Ohio's un-employment rate

Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.

Fiat is in “very detailed conversations” with its Chinese partner, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (2238), about making Jeeps in the world’s largest auto market, said Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia. Chrysler hasn’t built Jeeps there since before Fiat took control in 2009.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html

As for Obama saving the auto industry…it’s not as simple as “Romney called for bankruptcy, Obama delivered bankruptcy.”  There are more than a dozen auto manufacturers operating in the US who didn’t get a bail out.  What Obama did was throw billions in taxpayer dollars at a failing company to prop them up to serve his own political agenda.

There is a legal process by which companies in this country can deal with situations that GM was facing, but rather than go through that process, Obama interjected himself and his administration, displacing investors and non-union pension holders to illegally turn over portions of ownership to his union cronies and compel a formerly private business to manufacture products approved by the government.

And concerning the Volt, Obama's flagship…sales are practically non-existent even with a huge government rebate, GM loses around $47K per car sold and they have a tendency to burst into flames.  The public and the free market have decreed that the Volt is a piece of crap.

Did nothing to help unemployment...too busy with golf outings to be bothered...sounds like you're talking about Obama.  Interestingly, you seem to hold Taft responsible for Ohio unemployment, but you don't hold Obama to the same standard when it comes to the US economy...in fact, most people on the left go out of their way to apologize and make excuses for Obama's failures.  Not making excuses for Taft, because I couldn't care less, but a lot of the unemployment that occured during Taft's administration was caused by Federal trade policies that he had nothing to do with.

And Boehner...what power to you think he has to stop a private company from relocating?  And whatever meager power he possesses, why makes you think he didn't do everything he could to persuade the company to stay?  There's no benefit to Boehner in having a large employer in his district leave, so it only stands to reason that he would have done all he could to convince them to stay.

And Romney..."he ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/

And finally, Strickland...from what you describe, he sounds like a Republican...pro-business, lower taxes...the exact opposite of Obama.  Why is it you find  Strickland's conservative policies worthy of praise, but you support Obama, who's policies are the exact opposite?

Sorry but the statement that ".. Chrysler is considering having the Jeeps built for the China market actually built in China instead of America, where they're built today.  No matter how you look at it, it amounts to outsourcing American jobs to China" appears to be wrong.  See:  http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1031/Jeep-not-moving-to-China-Mr.-Romney

As for the claim that " Those jobs would have been saved through a structured bankruptcy, as Romney suggested", to put it trenchantly, you had better decide.  Did Obama force GM into structured bankruptcy?  If so, then Obama saved the jobs.  Can't excoriate Obama for doing what your candidate said he'd do! 

Regarding Obama and bankruptcies, there's an interesting piece from the Washington Examiner:

....to recap:

• Romney called for bankruptcy, and Obama delivered bankruptcy.
• Romney called for saving the companies from extinction, and Obama saved the companies from extinction.
• Romney called for forcing shareholders and bondholders to take a bath, and Obama made shareholders and bondholders take a bath.
• Romney called for federal loan guarantees for the automakers, and Obama provided loan guarantees, direct loans, and equity investments.

So the difference is that Obama wanted more direct federal aide, but both guys wanted government aid and structured bankruptcy to save the companies.

Still, Democrats, speaking from Obama’s playbook, will keep attacking Romney for proposing mostly what Obama did. As Bill Clinton put it last night, “You got to give one thing: It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.”  http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-did-let-detroit-go-bankrupt/article/2507182#.UJFDUmcwjkY

To which I would add (paraphrasing here):  Still, Republicans, speaking from Romney’s playbook, will keep attacking Obama for doing mostly what Romney proposed.  Oh, the irony.

I have no great love for Detroit's auto industry and think they have been too slow to react, but am glad that they didn't hemhorrhage jobs.  FYI, I own and drive a Prius.  When it was purchased in 2005, Detroit's Big Three didn't offer anything comparable.  I'm glad to see that they're finally getting some sense of need to increase fuel efficiency.  As for the "green cars that were crap" comment, that might be your personal conviction but hardly is a statement of fact.  Some of the stuff circulating about the Volt, for instance, consists of outright lies and deliberate deceptions.