Will one of you Republicans out there please share this photo with your buddy Paul Ryan?

Paul Ryan is reputed to be a pretty bright fellow, right?

Well, if Ryan can read the date on the photo above, perhaps he’ll cease and desist with his nonsense about how President Obama is to blame for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville.

But then, why would he stop lying now? It’s worked so well for him among Republican loyalists, right?



  1. From The Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2506462

    Janesville Timeline

    The Washington Post, and a host of other liberal media outlets, are calling this
    passage “misleading” because the Janesville plant “closed before the president
    was inaugurated.” The Post is dead wrong. Here are the facts:

    1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “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.”

    2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of
    medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010
    or sooner.

    3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant
    open: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility
    in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create
    good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

    4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant.
    Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

    5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production
    of medium-duty trucks.

    6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM
    reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer
    David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say
    the Janesville plant will never reopen.

    6. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can
    build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama

  2. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/30/obama_camp_melts_down_over_ryans_speech

    (3) The GM Plant – Part of the factory Ryan mentioned was shut down under Bush, despite the initial GM bailout (which Senator Obama supported). The plant finally fully closed in April of 2009, during Obama’s presidency, as this report clearly states. Obama’s problem is that he showed up and made empty promises to pander for votes. Ryan never said Obama was personally responsible for the plant’s closure, but he accurately stated that it closed down within a year of candidate Obama’s hope-filled speech and remains closed today. Obama goes on and on about “saving” the auto industry and his economic recovery. That boarded-up Janesville plant tells a different story.

  3. And here is exactly what Paul Ryan said in his speech.


    President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

    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.

  4. You lost this one too Pat. Thank God you have a long holiday weekend to recover.

  5. At the end of the day, we’re left with the fact that Paul Ryan is the running mate of a guy who wrote a column headlined: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

  6. This is a part of the same Obama quote from your link, that I posted in mine above-

    ‘Oct. 11, 2008 – Barack Obama comments on the Janesville closing. He does not promise to prevent the closing-in-progress, but instead declares he will “retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville” (emphasis mine) as president. Regardless of one’s views of the auto bailout, it has saved facilities like the Janesville one, if not the Janesville one in particular.”

    If I was a potential voter and GM worker who was listening that day I sure as heck would have thought he was talking about my job in Janesville.

    I definitely would have felt all hopey and changey if he would have said this (which he did)

    “But we still need to make sure that families are working. We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years, and shuttered factories re-open as new industries that promise new jobs. ”

    Hope and change has failed. And you have lost this argument.

  7. Here is the Let Detroit Go Bankrupt editorial. I agreed with Romney then and I still do now. How’s GM doing these days?


    IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.


    The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

    You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

    The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

    Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

    Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.


    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

  8. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

    President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

    Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

    Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

    It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

  9. Neftali

    Obama was at the plant in Janesville when he said the following:

    “We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years, and shuttered factories re-open”


    Now, did he specifically say “I promise to keep the plant in Janesville open.” No. Did he imply it? Damn right he did. Did workers at that plant think that Obama might somehow keep their factory open? Of course. That’s the whole point of what Ryan is saying.

  10. Neftali

    “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”


    So he specifically mentions the plant in Janesville, but he didn’t raise his right hand and swear to keep it open according to the liberal argument. whatever.

  11. danimal

    Neftali: He didn’t swear cause they didn’t have a Qur’an around. Ba-dum-dum.

  12. danimal: I think you meant to say “Ba-dumb-dumb.”

  13. Craig Knauss

    Paul Ryan’s Congressional website says he is serving his seventh term as Congressman. That means he’s been in office since 2000. So why didn’t Paul Ryan save the Janesville plant? He could have and should have done more for his constitutents if the plant was that important to him. It doesn’t look like it was.

    The fact is, GM was going to close it regardless. It was too old.

Leave a Reply

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