Republicans like him wanted 3 million American workers to lose their jobs and recede into poverty.

Please provide the source where Romney said he wanted GM or Chrysler to go out of business. Bankruptcy is not the same as "going out of business." He called for bankruptcy because he knew, like President Obama, that it was the only thing that could keep the companies "alive." And bankruptcy is what happen.

But if you want to source a quote of Romney's that says he wanted the companies to fail, please do so. My guess is that you won't because you can't.

Your hope is unfounded. The American electorate is as stupid as Romney thinks it is. His lies have helped him, not hurt him.

May be ignorant, but not stupid.

At a certain point, ignorance becomes stupidity.

What private finance? No one was buying. Even Bain said, "No thanks to GM".

@Shooter242, Romney's plan depended on "magical thinking." Credit markets were frozen. There was no private capital ready to ride in on a white horse. Bain Capital itself declined to participate in the opportunity. Romney's plan was dead in the water from the word "go," and he had no other options to put forward.

Now he's trying to weasel his way into taking credit for Pres. Obama having the sheer guts to go ahead and save the auto industry. Everyone, including Romney, was predicting Obama's presidency would be over before it even started if he were to go through with the rescue. Well, Obama was right. Romney was not only dead wrong, but his way would have added an additional massive economic stress on the country as the auto industry withered away and died on the vine, and with it, millions of jobs.

I wonder, why try to justify the actions of Romney? He's been nothing but dishonest and dishonorable during this campaign, and seems to delight in playing his supporters for fools. Why go along with that?

Please. If Obama had left it at the Govt providing DIP financing, nobody would have a problem with it. But he didn't. As for Romney's honesty, I'm finding that most examples of dishonesty are manufactured or cherry-picked or opinion.

The only people who have "a problem with it" are the GOP and their rank-and-file who can't admit that the GOP got it dead wrong - the way they always do - on absolutely everything. And again, as for Romney's dishonesty, the only ones who clearly can't see it are the ones refusing to take off the rose-colored glasses.

No. He aims to lead the government of the 1%.

And that's exactly the point. He's erased from public memory the fact he came out and said "Let them go bankrupt."

They did go bankrupt.

After years of losses, the troubled automaker is forced into bankruptcy. GM is set to close a dozen facilities and cut more than 20,000 jobs.

Where were you?

Agreed. It's painful to watch, but his lies don't seem to matter. It's up to Obama's campaign to make them stick, and make them matter. Rachel's doing a fabulous job - please keep it up! Hopefully she continues to make news with this.

I would like to ask every conservative if they really want to win an election this way - lies and voter suppression. It's sad that the answer is probably 'yes'.

But that's like stealing.

Sorry RobDob, your points are just stupid. Romney said no bailout or it would be just business as usual and the industry would not change and eventually die. They got a bailout for the bankruptcy. It wasn't the same, they changed, and the industry is doing quite well.

Where were you? Oh I know. You're Fox-educated. You were watching Fox.

Oh I know. You're Fox-educated. You were watching Fox.

I do watch Fox. I also watch MSNBC and read. This quote from Romney's Nov. 2008 NY Times article:

A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

And you are incorrect, they did NOT get the bailout for the bankruptcy, they got the bailout and then began talks on the bankruptcy. You tell me, if you were in financial difficulties and someone gave you all the money you needed to move forward, what leverage would they then have to steer you in a better direction? Answer: none.

I am not incorrect. You are. See below where I make a fool of you.

By that time, the Republican Propaganda Machine will have erased all doubt that it was Mitt Romney who actaully SAVED the auto industry. Some team of workers down at the Ministry of (un)Truth will have altered all the requisite documentation, explained away all of Romney's literal words, and destroyed the perception he was for bankrupting the auto industry. By September, the perception will be that Obama harmed the good ol' American auto industry with his Socialist takeover attempt that was thwarted by the heroic capitalist saviors in back room brawls.

You are too pessimistic. Romney will not campaign anywhere near an auto plant or dependent industry because of the potential for demonstrations which would draw more media coverage. That assumes Romney's advisers are smart enough not to make that mistake. He can dish out BS to the party faithful, but it is not going to fly in Michigan or anywhere else in the Midwest.

Actually, when danger rears it ugly head, Romney stares right at it and brazenly lies. And it works.

He did NOT say that. Here's the first two paragraphs. (I'll get to the rest in good time.) In the Lyin' Sack of Mitt's words:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

How's that for a business Nostradamus?

Glad to help.

(By the way, if anybody wants to follow along, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html#h[])

And he was correct. It was NOT the bailout that saved the automobile companies, it was their bankruptcy. Romney was saying if all we did was bail them out, which was all we were doing when the article was written in November of 2008, then the industry would fail.

GM got bailout starting in January of 2009 but did not file for bankruptcy until June of 2009.

No, Romney was not correct. He WAS WRONG. The bailout came before the managed bankruptcy. The managed bankruptcy would not have happened without the bailout. See below for more of my answers to your determined dumbassery. I don't like repeating myself.

They did go bankrupt. Or, didn't you know that? Are you criticizing Romney for calling for what eventually happened and was overseen by President Obama?

You do understand that bankruptcy allows companies in trouble to continue, yes?

Were you against GM and Chrysler continuing?

Romney said if the auto industry got the bailout, it would be the end of the American auto industry.

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check..."

He was MONSTROUSLY wrong. And now he's trying to say he was correct. Romney is a Lyin' Sack of Mitt.

If you continue reading the article from which you quote you will find this sentence:

A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.

At the time of the article, all that was on the table was a bailout. Romney was saying there was basic restructuring that was needed that only could be accomplished through a bankruptcy, throwing money at the problem would only keep the industry on life support for a little while longer. He was correct. Eight months later GM filed and underwent a "managed bankruptcy," EXACTLY WHAT ROMNEY SAID WAS NEEDED.

I'm going to get to the whole article just to rub it in your face, wingnut. But first, ...

You didn't have to tell me you watch Fox. That is clear from your ignorance. Without the bailout there would have been no managed bankruptcy. And there was no private money available for any bailout, as we were in the deep doodoo given to us by 30+ years of failed conservative ideas. The government was the only choice to save the auto industry. But to the article...

Now, review the Lyin' Sack of Mitt's words again:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

Read that first sentence again. Very slowly. Very carefully. Let me repeat it for you: "IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

The auto companies got the bailout. Along with instructions they had to follow from the American government. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MANAGED BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT THE BAILOUT. And Romney opposed that bailout. The managed bankruptcy came AFTER the bailout. There was no private money available for any bailout to get to a managed bankruptcy.

The American automotive industry did not have to say goodbye. They are doing very, very well. Romney was wrong. Very, very, very wrong. The bailout was so that they companies could go through a managed bankruptcy. Now Rmoney wants to say he got it right. He did NOT get it right. Rmoney was wrong. Got it?

Now back off to Fox you go.

Glad to help.

And I'll continue with the rest of the article as I find time to deal with your dumbassery.

First, you must be a very insecure individual because you seem to have a need to belittle others' views with your comments. Just allow your words and ideas to speak for themselves instead of trying to classify others with name calling and judgements like "dumbassery." (No charge for the psychological evaluation and counseling.)

As noted prior, at the time of Gov. Romney's article there was not plan or requirement for a managed bankruptcy. If you know different, please provide that information.

So, when Gov. Romney said that with a bailout they will fail, he was saying giving money will not fix the problem. That is why in the article he said a managed bankruptcy was needed.

President Obama was not suggesting a managed bankruptcy. If he was please point to his comments in November of 2008 or December or January 2009...? Can you?

Along with instructions they had to follow from the American government.

Please, please, please point me to where these instructions included bankruptcy. Please. (My prediction, you will not.)

It wasn't until the spring of 2009 that GM and Chrysler were directed to move into bankruptcy. Up until that time they were working on a plan to keep a float without bankruptcy.

So, if they had listened to Gov. Romney in November 2008, they would have recovered much quicker.

As to the federal government participation in making money available, in the article Gov. Romney said that the federal government would have to make funds available.

Insecure? Yeah, I feel insecure talking to you. Uh, huh. You're a joke. No, I like belittling people like you because you are the sort of person who has harmed the country with your ignorance and support of people like Mitt Romney who will do the country even worse harm. You deserve to be belittled and I take pleasure in doing it. Thank you for the opportunity.

As for the bankruptcy, there would have been no managed bankruptcy without the bailout. You conveniently ignored that. Let us note once again, Mitt Romney's first sentence (because I really like rubbing it in your little wingnut face) and providing you with more education than you're getting on Fox:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

Didn't happen, wingnut Romney nut hanger. Mitt Romney was wrong. Very, very, very wrong. He was the opposite of right, because you see, wingnut, if it wouldn't have been for the bailout, there would not have been an American auto industry. It would have been liquidated. Note that word: LIQUIDATED. Do you see the difference, wingnut? Let me organize the text so it's easier for someone with your limited intelligence to see the differnce:

- Romney said WITH the bailout, the American auto industry would die.

- the reality was, WITHOUT the bailout, the American auto industry would die, and

- the reality said WITH the bailout, the American auto industry survived and it doing very, very well.

- reality also said that there would have been no managed bankruptcy without the bailout.

Let me repeat the logic for you. (Repetition helps with slow learners.) Romney wanted no bailout so if Romney would have got what he wanted, the result would have been the death (liquidation) of the American auto industry.

This is unfortunate for you and Mitt Romney because it shows that his years as a "businessman" he seems to be so proud of gives him absolutely no insight as to what it takes to make decisions that affect entire industries important to the country and its future. So not only was Romney wrong but you and also the campaign you support is also wrong. The American people can be stupid. But not as stupid as you or as you want them to be.

Again: The American auto companies would have failed and been liquidated without the bailout. There would not have been an American auto industry if Rmoney got what he wanted: no bailout. You're just going to have to face up to that. (And would be nice if you understood that it was W who got the whole bailout thing going.)

You pathetically attempt to insist that I show you where in the instructions that came from the American government that there be a managed bankruptcy. As I've said before: you are a joke. I did not say the instructions from the American government required a managed bankruptcy. (And if I had, it would still have been irrelevant.) This is laughable and I laugh in your face and fart in your general direction. Sorry, buddy I just don't obey irrelevant debate requirements that are imposed by the loser of the argument so that the loser -- you -- can get an irrelevant and manufactured victory.

Maybe it would do you some good to listen to Fred Upton (R, MI) on the matter:

http://wmuk.org/news/select/261773/

You have lost. An intelligent person would attempt to educate himself so as to not keep making the same mistakes. That way you wouldn't be so ignorant and wouldn't keep spreading misinformation. This makes you more valuable to other people. You're not intentionally spreading misinformation, are you? Hmmmm....

As for the actual demands/instructions the American government put on the auto companies before they would be able to receive the funds, the Obama administration used the bailout money as leverage to force the automakers to do some things. Here are a few:

- build smaller and more alternative-fuel vehicles (ahead of market demand),

- cowed the automakers into accepting ultra-stringent fuel economy standards.

These are part of the reason the companies are flourishing right now.

Again, Romney (and you) are wrong. Give it up, fake alpha-male. But please come back because I still want to get around to rubbing the rest of the article in your face.

Ha! You think GM's success is due to the Volt! And you call me ignorant.

You won't answer my questions, pretending they are beneath you when in reality, answering them would demonstrate that I am correct.

No one was talking or guiding towards bankruptcy when the bailout happen. The bailout was going to "save" the company. It did not. Thus the bankruptcy entered the scene. Do a little research and you might learn something.

As to the bailout being required for the bankruptcy, why? Companies, large companies, file for bankruptcy without a bailout.

How is that Volt doing? What percent of sales is the Volt, huh? Do you have yours yet? GM sold millions of automobiles in 2011 and could not move 10,000 Volts off the lot.

That must be because of President Obama's brilliant business strategy. How did you put it: "build smaller and more alternative-fuel vehicles (ahead of market demand)." I guess that's the old build it and they will buy business philosophy.

Oh, noooooo, wingnut. A big fear of mine has been realized: you are one of the slower wingnuts. Apparently one sentence at a time on Rmoney's failed column is just too fast for you. That is bad. Very, very bad. Your question was/is irrelevant. Here was your question/demand: (First, you asserted I said the government required a bailout. No, I didn't. This shows your reading comprehension is not good. And again, it wouldn't have mattered if I had.) Then in a transparent attempt to construct a straw man victory, you demand I show you where that was the case. Too bad. Irrelevant demands do not get you anywhere. Now answering that would not, as you say, demonstrate that you are correct. It would demonstrate precisely nothing.

One more time for the slow wingnut, here is your failed boy Mitt Romney's first sentence:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

I will repeat for the slow wingnut what I told you above because apparently it has not sunk in:

- Romney said WITH the bailout, the American auto industry would die.

- the reality was, WITHOUT the bailout, the American auto industry would die, and

- the reality said WITH the bailout, the American auto industry survived and it doing very, very well.

- reality also said that there would have been no managed bankruptcy without the bailout.

Did that go by too fast for ya, Romney nut hanger? Blazing fast wasn't it.

Here's another one real, rrrrreeeeeaaaaalllll slow for ya:

Without the bailout the American car companies would have been LIQUIDATED. I know that went by very fast for ya, so let me slow it down. That means, they would have ceased to exist. One more time, without the bailout the American car companies would have ceased to exist. This is what would have happened if Mitt Romney would have gotten his way.

I know that was fast, but do try to keep up. I'm going to try one more fact and then you can spend as many hours as it takes studying them:

There was no possibility of a managed bankruptcy when Mitt Romney wrote his column. This is because the credit markets had crashed. None of the companies could raise the cash to keep operating through a traditional bankruptcy. And that is why they went begging to Washington for a loan.

Did THAT go by too fast for you?

And to get the bailout, the government put restrictions on the companies. And it was good. And the companies are doing quite well.

One more time: Mitt Romney (and you) are/were wrong. It was not possible to do what he said needed to be done at the time he said it, Nov., 2008. The only reason the American car companies were around to go through a managed bankruptcy was because they received the auto bailout from the government first. (And the government made requirements that enlightened executives would have done decades ago. And it was good.)

Please study hard. But I do like rubbing your nose in it, wingnut. And it'll be fun watching the Lyin' Sack of Mitt deal with this in the fall. Real fun.

Here it is slow (and short) for you:

President Obama NEVER suggested or said a managed bankruptcy would be required prior to the bailout or even in the months after the bailout.

Governor Romney said a managed bankruptcy was necessary. A bailout (without this managed bankruptcy) would cause the companies to fail.

Governor Romney was correct.

See how easy that is? Since you like to bloviate, feel free to have the last word.

Well, another attempt to insert a manufactured straw man. Must have taken all night to come up with that stroke of genius. Sorry, pal. You've lost. But I'm here to help you and I particularly like rubging it in your nose.

I guess one sentence at a time is all the pace you can handle. Nobody said W or Obama made any mention of managed bankruptcies. Your straw man is burning but Romney's attempt to save face, claim he knew what he was talking about, and rewrite his stupidity has already been burnt to a crisp.

Let's do this again and you can take as many hours as necessary to study this one sentence as it takes someone like you at the bottom of the class. Here's Romney's first sentence, again:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

Remember: that was Nov. 2008.

So, again, we go through it:

- Romney said: WITH the bailout, the American auto industry would die.

- Reality and events said: WITH the bailout, the American auto industry would survive and it would do very, very well.

- Reality and events said: WITHOUT the bailout, the American auto industry would die.

- Reality and events said: in Nov. 2008, there was no possibility for a managed bankruptcy because the credit markets had crashed. None of the companies could raise the cash to keep operating through a traditional bankruptcy. And that is why they went begging to Washington for a loan.

- Reality and events said: Mitt Romney wanted the American auto companies to go through bankruptcy in Nov. 2008 and NOT get the government bailout. Since this was not possible, a bankruptcy in Nov. 2008 would have meant LIQUIDATION. This means that with Mitt Romney's desired bankruptcy the American auto companies would cease to exist and the network of suppliers and offshoot industries would either cease to exist or be emaciated to the point of near non-existence.

- Reality and events said: Mitt Romney's business experience, his sole raison d'etre for being President did not inform him enough to either 1) know there was no capital for a managed bankruptcy, or 2) he was so stupid as to believe the auto companies could go through a managed bankruptcy and survive, or more likely, just die.

- Reality and events said: if Mitt Romney's suggestions would have been followed, the American auto industry would NOT exist today. It would be gone.

That is the talent, foresight, and business acumen Mitt Romney would bring to the country as a businessman, a supply-sider who agrees with Paul Ryan, and a man who would be Bush's 3rd term on steroids.

One more time, without the bailout -- as Mitt Romney demanded -- the American car companies would have ceased to exist. This is what would have happened if Mitt Romney would have gotten his way.

Still going too fast for you, wingnut? Blazing fast wasn't it.

You came in here guns a blazin' didn't you? Gonna let them liberals have it with smartass comments like "Glad to help." You were going to spread a little misinformation for the wingnut cause, weren't you? Didn't go the way you thought it would, did it? Ain't looking too good for ya or your boy Rmoney. I hope you're enjoying that new mass whole that I've given you in exposing your dumbassery?

You got your ass kicked, fella. We're sick of you people; your ignorance, your chest-beating, undeserved confidence, and your flat out wrongness on everything. Your 30+ years of failed ideas lead directly to the Great Recession, and the best your boy Romney can do is suggest we get right back to those ideas. You make me sick.

But please come back. We've only gotten through one sentence of Mitt Romney's disastrously wrong-headed column. There's so much more. And I want to rub it in your face.

Glad to help.

Because this goes to the core or what he is offering as a reason for people to vote for him: his competency as a businessman. If he could be so monstrously wrong about one of America's most important industries, then what credibility does he really have. And he was monstrously wrong. So he really has no credibility. So he has to change that. He does it by lying.

Please, George, enlighten me. Gov. Romney said in November of 2008 in the NY Times that GM needed a managed bankruptcy which they filed for and underwent in June of 2009. So, where was he wrong?

Oh, wingnut. Are you still pestering people with your ignorance and dumbassery? I'll just copy and paste from what I told you above:

------------

I'm going to get to the whole article just to rub it in your face, wingnut. But first, ...

You didn't have to tell me you watch Fox. That is clear from your ignorance. Without the bailout there would have been no managed bankruptcy. And there was no private money available for any bailout, as we were in the deep doodoo given to us by 30+ years of failed conservative ideas. The government was the only choice to save the auto industry. But to the article...

Now, review the Lyin' Sack of Mitt's words again:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

Read that first sentence again. Very slowly. Very carefully. Let me repeat it for you: "IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

The auto companies got the bailout. Along with instructions they had to follow from the American government. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MANAGED BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT THE BAILOUT. And Romney opposed that bailout. The managed bankruptcy came AFTER the bailout. There was no private money available for any bailout to get to a managed bankruptcy.

The American automotive industry did not have to say goodbye. They are doing very, very well. Romney was wrong. Very, very, very wrong. The bailout was so that they companies could go through a managed bankruptcy. Now Rmoney wants to say he got it right. He did NOT get it right. Rmoney was wrong. Got it?

Now back off to Fox you go.

Glad to help.

And I'll continue with the rest of the article as I find time to deal with your dumbassery.