You’re probably aware of Mitt Romney’s outrageous lies about his ever-changing position on the auto bailout.
- Romney opposed the bailout.
- But during the debates pretended he was for it.
- And now (falsely) claims the auto bailout caused Chrysler and General Motors to move American jobs to China.
- But if Romney is now for the bailout, and the bailout caused jobs to move to China, then Romney is also responsible for moving those jobs to China.
He’s not the brightest guy to ever run for president.
Right before Hurricane Sandy hit, and stole the news cycle, reporters were beginning to get surprisingly annoyed about Romney’s newest lie: claiming the automakers were moving American jobs to China.
It’s not true. The companies involved have said it’s not true. Romney has no evidence of the claim other than a poorly written article. But don’t let that stop Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan from telling it again and again and again.
The accusation drew a dismissive response from a GM spokesman, who explained, “We’ve clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days. No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.”
The ad further claimed that “Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in, you guessed it, China.”
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne refuted Romney’s comments in an email sent yesterday to Chrysler employees: “Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Marchionne wrote, touting Chrysler’s recent production expansions in America.
In a wonderfully written editorial, today’s NYT blasts Romney’s duplicity for continuing to repeat the lie, days after it was proven wrong by everyone involved. Here’s a short excerpt, but do read the entire thing:
When General Motors tells a presidential campaign that it is engaging in “cynical campaign politics at its worst,” that’s a pretty good signal that the campaign has crossed a red line and ought to pull back. Not Mitt Romney’s campaign. Having broadcast an outrageously deceitful ad attacking the auto bailout, the campaign ignored the howls from carmakers and came back with more.
Mr. Romney apparently plans to end his race as he began it: playing lowest-common-denominator politics, saying anything necessary to achieve power and blithely deceiving voters desperate for clarity and truth.
What Mr. Romney cannot admit is that all this is a direct result of the government investment he would have rejected. It’s bad enough to be wrong on the policy. It takes an especially dishonest candidate to simply turn up the volume on a lie and keep repeating it.
But what particularly caught my eye was Paul Ryan’s statement out yesterday that appears to show Romney/Ryan again backing away from support for the auto bailout.
“American taxpayers are on track to lose $25 billion as a result of President Obama’s handling of the auto bailout, and GM and Chrysler are expanding their production overseas,” Ryan said in a statement. “These are facts that voters deserve to know as they listen to the claims President Obama and his campaign are making. President Obama has chosen not to run on the facts of his record, but he can’t run from them.”
Paul Ryan sounds pretty ticked off that President Obama saved the auto industry, saved its one million jobs, and ultimately saved America from going into another Great Depression. (Kind of makes you wonder whose side Paul Ryan is really on. Let’s face it: If Paul Ryan had been president, the auto bailout would have had to wait until Ryan’s photographer arrived. The man does nothing that doesn’t involve a news camera, and if there isn’t one available, he does nothing until there is.)
Add the China charge to this newest accusation, and it’s pretty clear that Romney/Ryan are now, once again, against the auto bailout.
So let’s recap: First they’re against it, then they’re for it, then they’re against it, then they’re really against it (all the while including in their ads against it a fact-checker saying the President was wrong to say that Romney was against it).
If you’re confused, join the club.
This is what happens when: A) the guy at the top of the campaign isn’t very bright, B) he doesn’t really believe in anything, and C) he’s such a craven individual that he puts his own ambition above all else, be it Hurricane Sandy victims or, now, the truth.