The New York Times did give that title to a 2008 Romney op ed, but here's what Governor Romney really said, When Obama claimed during the debate that Romney wouldn't have provided any assistance to the auto industry, he was clearly lying. Romney had a plan to save the auto industry, Obama had a plan to save the UAW. Obama spent huge amounts of taxpayer money to take over GM for no other reason than to protect the UAW from having its contracts voided by a bankruptcy court, thus preserving its political clout for future elections, and this works not just to the detriment of the company, which is saddled with too high future costs, but ultimately to the detriment of the workers, who under Obama's championship of union clout will remain dependent on the union in the future. Romney's plan would have made GM workers partners in the company instead of just hourly workers. Where Obama constantly emphasizes diviseness and conflict in both politics and business, trying to cast Romney on the side of the wealthy and himself the defender of the middle class, Governor Romney always seeks collaboration, not conflict, in both politics and business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?src=mv&_r=0 The difference between Obama and Governor Romney is that Romney believes in the system that gave America the greatest economy the world has ever known, and Obama distrusts that system and constantly warns us about the dangers of capitalism, the evil intentions of the leaders of American industry, whether they be bankers or oil industry executives or insurance executives or many others and tells us that only he can protect us from the system that built America. The choice is clear. Obama promises us four more years caught in a quagmire of conflict and gridlock, and Governor Romney promises to seek collaboration with Democrats, with business and with labor to find a way forward to more prosporous times.