It’s kind of fun watching Mitt Romney try to construct a coherent position on the auto bailout. He was against it before he was for it, but he’s still against it, but Obama did exactly what he suggested even though he wrote an op-ed blasting the whole idea. Here’s how he tried to explain it during the Arizona debate:
Josh Marshall has some fun with it:
But Romney just took his position on the auto bailout even further into total incoherence. He opposes the auto bailout. But now he only opposes the money given before the bankruptcy phase. And what happened when they put the companies through a managed bankruptcy was what Mitt wanted all the time. So they actually figured out what to do from Mitt. Only that wasn’t good either because it was a sell out to the unions. In a Rube Goldberg kind of way it sort of makes sense. But having tried to pander in every possible way at the time and doing the same thing now, the whole thing just comes out as an incomprehensible jumble.
It comes out that way because it is. And it always has been. He said in that November 18, 2008 op-ed piece that he wanted a managed bankruptcy for the automakers but no federal help. That wasn’t possible. There was no way they were going to get the bridge financing for that given the condition of the credit markets at the time. So Obama did the right thing by financing the managed bankruptcy and the results are obvious; GM and Chrysler have come roaring back to life and are profitable and expanding, all in a remarkably short period of time. But Romney can’t admit that, so he has to invent some crazy rationale that sounds like a 16 year old trying to explain to his parents why he came home late.