I reposted what TPM argued about the over-familiarity of Obama/Mittens on Detroit, but The Economist pushed back rhetorically at the recent Mittens Op-Ed column:

Quote:
Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/mitt-romney-and-car-industry

Take it for what it is.