FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com

It is unusual for a corporation, any corporation that makes a profit or even hopes to make a profit, to become directly and publicly involved in a political campaign. One unfortunate aspect of civil law is that corporations can get involved in funding others who are involved in political life. Unless every shareholder is in agreement, it is a form of legalized corporate theft.

But direct involvement? Doesn't happen. At least not often.

So it was exceptional for two, that would be two, auto makers to essentially call Mitt Romney a deliberate liar. At issue is a deceptive Romney ad that suggests the companies will be firing American workers to ship jobs to China. The operative part of the ad says this:

Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.

The CEO of Chrysler commented directly in an email to employees:

I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China... Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.

He announced plans to hire 1100 more US workers as the Jeep SUV, "which will be produced in Toledo, is introduced for global distribution in the second quarter of 2013."

Separately, GM also attacked the Romney statements.

We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days. No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.

The Romney campaign responded with a new set of radio ads repeating the falsehoods:

Barack Obama says he saved the auto industry. But for who? Ohio or China? Under President Obama, GM cut 15,000 American jobs, but they are planning to double the number of cars built in China, which means 15,000 more jobs for China. And now comes word that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in, you guessed it, China.

The Romney ad campaign centers in Ohio and has drawn unusual fire from local press, which typically reports such controversy in he said/she said format. This has proven to be too much. Ohio reporters are taking blowtorches to the Romney candidacy.

As that controversy continues, the Romney campaign has brought back an old campaign falsehood, this one the complete opposite of the truth.

Republican governors had asked for permission to depart from workfare requirements. Workfare is a program to put welfare recipients back in the workforce. The governors said they wanted to develop more and better ways to get people employed. The Obama administration agreed but with the written requirement that any change the governors proposed would have to put more people into jobs than the existing setup. It looked like a winner all the way around.

The Romney campaign has re-introduced ads accusing the administration of doing the direct opposite of what is being done, saying that President Obama "gutted the work requirement for welfare." Yeah, that's a direct quote.

Yesterday, conservative Joe Scarborough repeated his long standing criticism of Republicans, most especially Mitt Romney. Romney, he said, should put aside the distortions and run as a straight forward, unapologetic conservative.

Here's how Scarborough put it a month ago.

I’m actually telling them we will lose if you don’t start running as a conservative: If you don’t start telling people what you believe — if you really do, in fact, believe in anything.

The Romney campaign represents the new face of Republican moderation. Actual policies, real governmental approaches, are identical with the most severe conservatives of the GOP. The difference is in presentation.

Scarborough conservatives actually believe extreme conservatism, the hairpin turn of the party to the right, is what the American public has been yearning for.

Romney conservatives agree on policy direction. They have confidence in conservative policy.

But they don't have confidence in conservative political argument.
They believe the path to the ballot box requires a different approach, and they have a strategy they seem to believe will carry them to victory.

To win, they have to lie.