Image 01 Image 03

Hillary jabs Mitt

Hillary jabs Mitt

Might she be running for something?

At a recent appearance in Detroit, a city which is falling apart at the seams after decades of Democratic Party rule, Ms. Clinton stuck up for the Obama administration’s auto industry bailouts while making an underhanded jab at Mitt Romney.

Dan Merica of CNN reported:

Hillary Clinton subtly swipes at Mitt Romney over auto bailout

Hillary Clinton cribbed a page from President Barack Obama’s playbook on Thursday by taking a swipe at Mitt Romney’s 2008 oped, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

At an event outside Detroit, where the former secretary of state endorsed Democrats Mark Schauer and Gary Peters, Clinton spoke glowingly of their support for the 2008 auto bailout that invested billions into the United States struggling auto industry.

“Now, they could take the safe way, they could line up with those saying ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt,’ let manufacturing just wither away,” Clinton said to a chorus of boos. “They could be on the side of those who were criticizing what they called government motors.”

Though Clinton never mentioned Romney by name, the comment appeared to be directed at him, as well as Schauer’s and Peters’ Republican opponents.

Romney unsuccessfully ran for president in 2012 and famously wrote on opinion-editorial for The New York Times in 2008 that urged letting the big three auto companies — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — go into a structured bankruptcy.

“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye,” Romney wrote. “It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”

Maybe Hillary is right. After all, Mitt Romney has only been correct in about 99.9% of the predictions he made during the 2012 election.

As long as we’re on the subject, how is General Motors doing these days?

The investor site Seeking Alpha offers some insight:

General Motors’ Problems Are About To Get Worse


  • Shares of General Motors have fallen in light of the recalls but stronger sales have helped to support the company.
  • Strong sales may be a result of recall customers coming into the dealerships and big discount programs – both unsustainable over the long-term.
  • Not only are high sales numbers likely unsustainable, the company has had to issue stop-sell orders on many new models which may further hurt its reputation.

Investors in shares of General Motors (NYSE: GM) have seen prices drop by nearly a third since the beginning of the year but strong new car sales have helped to ease the pain. Even if the company can move past its problem with the recall, investors may be facing an entirely new problem. Sales are likely being pulled forward as millions of customers come back into the showroom. Dealers may find it harder to meet expectations next year and earnings downgrades threaten the shares.

Osama bin Laden may be dead but General Motors is barely alive.

And Detroit?

There’s no better example of what happens when Democrats have free rein.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There are some situations…very unpleasant situations…such as declaring bankruptcy or leaving an abusive relationship that are best done sooner, not later.

Romney was, of course, right. And on several levels.

The bankruptcy process that Obama forced was one of his first acts of outlawry, and is still ramifying through the economy. A normal, structured bankruptcy would have had healthy effects for all the interests concerned. That’s why it exists. It is a rational, legal, even moral process.

As to Detroit…

What has Ol’ Walleyes been snorting…???

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 2:50 am

    Romney WAS right, federal bankruptcy court was not only able to handle GM and other automakers but would have been the best venue for reorganization since parties would have the protection of the law.

    What happened was an artificial bankruptcy dictated by Obama, favoring unions over other parties and creditors – including bondholders and people collecting judgments from GM for injuries. Essentially he used tax money to help the unions screw everyone else, and the resulting company was not truly reorganized in an efficient sense, retaining much of the old structural inefficiency.

    Cheering Hillary on this issue only proves her audience is clueless on the facts.

If Mitt fights back against Hillary, everyone will know that he hates women.
After all, he never fought Barack.

    Ragspierre in reply to Yujin. | October 17, 2014 at 9:07 am

    That’s not true. Romney DID fight Barracula, just not the way you or I wanted him fought.

    And when he fought him, he kicked his ass unless Pres. ScamWOW had help in the form of cheating debate “moderators” and the entire Mushroom Media lie-0-tron.

      He was far more aggressive during the primaries.

        Ragspierre in reply to Yujin. | October 17, 2014 at 10:05 am

        I never said otherwise. Just that it is untrue to say he never fought Barracula.

        He apparently felt that there was a fighting mode for the primaries and another for the bigs. Again, you and I would disagree with him. He should have shown more elbows with Obama. But he did fight. It was just his fight, not ours.

      Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Yeah, they all cheated for Obama. You should just give up. Obviously the collectivists have an advantage by, well, acting collectively.

      Is it always cheating when you lose? It must be fun to play Scrabble with you.

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

        “Obviously the collectivists have an advantage by, well, acting collectively.”

        Of course you do! GroupThink and ThoughtPolicing works…!!!


        Why do you think the Joun-o-listers cobbled up their little inbred pit of snakes…???

        And EVERYBODY knows this. Either you are too stupid to have learned it, or you’re just lying.


          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm

          Yawn 🙂

          Please note the classic prog response: if you can’t answer a charge, you ignore it.

          Probably taking after Hillary. What difference at this point does it make? {/snerk}

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 5:18 pm

          “Please note the classic prog response” You obviously aren’t following too closely. I am not obliged to respond with a serious answer everytime he calls me stupid.

          What, required a response in his last comment?

          Since you have criticized me for not responding, please answer that or I will assume that you make classic reactionary responses.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 7:05 pm

          Why do you think the Joun-o-listers cobbled up their little inbred pit of snakes…???

Would it be misogynistic of me to point out that Detroit did go bankrupt (both the City and GM)?

American Human | October 17, 2014 at 9:12 am

This woman is so evil. She would be a worse continuation of the Administration of Obama. It is obvious that she knows nothing, NOTHING, about the world of business. Bankruptcy is a method of recovery for businesses. She is in favor, apparently, of giving tax payer money from people in Georgia to the inept leaders of a failed city in Michigan. This is a furtherance of her political agenda plain and simple. Like her master Alinsky, and her man Bill, and her former boss Obama, she is willing to put her narrow leftist views and political agenda ahead of the people she wants to take a vow to Protect and Preserve.
Would you stop putting photos of her on your site. I come here often and cannot stand to even look at her.

I guess Mitt should have been more clear and stated “let the auto industry reorganize through bankruptcy.” There are two kinds of bankruptcy: liquidation and reorganization. Most of the great unwashed believe bankruptcy and liquidation are one and the same.

    Ragspierre in reply to Redneck Law. | October 17, 2014 at 9:40 am

    But even in a liquidation, you are not killing off important assets like a brand name and good will, and plant and productive capacity. Those are sold, if there is a willing buyer, and the proceeds applied to the debt side of the equation.

    But GM and Chrysler should simply have been restructured, honoring the normal hierarchy of payments where secured debt was paid first, instead of the way the outlaw Obama forced, which gave his union buddies priority on the teets.

I believe in the transcript, Government Motors should be capitalized. But, at this point, what difference does it make?

pablo panadero | October 17, 2014 at 10:17 am

Should note that while Mitt penned the editorial, he did not create the headline, which was created by a Democrat at the New York Times. Lesson to be learned is that it is the headline that is repeated, not the content. Never give your adversary that opportunity. If a Republican does not have final reject power on the headline of an editorial, it cannot be published at that media outlet.

    Deodorant in reply to pablo panadero. | October 17, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    You know for a fact that the person who penned the headline was a Democrat? Please share.

      Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 2:27 pm

      Well, highly probable. You DO understand probabilities, at least with a picture to help, right?

        Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 4:15 pm

        I looked at your picture. Is that the NYT editorial board? The only probability I see is that you are more likely to be in the picture if you are white and male. I didn’t see any political affiliations listed.

        That’s the best you’ve got? Then you have not met your burden of proof.

        Didn’t Alito and Thomas go to Yale? Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia went to Harvard. What are the probabilities they are liberal?

          Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 4:18 pm

          Yawn 🙂

          Deodorant in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

          So you have no proof? No probabilities? It is you misfortune that I have studied probability and statistics as well as logic. I started teaching myself probability when I was 12. I took a college course in probability and one in logic with an emphasis on fallacies. My career is based on logic.

          Now, please tell me how you know that the headline writer was a Democrat?

          Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 9:39 pm

          Do you even read your own self-aggrandizing bullshit?

          Seriously. You are such a punk-assed bitch. Do you have a friend?

          Deodorant in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm

          So you have no proof? No probabilities?

          How do you know it was a democrat?

That revolting little troll ought to take care as she stands on her ant hill sized list of accomplishments having to gaze upwards to criticize Mitt Romney. She’s liable to lose her balance and end up on her posterior yet again. Benghazi on line two, Madame Secretary.

“…Mitt Romney has only been correct in about 99.9% of the predictions he made during the 2012 election.”

And we’re paying dearly for re-electing the little poser puppet emperor and his cabal of liars, thieves and usurpers continue to grind down America.

Free stuff indeed…

    LEEJAN in reply to GrumpyOne. | October 17, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Thank you Candy Crow-ley for conspiring with O to lie about Benghazi. We patriots thank you and the families of the murdered in Benghazi thank you.

      Deodorant in reply to LEEJAN. | October 17, 2014 at 1:43 pm

      How come the committee chaired by Issa never came up with any evidence that Obama delayed a response to Benghazi or did anything else that was questionable. Issa promised a smoking gun, but went down in flames.

      Give it a rest. It was a tragedy and a mistake. But the Ambassador made the mistake. Besides if you really want to harp on something, why not whine about the ongoing damage done by the ill-advised and botched invasion of Iraq. Hint: Clinton voted for it. Of course, Bush and Cheney are the responsible parties.

      How does Benghazi compare with Iraq?

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm

        “How does Benghazi compare with Iraq?”

        Hard to know WTF you mean. If you mean how does Obama’s dealing with Benghazi compare with the Bush conduct of the warssssss in Iraq (there were two…the invasion and the occupation), well, the answer is “Really, really badly for Barracula”.

        If you mean how does Barracula’s conduct of Iraq policy and his conduct of Benghazi compare, its really all part of a piece. But it’s all just a piece of dog crap.

        BTW, have you EVER had a thought of your own? Because we all know the moonbat lying points at least as well as you, and don’t need you coming here to republish them.

        You’re nothing but a troll. As you’ve admitted.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 4:41 pm

          LOL! You must have been sleeping during the Battle of Fallujah. That alone, was more expensive in blood and treasure than Benghazi and it was pointless. It is now in ISIS hands.

          How can you compare single tragic mistake with a trumpted up botched war that cost trillions and the lives of thousands of troops and uncounted civilians?

          You may think you have heard other points of views. But listening to right-wing propaganda about the left is not the same as listening. I have listened to Limbaugh and Levin. They use caricature, misquotes and fallacy. I won’t accept that crap when I hear it from left-wing sources. How can you accept it from right-wingers?

          If you really think I am imbued with group think, then you are not trying. I am an iconclast. The only thing I bow to is fact. You cannot stand that I am not the stereotype that you picture. It seems to bother you enormously that I have a different world view and I can backup my view with facts and logic. I can’t exist. I am impossible.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 4:54 pm

          No. You are silly.

          And an easily duped, egomaniacal, rather stupid kid.

          Have you looked up “psychotic” yet, you moron?

          Do you know now that nobody intentionally infected Indians with plague blankets? Have you assailed the liars who backed that crap up your butt?

          Some “iconoclast”…!!! Ha, ha, ha…!!!

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 5:41 pm

          If the sole source of the accusation is Churchill, I have no problem rejecting the claim. I thank you for acquainting me with that. That is the difference between us. I will not defend a fraud like Churchill. You double down.

          There are numerous references of Amherst suggesting that smallpox be used as a weapon of war at Fort Pitt in 1763. It is based on original documents to backup the claim:

          I am not sure how one piece of widely diseminted but discredited slander, discredits me. Does the Piltdown Man discredit evolution? What about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

          If we are discussing atrocities committed against Native Americans, are you claiming that there were none? What about the ‘Trail of Tears’? How about ‘Wounded Knee’?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 6:52 pm

          “I am not sure how one piece of widely diseminted but discredited slander, discredits me.”

          Because you ape it, stupid. You bring this bullshit here and smear it on the site as Pwoooof of your reasons for hating your own nation and its people.

          As I said…SOME “iconoclast”…!!! I’ve read the “plague blanket” myth. Sure, a couple of BRITISH officers considered it, in the process of fighting a war. They kinda WOULD, since that was their business.

          I’ve ALSO read that there is NOTHING credible showing they ever DID such a thing, and that the small pox was already well established at the time, just from the normal course of trading.


          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 5:29 pm

          I can understand how you would want to make Benghazi a much bigger deal than it was. But even Issa couldn’t make it into a scandal.

          I am not sure what Clinton’s position is on smallpox blankets, but I will count on you to claim that she personally proof-read Ward Churchill’s scholarly works and then quoted them in a political campaign.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 7:09 pm

          Since you’re still here and insisting on being an asshole…

          Remember your REMARKABLE admission that you were here to personally discredit me?

          1. Why the pathological hate?

          2. How’s that working for ya, hunny? (Look at the numbers.)

          3. Visualize having a life!

The auto industry in Detroit. Alive and well. Sucked up hundreds of millions of our dollars and cost the lives of untold unsuspecting buyers of their killer cars. Great job, Obie.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | October 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

Yet, I’ve heard that Hillary was truly the moderate one in the Clinton Family. One could take what Hillary said to the bank! Guess that Bill was the mean one of that bunch!

./ snark off

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | October 17, 2014 at 5:10 pm

Ah yes, the lesson has been forgotten! Yet, is it been forgotten forever? Doubtful. Time will tell.

The care and feeding of trolls should never be allowed by civilized human beings; that kindness only encourages them. One whack, metaphorically speaking, of course, to its verbal leakage, from its obviously weakened brain pan, should be sufficient. Yet, they are persistent, intent on wreaking havoc on civilization as it is, thusly inflicting great harm on thoughtful conversations everywhere.

Lastly, a good, decent, deodorant should mask the aroma of bodily sweat, not replace it with a strong stench, as so many cheap one’s do. Pity!

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | October 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Running for the border perhaps?
Maybe the Libyan border?