Desperate Romney campaign, in last ditch attempt to win Ohio, releases false ad

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The story of the 2012 campaign may very well prove to be that the Obama Administration's rescue of the auto industry combined with Romney's infamous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" editorial clinched Obama's reelection.

IMO Romney has never, ever lived that down.  And his mixed messaging and blatant lies about it since have only made his political problems worse.

Yeah, if he just said he was wrong about the bailout, he may be winning Ohio at this moment.

What was he wrong about, though?

There is nothing that could he disavow in the NY Times article as it was all a fairly accurate portrayal of what needed to happen and did happen in general terms before they could recover.

The problem Romney has isn't the position he has taken, it is the narrative created by the Obama campaign about it and his general inability to successfully destroy that narrative. In the final week, the campaign is making their strongest effort on that front yet. The problem for them is it may be too late and there certainly isn't enough time to alter the tactics if it doesn't work the first time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The left has been purporting a false narrative so long that it has become the objective truth to them. The only one who has been lying about the auto campanies is the obama campaign. Obama got caught red handed in the third debate on this matter and thus Romney smells an opportunity to try and finally knock this down, others who think they know the reality will desperately try and preserve the fallacy.

It is a matter of public record that Romney
1. called for bankruptcy restructuring to restore the companies and that no other path would succeed.  June 2009: Obama realized the same thing and put them into bankrupcty. 
2. That Romney did oppose a pre-restructuring bailout, but also acknowledge the need for some gov't help and stated when that would be best provided and how, after the restructing was in progress or at  the very least once a plan had been drawn up.

I don't know how they can claim the shareholders being wiped out is a myth. Do they not understand how bankruptcy works?

As for this  "Detroit will remember, Cleveland will remember". Remember what they were wrongly told about in the first place maybe. That is the key to this, is correcting the record. Obama can claim credit for saving GM, but that also means he gets credit for the negative aspects as well like the closed plants, dealers and lost pensions. In spite of that he can claim that he got the job done and thus benefits from that, slightly. But what makes this decisive is not that but the claim that Obama did it while Romney would have let you die. The situation with them is over and many people will be more concerned about the future then what happened in the past, unless you can claim the other guy wouldn't have done that thing.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, do you understand what this controversy is actually about? Because I'm not entirely sure you do. The latest argument over the auto bailout consists of Romney just outright lying about Chrysler moving production out of Ohio and over to China, because he "read somewhere" that was true, and then Chrysler literally came out and said the Romney campaign was just coming up with "fantasies." Continue on about your broader point (that I disagree with) about the bailout at large, but there is quite literally no truth to Romney latest auto bailout BS.

I seem to recall that a certain President's administration claimed that plant being expanded in SC was taking production out of WA in order to avoid unionized workers even thought it wouldn't have likely been produced there anyway. The funny thing about outsourcing is that you can often claim erroneously that production added in some other place is production that wasn't added here. You guys make that argument all of the time. And typically in such instances the statements of the company themselves are rearely excepted as the truth. I am glad to see you are finally rejecting such protectionist arguments, your conversion to conservatism is proceeding a pace.

What do you disagree with in terms of what I said regarding the overall situation?

There is as much truth to the statement as there was to the claim regarding what Boeing was doing.