Romney ad tells truth about Jeep production in China; Left freaks out

With Ohio presidential polls showing a dead heat, liberals have worked themselves up into a frenzy about a new Romney television ad:

Michael Tomasky piles on in The Daily Beast:

There’s basic dishonesty and then there’s f-you dishonesty–dishonesty so blatant, so consciously abusive of facts that everyone knows, that it deserves a category of its own. Kato Keilin: dishonesty. O.J.: f-you dishonesty.

Romney’s new ad about Jeeps and Italy is f-you dishonest.

During a campaign speech in Definance, Ohio, last Thursday, Romney did misstate Jeep’s plans, claiming Chrysler was considering moving “all” Jeep production 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 was apparently responding to a confusing statement by Mike Manley, president and CEO of the Jeep brand early last week:

Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.

Fiat is in “very detailed conversations” with its Chinese partner, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (2238), about making Jeeps in the world’s largest auto market, said Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia. Chrysler hasn’t built Jeeps there since before Fiat took control in 2009.

“The volume opportunity for us is very significant,” Manley, who is also president of the Jeep brand, said in an interview at Chrysler’s Auburn Hills, Michigan, headquarters. “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”

Chrysler subsequently clarified Manley’s comments:

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.

As the Detroit News notes, building cars in China is unremarkable:

Chrysler previously built Jeeps in China — and the move would not be unusual. Ford Motor Co. builds Ford vehicles in China for Chinese buyers and General Motors Co. builds Buicks in China for local consumers.

So what exactly does Romney’s ad — the one that has the Left in full-blown freak-out mode— say about all this?

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.

You can see the ad for yourself here.

The liberal journalists leading the charge insist this is terribly deceptive even as they acknowledge that every word of it is true. Here’s Kevin Drum of Mother Jones:

Technically, every word of this is true. Obama did force GM and Chrysler through a managed bankruptcy. Fiat did end up buying Chrysler. And Chrysler is thinking about building Jeeps in China. But remember my three-part test to judge how deceptive a statement is?

  1. What was the speaker trying to imply?
  2. What would it take to state things accurately?
  3. How much would accuracy damage the speaker’s point?

On this scale, Romney’s ad rates about 9 out of 10 on the deceptiveness scale. He’s obviously trying to imply that American jobs will be shipped overseas; stating things accurately would require wholesale revisions; and doing so would completely destroy Romney’s point. But he doesn’t care. He’s got an election to win, and if scaring Ohio autoworkers is what it takes, then that’s what it takes. It’s truly nauseating.

[Emphasis added.]

And here’s Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic:

Although the statements about Chrysler are true individually, together they imply that the Obama Administration’s action led to the outsourcing of American jobs. That is obviously false, both in the specific sense of what Chrysler is doing and in the more general sense of what the entire auto industry is doing. [Emphasis added.]

Got that? It’s “truly nauseating”and “obviously false” to tell the truth about Jeep’s plans to build plants in China because … because … Romney!

At least one mainstream media outlet has bought into the Left’s ridiculous narrative:

A National Journal article is running  on Yahoo! News is headlined, “Romney Ad Wrongly Implies Chrysler is Sending U.S. Jobs to China.”

For months, the Left has criticized Romney for allegedly outsourcing jobs to China. Here’s an the Obama campaign ad that ran just four weeks ago:

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Left suddenly sees no problem whatsoever with manufacturing in China.

Byron York of the Examiner patiently explains the Left’s hypocrisy:

  • Mistertbones

    Byron York manages to keep a level head while all the left wing wackos yell out.

  • gpearl

    I see Obama’s ad, but do not see Romney’s response ad here. I’ll search for it.

  • MrTouchShriek

    Cheers on your polls in Ohio, NH, and Virginia slipping back Obama’s way, guys! We’ve couldn’t have done it without York and the remainder of the right-wing echo chamber pushing voters left.

    • Darkstar1661

      Please do enjoy whatever hope you think you can grasp onto; but be advised, the election is basically already over and Obama has absolutely no chance barring Romney going on a shooting-spree at a daycare center somewhere. (shoot, even then its probably questionable Obama would win though – the approval/track ratings are so in the tank that people would probably still vote Romney and just let Ryan eventually take over then to give this failed President their vote)

    • PistolsForPandas

      I hate to break it to you, Ohio and NH are within the margin of error, and Virginia is barely pro-Obama (0.5% above the margin of error) with eight days to go.

      But, hey, Obama’s got this thing in the bag, so in the bag that I think it’s safe for you and your friends to stay home on Election Day. Besides, I hear Halo 4 is coming out that day…

    • Guest

      The leftist hypocrites still think they can’t be touched.

    • itzyaboi95

      If enough people knew the true colors of the left, Romney would’ve already dominated the election.

    • J. Cox

      Sorry to disappoint you..latest polls have Romney up by 2,with a huge lead with I voters,and the gender gap in ALL states has gone buh’bye.Keep thinking that way though,stay home,pop your champagne early.We won’t miss you at the polls.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Nice try, twatface. I still bet this is gonna be an electoral blowout on the order of Reagan/Carter.

  • LightSabre

    Romney does something: Bad
    Obama does same thing: Good
    And every media source except FOX News is on Obama’s side.

    • Cheryl G

      Because FOX is absolutely the least educated…don’t you see that?….

      • PennyRobinsonFanClub

        You are the least educated, you ignorant twat.

      • LightSabre

        They are the ONLY professional TV journalists still out there, fool.

  • Mark Myers

    Fiat Says Jeep Output May Return to China as Demand Rises …
    [Oct 21, 2012] Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country ……/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep... – Cached

  • Penmar

    So Chrysler didn’t say that before they did say that? They must be taking debate lessons from John Kerry too. Read the article a few weeks ago.

    • Cheryl G

      Mitts is the master

      • PennyRobinsonFanClub

        Don;t you need to run to the welfare office for your diaphragm allowance?

  • Darkstar1661

    “Although the statements about Chrysler are true individually, together they imply…”

    Humm, “imply” – like when the Obama ads “implied” Romney gave peoples wives cancer, “implied” he paid no taxes, or how about that new one with all the creepy kids singing which “implies” Romney wants sick people to die, to kill polar bears and destroy the planet?

    • Godlover69

      So, it’s okay for Romney to make manipulative implications as long as the other guy is doing it? Shouldn’t our candidate be above all this?

      • Penmar

        I read the article a week and a half ago and the ad is true. And anyone who thinks for one min Chrysler hasn’t suddenly back tracked, will not move their operations to China is nuts. Businesses are in business to make money, Fiat can make Jeep lots cheaper in China, so that’s where they will go, might not be tomorrow, but as soon as they get their plant ramped up to handle the demand it will be done. And by then then the election will be over, so they won’t much care if Americans don’t have jobs any longer.

        • Guest

          No, it is very manipulative. We need to be even minded about this, and understand that even our guy can make mistake and be dishonest.

          “Anyone who thinks that for one min chrysler hasn’t suddenly back tracked, will not move their operations to China is nuts.” is a false statement. Chrysler said themselves that they are not moving US production to China.

          There is this concern that the right, my side, the side I’ve been voting for for the last 15 years, is living in a post-factual world. A world where we think we can just make up something that sounds plausable, and assume

          • John

            The problem here is people forgetting to look at the big picture. Yes, they’re talking about ADDING production in China right now. Correct. But your belief that Romney is being deceptive because of that is stated in contrast to ALL HISTORIC EVIDENCE of manufacturing ending up in China. As the previous poster stated, creating there, then closing here, isn’t “moving” by the strict definition you people are using (yeah, I said ‘you people’, and I’m against Obama — you know what that means).
            The reality is, -ALL- jobs and production are moving to China because their labor is radically less expensive than ours, and they’re more anxious to work. Their government has had them so oppressed and poor for so long (the nature of the left), they’re glad to work in jobs we’d consider terrible. Modern manufacturing jobs? Crap that even wimpy union labor can do here in the U.S.? Oh yeah, they’ll do those jobs for less. So much less it’s a massive savings to have them do it and pay the shipping to the U.S. for U.S. markets.

            Believing the short-term version of this story, with the trade deficit we’re running to China and their surplus to us, is willful ignorance.

          • Godlover69

            “But your belief that Romney is being deceptive because of that is stated in contrast to ALL HISTORIC EVIDENCE of manufacturing ending up in China.”

            This isn’t an evidentiary argument as you haven’t provided any evidence.

            “Believing the short-term version of this story, with the trade deficit we’re running to China and their surplus to us, is willful ignorance.”

            Our deficit to china doesn’t affect Chrysler’s willingness to keep manufacturing here. This is a red herring.

          • John

            We’re on the internet. More than that, we’re mostly informed people (you might be the exception) who are well aware that jobs are flocking to China for low labor prices. You asking for evidence of something so obvious doesn’t serve your point. It just makes you feel like you can say you’re being logical.

            I said trade deficit, not deficit. I’m communicating quite clearly my point, which is quite sound, and not that hard to review should you be uninformed enough to not recognize the simple truth of it. Calling it a red herring (calling it misleading) because you want to change what I said to what you feel is easy to argue against makes your response a red herring.

            We call that irony.

            I call that laughable.

          • Godlover69

            No, you aren’t answering my point. “You asking for evidence of something so obvious doesn’t serve your point. It just makes you feel like you can say you’re being logical.”

            I agree that manufacturing jobs are going to China, but there is nothing saying that Chrysler will be moving their manufacturing there for US purchased cars. That’s the evidence I’m looking for. I missed your point about the trade deficit (I read just the deficit, my mistake), but there is no evidence that Chrysler is moving over there because of the trade deficit. It’s a red herring because you have no evidence that this applies to the situation. You haven’t made that link. From the company:

            “[The Bloomberg story] has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.”

            Saying that the evidence is obvious doesn’t actually conjure up any evidence. You are making assumptions with no data or facts to back it up. If Chrysler said they were moving manufacturing to China, I wouldn’t be complaining about the ad. I don’t want my guy to be manipulative. I don’t want my guy to be the liar. That’s for their side.

          • GreenEyedGal

            Godlover69, you said, “I agree that manufacturing jobs are going to China, but there is nothing saying that Chrysler will be moving their manufacturing there for US purchased cars. That’s the evidence I’m looking for.”

            But @OmJohn:disqus didn’t say that. He said, “Yes, they’re talking about ADDING production in China right now.” He then went on to say that opening a plant in China now and closing a plant in America later isn’t technically moving US manufacturing jobs to China (although that’s not what the Romney ad claims.) Let me try to put what he said to you in simpler terms.

            Businesses are in business to make money. American businesses are loyal to America as long as they can make money. If they can’t make money, they can’t stay in business. So they outsource manufacturing jobs to other countries that can do the same work or better for less. They make a profit. They stay in business. Americans lose jobs, America’s economy shrinks as more businesses move overseas, but there are other economies who will pay for the products the businesses provide.

            Italian businesses would conceivably be loyal to Italy as long as they can make money. And then they’ll start looking for places where they can make them cheaper. Italian businesses have no loyalty to America AT ALL. They too are in business to make money. If it costs less to manufacture vehicles in China, they will open a manufacturing plant in China and boost China’s economy by increasing its workforce. And as a business, when they see that the vehicles being manufactured in China are equal to what’s being produced here at a much smaller cost, it wont make sense to keep the American manufacturer in business. And those jobs will go to China too.

            The problem is two-fold. The first problem is the unions, taxes and oppressive regulations American manufacturers face. Minimum wage is one of the worst economic decisions this country has ever made, by the way. You pay high labor costs, which take a big bite out of your profit, along with taxes and all the other restrictions the government imposes on automakers. So you have to raise the cost of your product in order to continue to make a product. The American business can do one of two things: 1.) They can take their business overseas, or 2.) They can lobby the government to try to remove the shackles placed on them by Uncle Sam. Because they’re loyal to their country, most will try to change laws before they just up and leave. But when it doesn’t work, they will leave.

            An American company was sold to an Italian company. The Italians are not loyal to America. Profit is the bottom line. They don’t care if the jobs stay in America or not. I would hypothesize it gives them secret delight to see us fail because we’ve been hated for our success for a long time. They’re going to go where they can make the most profit. So when they open the China manufacturing plant and it does really well at a fraction of the cost of US manufacturing, they’ll close the US plants and move the rest of the manufacturing to China as well. It’s the nature of making money.

          • native son

            So this is fact because the car company exects don’t have the capacity to lie?

          • Hal Fast

            No public corrupt Jimmy Hoffa Jr public unions or even corrupt private unions to deal with, and that that is very good for business, and businesses are entitled to go where they feel is best for them, not the fed, state, county or city governments. Got it now commies who want more and more taxes because they can’t ever budget what they have ever.

          • Lynelle Hullsiek

            But he didn’t make it up. WTH are you on about?

          • GreenEyedGal

            @09c1e45ad04655e121b27e35cea7268a:disqus, @mprepublican2012:disqus’s point isn’t that they’re moving US production to China. Stop putting words in peoples’ mouths; stop operating on your pre-conceived notions and comprehend what is being said.

            Chrysler will very likely manufacture Jeep in China, whether it’s for China’s consumption or to be imported for US consumption. Everything is cheaper to produce in China and China means it to be that way. They play to win. We play to … I’m not sure what the US plays to do anymore. Seems like for as long as I can remember, the US has played to lose. I’m not old enough to have any distinct memories of Reagan.

          • PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Hey look it’s the same guy with the same cut n paste!

          • native son

            Huh, 15 years? That is exactly what godlover69 said………..hmmmmmm

        • Godlover69

          No, it is very manipulative. We need to be even minded about this, and understand that even our guy can make mistake and be dishonest.

          “Anyone who thinks that for one min chrysler hasn’t suddenly back tracked, will not move their operations to China is nuts.” is a false statement. Chrysler said themselves that they are not moving US production to China.

          There is this concern that the right, my side, the side I’ve been voting for for the last 15 years, is living in a post-factual world. A world where we think we can just make up something that sounds plausable, and assume that our opinions are equal to those who are experts or those using evidence to make a case. They aren’t. Reality isn’t malleable. The liberal mainstream media does this, too, and have been doing it for years.

          Isn’t our side better than this? Can’t we win by just presenting voters an honest choice?

          • Penmar

            So, Chrysler isn’t lying but Romney, well, he’s being deceptive? Here is what I believe will happen with Chrysler, they are going to go ahead with building up the plant in China, they will build it up so it can handle the building of all Jeep models. Then they will close down the US plants, they won’t actually have moved the plants to China because after all, they already had the plant there. Oh it won’t happen in the next few months, they will wait a decent amount of time before they spring it on us. And that is being honest. As for reality, Chrysler’s CEO said they were going to china and might eventually build all of their models there. Then they said they weren’t moving plants to China. How you say something is just as important as what you say and the words you use to say it. Semantics.

          • Godlover69

            There is no proof Chrysler is lying. You can “believe” whatever you want will happen with Chrysler, but you have no evidence. Your opinion doesn’t equal the evidence required to make an argument. Unless you can prove they going to be moving their plant form the US to China, you have no business making that assertion. It has no business being in a political ad form the side I believe stands for honestly and values.

          • Penmar

            There is no proof Chrysler isn’t lying either, other than their latest statement which contradicts their earlier statement. Just the fact that their CEO mentioned it as a possibility in an interview means they are considering doing just that. Otherwise, the CEO would never have said it, because everything they say affects the markets and their stock. As for making the assertion of what I believe Chrysler will do or not do in the future, if I remember correctly, I still live in a free country and am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours. I can make any assertion I like based on what I believe. I do not insist that you believe as I do, however, I am still entitled to voice my opinion.

          • Godlover69

            Oh, brother. This isn’t how logic works. The reason we live in a society that has “innocent until proven guilty,” is because it is impossible to fully prove something a negative. How would Chrysler prove they aren’t lying? I can’t think of a single way. Your statement isn’t falsifiable, and, as a result, not an argument made in logic or good faith.

            They are opening plants in China to manufacture cars in China for Chinese people to buy. China is the fastest growing auto-market. My evidence:

            “and am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours.”

            Yes, but an opinion is not an argument. When you hear an expert give an opinion or when you see someone making a factual statement and providing evidence, it is not the same thing that you are doing. When I say there is no evidence that Chrysler is moving their plants from the US to China, it is because there is no evidence of this. This is a factual statement, NOT my opinion on the matter. When you say, “I believe X is going to happen,” you aren’t basing it on anything concrete. Your opinion means nothing because it has no foundation in reality.

            This is how debate works. These are how arguments are made. You are making me sad to know this “believe what you want and I’ll believe what I want regardless of the evidence” attitude is actually part of my party.

          • djshawman

            How about proof that Romney wasn’t incorrect in his belief that Jeep was being moved to China? For them to back track and say no that’ not really what we meant AFTER Romney jumped on seems suspicious to me. With it being so close to the campaign, I could understand why he ran with it. He wasn’t the only one to interpret their press release in a similar manner (see link below).

            The COO stated “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio” to China.”

            Gee, can’t tell how THAT could have been misinterpreted.

            I’m inclined to believe that you are a troll. You are “disgusted” by something that appears to be a case of an oops (time will tell on that one) we misinterpreted what Chrysler released. No lives were lost here. You will give the Chrysler the benefit of the doubt on its apparent backtrack but not extend that same courtesy to Romney. Furthermore, the ad is correct, but you are “disgusted” by its implications -your OPINION of what it implies, which as you eloquently stated above isn’t based on fact.


          • Godlover69

            Read the bloomberg article this whole thing started from:


            “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”

            Localizing. This means selling manufacturing jeep products in China for sale in China. The whole article is about how Asia is a growing car market. The article repeatedly mentions selling cars in Asia and manufacturing form Asia, but nothing about shutting plants down or selling these cars to Americans.

            The fact that my side wants this to be true is very alarming. It’s factually wrong, and nothing to do with opinion, that Jeep will moving manufacturing from the US to China. There is simply no evidence for it. If evidence arises, then I will change my mind and Romney will have not made a misleading ad. I will spin on a dime and be happier for it.

            “No lives were lost here.”

            Of course not, but we are tarnishing our name with moderates and swing voters. Also, and you should care about this, our side is purposefully misleading people right now. That’s enough to disturb me. I’m unhappy about it. Also, are you so small minded that you can’t imagine some descent on our side. Especially about morality and values, something we tend to have the corner on.

          • Penmar

            I must say, I had the same thought, Desiree, about the troll thing, in part based on @Godlover69’s comments and his unique nick/handle.

          • Godlover69

            One last thing, what it implies isn’t opinion. The fact is that this ad is made to mislead people. It’s technically correct, but presents the facts in a matter that leads people to the wrong conclusion. Romney doesn’t have a popular record, unfortunately, on this auto-bailout thing. Ohio voters care deeply about it.

            I, personally, think Romney’s original opinion of letting the industry get private investment to help it through bankruptcy was the best option. The government has no business interfering and offering corporate welfare.

            Ohioans disagree, which is what is prompting this ad. It implies that Obama’s plan is causing manufacturing to leave the country. That’s imply incorrect. Obama’s plan is the wrong decision for many reasons, but this Jeep issue isn’t one of them.

          • native son

            No! It is your opinion that this ad is misleading! It wasn’t misleading to me. Don’t use your opinion as facts. That isn’t how it works troll

          • Penmar

            I did not say they are moving their plants to China I said they are considering making all Jeep Models in China, per their CEO, and that is a fact, not my opinion. The fact that they have now said “We are not moving plants to China” in no way refutes what their CEO said. They are dissembling, using semantics to try and dissuade people from considering the implications of what their own CEO stated not a week and a half ago. How I believe they intend to go about getting it accomplished is my opinion. As for fully proving a negative, that is a myth, certainly one can do so, because there is no such thing as a purely negative statement, every negative has a positive, and since neither of us can prove absolutely each statement at this time, stalemate. As for logic, my opinion happens to be based on logic, it is logical for GM to make Jeeps in China because it is cheaper to do so, it is also logical that they eventually make all their models there because it is cheaper to do so, it is logical to believe if the CEO of the company says they are looking into making all of their models in China they are doing so because it is cheaper to do so, ergo, profits up, company not going into bankruptcy again. It is also logical that once they have their plant setup in China to accommodate all of their needs in producing all models of Jeeps in China they will no longer require plants in Detroit, Ohio and Illinois to make those products at a much higher cost-Logical.

          • 48Bill

            @godlover69 – yes you are entitled to express your opinion, fact based on not, as you please. The Romney campaign should be held to some standard of truth. The tighter the better, in terms of earning my vote.

          • Melitta Vahalik

            You are being way to thick to be real. The evidence is historical, and you have a computer in front of you, research it and STHU. Is that clear enough for you?

          • Bradley Gill

            We are still far more honest that Liberals. But at some point turning the other cheek just doesn’t do it.. The ads from Obama saying that Romney wanted the car companies to go bankrupt is crazy.. They DID go Bankrupt! That is what they should have ran an ad for.. Calling out Obama. These elections have become a joke.. When campaigns start, en mass, busing clueless college students to the polls to vote for them. We have a problem..

          • Godlover69

            That’s no excuse. I’m disappointed with my party if we are willing to put up with this. They aren’t just lying to the other side, they are lying to us. This isn’t acceptable. And, to top it all off, we have sites like Twitchy, one I enjoy reading from time to time, trying to spin something that is obviously manipulative and false.

            I’m disgusted.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Concern troll is SOOOO concerned.

          • Godlover69

            Yup, anyone that disagrees with you must be a concern troll. (I had to google it.) I also don’t see you making a point here.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yup, anyone that disagrees with you must be a concern troll. (I had to google it.)

            This doesn’t surprise me, given your arguments so far in-thread. Here’s some more Google homework for you: Strawman argument (that would be what you’re attempting now).

            I also don’t see you making a point here.

            This doesn’t surprise me, either.

          • Godlover69

            Look, you are just making baseless accusations. You said, “given your arguments so far in-thread,” are you implying that there is more than one point at which I’ve made a strawman? Also, my previous wasn’t so much a strawman as a snarky reply to your snarky comment.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Look, you are just making baseless accusations.

            So, you *READ* the definition of ‘concern troll’ but didn’t understand it? Your whole series of posts in-thread have been (to paraphrase) “Mitt is SOOOOO great, but why does he have to lie to us?” That type of post is *EXACTLY* what the term ‘concern troll’ was coined for.
            The fact that you use POLITIFACT as a reference further proves the point.

            You said, “given your arguments so far in-thread,” are you implying that
            there is more than one point at which I’ve made a strawman?

            Reading comprehension isn’t your best subject, is it? The ‘arguments in-thread’ statement refers to, *gasp*, your comments *in-thread* to that point. Googling ‘strawman argument’ is a directive not linked to the prior arguments.

          • Steve Overstreet

            To say it is manipulative is a bit of a reach since we have seen exactly this same thing happen over and over and over again in the past even while the company swore that it was never the intention of the “company” to lose U.S. jobs. The implications of this add are both true and clear. Companies are in existence to make money and if that is what it takes to make money then that is what they will do. The CEO president of a company lives or dies by his ability to make those tough decisions and is paid very well to do so. There is no allegiance in business to a political party or to a innate sense of patriotism.

          • GreenEyedGal

            @godlover69:disqus they aren’t lying. I’m beginning to think you have a comprehension problem. That, or you’re just a troll.

          • John

            Romney’s point that Obama was in charge of a massive Federal manipulation of the auto industry that landed Jeep production in China is spot on. In -every meaningful way- it’s accurate. You yourself see that, from what you’ve posted. It sounds like, at worst, you disagree with his wording. Unfortunately, the implications to be garnished from his ad are accurate. Jobs for a U.S. company (owned overseas, but created and built here) are landing in China. If they need new production, they could ramp up operations here.

            I don’t even blame Jeep. As stated above, the real problem is that U.S. labor isn’t able to compete (at all, whatsoever, in a most disturbing and shameful way). Thus our massive and accelerating trade deficits that I referenced above.

            What’s the real problem? What’s the foundation of Romney’s ad? The people to blame are big-government bureaucrats and entitlement hustlers who think that the Government can create jobs (a laughable concept) and that “workers” deserve more than they can achieve in an open market system. When you disconnect the cost of something from it’s value in the market, you’re breaking something that isn’t good or evil — it just is. It’s reality. No matter how the leftists out there hate it.

            Anyway. Back on point. What you’re doing is looking for dishonesty. If you looked this hard for dishonesty from the left, you wouldn’t have to look nearly as hard. And you’d actually be accurate. Romney didn’t lie, he didn’t even skew the truth, other than use the term ‘move’. Much ado about nothing.
            When you don’t have a record to run on, make your opponent someone to run from.

            Different wording, same idea: If you’re talking party politics in any form, you need to grow thicker skin than to say that we’re “above” Romney saying jobs are “moving” to China. A company created in the U.S. is opening plans in China. Welcome to common sense.

            You sound like a prime candidate for someone who’s going to not vote. If you want things to be more true than how Romney stated them, you’re living in a fantasy world: it wont ever happen. Not because everyone is a liar, but because you’re looking for someone to say things how you want them said. The only person you’ll find to do that is you.

      • David Gregory

        I don’t think Romney made any manipulative implications. What he said was true that Chrysler is going to move production to China to sell Jeeps in China… Chrysler doesn’t have to do this, they can just build them here with American workers and ship them to China. Its too expensive to build cars here and ship them to China because of unions, which Obama no doubt puts his full weight behind the job killing machine known as ‘Unions’

        • Godlover69

          He did, though. There are two points in this ad that I find incredibly misleading. The first part is about Politifact. Stating that Politifact rated Obama’s statements as “mostly false” is very misleading. It implies that most of Obama’s statements about Romney are false. I checked, and that’s very much incorrect. “Mostly false,” is an assessment of individual statements, not a statement about Obama’s record on Romney. If you check politifact, Obama’s statements have been “mostly true” or better more often than Romney’s statements. That’s sickening and unacceptable from my party and leading candidate.

          The other point is the Jeep quote. It implies jeep is moving manufacturing from the US to China. Though the quote it technically correct, the implications are very, very misleading and manipulative. Jeep opening plants in China has nothing to do with Obama’s handling of the auto-bailout, as the ad implied. They aren’t closing any US plants, according to Chrysler. This ad implies the opposite.

          This isn’t okay. You can make the argument that Obama’s lied, and he has multiple times, but this isn’t tit-for-tat. Shouldn’t the side that stands for traditional values and moral conviction be the side that doesn’t manipulate or pretend to win an election?

          • Jim Johnson

            So, is the ad inaccurate or not? They are sending jobs which could be US jobs to China. The Left (you) jump all over Romney for something similar but can’t take the heat when the finger’s pointed back. Please spare us the “my party” schtick. You’re an Obamabot and will come to his aid when his re-election is threatened, as it most surely is now.

          • Godlover69

            It is technically correct, but misleading on its implications. Watch the ad.

            It states: “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build jeeps in China.” This is a technically correct statement, the implication is misleading. It implies that, as a result of Obama’s handling of the auto-industry bailout and bankruptcy, Jeep will be moving manufacturing from the US to China. This is my gripe. The implication is manipulative.

            The facts are that Obama and Romney’s stance on the auto-industry are different. Romney’s stance wasn’t to “let Detroit go bankrupt,” which was misleading and blatant mischaracterization of Romney’s position. His stance, though, would likely have not saved the auto-industry while Obama’s plan (government bailout and shepherding them through bankruptcy) did enough to prop up the industry. Personally, I agree with Romney’s stance in that article he wrote, because the government has no business picking winners and losers and spending tax dollars on corporate welfare, but Ohio voters seem to disagree.

            We have to be even minded about this. Romney’s ad isn’t honest, and it depresses me because this is the party I’ve voted for the last 15 years. I don’t want my side to be the side that intentionally misleads. We should be on the side that exposes liberal lies while setting the record straight. We aren’t doing that.

          • GreenEyedGal

            @godlover69:disqus The ad isn’t misleading. It is factual. Obama forced GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians (who are loyal to their country and their ability to make money.) The Italian company is now considering opening a Jeep plant in China.

            True? Yes or no?

            The truth is, unions, taxes and burdensome regulation would make ANY company reluctant to manufacture in the United States. Perhaps if Chrysler had been sold to an American company, those Jeeps could be produced here. American companies are more loyal to America, after all. But again, they’d have to deal with unions, taxes and burdensome regulations. So it’s entirely likely even an American company wouldn’t produce Jeeps for China here.

            Politifact is a left leaning organization. I can’t help but hear the things the leftists put out because they saturate the media. But I don’t pay much attention to them. And I don’t pay much attention to the people who get their news from Politifact. They’re more interested in being spoon-fed an opinion than actually researching claims and thinking things true. Conservatives don’t operate like that. That’s why they’re conservative.

          • tracy2130

            American manufacturing can’t compete with Chinese manufacturing because of employee cost. Americans workers demand much higher wages than Chinese workers. Taxes are an irrelevant factor compared to employee costs.

            Remove the unions and regulations, and we might see American wages drop to where Chinese wages are right now. That would certainly make America more desireable for manufacturers. But it would be terrible for the American people.

            Conservatives need to acknowledge that we cannot bring manufacturing jobs back to this country without sacrificing our standard of living or imposing a tariff on foreign imports, thus raising the cost of most goods in the United States.

            Your argument is deceptive and repulsive, much like Romney himself.

          • GreenEyedGal

            tracy2130 What a ridiculous thing to say. Why do you think everything costs as much as it does?

            Let’s just take a generic business that produces whatzits $0.50 a piece. This $0.50 price includes what it pays its employees to produce the whatzit, materials, shipping of finished goods and so on. They pay a wage of $5.00 per hour and are able to sell their whatzit for $2.00 a piece. That’s a 200% profit on each whatzit produced. But Uncle Sam comes along and says “You’re not paying your employees enough. We here by decree that all companies across the US must pay their employees at least $7.00 an hour.”

            This is a 40% increase in labor alone for the whatzit company. The material supply company will have to necessarily raise their employee pay too, whether they were paying less that the whatzit or more than what Uncle Sam demanded everyone must now pay their workers. If the material supply company already paid their workers $7.00 before the institution of the minimum wage, their employees were making more money that other employers were willing to pay. That made it a lucrative job to have. In order to keep its edge, material supply company will have to raise their wages at least 40%, so now their employees will need to be paid $9.80 to keep competitive. And of course, their taxes will go up because they’re paying their employees more. So they’ll have to increase the cost of their material.

            That means whatzit company now has to raise the cost of their product because the cost of the material and the cost of labor has just gone up. If they keep their price at $2.00, they’ll no longer make a profit, which means they’ll no longer be able to employ anyone. So now the cost of production has risen to 1.50 per unit, thanks to higher material and labor costs, plus taxes, and of course transportation costs necessarily increase. All these dominoes start to fall when you mess with wages. In order to continue to make their product at a 400% profit, the market price of the whatzit will necessarily rise to $6.00.

            In this example, the employees at whatzit could buy a whatzit for 40% of one hour of their labor. But thanks to the decree of Uncle Sam, if they still need to buy whatzits, it’s going to cost them 85% of one hours worth of labor. And that’s just one item. All items needed for their everyday life will necessarily increase as well and so their increased salary actually pays for less.

            You can call my argument deceptive and repulsive, but the truth is often dismissed out of hand by progressives, who, like you only make arguments based in ignorance and stupidity.

            Sign up for a couple of Econ classes and learn something before you open your moronic mouth and argue about things you know absolutely nothing about.

          • tracy2130

            It’s telling that the desired profit somehow jumped from 200% to 400% in the middle of your example. But the relationship between labor costs and market prices of products is not relevant to the argument.

            Labor-intensive activities, like the kind of manufacturing that creates lots of jobs, will inevitably move to where labor is cheapest. Currently, that’s China, which is why the jobs are moving there. To stop it, we would need to equalize labor costs. We could artificially increase the costs to companies of manufacturing overseas through tariffs, but that would raise the price of goods and reduce profits, hurting everyone.

            The other option is to eliminate the minimum wage and pay American laborers the current Chinese wage, as you seem to advocate. But the fact of the matter is that an American laborer could not survive on the wages paid to laborers in Chinese manufacturing facilities.

            Since the products are already being manufactured for rock-bottom labor costs, producing them in America for the same costs would not make them any cheaper. We would have lower unemployment, but these low-wage workers would not be able to afford the products they are making. They would live in poverty, just as the Chinese workers do right now.

            Your argument is deceptive because you make it sound like regulations and unions are standing in the way of decent jobs that could support a family. But that’s not what is happening here. The jobs you want to get back are jobs that no American would want.

          • Courtney

            No, tariffs would not hurt everyone. Goods are only imported as long as importation is beneficial. Globalized companies would move here to keep from paying tariffs, which means the jobs would move here. Tariffs would be an incentive to keep everything in America, thereby strengthening the economy. Exceptions to high tariffs could be made for raw materials and commodities like minerals, coffee, tea, chocolate, and rice that can be better produced/obtained overseas. The things I advocate raising tariffs on are wine and other alcoholic beverages, petroleum products, automobiles, designer clothing and shoes, toys, and electronics. Americans would be better off if we had a little less of those things, anyway. Abolishing the minimum wage would temporarily hurt people, until companies figure out they have to lower the cost of goods and cut executive bonuses, because when wages go down, people don’t buy, and no one makes money.

          • GreenEyedGal

            tracy2130 profit isn’t bad. Only leftists think it is. Profit is good. Profit is what keeps a company running, keeps employees employed, keeps money in employees’ pockets which allows employees to spend money, which allows other manufacturers to produce and keep their employees employed and generally keeps the economy going. If a company doesn’t make a profit, they can’t stay in business.The more companies that don’t make profits, the more people wind up unemployed.

            I never advocated paying American laborers the current Chinese wage. I do advocate ridding ourselves of the minimum wage. It’s just another example of a government “fix” gone awry (go figure.) I also advocate paying people what their labor is worth. That means if their labor is worth $12/hr, the employer pays $12/hour. If their labor is worth (gasp) $2/hr, the employer pays $2/hour. If all Americans were paid according to their worth, yes they would survive because the markets would adjust to reflect the reductions in employee salaries. Just as the market adjusts when Congress artificially inflates the value of a worker’s contribution by raising minimum wage, so to the market would adjust if we allowed employers to only pay a person according to their value.

            The problem with the unions is that they went to the employers and demanded things that were outrageous and impossible. And the media, which should have been shining a light on what was being done to businesses instead chose to turn a blind eye and side with the unions. After all, you liberals think you’re so generous and compassionate as long as you don’t have to spend your own money to implement the programs you champion. Essentially what the unions did was force employers to agree to outrageous demands. If they didn’t, the public outcry would have been overwhelming and it would have destroyed the business then and there. In essence, the auto industry kicked the can down the road until they came to the end of the road. When a reckoning came due, they should have gone through a managed bankruptcy and re-negotiated their retirement packages. But that’s not what happened. My uncle, who worked for Chrysler for 40 years, would have really appreciated that. His portfolio lost so much money. He’s not broke now, but he wasn’t done any favors by Obama’s forced bailout. You’re advocating making the auto industry honor a contract they never should have been forced to agree to in the first place. Your priorities are very misplaced. Unions destroy businesses.

            What you and other progressives fail to acknowledge is that a free market always takes care of itself. It has no need of government intervention. There will always be ups and downs. But the ups and downs are more severe with government intervention and tend to last a whole lot longer than they should have. Not to mention that the intervention usually does something that requires more intervention down the road. America didn’t become the world’s manufacturing giant because of government regulation and intervention. Or because of union interference. But government regulation and intervention, along with union interference, sure have gone a long way to make sure we didn’t stay the world’s manufacturing giant. And really, that’s the point of the progressive agenda, isn’t it?

          • Stephanie Snyder Staker

            no, it isn’t deceptive because it is TRUE that regulations and unions are standing in the way of SOME decent jobs (not all – I hate blanket statements). That other sentence of yours is another fallacy – at this point, those unemployed WOULD take jobs to feed and house themselves and/or their families. “No American would want” is a lie and an excuse to allow illegal immigration run rampant here in the U.S.

          • native son

            Very well explained! Do you actually think tracy2130 uderstood what you just tried to convey?

          • GreenEyedGal

            @disqus_QZn9z4YUPY:disqus Thank you very much! No, I don’t think she understood a word of it. Progies are pretty much lost causes. But not everyone who comes across these pages are hopeless progies. Some are just lacking a few pieces of information and once they get what they’re looking for, it will all fall in place. That’s who that post was meant for.

          • native son

            I call these people “closet libs”. They use the guise that they are Repubs to try to make their point. By being a Repub they think thay are more believable. In a sence this should be true, however they are making an argument that no self respecting Repub wouldn’t make.

          • Courtney

            Good explanation. One thing I feel you left out. If employees have to work longer to buy a whatzit, they are less likely to buy one, so even though the company raised prices to compensate for the increased wages, sales will go down, which means they cannot pay as many employees. So wages are higher, but so is unemployment, which leads to a recession, which leads to “temporary layoffs” as the entire whatzit plant shuts down production until the economy improves and workers wonder whether they should find another job or hope the plant is able to open again.

          • GreenEyedGal

            @facebook-36107969:disqus thank you! I hadn’t even thought about your point. But you’re right. I did make a mistake with raising profit to 400%. I was typing so may 40% numbers, I forgot the original profit in my post was 200%. Even at that, with a profit of 200% on a $1.50 whatzit, you’re still going to pay $4.50. If it costs more money to buy the same thing, doesn’t that mean the value of your money has decreased? Certainly the purchasing power of the money has decreased. So the 200% profit whatzit inc. made doesn’t even have the same value anymore because the purchasing power of the profit earned has decreased. It’s an awful cycle.

          • Jonathan Biviano

            The reason unions are killing industries like the car industry is not because they are getting that guaranteed minimum wage in there. They are actually paid way more than that. What is killing manufacturing in the US, and the companies that signed these deals under media pressure are at fault too, is that they are still paying for full health insurance and pensions to people who no longer work for them and retired before 55. Every GM car has 2500-3000 added to its price JUST IN retiree costs. EVERY ONE.
            Romney would have had them go through a structured bankruptcy where they could restructure these contracts and obligations. As it is, Chrysler and GM are as fragile today as they were four years ago. Every Volt loses $45,000. The pension and health care costs are still there. The only difference is that private share and bond holders got shafted along with the taxpayers.
            And yes, auto industry employees would have to make less, but plenty of non-union auto manufacturing takes place over here, for Toyota, Hyundai, etc., yet those companies compete on price still. We need to reduce taxes on our companies, stop forcing the market demand to speed up with regulations like CAFE standards, and make this a place companies want to manufacture again. And yes, one of those things will be forcing the unions to make some of the “sacrifice”.
            The ad is truthful, it could just make you think things that aren’t. But a literal viewing by anybody, it’s correct. Way more accurate than “If you vote for Romney, you won’t be able to get mammograms at Planned Parenthood anymore”.

          • tracy2130

            These retirees had every reason to expect that the benefits they were given would continue to be honored. Certainly, now that they are fully aware of the cost, companies should not offer such lavish retirement benefits packages to their employees. And, lo and behold, they are no longer offering these packages, and it didn’t take the dissolution of unions to get there.

            None of that means we should renege on the promises made to these employees, many of which may have decided not to retire had they known their benefits would not be honored.

            Lastly, Romney has said that Planned Parenthood would not be part of his budget. I believe the phrase he used was “remove funding.” Government funding makes up a huge part of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget, if it were removed many clinics would close.

            Whether that’s a bad thing or not is up for debate. But there are definitely some voters out there who will no longer be able to get a mammogram at Planned Parenthood if Romney is elected, because their local clinic will cease to exist without that funding. The ad sounds pretty accurate to me.

          • BossyBlonde

            Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammograms!

          • Noonespecial

            That’s ridiculous. Remove the Unions, and we could be competitive, while still paying a good working wage. Absolutely absurd statement, tracy.

          • Craig Schwarzbek

            It’s not labor costs. Companies build in China and Mexico because the trade agreements these countries have are much better than what the US has. There are also fewer regulations. Fewer costs to comply with regulations. Fewer licensing fees that they have to pay. Fewer taxes. The costs of doing business in these countries is much less then in the US. The whole savings from wages would be lost in the costs of shipping products back to the US.Plus in many of these countries the quality of work per worker is actually much less than what the productivity of the average US worker is. Then the costs that language barriers, cultural differences, and break down in communications because of these things. It truly is just the cost of doing business here in the US that has moved manufacturing out. You seem to know the economics a bit. But this is more about the business side of things than it is about wages. Wages has just been a scapegoat.

          • Donna #TeamUSA

            @tracy2130 nothing is as deceptive & repulsive than obamamites like you who are brain dead, clueless & lazy wanting government to take care of you. Obama’s jobs czar, Jeff immelt, of GE has sent GE jobs to CHINA, while he is being paid as JOBS CZAR for Obama.

          • Nutstuyu

            Have you ever heard of ANY campaign ad that is completely true? They all stretch the truth to some degree in order to make their point. If you don’t want Romney to do it, the get on Obama’s case to stop as well.

          • Craig Schwarzbek

            What is dishonest here. He uses fact. He used quotes from Chrysler which are what hey said. I found nothing misleading about this ad. They admit that everything in the ad is true. I double checked on the ad myself. It is true. How would you change the ad? I agree we should expose the lies. And when I hear anyone spouting lies on any blogs I will call them out. Dem or Repub. But this ad is true Romney position on the auto industry would have worked. It would have cost the tax payers less. Obama’s bailout included paying off union interests. That is the only difference in Obama’s bankruptcy of the Auto companies. Romney only stated that GM and Chrysler follow the bankruptcy laws of the country. Obama’s bankruptcy as I said paid off Unions. Not Union workers, It illegally screwed any investors. Companies like Delphi and other suppliers got screwed. Those workers for those companies got screwed under Obama’s bankruptcy. You claim to have voted republican for the last 15 years. Do you want dirty water, dirty air, to throw grandma off the cliff. This is what you are accused of if you are a republican. These are lies. That;s what I call a lie. Having took control of Chrysler as required by Obama’s ‘bailout’. Obama’s people who took over did sell it to Fiat. Fiat intends to manufacture Jeeps in China. Is that good for US interests? I’m not seeing any benefit to the US. Are you? That is the problem. That is the implication. Obama is claiming to have save GM and Chrysler. He is claiming to have saved all these US jobs. As the ad states the claims of Romney’s plan are not true. Just as all these other things that Obama is claiming are not true as evidence by what has happened to the Jeep. Does it not bother you that the history of the Jeep is the US military. It’s a symbol of US ingenuity. Yet Obama’s big bailout that has supposed to have made everyone happy is sending jobs, American symbols to China. Does it bother you that thousands and thousand of retirees have been sold out so he could make a deal with the union.

          • stephaniejane81

            you are aware that politifact is often bias–just like the rest of the mainstream media. Romney’s campaign has been head and shoulders above the Obama campaign as far as how they’ve handled themselves. Romney is a class-act. not perfect, but the Obama campaign is the dirtiest campaign I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Are you sure you’re not a liberal?

          • tracy2130

            Classy people do not drive around with dogs strapped to the roofs of their cars.

          • Matt Kester

            Classy people don’t EAT dogs!

          • PennyRobinsonFanClub

            Oh quit pretending you’re a Republican, you don’t fool anyone.

          • Noonespecial

            I have to agree – I think this was an error in judgment in a hard fought campaign in which Ohio is pivotal. We should be the party of more integrity, and I think for the most part we have been. Agree with you on this one, though.

          • Courtney

            “They aren’t closing any US plants, according to Chrysler. This ad implies the opposite.” Except they are spending money overseas that could be better spent here. Fiat/Chrysler/Jeep/whatever they call themselves these days is expanding in China so that CEOs can line their pockets, when they could just as easily pay out profit-sharing bonuses to their plant workers in the U.S. with that same expansion money and ignore the demand in China until they have actually gotten their house in order and fully recovered from the recession. The same parts of the Midwest (Michigan, Ohio, etc.) are dying. People are leaving by the hundreds and thousands, abandoning their property because they can’t sell it. Outsourcing and globalization always benefit executives and shareholders but never help anyone else. As long as people in other countries will work for less than Americans, companies will continue to outsource. What the government needs to do is establish policies that remove other incentives, like taxes. Lower tariffs on raw materials that simply cannot be obtained here, and raise them to ridiculously high rates for everything else. Lower all business taxes, property taxes, income taxes, and use taxes: for everyone, rich and poor alike. Make business risky and break down barriers to entry. Stop helping mismanaged companies remain in business through bailouts. Make manufacturers conduct safety inspections because consumers won’t buy products with a bad reputation, not because the government says they have to. If all the auto manufactures in this country went under, someone would take their place. And with the unions and barriers to entry that force the major companies to abide by industry standards gone, wages and innovation would go up and prices would go down.

          • GreenEyedGal

            I nominate @CourtneyMorgan for president in 2016 or 2020! Do you have an econ or business background?

          • Raymond Pelfrey

            Gotta Fight Fire with Fire. It cancells out each other.

        • whoever3

          They are building more here. Chrysler is expanding in the US and in China. It’s import taxes that they’re trying to get around.

        • DBF

          Hit the nail on the head!!!

      • TugboatPhil

        Don’t you mean that it’s ok when the other guy is actually doing it with innuendo and our guy is using a quote from the source?

        • Godlover69

          No, it’s not okay for either side to be manipulative. I’m just hoping that we can agree that we wouldn’t want our side to be misleading, regardless of what the other guy is saying.

          • John

            I want “my guy” to call out BS. BS is a union-supported President that oversees a disasterous bailout of the auto industry, which includes the Government confiscating private retirement funds to pay off union thug symapthizers. Romney hasn’t called that out (that I’ve seen). He’d score points with me.

            I’d like “my” guy to point out when leadership promises important things, like cutting the deficit, and then has his party in nearly perfect control in both houses of Congress, and then the same leadership whines about Congress blocking him from really making progress — even though the only thing he can offer is piling on even more taxes. Romney has probably pointed this out, but I haven’t actually heard it.

            I’d like “my” guy to call out when leadership attacks him for “exporting jobs to China,” and then the bailout that the leadership oversaw ends up being a catalyst for: you guessed it, new jobs in China. Romney called him out on this. I don’t care if his wording was perfect. There’s no “nuance” here to be concerned with. Jeep is starting to produce vehicles in China. Your nitpicking doesn’t serve you on any purpose. Your talk of standards rings hollow. Your moral core is dependant on childish word games.

      • Jon McPhalen

        Perhaps Romney was implying those Jeeps should be built in the US and then exported to China. Oh, that’s right, he hates creating jobs in Detroit….

        • Godlover69

          Are you implying that Romney hates creating the idea of jobs in Detroit? That’s absurd and completely wrong.

        • Arthur Pavis

          LOL You are another leftwing tool. Detroit is a shit hole due to liberal democrat “leadership” and the unions sucking the life out of it all these years.

      • smmy33

        Every statement in the ad is true… And not only will jeep brand be adding more production in China, and not in the US, but Sergio Marchionne has told Italian paper Il posta 24 , that they might move Chysler production out of North Ameica and to Italy

        Obama going around bragging about a auto bailout…. What a bailout billions of American tax dollas given to private company’s GM & Chsyler and then Obama administration practically gives away Chysler for peanuts to a Italian car company and still the tax payer is on the hook for more money to bailout GM and Chysler.

        • Godlover69

          They said they want to move to Italy, but they can’t because the tax on exports is too high. They want to move the manufacturing of some Dodge models to Italy not because it is cheaper to manufacture there (labor and taxes are actually far more expensive), but because they don’t want to lose their investments in Italian manufacturing. Source:

          In the end, the issue with moving to Italy isn’t germane to the discussion. The question is the ad, and if it is misleading or not. You are saying that ad implying US manufacturing of Jeeps being outsourced to China is true because Chrysler is thinking about moving the Dodge Dart to Italy. The ad doesn’t say anything about Italy.

          • John

            You’re not even having a cohesive discussion with one or two people. You’re out on the internet, trolling everyone you possibly can, going “we should want more than just the truth from our leaders!”

            I think some introspection and some evaluation of your own methods and goals is in order.

      • Nutstuyu

        Why yes, yes it is.

      • Rulken Russell

        I think you need to be talking to the Democrats, not the republicans! The Obama adds are far worse, and 50-1 more negative than Romney could ever be(and has been!) Obama has out and out lied, in his campaign adds, and appearances. Romney is the one who is showing true Presidential promise here.

    • whoever3

      And which one of those ads was approved of by Obama? (only the one where the problem is things Romney actually said…he could have showed those implications were false by showing more of his taxes like candidates almost always do). Which ones were done by superpacs or outside funding? The other two.

  • fivebyfive

    If they DON”T start building jeeps in China they’ll be BANKRUPT again in 20yrs.
    Cut production cost and sell into an emerging market at same time.
    they can still build AMERICAN JEEP at a PREMIUM and let the consumer decide

    • John

      The rotten core of the statist ideology is the need to inflate labor prices. More taxes, more regulation, forced benefits for all, higher minimum wage. They drive up the cost of American labor to where it costs more for a company to have us in a position for an hour than a Chinese laborer for a whole month.
      It’s not sustainable, but they’ll always blame the right. If only we’d inflated labor prices more, we could have even bigger trade deficits — and we all know that negative cash flow is how you build prosperity.

  • agroulx

    The sad thing – the left never does any fact checking for themselves.. They will Never even think about reading more than necessary and actually looking at the source of the information. That is why they love Twitter so much – they can only focus on 140 characters or less, and they think that the hyperlinks at the bottom of the tweet are just meaningless bar codes… Every word of Romneys ad is true.

    • John

      Mother Jones, The Nation, and Democratic Underground told me Romney is a liar, so you must be stupid. I don’t just check one source, I checked three, and you’re dumb by all three of them!

      [It actually hurt me to use that much sarcasm in two sentences, but it had to be done.]

    • Noname Simba

      The same thing is often said of the right…. Romney’s ad isn’t true. What it is is semantic mayhem for the purpose of taking the work of thought out of our minds so we can become better lower wage robots.

  • Elda B

    So SAD AND LAME all the Obama followers they are like brainwashed robots :(

  • Sandi Layne

    Just a second. Did the Daily Beast article really say DEFINANCE, OHIO? That’s funny. Sad, but amusing.

  • Cort

    So if everything individually is true, but how together as a whole be deceptive?

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Because of the way the different words . . uh . .. ROMNEY’S UNDERWEAR, hurr durr!

  • Chas Sr Thomas

    In a Bloomberg interview, Jeep’s president
    said the automaker plans to restore Jeep production in China, suspended
    in 2009, and is considering making all Jeeps in China. “Fiat SpA,
    majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to
    China and may eventually make all of its models in that country,
    according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region,”
    reported the business wire service.

    Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia and president of the Jeep brand, told Bloomberg,
    “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as
    “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep
    portfolio” to China.

    Chrysler builds Jeep SUV models at plants in
    Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley said the firm is in talks with
    China’s Guangzhou Automobile Group Co.

  • Chas Sr Thomas

    Hmmmm! who is really lying?

  • Madonna Anderson

    It isn’t just Chrysler. Watch this about GM.

  • o0Nighthawk0o

    It’s nice to see the Romney campaign get the word out that Chrysler is now owned by Fiat. Now they need to let it be known that Fiat was only able to purchase Chrysler with a loan from the US government. Then Chrysler used the money from that loan to pay back their bailout loan. The bottom line is that while on paper the bailout loan was paid back the taxpayers are still on the hook for the same amount. It is amazing how many people do not know that Chrysler is now owned by Fiat and thet the bailout money was never truely repaid. The debt was just shifted to a different ‘column’.
    I also wonder how many notice that the Dodge nameplate is now “Dodge II”?

  • News Reporter

    I read the statement from Jeep CEO Mike Manley last week. I fully understood the ENTIRE production operation was expected to move to China. His statement was very clear. For profitability. He is tasked with raising Chrysler stock prices. He is forced into backtracking because we all know unions like to perform production slowdowns. We also know union goons attack Presidents, CEOs and Executive Officers at their home, in public and at work. Just ask the Executives of Target Corp when they were attacked by the militant homosexual organizations. They flip flopped. Death threats do make a difference.

  • Lenora Martorelli Dellanno

    Considering Fiat now owns Jeep, they probably will make some cars in China. They were made there in the past.

  • CAmom760

    Has anyone else noticed the large influx of seeming “plants” lately with the meme of “oh, we have to stay ABOVE this politics stuff” and advocating Romney and all Conservatives must sit quietly while the left lies and obfuscates ~ because “we’re better than this”. Well, I’m sorry, I think our nation needs the truth. The unvarnished, “tell it like it is even if it hurts” truth. I think we need to point out what the left ACTUALLY SAYS and give it context, but we ought not shy away from difficult things simply because the zombie apocalypse is upon us. The msm won’t do it, and the o’s followers will simply repeat propaganda ad nauseum.

    Truth. It’s what’s for dinner.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Yeah, Soros must be spending hundreds this week to keep his little hacks in meth money!

  • Copper Munger

    IF GM is moving even it R&D to China do you think Fiat won’t move lines to China?

  • goldwater89

    Poor Strickland is still mad he lost his bid for re-election.

    In other news, Romney is now AHEAD in Ohio!

  • Matthew Lucas

    If the Economy continues to implode here in America, and the virus called Socialism continues it’s march into our government, then these statements are absolutely 100% true in their entirety… together. Wake up America. Liberalism/Progressive is Communism, and we continue to march Forward.

  • Mary Friedel

    I had a dodge RT in the door when you opened it it had a mitsubishi sticker. that said the body of the car is made by mitsubishi. Humm I bought a Dodge thinking I was buying a american made product. Nope just assembled here. :( So yes Chrysler Dodge Jeep are very misleading.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Oh that’s nothing new, Chrysler/Dodge and Mitsubishi have been near-clones for ages now. Same between GM and Toyota. But that was private businesses working together voluntarily.

  • The Daffodil Times

    LOL Romney didn’t “misunderstand” the statement. he flat out LIED. ROMNEY IS A LIAR! JEEP is increasing production EVERYWHERE INCLUDING THE US. Republican Party = Liar Party

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      No, you are lying, you lying twat.

  • Jace Thompson

    The main problem is that everyone is working off what their opinion of an implication is. I could say “That is a nice hat you have on today.” A person could THINK I was implying the hat they had on yesterday was hideous!! You can twist the comment all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the statements are all true. Like it or not.

  • stuckinIL4now

    I just read through a link on Drudge that FIAT is now planning to move Jeep production to Italy instead.

  • David Ruiz

    I would not care if Romney said Martians were living here in the USA without visas, I would NOT vote for Obama! I have had enough of hope and blame and all the race card playing that Obama does.
    I am D-O-N-E with the Team Obama!

  • Wulfheard

    Obama’s entire campaign is a manipulation of the facts , but that’s okay, lol. Big labor leftists can’t deal with the fact that Fiat isnt going to stand for their antics, shakedowns and extortion.

  • Streetiebird

    I’m glad Romney has changed his mind about Detroit.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      On the contrary, it’s Detroit that’s changed it’s mind about Dear Leader:

      “Obama has proved himself a disciple of the doctrine that for every problem there’s a government solution.

      Romney, by contrast, embraces individual initiative and entrepreneurship. He would turn back the encroachment of the bureaucracy into the private sector.

      Romney would replace the heavy hand of government with the invisible hand of a rational marketplace working to produce broad prosperity.

      While both poverty and dependency have increased on Obama’s watch, Romney promises to replace government checks with private sector jobs and reverse the decline in middle class incomes. It is heavy lifting, but we favor the candidate who is committed to it.

      Romney’s goal is to help all Americans live independent and productive lives, free to rise to the extent of their personal capabilities. He would not shield them from risk or the consequences of their decisions, but neither would he deny them their earned rewards.

      Our hope is that Mitt Romney would restore faith in the core principles of free men and women, free minds and free markets that made America great, and will keep it so.”

  • Dave

    Simple question: Where are the Jeeps being built that the Chinese are now buying? From what I understand they are made in the US. Per their statements they are going to begin to build them in China. Wouldn’t that reduce US production?

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Quit making sense, you’re confusing the poor little leftards.

  • People Corporation

    Fiat is gently breaking the news now. But guaranteed – when Romney becomes president Toledo will blame him when the cities largest employer pulls up stakes and gets out.

  • Momthing

    @Godlover69: Re: your moral delimma over Romney’s “deceptive” ad, seems like you have 3 options:
    1) Swallow your disgust & vote for Romney anyway
    2) Abandon your “conservative” principles & vote for Obama
    3) Stay true to your beliefs, & don’t vote at all.
    Fortunately, I already voted so I dont have that problem. Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?

  • Nonya

    The Left really are pitbulls on a yarn chain.
    Alright Lefty’s, tell me why Obama is still running the Coal Ad when the coal workers and ceo have stated the claims are false and to be taken down. There has been no apology nor has their request been met. Is this the type of ‘leadership’ you still want?

  • Nonya

    This just proves the point that when an ad from a Righty is about a Lefty, the Lefty’s go for the jugular and make it known to every news media. Yet, when the Righty’s want the Lefty’s to show equal opportunity on TV about politics, the Lefty’s throw a fit and ignore the Lefty’s failures and mis-steps.

  • dreamvariations

    Love how one of the examples of the Left freaking out is Chrystler itself saying it is not moving Jeep output to China from the U.S. Side note- I’m confused about the ad statement that Obama sold Chryster to Italians? I thought Chrystler already owned a stake in Fiat and just purchased more of a stake after bankruptcy. I don’t really know the answer but oh well. Facts…

    • rocketdan

      Chrysler did not buy a larger stake in Fiat. Fiat bought (for no money out of pocket) Chrysler in its entirety. Chrysler is wholly owned by Fiat, just like it used to be owned by Daimler. .

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Fiat SpA (F) Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne set a target two and a half years ago to sell 6 million cars annually by 2014, a goal that analysts and industry observers at the time deemed impossible to achieve. They were right.

      ++Marchionne, who runs both the Italian automaker and Chrysler Group LLC, ++ has said he will revise his forecasts when the two companies announce third-quarter results tomorrow. Analysts estimate his sales target will need to come down by 15 billion euros ($19 billion).
      Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne becomes Chrysler chief under new owners, including Italian automaker, the UAW and the U.S. and Canadian governments.

      Facts enough?

  • equinoxranch

    So the left have no problem with Jeeps being slated for manufacture in China for the Chinese market and in so doing eliminating Jeeps being manufactured in the USA for export to China, thus in turn eliminating American production

  • Ernie

    On Bloomberg report! Jeep moving To China Romney was right

  • Ernie

    Ted Strickland check this out before you lie to people Bloomberg report told Jeep moving to China next time check the fact before you lie

  • Ernie

    Or mislead People on this page

  • Melitta Vahalik

    It is true that the Italian Chrysler group is looking at opening a Chinese Plant. And you thought forcing a sale to a foreign country was going to do what?

  • michaelpc

    What about the commercial that linked to a lady that died of cancer, because the husband lost his job and ins. Well the husband never had insurance from his job ! He was under the wife’s insurance. WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT ? Then we had grannie being pushed off a cliff. Why is Obama talking like Ronald Reagan on his T.V. commercials. When he never plans on doing what he says.

  • Love of Country

    Owebamaocare will reduce the deficit, bring down the cost of health insurance, you can keep your doctor and current plan, and if you don’t like it now then you will soon.

    Elect me and I will bring the country together, heal the planet, cut the debt in half and bring unemployment down to 5% in my first term.

    • native son


  • amorsacaamor

    Chrysler is going to be built in Italy I understood. Corriere Della Sera article in January 2009 – called
    Chrysler: le tre strade del piano Marchionne

    Quote by Sergio Marchionne my attempt at translation he says at the bottom of the article ”two plants ‘critical’ for Fiat…. But Chrysler also might help: with the ‘agreement, they too would produce in Italy.”.
    What is that agreement he is talking about?

  • shocktreatment

    Let’s see, the Chrysler Corporation itself, saw fit to denounce the Romney ad:

    ““Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China.”

    Fiat, the parent company of Chrysler and Jeep, has said flatly that Romney’s claims are “unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”

    Romney is trying desperately to revise his boneheaded take on the auto bailout. Headline should read “Romney blows Ohio, Campaign freaks out!”

    • HarryBackside

      Nice job moving the goal posts. The Romney ad doesn’t say that jobs will be shifted overseas. The ad says that Chrysler was sold to Italians who plan to make Jeeps in China. Fiat IS planning on producing Jeeps in China, to sell to the Chinese market.

      • shocktreatment

        “Nice job moving the goal posts.”

        Yeah right. During the primaries, the republican circus was renowned for its clowns, now the circus is infamous for its contortionists trying to bend Romney’s words into something resembling ‘truthiness’.

        Fiat, Chrysler, and the entire english speaking world, (including Ohio and Michigan), knows exactly what Romney was trying to pull.

        See you next week

        • HarryBackside

          Was Chrysler purchased by Fiat? Was Bloomberg news lying when they quoted Fiat’s COO as saying ““The volume opportunity for us is very significant,” Manley, who is also president of the Jeep brand, said in an interview at Chrysler’s Auburn Hills, Michigan, headquarters. “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”?

          Note that Romney’s ad never said anything about Fiat relocating Jeep production to China. He accurately stated that Fiat wants to build Jeep products in China. You should be commended for your level of faux outrage over a political ad. I’m sure you hold all political ads to the same level of truth as you have in this instance.

  • Tegernako

    Wow, I’ve never seen such a gathering of idiots in my life.

    Obama Biden 2012

    • BeeKaaay

      If one voted for Obama in 2008 to prove they’re not racist, they must vote against him in 2012 to prove they’re not stupid.

  • BeeKaaay

    It is US Government policy that all manufacturing is to be done in China.

    Signed into law by President Clinton. “Most favored nation status”

  • Pat Wildt

    One other angle…if Jeeps that are being sold in China are currently made in the US, and manufacturing by Jeep restarts in China, won’t the jobs that are involved with the Jeeps that are made-here/sold-there, be lost to the Chinese manufacturing operation? I don’t think there’s any way that this won’t reduce American auto manufacturing jobs. And it makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of the Fiat/Chrysler management. The UAW has raised the cost of American labor to the level, that we are uncompetitive with virtually every other nation on Earth.

  • $24835958

    If it was so terrible for BAIN companies to offshore jobs in the spirit of global growth, then it must be just as bad for Chrysler to offshore jobs to sell SUVs in China. Those will not be American made products. And the profits will remain offshore.

  • radioflyer911

    With the economy and an uncertain future, people aren’t buying cars like they use to. They are keeping their old ones longer and not buying new ones every few years..

  • MikhailDenial

    Jeeps have been produced in China since 1985.

  • Guest

    While Chrysler isn’t presently closing US plants, it is opening plants in China and that DOES NOT create US jobs. So, while existing jobs aren’t being lost, the US is still at a loss in terms of potential growth, job creation, national wealth and tax dollars. The ad cleverly frames the issue. People only take issue when the other side is doing it. The Obama campaign has been every bit as deceptive. Our enemies haven’t been brought to justice, for example. We killed Obama, the terrorists killed Ambassador Stevens. On my scorecard, we are now down one.

  • Joseph Michael Reyes

    While Chrysler isn’t presently closing US plants, it is opening plants in China and that DOES NOT create US jobs. So, while existing jobs aren’t being lost, the US is still at a loss in terms of potential growth, job creation, national wealth and tax dollars. The ad cleverly frames the issue. People only take issue when the other side is doing it. The Obama campaign has been every bit as deceptive. Our enemies haven’t been brought to justice, for example. We killed bin Laden, but the terrorists responded against our embassies. We are down on my scorecard.