https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Romney continues the misleading "Jeeps to China" campaign

I have to assume it's a desperation move on the Romney campaign's part — a last minute attempt to save Ohio by not just not retracting an identified falsehood (that Chrysler is moving its Jeep production to China), but actually expanding the a buy for an ad that implies the same thing.

– "Four Pinnocchios" – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-mitt-romneys-misleading-ad-on-chrysler-and-china/2012/10/29/2a153a04-21d7-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

– "Pants-on-Fire" – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-obama-chrysler-sold-italians-china-ame/ 

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/10/romneys-not-true-chrysler-ad-glad-were-back-to-2012-as-usual.html

– Ohio newspaper reactions – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-romneys-jeep-to-china-lie-earns-brutal-headlines-in-ohio/2012/10/30/6ca63574-227e-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

Embedded Link

Romney expands false Jeep-to-China ad campaign
Fact checks don’t chasten the campaign.

Google+: View post on Google+

73 view(s)  

8 thoughts on “Romney continues the misleading "Jeeps to China" campaign”

  1. Well, since I link to the WaPo article Breitbart.com raises ("Four Pinocchios", above), I'll leave it to the reader to decide. For myself, especially given his well-publicized earlier and unretracted "slip", it's clear that Romney's implication in his ad is that Chrysler is moving Jeep jobs to China, rather than the truth that Jeep is adding jobs in the US and reopening plants in China (to serve the Chinese market). His statement has been widely criticized as giving that impression, and to continue saying it even more loudly makes it clear that it's just the impression he wants to give to Ohio auto workers.

  2. I wonder how the "fact checkers" can give it "four Pinocchios" when every fact in the ad is correct?

    The implications are, indeed, for the viewer to decide.

    Sort of like when the Obama Super PAC was saying that Romney was responsible for the death of Joe Soptic's wife.

  3. Actually, the inferences are for the viewer. The implications are made by the speaker. 😉

    WaPo's Fact Checker: "The series of statements in the ad individually may be technically correct, but the overall message of the ad is clearly misleading — especially since it appears to have been designed to piggyback off of Romney’s gross misstatement that Chrysler was moving Ohio factory jobs to China."

    Politifact: "The Romney campaign ad says Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs. The ad leaves the clear impression that Jeeps built in China come at the expense of American workers. The ad miscasts the government’s role in Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler’s owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture."

    (FWIW, Politifact rates the Priorities USA Action "Soptic" claim as False; WaPo's FactChecker gave it 4 Pinocchios)

  4. sigh Yes, I always get those sort of things mixed up 😛

    Anyway, yes, I get what you're saying but the facts are still solid. I hate the word "nuanced", so I'll just say that I do agree that there's more to the story than the ad is telling. 'Tis the season, though,

  5. Good job this isn’t the same Mitt Romney who made his money asset stripping and moving production to the Far East. That would be embarrassing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *