Elections

Marco Rubio: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

I thought we were at least three years removed from a time when presidential candidates still criticized the auto industry bailout, but apparently I was mistaken.

During an appearance in New Hampshire on Friday, Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler was a mistake.

He also delivered a word salad that isn't an actual alternative to the bailout.

RUBIO: "I don't think that was the right way to handle it, but certainly our auto industry is important. Again, it was a problematic approach that the federal government took to doing it. But at the end of the day our industry has to be globally competitive. One of the things that makes them globally competitive ... is having a workforce that can do the work and also having tax policies, regulatory policies that ensures that America continues to be a place where all industries thrive including the auto industry."

I don't believe it was his true intention, but Rubio appears to have said that our current regulatory policies are great. It makes American industry "globally competitive," he says, and that would undoubtedly be breaking news to his fellow Republican colleagues who want to deregulate everything.

Of course the American auto industry wouldn't exist anymore if not for actions taken by the Obama administration; actions that Rubio describes as "problematic."

I don't know why it surprises me that the GOP will run against the 2009 auto bailout in 2016. Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) is evidently incurable and insatiable. I'm starting to think the GOP will still be running against President Obama in 2024. 'Candidate X voted for the Obama bailout 15 years ago' they'll say.

RomneyBailout

  • Christopher Foxx

    I’m starting to think the GOP will still be running against President Obama in 2024. ‘Candidate X voted for the Obama bailout 15 years ago’ they’ll say.

    And they’ll be holding votes to repeal Obamacare for all their new members who didn’t get a chance to vote against it 15 years earlier.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Of course the American auto industry wouldn’t exist anymore if not for actions taken by the Obama administration; actions that Rubio describes as “problematic.”

    Well of course they’re problematic. Obama’s actions saved an American industry and that causes all sorts of problems for Republicans.

  • muselet

    Marco Rubio may be incoherent and objectively wrong, but at least he’s consistent: he declared himself opposed to saving the domestic car industry in 2009.

    Republicans have long sought to appeal to autoworkers by suggesting that Democratic policies on fuel efficiency standards or other regulations could hurt the sector.

    In case anyone’s forgotten, these are the same Rs who have spent the past forty years blaming US autoworkers for the lousy cars they didn’t design, and who used that as a reason for opposing bailing out the industry. Any autoworker who votes R is a fool.

    –alopecia

    • Christopher Foxx

      Any autoworker who votes R is a fool.

      Anyone working in any manufacturing job who votes Republican is a fool.

      • Hemidemisemiquaver

        “Anyone working in any manufacturing job who votes Republican is a fool.”

        Anyone who votes Republican is a fool.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Anyone who votes Republican is a fool.

          I was actually going to write something like that, but then realized voting Republican makes a great deal of sense for those who are rich.

          But it certainly doesn’t make any sense at all for 99% of the people who vote for them.

          • Hemidemisemiquaver

            And even the rich are not harmed by a better economy. Whatever they pay out in increased taxes comes back to them as their investments increase in value in a good economic climate.

            I guess it’s all about IGMFY for the rich.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    That’s how you describe something that you’re supposed to hate, and that you want people who are listening to you to hate, when (a.) you can’t identify any particular thing that is/was wrong with it, let alone why; and (b.) you had/have no realistic, viable alternative that you can explain or illustrate for the purposes of comparison. You simply say it is/was “the wrong way to do it” and that the steps proposed/taken are/were “problematic” — I’m really starting to despise that word — and leave it there. That way, you can validate your audience’s prejudices even if reality doesn’t.

    And….

    I’m starting to think the GOP will still be running against President Obama in 2024.

    Of course they will. They were still running against President Carter — who left office in 1981 — in 2012.