in 2008 when the Big 3 came hat in hand to the federal government, the substantive debate boiled down into 3 schools of thought:Now, just in case anybody forgot, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney was on record back in 2008 as a firm believer in option #1. In fact he wrote an entire op-ed in the New York Times entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." In it, he argued vehemently that the United States Government should absolutely NOT get involved in bailing out the Big 3 auto makers and that they should go through a structured bankruptcy like every other failing business.
1. The Conservative Approach - Companies should be allowed to rise or, in this case, fall on their own without government intervention no matter who they are.
2. The Progressive Approach - The government should help companies that are facing collapse during hard economic times.
3. The "Too Big to Fail" Approach - Irrespective of the Conservative or Progressive approaches, the Auto Industry employs between 1 to 3 million people and, if allowed to fail, will significantly contribute to the unemployment rate.
But that was 2008 Mitt Romney. Now that the federal government's bailout of the Auto Industry has worked, 2012 Mitt Romney has a new tune. To summarize this best as only they can do, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show crew break it down for us after the jump:
1. SAY WHAT???
2. Doesn't Romney's position stretch beyond the bounds of acceptable political spin?
3. Can Romney claim credit for the bail out?
4. Does this point to a weakness in conservative ideology about letting companies fail?
5. What would have happened if we tried what Romney said back in 2008?
6. How does this play out with voters?