Well, there are two options:
- He really did mean for the implied assumption to represent his feelings.
- He didn’t mean for the implied assumption to represent his feelings, but he left the implication in order to bolster his credibility with the tea party.
If you’re asking me if I think 1) is true or 2) is true, I have no doubt it’s 2. If you’re asking me whether that reassures me, I’d have to answer “Not in the least, since it would seem to be yet another example of saying what’s politically expedient at the time without an ounce of true conviction.” and point you back to my previous answer about how the hell am I supposed to vote for a candidate who espouses what’s politically convenient instead of actual, held beliefs. Upon what platform should I be voting? His most recently revised stated platform? His original stated platform? The platform that he has implied? The platform I believe he has implied?
I think the fact that he’s got so many potential pathways is absolutely a calculated and intentional move, and I can see where it would serve one well in a business environment (at least up to a point). I think it serves the public exceedingly poorly in a political environment. In my case I have a combination of little enough trouble with Obama’s previous four years and enough cynicism regarding the many faces of Mitt that I have no trouble deciding who to vote for, but I suspect should Mitt win the election at least on sizable subset of the Republican party will eventually end up completely pissed off at Mitt. That’d almost be enough to make me vote for him there if I knew 100% that Mitt would choose to piss off, say, the Tea Party subset, but alas, I see no indication of enough consistency in past actions and/or statements to believe that’s the part of the base that would get thrown under the train instead of, say, the fiscally conservative subset.
Yup, unless the polls really have been skewed all this time, it’s all over but the shouting, I think. And there will be a lot of shouting. The Limbaughs and Santorums of the world will claim that the reason the GOP lost this time is because Romney wasn’t a TRUE CONSERVATIVE™ and that the GOP’s message wasn’t far right enough. Expect the next Republican platform to call for 5 years in the federal pen for “wardrobe malfunctions” and swears on live broadcast TV.
Suggesting that Romney’s changed positions on something from what he said he truly believes to one audience to be more politically palatable to another audience is not crazytalk.
The man lacks any conviction beyond “Vote for me. Please.”
Let’s uh, not go sucking each other’s dicks just yet, as Mr. Wolf would say. 5 more full days of campaigning to come. Things can change.
True, but I imagine it will be hard for anything to gain traction in the next few days aside from Hurricane Sandy.
Hugin
2746
If Obama is found in bed with the proverbial dead girl or live boy in the next 5 days I’m tracking you down to kick you.
Well, I suppose if someone got incontrovertible video and audio evidence that Obama was the real 20th 9/11 terrorist…
Or a Rob Lowe style video with underage girls could do it.
Me too. It would save you from posting a lot of one-line responses to other peoples’ posts.
Not me, I’d miss Brubin’s one-liners. He’s the space-game playing Everyman ignored by the lame stream media.
gasp I’m annoying Mr. Bates? I’m so shocked and seemingly apologetic.
If the attacks were motivated by a video, then it implies that they were spontaneous and no one could have anticipated them. If the attacks were intentionally planned to occur on September 11, then it implies that our government should have thought of that ahead of time, and increased security. And if they asked for increased security multiple times and were denied, then it looks that much worse.
So Chrysler isn’t planning to literally move Jeep production to China…but they are planning to add plants in China? The phrasing of the Chrysler statement is very specific: “Despite clear and accurate reporting, the take has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America … . It is a leap that would be difficult even for circus acrobats.” So no, they’re not moving all Jeep production to China, but they are still looking at opening new plants in China. Isn’t that the very definition of “moving jobs overseas”?
And of course, the CEO of General Motors has given speeches saying that China is very important for their manufacturing in the future. GM makes nearly 70% of their vehicles outside of the U.S., operates 11 assembly plants in China, and so on.
AKERSON: Our commitment to working in China, with China, for China, remains strong and focused on the future.
We’re now building out the advanced technology center which will bring our research and development that is centered largely in the United States…we’re going to diversify that more into China because we think this market is so critically important to the success of our company…
[China] is the crown jewel in the GM universe.
How is that not GM shifting jobs overseas?
Brian - He’s got a tazer on you? :P
Anyway, I just find it amusing the hoops which the right will jump through for their own propaganda, but when the not-so-far-right use 10% as much…er…free interpretation they howl like stuck pigs.
Bates - Ah yes, “we’ll make more jobs elsewhere” is the same as “we’ll close jobs here” to you…there can’t be a rising tide, after all. No wonder in the longer term the companies ARE fleeing that sort of mass logic!
I might be annoyed if your posts actually had any content. But no, I wouldn’t get annoyed at your “me too!” posts, any more than I would get annoyed at seeing a “+1” by someone’s comment.
I’m just trying to keep the criticisms consistent. If Apple or other companies are criticized for having production overseas, then people are obviously ignoring the very real fact that having cheap production overseas leads to more opportunities and more jobs (and better jobs) here in the U.S. Of course I believe that, but many on the left feel like overseas jobs are just “stealing” work from the U.S. So if you really believe that, then you must believe that GM is also stealing jobs from the U.S. by shifting jobs overseas.
Given the number of times Obama talked about Romney being familiar with China because he shifted so many jobs there, I’m surprised that Romney never responded my mentioning the GM bailout that led to new jobs in China.
You understand that if GM wants to sell cars in China, the largest growing market in the world, Chinese regulations demand that they have plants there, yes? And you know that those profits come home to the US. And you know that those profitable plants in China are supported by domestic jobs such as the 1,000 workers being added in Toledo?
So tell me again how it’s a bad thing that GM is selling more cars to the Chinese?
Also, I presume we can take Romney’s ads as a sign that he still thinks the auto industry bailouts were a bad idea, yes? Can we all agree to that? That is the take away message from the Ohio ads, correct?
You’re repeating that lie again. They’ve said otherwise, get over it.
Timex
2759
And you know that those profits come home to the US.
I thought the running argument was that they don’t come home to the US, and that we were giving tax breaks to corporations that were shipping jobs over seas?
Don’t get me wrong here, I don’t give a crap if GM wants to hire chinese workers to make crappy GM cars… just like every other manufacturing company.
WarrenM
2760
Is there anything that would save you from posting novel-like replies to barely sentient idiots like Timex? That would save a lot of bandwidth for Tom.
