I think Daniel Gross gets this right. The problem with setting Romney's presidential announcement at Ford HQ is not the invented claims of anti-semitism (c'mon: this is the sort of thing we'd call bullshit on in a moment if aimed at a Democrat), it's that Ford is an example of much that's wrong with American manufacturing:
If there was to be a ban on candidates appearing at institutions that had a history of being less than philo-Semitic, or at institutions and companies named for people hostile to Jews, there wouldn't be many campaign appearances at Harvard, or Yale, or the Morgan Library.
No, I'm more troubled by the fact that somebody who is basing his candidacy on innovation and transformation is trying to associate himself with the Ford Motor Company's record of innovation and transformation. After all, while historians regard Ford as a tremendous innovator, contemporary auto analysts and buyers clearly don't. Indeed, Ford's contemporary travails--the continued losses in marketshare, the inability to turn profits, the failure to execute on business strategy, and the recent track record of timing the market incorrectly--haven't just wiped out market capitalization. They've wiped out a big chunk of Ford's historic reputation.
This is a company that's only now trying to actually give dealers the cars they can sell. It's embarrassing. So the question should be asked: Is Romney really promising to run the country with the vision and foresight we've seen at Ford?
