney frankly comes across as a supercilious, unlikable schmuck.

    The other point about Christie is that coming from the Northeast he understands the idea that Republicans would be riding to their doom if the tea baggers/fundamentalists remain dominant. He has Presidential aspirations, can read the polls, sees Romney heading for defeat and is positioning himself strategically. I also think that he was probably promised a prominent role in the Romney campaign, but was pushed to the side after his widely criticized keynote address. I politics payback is a b*tch.

    Finally I read Nate Silver daily and have been since 2008. If you’re for Romney, read it, weep and pray that somehow all the polls are biased towards Obama. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

  28. Mitt Romney Crippled Model Anti-Smoking Program In Massachusetts
    By Jason Cherkis & Zach Carter
    Posted: 11/03/2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/mitt-romney-anti-smoking_n_2057840.html

    Excerpt:
    “We had the cure for cancer,” Connolly said. “It was the most exciting thing anyone could ever experience. We achieved the impossible.”

    But 10 years into his crusade, Connolly met a tougher opponent than Big Tobacco: Mitt Romney.

    While Romney’s signature achievement as governor was reforming Massachusetts’ health insurance system, axing cheap prevention in favor of pricey treatment was also a hallmark of his tenure. Romney attempted to eliminate or gut programs providing hearing tests for newborns, screenings for prostate and breast cancer, counseling for young parents, support for people living with severe physical disabilities, and suicide prevention services. The Democratic-controlled Legislature ultimately overruled him.

    But before taking office in January 2003, Romney had promised the state’s anti-smoking advocates that he would increase funding to the tobacco-control program. Instead, he cut its budget from $5.8 million to $2.5 million, far below what it needed to be effective. Romney ignored the warnings of public health experts, while working to secure a tax cut for some of the state’s richest residents.

    His efforts all but killed the program and serve as one of the most dramatic examples of his preference for short-term political gains over long-term health care solutions. Romney has continued this approach as the Republican nominee for president, vowing to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law while insisting that emergency rooms provide effective treatment for the uninsured.

    “We expected Mr. Romney to come in and restore the tobacco program to its level for the past 10 years and make himself a national hero,” said Connolly, now a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, where he directs the Center for Global Tobacco Control. “But he did the opposite. … We got the Marlboro Man.”

  29. ElaineM, Ask serviceman or woman and anyone who has worked in a disaster area who is better, the Salvation Army or Red Cross. Hands down it’s the Salvation Army. I saw for myself in 2 disaster areas and know many servicemen who corroborate my experience. The Red Cross is a business run by the likes of Elizabeth Dole. The Salvation Army is a charity that use money and regular donations of food, water, clothing, etc. to help those in need. Red Cross just wants money and they have plenty of shills who abide that greedy message. The Red Cross has high paid execs and a much smaller % of money[that’s all they want] goes to administrative costs.

  30. Elaine, You video was about the Red Cross/Romney. I’m glad you donate to the Salvation Army. However, if you put up a video about the Red Cross you have to take some responsibility for it. I was giving a different take on the video Elaine posted. Should I have addressed it to Martin Bashir?

  31. Nick,

    I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Red Cross. I was at one point the budget director and at another the contracts director of a large NYC sub-Agency. Part of my job was to review contract proposals from non-profits seeking NYC contracts. What I learned about the Red Cross from meeting with their officials and reading the fine prit was that they were more public relations, than public helpers. Part of the review process was perusing their budgets and the salaries they paid. You are also correct about the highly paid executives and the excessive overheads.

  32. Nick,

    Did you watch the video? It didn’t focus on the Red Cross. It includes a discussion of Romney’s dishonest campaign ads about the car industry shipping American jobs overseas.

    This was the title posted above the video on the Youtube site:
    Martin Bashir – Romney hardly hits pause on partisanship, false ‘Jeep’ ads post-Sandy.

  33. ElaineM,

    Bypassing all comments I rush here to assure you that I plan to stand on my right to tease you as long as you play the schoolmarm role. Kiss the baby for me, please.

    I had colic, my brother said. Cried constantly and in those days no child was ever to be picked up for crying.

    Wonder if it has effected my temperament. ;-)

  34. PS to ElaineM,

    As to Nick S., well he supported me when you were giving me your patented treatment over occupational characteristics of teachers. (please specify, bla bla).

    So I owe him one, and pay it back in spades times four.

  35. MikeS,

    Compliments. You tie it all up again.

    Let me add:

    Romney is a little special. If we concentrate on his business career, ie its latter part as owner, board, and CEO of Bain Capital, he has been in a business that is always one of ONE SIDE WINS. There are no matters such as markets, logistics, etc to be considered when your game is raping companies of what is really left after you buy them for noll and pillage the real contents.

    So he is obviously not a business man. The only knowledge he has is what his speechwriters has put in his mouth. Totally unqualified as President.

  36. I will not give money to the Red Cross. I will not give money to the Cancer Fund here for the same reasons. It is a business, not acting in the public’s or its pwn declared interests.

    I contribute to the Salvation Army, in spite of or perhaps because of their Christina motivations. The leadership does not pocket big salaries. And the aid reaches those who need it. Of that I am sure.

  37. idealist, Some lbgtq activists have advocated have boycotted them for the very reason you state. I was invited to a big fundraiser for them last year with a comp ticket, and I have to say at least here in Texas it had quite a “fundy” bend.

  38. Now I am confused as usual, and explaining is a bore for you. The Labcdef as some call them objected to them for the very reason…….ie objected to the Salvation Army because they are anti Labcdef. Right?

    Well, I supported them for the unclearly made point
    that their Christian ideals (?) made them more concerned for victims than for the small salaries they get. And we have agreed that if I don’t ask about their Labcdef stand, then they won’t ssk what children’s fund I have stolen the money from

    I wonder if it was to the SA that you were invited to a fundraiser? And what is a fundey bend. I am eager to learn English to impress the young adults who help
    me, and have been to NYC and know it all.

  39. OMG, fundy bend. Fundamental bend. Yes, yes. Oh how unexpected in the South. ????? Let us hope that their fundamentalism has not undermined their mission of charity. It was quite intact in LA when I needed it. But times change.

    I just felt like beating the
    drum in tact with you guys for once.

  40. The Red Cross is a fat bowl into one may give money so that fatsos can steal from the bowl and give a pittance to the needy.

  41. MikeS, I try to keep it more positive because more than my disdain for the Red Cross is my love for the the Salvation Army. Dedicated people who won my heart forever working a summer in the Susquehana Valley after Hurricane Agnes. Slowly but surely I think people coming to see the huge difference. I watched a bit of the HBO Sandy telethon last night. The Red Cross did what they do so well, have media and corporations make them the place to send money..JUST Money.

  42. Streetwise2011
    1, November 3, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Mitt Romney speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
    ========================================================

    wrong hole, street.

  43. Metro Cowboy,

    Don’t do an ElaineM on me. If you need to, start again with Swarthmore Mom’s comment and reflect. That should do it. And it did not originate with me.

    I never claim originality.

    PS One can also write Lxyzpqr also if one wishes. ;-)

  44. We cannot, at this point in our ever more corrupt government, afford to have any leaders who identify and vote their real beliefs, if they even have them. We cannot put anyone up there who will do anything even vaguely conscientious. Why? Because everyone up there is held up and supported by ONLY the big corporate money. Even if he GAINS his position by other means, he is supported only by the big corporate money. And each and every one of them knows it. And it will not change. All we can do is to try to prevent the worst of the worst from getting ahead too damn fast. For the rest of it, I think Sandy has basically told us that the earth will start protecting itself. One big shrug and it won’t be Atlas’s.

  45. Once upon a time the one percent were scared of the masses, be it post 1917 or earlier. They feared that “we” would take over their system by the force of our mass. And they have spent an effort over the years to assure that this has became an impossibility due to several factors, among which is the technical compatence necessary to run them.

    Seems to me that there is one obvious solution to that.
    Seizure of the activities, and erection of gallows outside each building of which frequent use is necessary until recalcitrant managers join the cause.

    Sound like sedition? Naw, I am just discussing purely theoretically a hypothetical result of being sold down the river by the one percent. As in all hypothetical worlds there are many alternatives to be discussed, and none may be ruled out arbitrarily. Not even the illegal ones. Laws are temporary agreements only. Next week sedition may be re-classified as patriotism.
    Not likely but possible in a hypothetical world.

    Besides US laws don’t apply to me as I am subject to Swedish law and its sovereignity. I almost wrote “insanity”. C’est egale!

    The election has had a good effect. It has helped outline our society in clear light, awaken us from our decades long slumber (some like MikeS have been awake the whole time), and shows where the precipice edge lies and the grand finale of us entering the dark ages again.

    Good morning to all.

  46. Did you notice that activity died here yesterday evening? Either that or the blog is not delivering to me anymore, and that paranoia I will not entertain.

    So perhaps one answer is that all were at some pre-
    catastrophe party. Wonder how those went and why they were held?

  47. As Ohio guy I resent the fact that Obama is sending the jeep factory to China. How does one get a factory to China? Do the jobs go there like the article says and if so how do the workers get passports? And if this roma guy gets to be President will he tell the truth about important things like how he is going to pave my driveway for such a large sum of money like the last time I talked to him? Roma, Romani, Romanich, Romney. Gipsie Rose Lee.
    Gipsie Mitt Willard. How can be be full of such a thing?

  48. GM Helped Bain Capital Profit By Giving Funding To Struggling Parts Supplier Owned By Investment Firm
    By Zach Carter & jason Cherkis
    Posted: 11/03/2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/gm-bailed-out-bain-capital-romney-profits_n_2069034.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    Excerpt:
    In 2000, a financially struggling plastics company that supplied car parts received emergency funding from auto manufacturers General Motors and Ford Co. The plastics company was owned by Bain Capital, the firm co-founded by Mitt Romney.

    In other words, Romney, who has written against auto industry bailouts, profited via his involvement in Bain from a GM rescue of a car components supplier. Romney has recently come under fire from GM and Chrysler for airing dubious TV and radio spots suggesting the carmakers were shipping jobs to China.

    Bain’s management of Cambridge Industries was chronicled in a June story in The New York Times, which noted that Bain reaped over $10 million from the plastic manufacturer even as it went through bankruptcy, wiping out some of the other investors. According to a 2008 Detroit Free Press story, which is only available for purchase, Cambridge’s bankruptcy meant more than 1,000 workers lost their jobs.

    The full saga of Cambridge includes a political twist that The Times omitted: GM’s decision to provide funding to its supplier as Bain managers let the company swing. According articles in the Detroit Free Press and Plastics News from 2000 accessed via Lexis Nexis, both GM and Ford gave unspecified financial aid to Cambridge. As GM and Ford supplied capital, Bain was extracting $950,000 a year in “advisory fees” from the ailing plastics company, according to The Times.

    Romney claimed that he was on a paid leave from Bain in 2000 while he was running the Salt Lake City Olympics, but multiple government and company documents suggest otherwise. He held and continues to hold a financial stake in the firm.

  49. Have the Dems done a total on how many jobs that Romney has destroyed via his owning and being CEO of Bain Capital?

    USD 950,000 ib advísory fees, approved by its temporary owner, Bain Capital, approves its own bill. Now that is doing business the fraudulent way, the Romney way.

    How is your own personal planet doing sir? You know the Mormon way.

    And can we find out how much of Bain profit has been funneled to Romney accounts overseas (ex Cayman Island banks.) Don’t hold your breath.

    If lies won’t win, then dirty tricks should help a lot.
    Thanks for the link.

  50. Romneyism
    By Robert Reich
    Saturday, November 3, 2012
    http://robertreich.org/post/34910261055

    Excerpt:
    By now, in these last remaining days before the election of 2012, we have learned enough about the beliefs of the Republican presidential candidate to see them as a worldview all its own – a kind of creed that explains Mitt Romney. Those who say he has no principles are selling him short.

    Despite its contradictions and ellipses, Romneyism has an internal coherence. It is different from conservatism, because it does not intend to conserve or protect any particular institutions or values. It is also distinct from Republicanism, in that it is not rooted in traditional small-town American values, nationalism, or states’ rights.

    The ten guiding principles of Romneyism are:

    1. Corporations are the basic units of society. Corporations are people, and the overriding purpose of an economy is to maximize corporate profits. When profits are maximized, the economy grows fastest. This growth benefits everyone in the form greater output, better products and services, and higher share prices.

    2. Workers are a means to the goal of maximizing corporate profits. If workers do not contribute to that goal, they should be fired. If they cannot then find other work that helps maximize profits in another company, their wages must be too high, and they must therefore accept steadily lower wages until they find a job.

    3. All factors of production – capital, physical plant and equipment, workers – are fungible and should be treated the same. Any that fail to deliver high competitive returns should be replaced or discarded. This keeps an economy efficient. Fairness is and should be irrelevant.

    4. Pollution, unsafe products, unsafe working conditions, financial fraud, and other negative side effects of the pursuit of profits are the price society pays for profit-driven growth. They should not be used as excuses to constrain the pursuit of profits through regulation.

    5. Individual worth depends on net worth — how much money one has made, and the value of the assets that money has been invested in. Any person with enough intelligence and ambition can make a fortune. Failure to do so is sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.

    6. People who fail in the economy should not be coddled. They should not receive food stamps, Medicaid, or any other form of social subsidy. Coddling leads to a weaker society and a weaker economy.

    7. Taxes are inherently bad because they constrain profit-making. It is the right and responsibility of individuals and corporations to exploit every tax loophole they (and their tax attorneys) can find in order to pay the lowest taxes possible.

  51. Romney’s Latest Lie, His Former Lies, and Why We Must Not Put Liars in the White House
    By Robert Reich
    Tuesday, October 30, 2012
    http://robertreich.org/post/34650220450

    Over the weekend, Romney debuted an ad in Ohio showing cars being crushed as a narrator says Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.”

    In fact, Chrysler is retaining and expanding its Jeep production in North America, including in Ohio. Its profits have enabled it to separately consider expanding into China, the world’s largest auto market.

    Responding to the ad, Chrysler emphasized in a blog post that it has “no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China.”

    “They are inviting a false inference,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on political advertising.

    This is only the most recent in a stream of lies from Romney. Remember his contention that the President planned to “rob” Medicare of $716 billion when in fact the money would come from reduced payments to providers who were overcharging — thereby extending the life of Medicare? (Ryan’s plan includes the same $716 billion of savings but gets it from turning Medicare into a voucher and shifting rising health-care costs on to seniors.)

    Remember Romney’s claim that Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law, when in fact Obama merely allowed governors to fashion harder or broader work requirements?

    Recall Romney’s assertion that he is not planning to give the rich a tax cut of almost $5 trillion, when in fact that’s exactly what his budget plan does? Or that his budget will reduce the long-term budget deficit, when in fact his numbers don’t add up?

    And so on. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” says Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster. It is not even being dictated by facts.

    There are two lessons here. First, lies financed by deep pockets are hard to refute, but they must be refuted. Otherwise, there is no accountability in our democracy. So far, the American media have not adequately refuted Romney’s lies. They seem to believe that dissembling is permissible, or that pointing out this extraordinary lying machine is itself an act of partisanship.

    Second, anyone who tells or countenances such lies cannot be trusted to hold the highest office in our land, because he has no compunctions about feeding false information to the public. In recent memory we’ve had a president who told us there were “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, when in fact there were none. We dare not risk another George W. Bush.

  52. http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/11/01/memo-to-mitt-romney-building-jeeps-in-china-is-good-for-america/

    “Now, Chrysler, which is lucky enough to own one of the most iconic brands in the world — Jeep — wants to establish local production in China, too. For Jeep, it’s really a second tour of duty. Beijing Jeep was a pioneer in China, assembling vehicles there from 1985 to 2009.

    Selling more Jeeps in China will help bolster the Jeep brand globally, making its parent stronger, which can only help secure jobs at the Jeep factories in Detroit, Toledo, Ohio, and Belvidere, Ill. Isn’t that what we want?”

  53. So let’s get this straight…it’s ok for Chrysler to make a car in China it COULD make here in the US? You all seem to be in agreement that this is ok, because they will be selling those cars in China? Yes?

    Good. Isn’t that called OFFSHORING? The jeeps could be built here and exported over there, yes?

    But it’s cheaper to build them over there? Ok. But what if it’s cheaper to build them over there AND cheaper to send them back here?

    Not that I am against this, but it smells hypocritcal of all you to blast Romney for outsourcing and offshoring, yet sprint to Obama’s defense when our tax money is going to support a company that…gulp…offshores!!!

    The next time you complain about the obvious partisan bias of this media or that person, repeat this line…”pot meet kettle” because you all need to calm down and wipe the foaming saliva from your collective (your favorite word) chins.

  54. The Chinese government requires that vehicles sold in China must be built in China. If Jeep does not build a plant there, they cannot sell Jeeps in China. However, every time they sell a Jeep in China, the profit comes back to the USA. Jeeps are built in the US and will remain here for the foreseeable future. When you buy a motor vehicle, you can find out its pedigree and where it was built. I doubt seriously any Chinese built Chrysler products will make their way to US shores. If it does, it will have a “Built in China” label and you will be free to not buy that product.

    Chrysler will not sell any cars in China unless they are built there. Chrysler wants a share of the biggest market in the world, expand their name brand worldwide, and to do so they have to build plants where the market is.

    Mitt Romney does not have the scruples that GM and Chrysler apparently have. By his track record, he will outsource in a New York minute.

  55. “Not that I am against this, but it smells hypocritcal of all you to blast Romney for outsourcing and offshoring, yet sprint to Obama’s defense when our tax money is going to support a company that…gulp…offshores!!!”

    Me,

    You exhibit all of Romney’s lack of business knowledge understanding and are proud of it to boot. Let me make this clear to you again. There is a world wide market for automobiles. The major players in that market have learned through experience that it is cheaper to build cars in a country, to sell in that country and that is what they are ALL doing now. That’s why you now have Toyota. Honda, Audi, Mercedes Benz, etc. being built in plants in America, by American workers. The Chinese will only allow cars to be built in China, to be sold in China, I would explain the why of it to you, but judging by your comments it would go over your head.

    The other point is that Romney is not a businessman, he is a financier. His history is to buy companies by leveraging his investment, paying a small amount and financing the rest, which he the adds his debt to the company books and immediately downsizes the company by either firing the employees or shipping the jobs overseas. He has taken solid companies like Kay Bee Toys and destroyed them while making great profits for himself. He has created nothing except money for himself, thousands out of work and the destruction of viable businesses. That’s not a businessman, that’s a con man. Incidentally, that’s the same trick organized crime has used with businesses for years. The difference is Mitt doesn’t “torch the business” he takes it into bankruptcy. ow you can go ahead and vote for a man like that, but then that would make you either a jerk, or just like him.

  56. Ohio Gov. Refutes Romney: ‘Chrysler Is The One Automaker That Has Increased Employment’
    By Travis Waldron on Nov 5, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/05/1138291/ohio-gov-refutes-romney-chrysler-is-the-one-automaker-that-has-increased-employment/

    Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) is the latest Republican to refute one of Mitt Romney’s biggest talking points in the state, as he told CBS Monday morning that Chrysler is adding jobs in Ohio, not shipping them to China as Romney has claimed both on the campaign trail and in radio and television ads:

    ANCHOR: And is Jeep creating more jobs in Ohio or are they sending them to China?

    KASICH: No. Chrysler has, has — Chrysler is the one automaker that has increased employment.

    After Romney’s claims led to auto workers calling their employers because they feared for their jobs, Chrysler chief executive Sergio Marchione wrote a letter to the Detroit News refuting Romney. “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand,” Marchione wrote. “It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” He also noted, as Kasich said, that Chrysler has added American jobs since the auto industry rescue: “With the increase in demand for our vehicles, especially Jeep branded vehicles, we have added more than 11,200 U.S. jobs since 2009.”

    While some Republicans continue to defend Romney, at least six others have repeatedly contradicted his claims about the auto bailout that saved Chrysler and General Motors.

  57. Lies, Damned Lies and Paul Ryan Lies
    John Nichols
    November 4, 2012
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/171016/lies-damned-lies-and-paul-ryan-lies

    Excerpt:
    Toledo—Paul Ryan is really upset with Barack Obama about that auto bailout.

    Which means that Ryan is upset with himself.

    In a campaign where the standard for what constitutes the “big lie” keeps getting adjusted upward, Ryan is trumping even Mitt Romney by attacking President Obama and Vice President Biden for backing policies that Ryan backed.

    Picking up on the Romney campaign’s closing claim that the moves taken to rescue General Motors and Chrysler somehow damaged the auto industry—despite the fact that GM and Chrysler say different—Ryan has been banging away on the bailout.

    “The facts, they speak for themselves. President Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, taxpayers still stand to lose $25 billion dollars in the president’s politically managed bankruptcy,” the Republican nominee for vice president claimed at a rally in Racine, Wisconsin. “These companies, Chrysler in particular we know this story, are now choosing to expand manufacturing overseas.”

    In the final days of a campaign that has taken the shine off his “golden boy” status, Ryan was going all-in on the Republican ticket’s biggest lie: a claim that Obama’s policies had somehow endangered the sprawling Jeep plant in Toledo, a critical battleground in the critical battleground state of Ohio.

    That’s not true.

    Yes, Ryan says, “These are the facts. These facts are inconvenient for the president but no one disputes them. The President and the Vice President, the problem is they simply can’t defend their record.”

    That’s remarkably tough talk about the auto bailout that polling suggests is very popular, especially with voters in battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It is, as well, remarkably dishonest talk, which tries to obscure the facts that—in addition to saving an industry with 1 million jobs—the bailout is credited with spurring an auto manufacturing resurgence that has seen the creation of almost a quarter=million jobs and a pattern of profitable quarters for the Big Three.

    That may be why GM officials, frustrated by the Republican campaign’s attempts to create a false impression among voters, took the rare step of issuing a statement that said Romney and Ryan appear to be getting their information from a “parallel universe.”

    Even as he was fact-checked into a corner, Ryan kept up the (in the words of the Cleveland Plain Dealer) “flailing”—seemingly convinced that constant repetition can spin fantasy into reality.

  58. “The Chinese government requires that vehicles sold in China must be built in China.” …Please provide a link for evidence because if this was the case why would Chrysler and the Obama administration file a WTO grievance against China for auto tariffs? Why would China apply tariffs to cars that can only be built there??

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-05/obama-to-china-dump-the-car-tariffs

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/most-american-cars-index_n_1652219.html

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15c3b666-c6a1-11e1-963a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BMH33Jeu

    “The profit comes back to the USA” …how do you know this? Why would they do that? If the market is so rich there, wouldn’t the profit stay there to be reinvested?

    “I doubt seriously any Chinese built Chrysler products will make their way to US shores.” …really? So there are no US branded cars made in China and sold in the US? Next thing you will tell me is that there are no US branded cars made in Mexico and sold in the US either right?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/business/in-a-first-chinese-built-cars-arrive-in-north-america.html

    Comrade Mike – good morning. I do understand why a company would want to build factories in China. Makes a lot of sense. Cheaper labor, resources and a huge market hungry for goods and services. Makes sense.

    But neither you nor OS have defended my accusation of the folks on this blog. You are all being hypocritical for blasting MItt on this Chrysler thing and giving Obama a pass. Because that’s what you guys do best. I for one agree that Chrysler should make this move.

    MItt was wrong for condemning it. You guys are still wrong for blasting him on offshoring yet blasting him when he is critical of this one offshoring instance. I feel like a proud dad when I read your blog posts about what a good move this one instance of offshoring really is.

  59. Me,
    There are four naughty words that get caught in the filter. If you used one of them, you can substitute a symbol ($, #, @, etc.) for one of the letters and re-post. WordPress will only allow two links per comment. If you had three or more links in your comment, break the comment into two or more parts.

  60. And here I thought I was being censored (links removed):

    “The Chinese government requires that vehicles sold in China must be built in China.” …Please provide a link for evidence because if this was the case why would Chrysler and the Obama administration file a WTO grievance against China for auto tariffs? Why would China apply tariffs to cars that can only be built there??

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15c3b666-c6a1-11e1-963a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BMH33Jeu

    “The profit comes back to the USA” …how do you know this? Why would they do that? If the market is so rich there, wouldn’t the profit stay there to be reinvested?

    “I doubt seriously any Chinese built Chrysler products will make their way to US shores.” …really? So there are no US branded cars made in China and sold in the US? Next thing you will tell me is that there are no US branded cars made in Mexico and sold in the US either right?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/business/in-a-first-chinese-built-cars-arrive-in-north-america.html

    Comrade Mike – good morning. I do understand why a company would want to build factories in China. Makes a lot of sense. Cheaper labor, resources and a huge market hungry for goods and services. Makes sense.

    But neither you nor OS have defended my accusation of the folks on this blog. You are all being hypocritical for blasting MItt on this Chrysler thing and giving Obama a pass. Because that’s what you guys do best. I for one agree that Chrysler should make this move.

    MItt was wrong for condemning it. You guys are still wrong for blasting him on offshoring yet blasting him when he is critical of this one offshoring instance. I feel like a proud dad when I read your blog posts about what a good move this one instance of offshoring really is.

  61. Me, My problem with Romney’s attack is the lack of veracity. He suggests that Jeep production is moving from Ohio to China. This is an untrue scare tactic.

  62. bettykath

    I agree with you. He is not being truthful.

    I find it humorous though how forceful and to what depths the posters on this blog will go to DEFEND the Chrysler move. This is where they lose all credibility. The same folks calling him President Outsourcing are also vehemently defending Chrysler.

    It is hypocritical.

  63. Want a link? Paul Waldman of The American Prospect explains how the Romney campaign screwed up by pushing the “building Jeeps in China” meme. This is a blog of rather bright people who should know how to use “The Google” to do fact checking. I am only providing the one link. There are only a few thousand more out there.

    http://prospect.org/article/why-romney-campaign-screwed

  64. Please defend your “you can only sell cars in China in you build them in China” claim.

    I have already said Romney was wrong. I was pointing out hte obvious hypocrisy of the bright people on this blog who pointed out Romney was wrong AND THEN proceeded to provide support for the Chrysler move. The same people who call Romney Mr. Outsourcing or Mr. Offshoring when clearly, this is an offshoring move. They cant have it both ways.

    The link I want you to provide is evidence that you can only sell cars in China if you make them there. Otherwise I will be lead to believe that you made up that statement entirely.

  65. Me,
    They control auto imports via prohibitively high import taxes. For all practical purposes, this is a tax that forces the automakers to build there. Technically, foreign automakers are not “prohibited,” but the tax has that effect. The tariff has been challenged, but is still on the books and enforced by the Chinese government. The Chinese usually ignore international rules when they do not feel it is in their own best interest.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/15/china-taxes-us-car-imports

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18723175

  66. OS

    Then it is offshoring, no?

    Thus Chrysler is offshoring, yes?

    I have no problem with this. But it is what it is.

    Romney should have shut the hell up about this. But liberals calling him Mr. Offshoring etc should shut the hell up too. They can’t have it both ways.

  67. Chrysler is not “offshoring” jobs that are currently held by American workers. They plan to build cars in China that will be sold there. That’s different from sending American jobs overseas and having people in other countries manufacture cars and other goods that will then be shipped here and sold in the US.

  68. Elaine

    You are making my point.

    “They plan to build cars in China that will be sold there”. They COULD make the cars here, could they not? They could, but it would be not in their best interests. I get it…but it is still offshoring. The work COULD be done here…but it wont be. Let’s call a spade a spade.

    “That’s different from sending American jobs overseas and having people in other countries manufacture cars and other goods that will then be shipped here and sold in the US.”…This is your argument? It’s hard to believe that YOU, Elaine are going to go down swinging for a large multi-national corporation that required a huge bailout to remain in business. Did someone hack your account?

    You have to be pretty naive to think that cars made by a manufacturer wont “find” their way over here. Pretty naive.

    You and other liberals will not criticize this one instance of offshoring because it is not politically advantageous to do so.

  69. “You are all being hypocritical for blasting MItt on this Chrysler thing and giving Obama a pass.”

    Me,

    Comrade Mike? Seriously? Having destroyed your lying arguments you resort to calling names. Is that the best you’ve got? I assume it probably is because you only present lies rather than facts, which is the tactics of a NAZI, like most of you Tea Baggers. You’re the person who supports treason and why don’t you leave this country to us patriots who are the Real Americans.

  70. Me:
    If they built them in the US, the Chinese would impose a tariff upwards of 21% of the price. Not to mention the cost of shipping from the upper Midwest USA to China. That would effectively take them out of the market of all but the independently wealthy Chinese. They want to sell Jeeps on a worldwide market. It makes sense to build them where the market is. Mercedes builds cars in Alabama. Nissan builds in Tennessee and Mississippi, among other places. Want to know where cars come from? Here is a chart.

    http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-autos.shtml

  71. Me,

    Yes, they COULD make cars there–cars that would probably be too expensive for people in China to buy because of the high tariffs imposed on the car imports. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?

    I’m not swinging away for anyone.

    I’m glad that the government bailout saved the jobs of many thousands of American auto workers. Would you have preferred that the government hadn’t bailed the companies out…and that those Americans would now be out of jobs?

  72. Mike

    Destroyed? Not only have you done no such thing, I’m still waiting for you to defend your “The Chinese will only allow cars to be built in China, to be sold in China,”. OS has already admitted that this is not the case.

    I see the Conrade statement hit a nerve. I apologize for that. It was uncalled for.

    We can debate these things like adults.

  73. Elaine

    I would have preferred that the auto industry get no special treatment. They made bad decisions. When you make bad decisions you should pay the consequences. In this case, they should have had to go through the normal bankruptcy process. That does not mean the end of the US auto industry. To hint that it was saved is being disingenuous. It would have reemerged. Now we are on hte hook for any future poor decisions. There are over 50 car companies in China. Who is to say this move by Chrysler to build in China is a wise move. Maybe they are late to the game? Maybe this will blow up in their faces. If this happens, then who gets to pick up the bill? You and me! I find that reprehensible. I want no part of it.

    But we both know how this will play out. We have seen this movie before haven’t we?

  74. Me,

    I wrote: “I’m glad that the government bailout saved the jobs of many thousands of American auto workers. Would you have preferred that the government hadn’t bailed the companies out…and that those Americans would now be out of jobs?”

    Did I write that the bailout saved the car industry? Do you disagree that the bailout saved jobs? Do you think that many auto workers would not have lost their jobs if the government hadn’t bailed out the companies? Do you think it’s good for our economy if more Americans lose their jobs?

  75. Elaine,

    You are wasting your time trying to use logic and reason. As Eric Hoffer wrote, “An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.”

  76. OS

    Keep thinking that. What this blog post is, is a bunch of similarly minded people all patting each other on their backs for their supposed cleverness. Nothing more. I try to make a simple note (which for the record has still NOT been proven incorrect… Chrysler is offshoring) and somehow I’m an idiot. And that somehow makes you smaht??

    And you wonder why we can’t get anything done.

  77. Over 150,000 Jeeps are currently sold in the Asian market. 100% of those Jeeps are built in the U.S. In 2011, Jeep sales in China rose 64% (38,373 units) compared to the previous year.

    If Jeep builds a plant in China, vehicles currently built in the U.S. and sold in China will be built in China (most likely by Chinese labor). That means, not only would the current builds be transferred to China, but future increased sales would also go to China.

    In addition, vehicles currently built in the U.S. and sold to others in the Asian market will, more that likely be transferred to the Chinese plant. China has lower labor costs, and shipping will be much less from China to the other Asian markets. *And if we care anything about Global Warming, we should expect the shipped vehicles to lose out because of carbon emissions.

    Do we really have so many people employed in the U.S. that we can afford to send Jeep manufacturing overseas?

  78. China Lake,

    Might this be the article you misquoted from?

    “http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2012/11/04/Worldwide-clamor-for-Jeep-but-most-vehicles-U-S-made.html”

  79. This is somewhat of a tangent but the last time Chrysler went looking for a government guaranteed loan the Chrysler CFO made a presentation to a group of which I was a part. He pointed the finger at Japan for bringing in smaller fuel efficient and better quality cars, he pointed at the higher gas prices, he pointed at everything except Chrysler’s market planners who saw only what had worked in the past. They didn’t see the changes in the market place (changes for which they were paid to find). They didn’t see the rising gas prices as significant. Nor did they see that their cars didn’t have the reliability that consumers wanted. If the Japanese could see them all the way across the Pacific, why couldn’t Chrysler?

    IBM had a similar blind spot where local area networks and home computers were concerned. IBM saw only “big”, “small” didn’t count. They are out of both markets b/c they came to the party too late. The bureaucracy was too big to move in a fast moving market. All the decision-makers were from the “biggest” of the computers.

    The true innovators don’t come from inside where they have been fully brainwashed in the company philosophy.

    Guess it’s more of a tangent than I intended, but there it is.

  80. Question to ponder: Is it more important that Americans have jobs to make more cars or is it more important that Chrysler sell an even greater number of cars by building and selling them overseas? The former would result in fewer cars being made in total by Chrysler with a resulting smaller profit. The latter would result in Chrysler having a larger profit but fewer American jobs. But what would happen if Chrysler put a greater emphasis on marketing the American-made Jeep where ever they can?

  81. Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital Dodged $102 Million In Taxes By Using Dutch Tax Loophole, Newspaper Writes
    By Eline Gordts
    Posted: 11/05/2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/mitt-romney-taxes-netherlands_n_2077754.html

    Excerpt:
    Bain Capital evaded about €80 million (or $102 million) in taxes by using a financial loophole in the Netherlands, according to a HuffPost translation of an article in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant Monday.

    De Volkskrant and the website Follow the Money claim that by routing its 2004 investments in the Irish pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott through the Netherlands, Bain was able to dodge dividends and capital gains taxes. Financial adviser Jos Peters estimates that the loophole allowed Bain to save about $102 million.

  82. I’m looking forward to seeing youPlease let me check the bill.Think carefully before you act.It doesn’t make any sense to get up so earlyHe found my lecture interesting.They were glad of the examination being over.They were glad of the examination being over.I will be more careful.I would like to check out.It is said he has secret love affairs with two women!

Comments are closed.