Bailout

Ryan’s Fact-Challenged Fact Checkers

|

Paul Ryan must have hit a home run last night – otherwise liberals wouldn't be going bonkers right now. No sooner did he move his tingle-inducing chassis off the stage than the liberal blogosphere erupted in outrage, accusing him of being a maligner and a liar.  

closing.janesville

But what did Ryan say that was so bad? He falsely accused President Obama of promising during a campaign stop to keep a Government Motor plant in Janesville, Wisconsin—Ryan's district – open, but then letting it close once he got elected. Liberals, however, claim that the plant was already closed when President Obama delivered his remarks.

This prompted the Puffington Post to huff: "Paul Ryan Misleads With His Plant Closure Tale." Commenters on Daily Kos's open thread titled "Paul Ryan Blames Obama for a GM Plant Closed Under Bush" went all snarky. "If they just completely ignore Bush altogether they can make all the right wingers believe that before Obama took office everything was fantastic," scoffed one.

Now, I actually think that the plant story was the silliest part of Ryan's otherwise stellar speech. Holding presidents responsible for the fate of individual auto plants is idiotic in and of itself – but especially so if in your very next breath you are going to say that you'd "take freedom…any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."

But, then again, Obama did kinda ask for it. This is what he said in the speech that Ryan alluded to:

And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.  The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it's where it will thrive.  I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that's the future I'll fight for as your President. 

In saying that "this plant will be here for another hundred years" when he is our president, he was suggesting that under him the plant would have some kind of a future. Ryan's Big Lie then is that instead of saying the president "suggested" he said the president "promised" he'd keep the plant open? So sue him!

But, as it turns out, the plant wasn't closed when Obama gave his speech on Feb 13, 2008. It was open. The liberals are challenging Ryan based on an Aug 16 story by David Shepardson, The Detroit News' auto reporter that said "the plant halted production in December 2008, when President George W. Bush was in office." But, as best as I can tell, Shepardson got it wrong. The decision to close the plant was made under Bush. However, the plant was not slated to close till the summer of 2009 – nearly a year and a half after Obama spoke and six months after he assumed office.

Here's what GazetteXtra.com, a Janesville paper, reported on Feb 2, 2009:

Full-size sport utility vehicle production has ended at the local General Motors plant, but medium-duty truck production is continuing—not starting—in Janesville.

And it likely will continue into May, when the lights finally go off in the facility that has been producing vehicles since 1923.

When GM officials announced last June that SUV production would cease in Janesville, they also said that medium-duty truck production would conclude by the end of 2009, or sooner if market conditions dictate.

What's more, the administration actually did consider keeping the Janesville plant alive after it nationalized GM by commandeering the bankruptcy process. According to Shepardson's story:

In June 2009, GM considered three sites to locate a small car: its Orion plant in Michigan; Janesville, Wis.; and a Spring Hill, Tenn., plant slated to close in November. GM picked Orion and later reopened Spring Hill.

Now why would Obama choose to close the only plant he had actively "suggested" he'd keep open? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that it was in Ryan's (Republican) hometown? Just askin…

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

131 responses to “Ryan’s Fact-Challenged Fact Checkers

  1. lol, gotta love those bought and paid for politicians.

    http://www.Private-Ways.tk

    1. At least Reason has the wherewithal to make sure the links posted on here are “nofollow” and you won’t be getting any link juice from spamming you comments with your website.

      Seriously dude, if you ever hope to get your website above a zero PR and gain enough page authority to get people to buy your “Product,” you should consider using some effective SEO. The way you’ve optimized your site makes it radioactive in Google’s eyes. And the Tokelau domain registry out of New Zealand will only serve to turn off 99% of your potential “customers.”

      And the biggest red flag to consumers that your company might be a sham? Your company’s address is the same as the UPS store in Bartow, FL. Good Luck with your business. And if you want some real SEO work done, drop me a line….

  2. No, leftists, it’s indeed wrong to say “before Obama took office everything was fantastic”.

    However, it’s not wrong to say “but since Obama took office, things have gone to liquid shit”.

    1. re: the inherited theme, someone else said that firemen also inherit messes but they don’t throw gasoline on top of them.

      Ryan’s single-greatest speech truism is that Barry, who has a record for the first time in his adult life, wants to stay as far from that record as possible.

      1. Good analogy. Obama’s “firemen” weren’t just throwing gasoline on the flames, though… they’ve been throwing every flammable substance they can find.

      2. Ryan’s single-greatest speech truism is that Barry, who has a record for the first time in his adult life, wants to stay as far from that record as possible.

        That’s probably the best line of the whole campaign. Even when Obama does try to point out how the economy has improved, the numbers are so easily refuted that it’s almost embarrassing when he throws it out there.

    2. I don’t know, the Bush years were pretty terrible. The last four have been pretty cool all things considered.

      1. Uh, yeah. We’re all farting through silk under Barry’s leadership.

      2. I recall some very prosperous years during Bush’s term up until the Dems took control of both houses in the ’06 elections.

    3. Ok, tell me how much better a McCain Presidency would have been? I can understand how Libertarians don’t like Obama, but he is a centrist. His healthcare reform was the conservative answer to the liberal ‘Single Payer’ goal back in the 70’s and 80’s. His foreign policy is basically Republican without quite as much spending.

      Romney is a fake. Obama dabbles in crony capitalism, but Romney will make it the main focus of his administration.

      If you want to write in for Ron Paul, I understand.

      1. I don’t think any libertarians were happy about McCain, either. I seem to recall phrases like “statist fuck.” What pissed us off was that we didn’t even have a reasonable third party alternative once Bob Fucking Barr was nominated by the clown show known as the Libertarian Party.

  3. Yep. And I also noticed that some people in the so-called “mainstream media” are still putting forth the execrable falsehood that Standard and Poor’s lowered the United States AAA credit rating because of the political brinksmanship on the debt ceiling, when S and P made it very clear in their report that the credit rating was lowered because of our exploding debt and the inability of elected officials to put us on a more stable medium-term debt trajectory.

    1. liberalism cannot exist without a massively uninformed public. The presence of a such a populace makes it easy for the MSM to push bullshit.

      1. who knew wareagle’s an uninformed lub-rahl. wlecome to the matrix

        1. Really? That’s the comeback? Jesus, why not just call him a poopyhead?

        2. who knew wareagle’s an uninformed lub-rahl. wlecome to the matrix

          Congratulations. The stupidity of your comment proves wareagle’s point.

          1. lets give o3 the credit for that awesome assist on the self fulfilling prophesy. Triple asshole strikes again.

  4. Just to be fair regarding the last sentence — The Spring Hill Plant is one of the newest, most modern GM plants. One would have expected it to be selected as a plant to remain open as a matter of good business practice. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that the Orion plant is newer, too. the 1923 Janesville plant must have been one of the oldest in GM’s group, and some needed to close to right-size the company.

    That being said, Ryan’s mention of that plant was just dumb. If he believes in free markets, then he has to recognize that reallocation of resources to the most efficient use is better for everyone in the long run. And, it also represents freedom to do with one’s property what he chooses. Closing a plant can be both necessary and good in this regard.

    I want to like Ryan, but his track record simply doesn’t meet up with his rhetoric. His voting record is attrocious, and his medicare plan is maybe a half-step in the right direction. I do like the debt clock. The American people need to be reminded of that albatross constantly to try to get the political discourse back on track.

    I’m still voting Gary Johnson.

    1. That being said, Ryan’s mention of that plant was just dumb.

      You don’t have to be arguing in favor of government control to point out the difference between Obama’s promise and reality. It’s perfectly coherent to say closing the plant was a good idea and at the same time point out that 100 years means less than 2 years to Obama and that Obama didn’t do as he said.

    2. Ryan does not believe in free markets. You only need to look at his track record. Politicians believe that money is king, that is all.

    3. While I agree with your sentiment that the decisions made had nothing to do with Paul Ryan, the fact that they passed up the Janesville plant for a more “modern” plant shows him violating his suggestion/”promise” of “re-tooling” and updating the plant for the Green Energy Future World.

  5. It was possibly the most dishonest convention speech ever made… but it’s OK, liberals are meanies and they deserve it.

    1. Who gives a shit? Ryan’s a liar? Of course he is, he’s a politician. So’s Obama.

      1. So what you’re saying is you’re so smart, you never have to think about anything.

      2. Better to not engage… otherwise you forfiet victory.

        When someone states about almost anything present day and uses terms such as “most dishonest ever” “worst person ever” “best person ever” they are not ready, nor are they willing, to engage in honest debate.

        They are still “too smart” for everyone else…. just like the unaBomber and other delusionals before them – they know better and more and know how everything should work.

        Just ask ’em 🙂

        1. The easiest way to tell when Tony is not ready or willing to engage in honest debate is to simply to check and see if there’s any text under his name.

    2. the only thing worse than trolling is half-assed trolling. I guess the speech did not have enough Greek columns in it. How’s that waters subsiding thing coming along.

    3. Tony, predictable as ever. “Most dishonest convention speech ever made.” I swear, you’re like a child.

      “Like, the most lies ever!!!!”….that is, until the next speech by the team you don’t like.

    4. It was possibly the most dishonest convention speech ever made..

      You mean Obama’s Denver speech really was the point in time when the waters stopped rising, the planet began to heal and we started to care for the sick and injured?

    5. How was it “The most dishonest convention speech ever made?”

    6. “It was possibly the most dishonest convention speech ever made…”

      Total Bullshit statement. But if you actually believe your bullshit as an Obama lover, this must be a compliment since Obama is the most dihonest, disingenuous bullshitting President ever.

    7. It was possibly the most dishonest comment ever made… but it’s OK, libertarians are meanies and they deserve it.

      ?!? … man I feel dirty and this was just a parody. Toni! How can you stand it?

      1. It rubs the parody on it’s skin.

  6. Who wrote this? Just askin…

  7. I haven’t read the speech, but unless Ryan was saying that he would have saved the plant via government subsidy and support, I don’t see how calling out Obama for making yet another promise that he should not have made and could not keep somehow contradicts free market orthodoxy.

    1. Here’s what Ryan said:

      A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you ? this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

      Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

      I don’t see a problem with that.

      1. It looks like he said Obama promised a recovery, not that a specific plant would be open. He’s using a specific plant as an example of a larger phenomenon. Do you know of any other politicians that do a similar thing (perhaps even with a fictional, future woman who needs healthcare)?

        1. Do You not understand what “this Plant” means. It means this plant. Read the dam quote.

    2. Same here.

    3. But at least Obama followed through on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay! Oh shit, he didn’t do that either.

      1. But he took matching campaign funds!

      2. at least we are out of Iraq.

        1. According to Rachel Maddow we are.

  8. So Obama fellating lefties got their Paul Ryan fack check wrong? Hold on, let me find my shocked face. It’s around here somewhere…

  9. Now, I actually think that the plant story was the silliest part of Ryan’s otherwise stellar speech. Holding presidents responsible for the fate of individual auto plants is idiotic in and of itself ? but especially so if in your very next breath you are going to say that you’d “take freedom?any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.”

    Unless the plant closing was an unintended consequence of central planning.

    1. Holding presidents responsible for the fate of individual auto plants is idiotic in and of itself

      I think its fair game when the President has promised?, implied?, that if he is elected that very plant will be open for another 100 years.

      1. Warning: Skip the next 150 posts. There is a lover’s quarrel. Pretty ugly (also gay, NTTAWT).

  10. Is it wrong that I get a hard on when I read Dalmia’s work?

    1. Probably. She’s spectacular in physical form, but I don’t know what would turn you on from the writing. Nothing wrong with it, except when she has the occasional brainfart, but I don’t see it as being seductive one way or the other.

      1. My comment was intended as a compliment to Dalmia’s reasoning and keen observations. Not that I literally get aroused by reading her work. Perhaps that was over your head, and for that, I apologize. I shall endeavor to dumb down my comments for your sake.

        If you don’t like her that’s fine. Opinions and assholes and what not I guess…

        1. Not my fault that you have miswirings upstairs that get you hard at something entirely wonkish.

          1. You’re inability to read only highlights your ignorance and confirms why I should no longer waste my time responding to you. Jesus, are you really that stupid?

            1. And you really believe yourself to possess the better part of the argument after renouncing your original intent with platonic nonsense?

              1. And you really believe yourself to possess the better part of the argument after renouncing your original intent with platonic nonsense?

                You have the sense of humor of vegetarian eunuch. You can argue about how serious my initial statement was all you want. It doesn’t make it so as the absurdity of my comment is blatantly obvious to anyone not so blinded by their self-righteousness as you are.

                1. You’re right. You’re statement wasn’t demeaning to Dalmia at all because you had your fingers crossed behind your back signifying it was a takesie. I can see why you would be upset someone would not acknowledge it was all taken back in the first place.

                  If I had just known the juvenile spirit in which it was written: Is it wrong that I get a hard on when I read Dalmia’s work? Hur, hur, hur. Not really. Hur, hur hur I would have appreciated it for the goof that it is instead of wondering why you would claim to respect her arguments but do so in disrespectful way. You’re nine, that’s why.

        2. But, if you want to know what really happened above, I’ll elaborate as it is your head that the clue whisked by. I saw you do something that makes women go ‘ewwww‘. Being the gentlemanly sort who looks after social troglodytes, I attempted above to drown your faux pas in a little dry banality, to save face, for you. Then below, I continued with a wretched little joke relying on deviance for the point of humor so your mistake would be father diminished by my own excesses. I did it for you, and what thanks do I get? Complete misunderstanding and hostility on your part.

          1. You’re mistake was assuming that my comment was meant to impress women. You’re mother’s mistake was not swallowing the load you were spawned from.

      2. I mean, her writing is no Matt Welch where the double entendres are so thick with sexual verve you must assume his fingers are like eight flexible dolphinish penises stroking the keyboard!

        1. I see, you’re upset that I’m not as aroused as you are by the thought of Matt Welches Penis-fingers stroking his keyboard. I like Welch too, but he didn’t write this piece so let’s stay on topic.

          1. Impress women? No, no, no, no, God no. How did that thought ever even enter your mind. It did indeed make an impression though.

            1. I saw you do something that makes women go ‘ewwww’.

              God you are so ignorant that it makes me physically ill. I keep this up in hopes that you will at least take the time to read my comments before jumping on your high horse and pretending that you are somehow holier than I. I refuse to believe that any literate human being can have such poor reading comprehension skills that you seem to display but there you are…bright as day…

              1. You are so blind you mistake the hellhound I ride for a horse.

                And your defensiveness here only serves to prove that you were right to ask the question in the first place, Is it wrong that I get a hard on when I read Dalmia’s work?

                You refuse to take any heed of what you do understand on an intuitive level, the point I have been making ever so gently, women don’t wont to hear that shit. Treat her argument as you would if a man had written it.

                1. don’t want to hear don’t wont would mean . . . well, never mind.

                  1. don’t want to hear don’t wont would mean . . . well, never mind.

                    Ha! My typing skills exceed yours. I declare victory!

                  2. your high horse and pretending that you are somehow holier than I

                    This is what really bugs me about you. You ask a question, and in my first two replies to it, I could not have possibly responded in a friendlier or more understanding to something I found objectionable and what I went to great pains to point out in as non offensive manner as possible. You react to those two post as if I was the world’s greatest dick. Then you react to my rejoinders as if I, well, to quote above, your high horse and pretending that you are somehow holier than I.

                    Get a fucking clue, man.

                    1. You’re the one who’s clueless if you think that somehow your response to my off color humor was somehow friendly or non-offensive to me. If you didn’t like the joke then walk away. If you choose to respond then accept the fact that I’ll continue to point out your flaws at every opportunity. Do you see how this works? If I had a problem with people calling me out on my comments I wouldn’t be posting in here. I couldn’t care less about you feel about me or whether you respect me or not, but I do enjoy our little talks.

                    2. You have to find flaws in my arguments first. That’s the part you glossed over before you started swinging.

                    3. You have to find flaws in my arguments first. That’s the part you glossed over before you started swinging.

                      I did that…repeatedly and we’ve covered your lack of reading comprehension already. Keep up here dude. I can’t carry this argument on by myself…well, I could, but where would the fun be in that?

                    4. epeatedly and we’ve covered your lack of reading comprehension already.

                      No. What you did is repeat an argumentative convention that had no bearing on the specifics of this discussion.

                    5. The specifics of this discussion are that I made an off-color remark and that you refuse to accept it as anything less than me literally getting an erection for reading this article and that somehow I made the statement as a come-on to Dalmia. I’ve repeatedly told you that that was not the case and that you should lighten the fuck up. This is the simple message that you have failed to comprehend over and over because you think that by calling me out as some sort of misogynistic monster it makes you a better man. And I’m trying to tell you that it reveals just how untrue your self-image really is.

                    6. Your response was and has since then been completely bonkers. On some level, do you feel like a monster?

                2. women don’t wont to hear that shit.

                  Again, you assume I want to impress women or that I give a rat’s ass what women think of such a statement. I don’t. That is the point I have been making.

                  Treat her argument as you would if a man had written it.

                  If Matt Welch had written it I would have made the same initial comment because I like his work as well. You have no sense of humor and your bloated sense of chivalry isn’t enough to hide your inflated ego.

                  1. If Matt Welch had written it I would have made the same initial comment because I like his work as well.

                    Sure, you tell Welch his writings give you a hard on all the time. You pump it to Nick like there is no tomorrow (metaphorically speaking, of course, wink, wink). Some of your best friends are black.

                    1. Ooh…sarcasm…so you do have a sense of humor then? Then why such a douche?

                    2. You can’t let insults go unpunished, or the others will detect weakness, and before you know it, you are mopping up spooge in the shower room along with Tulpa.

                    3. You can’t let insults go unpunished, or the others will detect weakness, and before you know it, you are mopping up spooge in the shower room along with Tulpa.

                      Reminds me of the Pot and the Kettle and something about their ethnicity…

                    4. Doesn’t matter, I defend what is mine because it is mine, not because it is right in some external sense of an agreed upon social fabric.

                    5. Doesn’t matter, I defend what is mine because it is mine, not because it is right in some external sense of an agreed upon social fabric.

                      Thank you for admitting that you only continue this argument because you can’t stand someone who calls you out for being such a self-serving douche and for acknowledging that you were wrong in the greater scheme of things.

                    6. You could read my statement exactly as you have, as I figured you would, but that would be dishonest of you.

                    7. You could read my statement exactly as you have, as I figured you would, but that would be dishonest of you.

                      Really? Remember that Pot and Kettle?

                      It was you taking my original comment literally that got this whole ball rolling. And it is your refusal to recognize how dishonest that was of you that keeps it rolling. You really are blind aren’t you?

                    8. Thank you for admitting that you only continue this argument because you can’t stand someone who calls you out for being such a self-serving douche and for acknowledging that you were wrong in the greater scheme of things.

                      You see the additional material you have to add to qualify my statement above to make that statement mean something closer to what you wish it to mean? That’s dishonest.

                    9. No, this is dishonest.

                      I saw you do something that makes women go ‘ewwww’. Being the gentlemanly sort who looks after social troglodytes, I attempted above to drown your faux pas in a little dry banality, to save face, for you. Then below, I continued with a wretched little joke relying on deviance for the point of humor so your mistake would be father diminished by my own excesses.

                      Get over yourself.

                    10. Get over yourself, he says while fawning to the reflection in the mirror.

                    11. Get a room people.

  11. Great analysis, my only problem with it is this, “Ryan’s Big Lie then is that instead of saying the president “suggested” he said the president “promised” he’d keep the plant open? So sue him!” If you check the Ryan speech, he never claimed the president “promised” to keep the plant open. He said the president promised a recovery. The suggestion that he said the president promised to keep that plant open is a straw man put forth by the so called fact checking sites so they have something they can call false.

  12. I read some Ryan speech “fact checks” by CNN, etc. and they’re total bullshit. They don’t actually show misstatements or factual errors just a bunch of bullshit sliming Ryan. One “fact check” quibbles with his opposition to the stimulus and notes that he tried to make sure Wisconsin got its share of stimulus money – how the fuck is that a “fact check?” Once the stimulus money is being spent, it’s his f’ing job to get a portion for his constituents. You can be against a fucked up system but still be forced to make the best of a fucked up system.

    1. No it is not. Walker refused the money for the train. Ryan should have refused any stimulus money offered. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He is a full blown hypocrite. Nate Silvers stats are showing a huge surge, moreso than when Palin flubbed. Ryan is going to sink Romney faster than Palin, if that is believable.

      1. Pippers| 8.30.12 @ 3:38PM |#
        “Walker refused the money for the train.” /= “Ryan should have refused any stimulus money offered.”
        Non sequitur.

        “He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.”
        Bullshit.

  13. And I believe that if our government is there to support you…

    As long as you ignore the word “if,” you have a point.

    Kudos to the person who pointed out Janesville was, by far, the oldest plant GM had of the three (Spring Hill, ultra-modern, and Orion(?)) had to consider relocating the small car manufacturing to.

    1. JoshSN| 8.30.12 @ 1:49PM |#
      “And I believe that if our government is there to support you…
      As long as you ignore the word “if,” you have a point.”

      Doesn’t that make you dizzy?

      1. Considering Paul Ryan then voted AGAINST the GM bailout, Janeville’s government representative (Paul Ryan) was NOT there for them.

        Case closed. Obama knew EXACTLY what he was saying. He knew it may come back to bite Paul in the rear, and now it has. Ryan, as Janesville’s elected government official voted against helping them out.

        1. Meanwhile, Janesville closed during Obama’s tenure… not Bush’s.

        2. Considering Paul Ryan then voted AGAINST the GM bailout, Janeville’s government representative (Paul Ryan) was NOT there for them.

          From the look of things, it ended up being irrelevant to the Janeville plant that it was passed in the first place. The plant still ended up closing regardless.

          It’s hardly Ryan’s fault that GM chose to shut the plant down even after securing enough money (supposedly) to save it.

        3. Meanwhile, in actual reality, Paul Ryan voted FOR the auto bailout. And in point of fact, GM did receive giant, heaping gobs of taxpayer capital in order to continue operating.

    2. -As I pointed out above, in Obama’s speech – which you conveniently only quote one statement from – specifically mentioned “re-tooling” and “updating”. This speech made specific mention of helping factories “right here in Wisconsin”, while he was in a town with one of the oldest auto plants in America, IN WISCONSIN. When that plant was in the running for re-opening while GM was under his Car Czars, instead of choosing to help retool plants “right here in Wisconsin” AS EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN HIS SPEECH, they just went with the already-modern factory.

      -To recap: Obama makes speech about helping auto plants in Wisconsin, IN FRONT OF AN AUTO PLANT IN WISCONSIN. He gets opportunity to do this. He passes on it.

    3. Yeah, the “if” is important. Because the government never ended up supporting GM by infusing it with billions of dollars worth of capital, turning taxpayers in equity holders in order to keep the company operating after bringing it through a strong-armed pre-package bankruptcy in which all conventions of bankruptcy law were turned on their head and bondholders were stiffed. If only we had an interventionist government that would bail out manufacturing companies with taxpayer money! If only!

  14. Liberal Fox News Out To Destroy Paul Ryan’s TruthTruthTruthosity!

    Per usual, the lamestream, liberal elite over at Fox “Fairly Liberal and Unbalanced” are trying to destroy the reputation of the man whose reputation has just been saved here at Reason:

    On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

    Write Fox News and complain how their liberalism is destroying America’s freedoms!

    1. And your point is?
      That you’re a real fan of FOX? That you trust everything FOX broadcasts? That you’re not real bright?

      1. Liberal media. Durn that FOX NEWS.

  15. “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

    At which point Ryan voted against the bailout that Bush asked him to pass. So, no, Janesville’s government (Paul Ryan), was not there to support them. It closed up.

    1. Yes, and it closed up under Obama’s tenure as president, just like Ryan said.

    2. Pippers| 8.30.12 @ 3:33PM |#
      “At which point Ryan voted against the bailout that Bush asked him to pass. So, no, Janesville’s government (Paul Ryan), was not there to support them. It closed up.”
      Which has to do with Obama’s lie exactly how?

    3. A great zinger marred only by the fact that Ryan actually did, in fact, vote FOR the auto industry bailout. Oops!

      Since you support that kind of authoritarian interventionist horse shit, I guess he’s your guy.

  16. He didn’t say that he’d keep the plant open for 100 years. He said he *believed* that it would “*if* our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition,”. Taking it out of context isn’t as bad as the “you didn’t build that” one, but still… stop hunting for juicy sound-bites buried within cohesive content.

    Next, like you said, the decision had been *made* prior to Obama taking office. Granted, the decision hadn’t been put into effect until Obama was in office, but the die had still been cast. What was Obama supposed to do, force GM to reverse their decision. Oh, how you’d be freaking out if he had done *that*.

    Your insinuation that Obama had some political objective in “choos[ing] to close” the plant in Ryan’s hometown (oh, you mean Obama worked at GM when they made that decision?) doesn’t hold water. If anything, he’d take extra care to demonstrate to red states the blessings of Democrats’ concern for the labor class and, thereby, take wind out of Ryan’s sails.

    1. Joe Emenaker| 8.30.12 @ 8:26PM |#
      “He didn’t say that he’d keep the plant open for 100 years. He said he *believed* that it would “*if* our government is there to support you,…”

      Spinning that fast; doesn’t it cause dizziness?

  17. Fact check fail #1: The plant is technically not closed. It’s on “standby”. That is cold comfort to the people that used to work there, but GM has said they want to produce there as soon as demand returns.

    Fact check fail @2: The Spring Hill plant is also back in production.

    Fact check fail #3: Obama almost certainly had more pressing things to attend to than tweaking Paul Ryan before he was named VP. Even if he had time to think about it, if he were to pick a plant to re-open, Janesville would have bumped Spring Hill. Tennessee is a no-win state for Obama. He had no reason to piss-off UAW workers in Janesville.

  18. This article was rather wordy.

  19. What confuses me the most about the liberal media is not that they are pro-Obama, but how they respond to criticisms. It’s like this: say the consensus is that A=wrong or bad. Obama says “blah blah A is right and good”. An opponent points out “he said A when B happened”. Liberal media says “But Obama said A is good when C happened!” They never address the fact that so many people think he is a weasel and/or wrong as hell. Deflection is like their only tactic for dealing with all of the immoral and wrongheaded things their guys do and say.

    1. But they should endeavor to be unbiased and report the news. That’s their job.

  20. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.

  21. The Democrat Way
    1. Declare any criticism against o’bama to be a lie.
    2. Make up “fact” proving your previous statement.
    3. Repeat(mentioning Bush)
    4. Repeat(mentioning Racism)
    5. Repeat(mentioning “Tax breaks for the Rich”)
    6. Repeat until true.

    Sad thing is that this technique often works because Republicans, having the severe disadvantage of believing in the Truth, are very bad at defending against it. Turns out you can fool some of the people all of the time.

  22. Direct quote from Obama as posted by author: “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

    DIRECTLY after quote, author writes: “In saying that “this plant will be here for another hundred years” when he is our president…”

    Is anyone else noticing the twisting of facts going on here, right in the middle of an article complaining about bad fact-checking? This type of absurd ‘reason’ing makes your entire point invalid, Dalmia. Nothing you have written here can have any value because of this obvious manipulation of reality on your part. It saddens me to see your words and the word Reason on the same page.

    1. So her out-of-context grammar twisting somehow makes the fact that the factory DID NOT shut down in December of 2008, but in fact was continuing production on small and midsized cars until May 2009, untrue? Nice logic.

      As someone pointed out above, this was in the same speech Obama gave IN WISCONSIN IN FRONT OF THE AUTOPLANT: “The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.”

  23. “”If they just completely ignore Bush altogether they can make all the right wingers believe that before Obama took office everything was fantastic,” scoffed one.”

    Sorta like how, four years later, the Democrats are still inventing ways to blame Obama’s incompetence and downright corruption on Bush and the fabled “1%”.

  24. Candidate Obama said in February 2008 that, if elected, he would work to keep plants like this open.

    GM announced in June 2008 that production would be shut down at this plant by 2010.

    US GDP was shrinking at a 9% annual rate in the 4th quarter of 2008.

    GM shut down most production at this plant in December 2008.

    GM mothballed the plant in April 2009.

    But somehow President Obama is responsible according to Ryan and Dalmia.

    Colbert was right: “Reality has a liberal bias.”

  25. In June 2009, GM considered three sites http://modemax2012.blogbaker.com/ to locate a small car: its Orion plant in Michigan; Janesville, Wis.; and a Spring Hill, Tenn., plant slated to close in November. GM picked Orion and later reopened Spring Hill.

  26. In saying that “this plant will be here for another hundred years” when he is our president, he was http://www.chaussuresfree.com/ suggesting that under him the plant would have some kind of a future. Ryan’s Big Lie then is that instead of saying the president “suggested” he said the president “promised” he’d keep the plant open? So sue him!

    But, as it turns out, the plant wasn’t closed when Obama gave his speech on Feb 13, 2008. It was open. The liberals are challenging Ryan based on an Aug 16 story by David Shepardson, The Detroit News’ auto reporter that

    1. “he was http://www.chaussuresfree.com/ suggesting”
      Nudge, nudge, hint, hint…

  27. Next, like you said, the decision had been *made* prior to Obama taking office. Granted, the decision hadn’t been put into effect until Obama was in office, http://maxsale2012.overblog.com/ but the die had still been cast. What was Obama supposed to do, force GM to reverse their decision. Oh, how you’d be freaking out if he had done *that*.

    Your insinuation that Obama had some political objective in “choos[ing] to close” the plant in Ryan’s hometown (oh, you mean Obama worked at GM when they made that decision?) doesn’t hold water. If anything, he’d take extra care to demonstrate to red states the blessings of Democrats’ concern for the labor class and, thereby, take wind out of Ryan’s sails.

    1. “What was Obama supposed to do, force GM to reverse their decision.”
      He could try telling the truth once.

  28. Direct quote from Obama as posted by author: “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

    DIRECTLY after quote, author writes: “In saying that “this plant will be here for another hundred years” when he is our president…”

    Is anyone else noticing the twisting of facts going on here, right in the middle of an article http://www.chaussuresfree.com/…..-c-12.html complaining about bad fact-checking? This type of absurd ‘reason’ing makes your entire point invalid, Dalmia. Nothing you have written here can have any value because of this obvious manipulation of reality on your part. It saddens me to see your words and the word Reason on the same page.

    1. “Is anyone else noticing the twisting of facts going on here,”
      No, but I notice quite a bit of sophistry on your part, trying to give the liar-in-chief a way to weasel out of a lie.

  29. l Ryan must have hit a home run last night ? otherwise liberals wouldn’t be going bonkers http://www.airmaxhall.com/wome…..9-c-6.html right now. No sooner did he move his tingle-inducing chassis off the stage than the liberal blogosphere erupted in outrage, accusing him of being a maligner and a liar

  30. To those for whom facts matter and a full story matters, the following articles are freely available on the web; Instead of snippets gleaned to try to prove some partisan point. If reason really matters to you, inform yourselves.

    http://gazettextra.com/news/20…..anesville/

    http://gazettextra.com/news/20…..ries-2008/
    Dec. 31: “About 50 workers at the GM plant continue to build medium-duty trucks in a partnership with Isuzu.”

  31. http://gazettextra.com/news/20…..uty-truck/
    “Orphaned by the loss of its big brother in December, the Isuzu line and its 50 or so hourly and salaried employees continue to build about 25 trucks four days a week in what has become a nearly empty plant.”

    http://gazettextra.com/news/20…..finalized/
    “JANESVILLE ? General Motors will end medium-duty truck production in Janesville on April 23, four months to the day after the plant stopped building full-size sport utility vehicles.”

  32. http://gazettextra.com/weblogs…..utoworker/
    By STEVE KNOX Thursday, December 17, 2009 – 12:34 p.m.
    “A symbolic first anniversary is approaching – the end of production at the Janesville General Motors facility. Yes, there was work that continued into the early part of 2009 but December 23, 2008 was the symbolic end to a very long era.”

    1. What’s your point? All your articles point out that the plant was still open and running after December 2008. What does the “symbolic” closing matter? If you’re fired from your job, is it okay for them to deny you unemployment because you were only “symbolically” fired?

  33. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.

  34. “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.” President Obama.
    Fact: GM announces it will halt production of the Janesville, Wisconsin plant in June of 2008.
    Fact. The government from June 2008 to the shut down in December of 2008.
    1. The Bush Administration..wrangled with its vision of laissez faire,free market enterprise(for six months after the announcement)and finally passed a bailout of $17.4 billion for GM and Chrysler in December,23 2008. It did not support the Janesville plant. 2. The state of Wisconsin did not support the Janesville plant. 3. Paul Ryan, the Representative of Wisconsin and a native of Janesville did not prevent the plant shut down the last week of 2008. Thus with no support from the government it was unable to stay open for another hundred years. GM did not support the reopening of the “old” plant due to the cost. President Obama was in favor of the bailout while Congress wrangled.

  35. It is just another one of the promises Obama made that he should not have, because he could not keep it.

    Don’t make promises you cannot keep.

    Whether by hubris, stupidity, or dishonesty, he should never have made that promise.

    If I promise to eject the moon from its orbit if I am elected, and I do not, it’s perfectly fine of me to get elected, not do it, then get upset when someone brings that up later, right?

    Reminds me of when I got elected school VP in 7th grade by promising to have another outdoor bball court put in our school yard. Even though I would have liked to, there was never any way I could do so. So I lied, won, and beat out a girl who is very much like Tony.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.