Big surprise -- ROMNEY LIES ABOUT FIAT AND CHRYSLER!

FactCheck: Romney distorts facts on Jeep, auto bailout

He claimed Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. Not so.


Mitt Romney falsely claimed in a recent speech that “Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.” Chrysler says it is considering adding Jeep production sites in China to address rising demand in that market. But the company says it is “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats” to suggest that it would close U.S. facilities and move all operations to China.
Despite Chrysler’s admonition, Romney is now making a similar claim in a new TV ad.

The ad says, “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.” It’s misleading to suggest that Chrysler’s decision to expand into China will cost U.S. jobs — especially after the company has said it would have no impact on its U.S. operations.

It’s also misleading to say “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy” without mentioning that Romney, too, advocated a bankruptcy plan. In fact, Romney wrote a 2008 op-ed that said: “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.”

The ad also says that Romney “has a plan to help the auto industry,” but the Republican nominee has no specific plan for the industry. He is referring to his general tax and economic plans that he believes will help all industries, including the auto industry. And he touts an endorsement from the Detroit News, but the self-described conservative paper said it endorsed Romney “despite his wrong-headedness on the auto bailout.”



Building Jeeps in China?

The ad — titled “Who Will Do More?” — first aired in Toledo on Oct. 27, without giving the usual notice to reporters covering the campaign, as Politico wrote. Ohio is a key swing state that may determine the outcome of the election. It is also one of three states where Chrysler builds Jeeps.

In asking the question “Who will do more for the auto industry?” the ad makes two deceptive claims in a single sentence: “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China.”

Let’s take the claim about China first, since it has emerged as a new talking point for Romney. He made a similar — and outright false — claim during an Oct. 25 campaign speech in Ohio. In Defiance, Ohio, Romney said: “One of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”

That’s simply not true, and Chrysler has said so.

Here are the facts: Chrysler is considering returning to China because demand for Jeep vehicles is rising in Asia, as reported in an Oct. 22 article by Bloomberg News. The company had produced Jeeps in China for that market before 2009, when the Italian automaker Fiat became the majority owner of Chrysler as part of the U.S. government’s auto bailout.

But this doesn’t mean that Chrysler will be moving any of its U.S. operations to China. In fact, Bloomberg reported: “Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.”

In a blog item on its corporate website, Chrysler said that “despite clear and accurate reporting,” some misinterpreted the article to mean that Chrysler would end production of Jeeps in the U.S. and move operations to China. “It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats,” Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri wrote in his blog.

Ranieri, Oct. 25: Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It’s simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world’s largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

So, Romney was flat wrong when he said in his speech that Chrysler “is thinking of moving all production to China,” and his ad is misleading when it says that Chrysler is “going to build Jeeps in China.”

READ MORE ABOUT WILLARD'S DISTORTIONS, LIES AND MISLEADING ADS ABOUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY.

After all, he's not going to let fact checkers run his campaign!

FactCheck. Org ????????????

So sorry, so sad http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...eep-Ad-Correct

The Washington Post does not agree with you Whatzup.

So sorry, so sad http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...eep-Ad-Correct

The Washington Post does not agree with you Whatzup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, WaPo does agree with him which your own dumb ass would have been able to figure out if you had gone and found the WaPo article that DeadBart shamefully mischaracterizes in your link....note that the only link in DeadBart's article is to another DeadBart article. Nice reporting.

Here's a quote from a speech Romney gave in Ohio on the subject:

“I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. I will fight for every good job in America, I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair.”

Blatant, outright lie. Immediately denied by Chrysler, who issued a statement it was such a whopper. Can't believe that BOG missed this one, guess he was too busy scouring the internet for more half-cocked shit he thinks Obama lied about.

Here's the WaPo link. Don't fuck with me again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...6a24_blog.html

Wingers love brainfart.The biggest share of threads lead to brainfart.

So sorry, so sad http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...eep-Ad-Correct

The Washington Post does not agree with you Whatzup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually the Washington Post Fact Checkers gave Romney 4 (Count em) Pinocchios. I hate to be the bearer of bad news JD (and StupidOldFart) but 4 Pinocchios is not good for your side!



GOP Candidates, 4 Pinocchios, Political Ads4 Pinocchios for Mitt Romney’s misleading ad on Chrysler and China

Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 10/30/2012 TheWashingtonPost





The Facts



Here’s what Romney said last Thursday in Ohio: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. I will fight for every good job in America, I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair.”


This was completely wrong. Bloomberg News had reported that Fiat, the majority owner of Chrysler, was planning to once again start building Jeeps in China, after production had been on hold since 2009.


The article made clear that Chrysler was was “adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China,” but some blogs, such as the Washington Examiner’s Washington Secrets, misinterpreted the article and reported: “Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.”


After Romney made his comments, Chrysler issued a statement firmly denying that any North American production was being moved to China:


“Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It’s simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world’s largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”

In response, a Romney spokesman explained: “The larger point that the governor made is that rather than creating jobs here, the foreign owner, handpicked by President Obama, is planning to add jobs overseas.”


This is a strange bit of spin, given that all international automakers build cars in other overseas markets. In this case, one could argue it is a sign of the company’s growing strength that it is returning to a major overseas market that it had abandoned.

(Moreover, Chrysler is planning to add to its Jeep workforce in the United States in 2013.)


Now back to the television ad. Clearly this is an attempt to rebut Obama’s frequent criticism that Romney’s plan to deny the automakers a federal bailout and take them through managed bankruptcy would have destroyed the industry. No one can say for certain what would or would not have happened, but we have taken both men to task for the way they have spoken about the issue — Obama for suggesting Romney wanted to give up on the auto industry and Romney for claiming that Obama simply took his idea for using the bankruptcy process.


Our bottom line was that Obama had the edge in the argument: “By most accounts, Romney’s approach would not have been viable in the depths of the economic crisis. And certainly Romney’s prediction that a bailout would lead to the auto industry’s certain demise was wildly incorrect.”


The ad cites a PolitiFact column that focused on a narrow point made by Obama in the last presidential debate, saying Romney would not have provided any government assistance to the automakers. PolitiFact actually concluded that Romney was so vague and unclear at the time that it difficult to figure out what he would have done. Thus it concluded Obama could not be so categorical. From this slender reed, the Romney campaign incorrectly claims that all fact checkers dispute Obama on auto bailout claims. No so.


Yes, Obama ultimately took the automakers through bankruptcy, but that was only after the predicate had been established for their survival, including extending government loans (a process originally started by the George W. Bush administration over Romney’s objections).


Indeed, while the ad cites the conservative Detroit News in supporting Romney for president, the editorial largely comes to same conclusion as this column regarding the viability of Romney’s plan for the auto industry in the midst of the Great Recession. The newspaper said Obama’s response to the auto industry crisis was “extraordinary” and an example of his “leadership on this issue:”


Don’t assume that it was a no-brainer for a conservative newspaper to endorse a conservative presidential candidate. We recognize and are grateful for the extraordinary contribution President Obama made to Michigan in leading the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler. Had either of those companies been allowed to go under, Michigan’s economic maladies would have become fatal.

The president stepped up with the support the two automakers needed to keep themselves and their suppliers in business. We have said in past editorials that while Romney rightly advocated for structured bankruptcies in his infamous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” New York Times op-ed, he was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets. In that article, Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them. Obama put a rescue team to work and they were true to the task.

We have criticized Obama in past editorials for rewriting bankruptcy law on the fly to hold harmless his supporters in the United Auto Workers union. Still, Michigan is better off today because of Obama’s leadership on this issue.

Finally, the ad’s reference to Jeep production in China is technically correct but misleading, particularly in light of Romney’s comments on the campaign trail. The ad says that Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China,” but then adds: “Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.”


The unspoken message is that American jobs are being sent to China, even though the ad carefully tiptoes around that claim. (The ad, in fact, includes brief text quoting Bloomberg as saying Jeep production was returning to China.)




The Pinocchio Test



This ad shows that we have entered the final, desperate week of the campaign.

The series of statements in the ad individually may be technically correct, but the overall message of the ad is clearly misleading — especially since it appears to have been designed to piggyback off of Romney’s gross misstatement that Chrysler was moving Ohio factory jobs to China.


It is also especially strange that the ad touts Romney’s endorsement by the Detroit News, when the editorial actually backs up Obama’s criticism of Romney’s response to the auto industry crisis.



Four Pinocchios

StupidOldFart and JD, if FactCheck and the Washington Post Fact Checkers are not good enough for you. Let's take a gander at what PolitiFact has to say. Shall we?

Oops, PolitiFact gave it a "Pants on Fire." Once again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you two Dunderheads, but a "Pants on Fire" rating, once again is not good for your side!

Read 'em and weep!

Says Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs.

Mitt Romney on Monday, October 29th, 2012 in a television ad says Obama's Chrysler deal undermined U.S. workers

An ad from Mitt Romney attacks Barack Obama.

With Ohio’s 18 electoral votes very much in play, the Mitt Romney campaign aims to blunt one of Barack Obama’s key advantages in that state -- his rescue of the auto industry. The carmakers account for about one out of eight jobs there, and many Ohio assembly line workers are backing Obama for a second term.


The Romney campaign has produced a controversial ad that argues Romney would be better for the auto industry than Obama. In the ad, an announcer says, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." Images of cars being crushed accompany those words.


The not-so-subtle message is that American workers have suffered from the Chrysler deal. In this fact check, we examine whether the sale of Chrysler came at the cost of American jobs.


How Fiat got Chrysler


By early 2008, it was clear that GM and Chrysler were teetering. Both firms had huge debts and high costs. The recession had slowed car sales to a trickle. Chrysler’s owner, Cerberus Capital Management, was hunting for a buyer and had been talking to Italian carmaker Fiat. In late 2008, President George W. Bush approved billion dollar loans to the companies to keep them afloat.


On Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama took the oath of office, Fiat announced it was interested in buying Chrysler. Obama created an auto task force and in March, the task force told Chrysler to cut a deal with Fiat or be cut off from further government loans. In early April, Chrysler filed for bankruptcy and at the same time, announced an alliance with Fiat.


By the end of April, the terms of the deal were complete and by June, it was finalized. Cerberus Capital had lost its stake, and Fiat held 20 percent of the new Chrysler and had full operational control.


Steve Rattner, chair of the president’s auto task force, said Fiat was essential to Chrysler’s survival.


"If we had been unable to strike this arrangement with Fiat, I believe that we would have allowed Chrysler to liquidate. So it was a great outcome for all concerned," Rattner said.


Aaron Bragman, a senior analyst with IHS Automotive, a financial research group, said the government couldn’t sell Chrysler because it never owned it. In fact, the auto industry and Chrysler were in such bad shape, this wasn’t a sale at all in the conventional sense.


"Fiat paid nothing for Chrysler," Bragman said, but "they poured MASSIVE resources into the company, such as design help, executive staff and personnel, joint development, engine technology, all sorts of non-cash things that helped Chrysler recover considerably."


Chrysler is now profitable. Laid-off union workers have been rehired, and the company is adding new personnel.


Fiat, Jeeps, and China


When Fiat got Chrysler, it got Jeep. Right before the ad came out, Romney told a crowd in Defiance, Ohio, that plans were afoot to shift the Jeep jobs in Ohio to China.

"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China," Romney said.

Romney had been working off an article from Bloomberg News about Fiat’s discussions to start making Jeeps again in China. The old Chrysler had assembly plants in China, but they had been idle since 2009.


Romney’s words drew an immediate and firm denial from Chrysler headquarters. "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China," the statement said. "A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments."


Bragman, the auto analyst, said Romney’s notion that expansion in China comes at a cost to American workers runs counter to the facts. Chrysler’s Toledo plant is running at full capacity, and its Detroit plant is at three shifts. Chrysler is building cars in the United States for sale here.


The production of cars in China is a sign of Chrysler's growing strength in overseas markets. It would like to build Jeeps in China to sell in China. It is not outsourcing American auto jobs.


"I'm astonished that more people aren't thrilled by the fact that an American company on the brink of literal oblivion has come back strong enough to now once again be making and selling its products in the hottest auto market in the world," Bragman said. "It is a phenomenal success story, quite frankly, and one that has sadly been bizarrely twisted out of shape for political expediency."


Our ruling


The Romney campaign ad says Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs. The ad leaves the clear impression that Jeeps built in China come at the expense of American workers.


The ad miscasts the government’s role in Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler’s owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.


We rate the statement Pants on Fire!

JD & StupidOldFart, let's add up the tally, shall we? We now have FactCheck, PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checks who disagree with your position. Not to mention the "Spokesman for Chrysler Corporation." StupidOldFart claims that the "Spokesman" was wrong and his bosses had a different opinion.

Or do they? Question for StupidOldFart? Would the Chief Executive of Chrysler Corporation be considered the "Spokesman of Chrysler Corporation's" boss. I suspect so! Let's see what The Boss had to say about the matter in an email to his employees.

From Politico:

Chrysler CEO pushes back on Romney

Politico By ALEXANDER BURNS | 10/30/12 1:43 PM EDT The Toledo Blade reports on the latest turn of the screw in the auto-related debate that has overshadowed the final week of the race in Ohio:


Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne circulated an email to Chrysler Group LLC employees today strongly restating the automaker's promise that it will not move existing U.S. production of Jeeps to China.


In the email, Mr. Marchionne said he felt obligated to again address the company's production plans over continuing "public debate."


The note did not directly reference politics or the presidential election, but Chrysler's plans for Jeep have become a major political talking point over the past week, especially in Ohio. Speaking in Defiance last week, Republican candidate Mitt Romney seized on a misrepresentation of a Bloomberg story, suggesting that Chrysler was considering moving existing Jeep production to China.


Romney has stuck with the Jeep-related line of attack against Obama, though in a modified form that only implies — rather than stating explicitly — that Chrysler might move jobs from Ohio to China. It's a decision that has puzzled Republicans both in and outside Ohio: after letting Obama dominate the auto-bailout debate on the airwaves for months, Romney has re-engaged the auto fight at the last minute on less-than-firm footing, with an attack that now has Chrysler weighing in against him.

JD and StupidOldFart:

Game, Set, Match!

I believe I will go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Goebbels called it the Big Lie ... These fools actually believe their own bullshit. They've probably forgot what was true to begin with and are just adding more and more layers of SCAR tissue.

LMAO @ pathetic dipshits!

It's easy to tell when he's lying. It's when his lips are moving.

He's not the president, so it really doesn't matter. You sound like a little brat that does nothing but tattle.

He's not the president, so it really doesn't matter. You sound like a little brat that does nothing but tattle. Originally Posted by acp5762

Tattle on the man that is running for President.

Who would do that here in the Sandbox?

Ok. I skipped everything but the middle part of The OPs post.

Romney did say GM should go through restructure. So if he said it as a bad thing, then ya the left would be correct to call him on it.

How magnanimous of you. Read the story, form an opinion. Make a wise crack. That's how we do it,