I don't usually bring up reader points that I disagree with, because I just don't think that's a good position for me to be in. But I made someone extremely angry this morning, and so I'll air his point here.
A "Blog Bit" at the top of today's editorial page reads:
Four words may determine the outcome of the presidential election next Tuesday. Which four words remains to be seen. Will it be "You didn’t build that," by President Barack Obama? Or will it be "Let Detroit go bankrupt," by Mitt Romney? We will know next week. - George Harris, former Kansas City Star Midwestern Voices contributing columnist, on voices.kansascity.com
My emailer insists that's wrong, because it inaccurately quotes Mitt Romney.
Romney famously penned a 2008 guest column for The New York Times under that headline.
Not fair, says the emailer. Romney didn't write the headline himself, so it shouldn't be used in the Blog Bit.
That is absolutely unreasonable in my opinion. Read the column. The headline is an accurate and succinct summary of what Romney wrote -- and for all we know, he could have written it himself.
Do writers pen their own headlines? Sometimes, but not frequently. That doesn't matter to me in this context. It's my judgment that it's perfectly acceptable used in this way.
Romney
Derek knows that the phrase, "go bankrupt", connotes something far more draconian that the more accurate phrase, "go through bankruptcy".
But, close enough for Obama and a pro-Obama newspaper.
I usually agree with Derek's point of view, but Derek, you know better on this one.
Is this even subject to interpretation anymore?
The headline-story disconnect was thoroughly debunked long ago, derek. The headline characterizes Romney's plan for automakers as letting them disappear without any assistance. Countless Democrats have postured it that way. However, Romney argued for and described how government could backstop private investors to lure them into investing their own capital. Along the way that would require the automakers seek bankruptcy protection to regroup.
Except for the private investment, that's what Obama did. You're in the news biz, look it up. He took the automakers through bankruptcy, where he skrood private investors.
Sorry, you're very wrong on this.
I have no idea what you're
I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "debunking" of a column whose walkaway is, "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check." The whole column very clearly and directly argues for the industry to go bankrupt in order to turn itself around.
This gets to the root of a lot of problems
Business people deal with bankruptcy regularly. Not necessarily their own. But in any case, they are very comfortable with it being a part of the tax code that allows failing business time and space from creditors and other legal matters to regroup.
Non-business people often don't get that. Which sound-bite politicians are happy to exploit. "Evil capitalist Romney would have let employees starve instead of saving their employer".
Often bankruptcy is the only way to save jobs. Private sector management is the only way to save companies. I won't get into the details of how GM is doing - how its sales are inflated by government purchases that result in tens of thousands of vehicles sitting idle, or how billions remains unpaid, channel stuffing, etc. - or how Obama's other investments are fairing, with over half of the subsidized clean energy companies bankrupt, shuttered, laying off, etc. But that's nearly impossible to avoid when government makes the decisions.
Romney wanted to provoke change from within that would entice private investment, not enable the wrong kind of help.
That's how business people interpret his article. Unfortunately, columnists with no business experience were left to report on it. And headline writers were left to characterize it in seven words or less. That's the root of a lot of problems.