Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support

By
Saturday, September 19, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Mitt Romney at the Values Voter Summit this morning:

When government is trying to take over health care, buying car companies, bailing out banks, and giving half the White House staff the title of czar – we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind!

Romney at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February:

I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system.

To be fair, in that speech Romney said that TARP should not have been used to rescue car companies. But the opposition to bank bailouts is new. Opposition to TARP has been a motivating force in the Tea Party movement, a possible reason for the softening here.

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

45 Comments

Tweets that mention The Washington Independent » Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted September 19, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by daaitoulaam, The originals. and WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support http://bit.ly/1FpRLg [...]


Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support China Best Tea
Pingback posted September 19, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

[...] Read more from the original source: Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support [...]


jack82431
Comment posted September 19, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

To me it sounds like Romney believes ALL of those things are dangerous when combined. If it were the banks alone that TARP money went for then it's a different story. It's like health care
reform, some things that are being suggested are good, but if combined with others they would not be.


Laura
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 3:30 am

False. He was always careful to condition his support on certain parameters and never thought the stimulus package was handled well. There is a difference between the initial bailout that he felt was necessary to stem a larger world-wide financial crisis and the continued hand-outs under the guise of the stimulus package that came after.
You can read him discuss it here during an interview with Glenn Beck:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/artic…


Laura
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 3:44 am

Exactly right, Jack 82431. Mitt was always opposed to the Obama stimulus package that he felt was not stream-lined to actually stimulate the economy and create jobs. The Bush TARP and the Obama stimulus package with its continued hand-outs are two separate things which the writer is lumping together.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 7:26 am

What a joke! I'm gonna watch Mitt backpedal on Tarp at Beck's knee? Not on your life! Outside of the FUX News bubble, the fact is that Romney was “for TARP before he was against it” and the TARP which he was for was the Bush/Paulson model with NO transparency and lots more goodies for the bankers. Glen Beck? Why dont you just add a link to Orly Taitz's website? Jeez…


phred
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 7:42 am

Hmm. Here is Romney's NYTimes editorial on what to do with the car companies back in November 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19rom…

Didn't the Obama admin basically do what he was calling for?

“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.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”


Matthew Yglesias » Shocking News — A Mitt Romney Flip-Flop!
Pingback posted September 20, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

[...] Weigel points out that Mitt Romney is now slamming the TARP bill that he once favored. Shocking to see that guy change his position on [...]


Pug
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

Mitt Romney will never be president. Why? Mainly because he is an absolute, total phony.


race42008.com » Blog Archive » Romney Plays Spock
Pingback posted September 20, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

[...] Weigel at the Washington Independent thinks he has Mitt Romney in another flip flop at the Values Voter Summit: When government is trying to take over health care, buying car [...]


David Weigel
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

Laura, I think you're giving Romney too much credit. In the February speech – which, I'll add, was delivered at the exact same stage in the same hotel as yesterday's speech – Romney threaded the needle and said he supported the bailout of banks but opposed using the bailout money to rescue car companies. Yesterday, he dumped the bank bailouts into a litany of ways that “big government activists” were “exploit[ing] the financial crisis that they themselves unknowingly enabled.” Bank bailouts used to be good, but now they're part of the creep toward socialism. It was quite clearly a bow to Glenn Beckism.


narciso
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

The TARP was sold, to solve a problem the issue of toxic assets, which wasn't resolved. So we were sold a bill of goods on that score, that turned out to be false. Much like the stimulus and healthcare and cap n trade, well you get the idea


stephenmonteith
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

Romney was Actually talking about voters having good reason “to be alarmed and to speak [their] mind[s]“. Some time in the last couple of years, Democrats reversed their belief that we shouldn’t confuse dissent with disloyalty. These days, you can’t disagree with the president without being called wrong, an idiot, a racist, or a “Worst Person in the World”. Romney was pointing out that speech is still free in this country (for now).

By the way, whatever his position on the bank bailouts, Romney was absolutely opposed to the auto bailouts. In December of ‘08, he penned an op-ed for the New York Times saying that the Big Three, Chrysler, GM, and Ford, should be allowed to go bankrupt in order to set themselves right. (Ironically, Ford, the only company that refused a bailout, was also the only company that didn’t go bankrupt.)

I trust Romney’s business and economic acumen more than any politician’s.


stephenmonteith
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

The Obama admin Didn't do basically that. First of all, they sent tons of bailout money to Chrysler and GM, dictated who should run the companies and how, interfered on behalf of the unions, and negotiated the Chrysler-Fiat merger themselves. In structured bankruptcy proceedings, the only branch of the government that gets involved is the judicial branch.

Those measures he was proposing the federal government take were investing in new methods of fuel efficiency, energy research, and backing warranties through proper channels. It wasn't an invitation for the government to take a direct hand in operating private companies.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 12:49 am

Every once in a while Romney accidentally speaks with candor-like when he said that the bankruptcy of Detroit would be okay with him as long as it busted the auto unions. Now that's change some of you can believe in!


karl
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 2:10 am

I'm confused. So what your saying is that it's ok for him to support the bailouts (which he did) but to then say that people have a good reason “to be alarmed” about the fact that they occurred? Shouldn't by that logic people be alarmed about his judgment? Also, to say that any criticism of Obama puts a person in a precarious position is strange. It would take me to long to list all the instances of not counter-criticism but actual stifling of descent under the previous administration.


stephenmonteith
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 2:18 am

And you think that the previous administration's stifling of dissent justifies the current hate-mongering from the “mainstream” media, or the insults directed at concerned citizens from members of Congress and, at times, even members of the administration? When people are “alarmed” at the government spending hundreds of billions of dollars at a time, whether they're right to be or not, they should be allowed to say so; that's all Romney was saying.


Romney the Spineless - Floor 55
Pingback posted September 21, 2009 @ 3:28 am

[...] Now: When government is trying to take over health care, buying car companies, bailing out banks, and giving half the White House staff the title of czar – we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind! [...]


karl
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 2:47 am

So the messenger doesn't count huh? That's very fluid logic there but I suppose whatever allows you to make your point. And no, no hate mongering is never justified but if your calling even raising the question of whether racism is at play in some of this selective dissent hatemongering sounds like a bit of projection to me. But, I concede you could be right, perhaps racism is just an illusion, know one can ever really know. However, to call any discussion of the racial dynamic, considering the history of this country, hatemonger is a bit of a stretch but again, anything to justify your position right?


Brooklyn
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 3:02 am

What a joke. This is the worst interpretation of the original conception of the TARP bailout I can imagine. Of course MR. ROMNEY wisely supported the original Bailouts provided by the Bush Administration, and has opposed the manipulative exploitation of the Democratic Party's abuse of the backing up of the Engines behind our Free Market. Mr. Weigel makes a huge mistake here, and many vapid Conservatives playing the fashion will jump on it. Someday, Paulson and Bernanke may just be proven to have acted properly, inheriting a Mortgage Market disaster from the abuse of Democratic Partisans. Nothing wrong with Mr. Romney now opposing the overt abuse of Government intervention by Democratic Partisans today. This is sophistry, and a desperate effort to debase a fine Republican Conservative.


dnlchisholm
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 3:23 am

Mitt DID NOT flip-flop. Mitt supported TARP because the alternative of doing nothing at the time was far worse. With that in mind, TARP has been used in ways it was not created to be used in and is now a terrible mess. Mitt never supported the way TARP was used and didn't support it doing anything besides stopping the credit market from completely freezing which would've caused the economy to crumble within days. Anyone who has ever run a business knows how much business relies on short-term loans for things like payroll. If a business can't get those loans, they are forced by law to go bankrupt and our economy was on the verge of a massive collapse like that. Mitt being an adult and doing the right but unpopular think back then is a big reason why I know he will make a great president!


Lori
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 4:20 am

Hey Weigl–what makes you think TARP and bailing out banks is the same thing? Are you too simplistic to understand that there is difference. TARP was not designed to bailout banks but to help keep banks solvent and protect the depositors funds and keep the credit markets open. The government had to protect America from financial collapse. A bailout is something different. The GM takeover, that was a bailout. AIG that was a bailout. Picking winners and giving them taxpayer money–that is a bailout. TARP was a cash injection in the money market.

Romney is smart, a bit smarter than you, he knows the difference. Learn and stop conflating TARP with bailouts. It makes you sound ignorant and too lazy to check the facts.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 5:19 am

Oh yeah Romney's smart. Smarter than Fred Thompson, maybe. Other than that I thought his performance in the Repub debates last year was beyond weak. At one of the debates he really came off as a Palinesque clown when he was trying to look like the toughest of the bunch on foriegn policy: he had managed to get into a pissing match on Guantanamo with Huckabee, and the line he left hanging in the air like a stale fart was, “well if I were President I'd DOUBLE Guantanamo!” It's only next to the peanut gallery of cartoon characters who pass as Repub leaders these days that Romney appears 'smart'…


Mitt starts his 2012 campaign « THE DANDELION
Pingback posted September 21, 2009 @ 6:40 am

[...] here Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to [...]


CDT
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 5:55 am

The whole point of saying that he would “Double Guantanamo” was to say that the very LAST thing we need was to close it. Look what's happening. I say he's smart, and yes, he's smarter than you.


BizzyBlog
Pingback posted September 21, 2009 @ 6:58 am

[...] From the Washington Independent — “Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support.” [...]


gene
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 10:59 am

Don't care what Romney said.

Voters' blah blah blah are still in love with beltway politicians… liars.

Romney is same as Obama.


carkrueger
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 11:42 am

I don't see where the flip-flop is. I heard both speeches and there are no inconsitencies with his positions.


joseph1972
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

Once a flipper, always a flopper…that is Mitt Romney. He will say whatever is necessary to try and win over the crowd in front of him at that moment. He is the ultimate appeaser and panderer. By the way, if you think back to the Michigan debate during the GOP primaries, bailout of the auto industry was his idea…LOL


David Paitsel
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

Another flip-flop from the consummate flip-flopper. I really believe Romney must have total contempt for the American voter. This happens way too often for it to be an evolution in the man's thinking. He switches positions based on 1) opinion polls, and 2) the constituency he's talking to. How else to explain being a liberal Republican when running for gov of Massachusetts and a born-again Reagan Republican when running for President.

If the GOP is idiotic enough to nominate this jerk for President, I'm voting third party. No way in hell I'm voting for Romney.


allstonian
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

I think your interpretation is naive and disingenuous. If he had back tracked on bailouts banks on their own, I could say he flip-flopped. However, I think he was lumping them all together and if you include the auto industry, the health care system AND the bank bailouts, then it doesn't work and government is taking over.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Smarter than me? What a zinger. By your own reasoning, don't we need our aspiring presidents to set the bar a little higher than just smarter than me?


chrisjay
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

It's more than a stretch to claim anything remotely like an equivalency between the 2 administrations on this issue: remember “Free Speech Zones?” If not, then you are probably engaging in a lot of willful ignorance. Also, I don't remember any veiled threats to shoot President Bush at ostensibly mainstream demonstrations…


ronniebray
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Flip-Flopper Health Care Stopper.

Romney Rich – got coverage
Limberger rich – got coverage
Beck rich – got coverage

50,000,000 poor – no coverage. Rich dudes say let them eat cake!

Bad GOP, selfish GOP, godless GOP!


ronniebray
Comment posted September 21, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Stephenmonteith:

Nice spin but ingenuous. You can agree with anyone, but it must be done properly, not with lies, racism, lies, bitterness, lies, spin, lies, aggression, lies, shouting down, lies, etc.

The birthers were not dems, and that's just for starters. But where were the good honest repubs that don't deal in lies when it was time to stand up and face the liars in their own party and speak the truth? They confused loyalty with dishonesty, and that's just more of the same.

Obama's business acumen was aimed more at keeping millions of workers in employment so their families would not be evicted, starve, and love everything including their health insurance.

If I understand you right you don't care about the workers as long as your fat cats still get to eat all the lard they want.

BTW – You think Romney is NOT a 'politician'? That explains a whole lot.


Mitt Romney Changes Position on Bank Bailouts
Pingback posted September 22, 2009 @ 2:49 am

[...] Mitt Romney was for the TARP bank/insurance company bailout program before he was against them. The Washington Independent has the coverage of this flip here. [...]


stephenmonteith
Comment posted September 22, 2009 @ 3:20 am

Ronnie, you Don't understand me right.

First of all, when did I ever say anything about the birthers, or whether they were Democrat or Republican?

Second, like the one employee with a wrinkled shirt among the dozen neatly-pressed uniforms, the extreme vocal minority in the Republican Party gets a lot more press than the quiet, reserved bridge builders who were working and caucusing on alternative health and energy bills with conservative and even liberal Democrats over the summer. No one notices the people who are holding honest debates with their fellows, because all the media reports on is the congressman or senator who's in it for the politics.

Third, if it had been up to me, the billions of dollars spent on trying to keep businesses afloat (businesses which still sunk, by the way) would have been better spent giving transition assistance to the workers who lost their jobs. If Chrysler, GM, and a host of other businesses had been allowed to go through bankruptcy proceedings months earlier, then a brief rise in unemployment mitigated by transition dollars would have been all we'd have had to endure while the companies restructured, reopened, and rehired all those workers.

And no, Romney isn't a politician. The fact that he couldn't mount a successful campaign against a RINO like John McCain and a polarizing preacher like Mike Huckabee is proof of that. Romney is and always has been a businessman. He's held exactly one elected office in his entire life. That's the way I like my chief executives: with resumes full of practical experience running businesses, not with running campaigns.


In Just Over 12 Hours, Romney Goes From Praising To Attacking Obama On Afghanistan | Global Stump
Pingback posted March 4, 2010 @ 12:10 am

[...] Most recently, Romney has now flipped back to supporting comprehensive immigration reform (something he supported as late as 2005 before he derided it during the campaign) and just last September, Romney attacked the bank bailouts he had once supported. [...]


Fox News blows a gasket when Ron Paul wins CPAC poll - Page 11 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums
Pingback posted March 20, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

[...] the bailouts originally but later conveniently denounced them. His faith means nothing to me. Romney Slams Bailouts That He Used to Support The Washington Independent [...]


mbt shoes
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:31 am

DO you like it? http://www.hotmbtshoessale.com


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it!


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

so cool!


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 8:24 am

Let us at the top of the information!


Taobao-wholesale
Comment posted August 27, 2010 @ 3:08 am

good post.thanks for you post!


chanel handbags online
Comment posted August 27, 2010 @ 3:11 am

good working!
http://www.taobao-wholesael.com


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.