The 99 percent: Gingrich, Perry rip Romney for Bain work

posted at 7:30 pm on January 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Go look at the headline at National Journal. It has, it seems, come to this.

Card-carrying Romney critic Philip Klein, who’s spent years writing posts dumping on RomneyCare, can’t believe he’s being forced to defend you-know-who:

It’s nothing short of disgraceful behavior from Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry…

Romney’s rivals are engaging in the type of Marxist rhetoric that we’re used to hearing from Occupy Wall Street protesters, promoting an imaginary view of capitalism that’s exists only in Hollywood.

In reality, capitalism is the most moral economic system ever conceived of, because it’s the only one that’s consistent with personal freedom. Investors such as Romney pump money into businesses, and often have to cut jobs in an attempt to make them more efficient and profitable. And sometimes they fail despite their best efforts. But by cutting their losses, they have more money to invest in other businesses, and hopefully the gains outweigh the losses. In Romney’s case, he was tremendously successful overall, helping to grow businesses such as Domino’s and Staples that now employ tens of thousands of workers. In the process, he produced huge returns for his investors, who in turn had more money to invest elsewhere. However tragic the displacement of some workers was, on a net basis, companies like Bain help fuel economic growth. And there’s also no reason to believe that jobs that were lost – in steel investments, for instance – would have survived anyway. None of his rivals are accusing Romney of doing anything illegal or fraudulent in his business dealings, so it’s purely an attack on capitalism. It’s sad to see them go this route.

The money quote from Gingrich: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” Is that what Bain did — took all the money out of a company and then left it to die? According to the Journal, just 22 percent of the businesses acquired by Bain during Romney’s tenure ended up filing for bankruptcy afterwards. Another eight percent failed, but failed so badly that Bain lost its entire investment. And yet, if you believe Perry, the reason any of these businesses were shut down “was so that Bain Capital could profit and he could get richer.” Question for him and Gingrich: What rate of success in turning around acquisitions would exempt a private equity firm from charges of “looting,” as Newt puts it? 90 percent? 99? A full 100?

More from Avik Roy, another RomneyCare critic, who describes this as “Romney Derangement Syndrome”:

Frequently, these turnarounds initially involve layoffs — when they work, the layoffs act as a kind of pruning that allows a tree to grow again. When the turnarounds fail, however, the layoffs don’t work, and the company goes bankrupt. More often than not, these bankruptcies would have happened anyway: In the case of Bain’s investments in the steel industry, for example, cheap steel imports from abroad made it difficult for most American firms to survive…

#page#In some cases Bain may have made mistakes in its turnaround efforts, or misjudged an original business opportunity. That’s, again, what happens in the private sector. Success is not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s fair to say that private-equity firms such as Bain Capital were responsible for many of the productivity gains, and the retreat of sclerotic labor unions, that the American economy generated in the 1990s. Rest assured that Bain would have not generated those spectacular returns for its investors, nor attracted those investors in the first place, if the majority of its investments failed…

It’s been discouraging to read that many conservatives see Romney’s record at Bain Capital as a liability. For the truth is the opposite: Romney is a candidate uniquely suited to defending the role of free enterprise in the American economy. When liberal politicians and journalists argue that layoffs are cruel, and that capitalism is unfair, Mitt Romney can speak to how dealing frontally with a business’s problems can lead to better and more numerous jobs over the long term. He can speak not merely in abstract philosophical terms, but using the real-world examples from his successes and his failures.

Go look at the table James Pethokoukis posted tracking “creative destruction” of jobs over the 20th century. The one fair point Gingrich and Perry supporters have in defending their guys is that Romney seemed to get off awfully easy back in September when he started tearing Perry down over his Social Security rhetoric. That attack is as offensive as this one, really: At a moment when conservatives are desperate for the country to think boldly about entitlement reform, there was good ol’ Mitt hammering Perry for being too bold. Could be that the Romney critics are right and that Mitt simply gets a pass for his brass-knuckles attacks because he’s — allegedly — the most electable candidate, but I think there’s more to it. Pandering to Republicans on entitlements is semi-accepted on the right because (a) like it or not, a lot of self-described conservative voters are fans of Social Security and Medicare and (b) the GOP itself used Mediscare arguments to great effect in the 2010 midterm elections in campaigning against ObamaCare. The attacks on Romney’s “creative destruction” in the private sector are unusual for a Republican campaign, though, and sit badly after months of screeching from OWSers about “the one percent.” (The boss emeritus, in fact, describes Gingrich and Perry as having “gone Occupier.”) If the right stands for anything, it’s capitalism — even more so than entitlement reform, strong defense, or “values.” Quoth the Club for Growth, “Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting… Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Fairly or not, I think Gingrich and Perry are also paying a price today because their timing stinks of desperation. If Romney’s buyout record troubled them, they should have clubbed him with it from the beginning. Turning to it in the eleventh hour, after he’s won Iowa and is on the brink of putting them on ice in New Hampshire, makes it look like something they’ve resorted to not because they believe it but because it might work. And yeah, I know — politics ain’t beanbag, but if you’re going to hit a guy hard, can you at least not betray everything you supposedly believe about free markets in doing so? If Newt really does believe what he’s saying, why did he take it back after he attacked Romney on Bain the first time? Exit quotation from Rick Santorum, when asked to criticize Romney on Bain: “I’m not making it a liability. I believe in the private sector.”

Update: Here’s the best question of all: If you want to hit Romney for what happened at Bain, why not focus on this?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9

Sounds like our ‘free trade’ policy with China. And you wonder why job growth in this country has been marginal for the past decade, while the trade deficit has spiraled to new heights over the same timeframe.

bayam on January 10, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Free Trade with China? Is that free trade by Monopolistic Corporations who decide where to manufacture their products?

But don’t blame China for job loss. Fed & State’s taxes/tariffs and regulatory requirements make it difficult to do business in this country. Plus, we, as a nation, have really become lazy and un-creative in the last 3 decades, probably except in movie, music and porn industry, which we are still continuing our advantage internationally.

We failed to innovate and re-invent ourselves when it comes to more productive and job-generating activities like industries and manufacturing.

Relative to China, we have mainly become purely consumers, and not producers (or labor force have become irrelevant with respect to our own consumer wants – we like computers and gadgets but we get them in China.)

Plus, we have also become laborers of the public sector, not the private sector which is supposedly drivers of development.

What we are enjoying right now is the wealth created by the uncanny and industrious Americans in the last 50 years. We’re really like prince and princess relative to other nations.

We can continue with that, but everything has its end, unless we change our ways.

TheAlamos on January 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are done after these embarrassing attacks. Can’t stand either one of them.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Asians Girl, unless you got something illegal or unethical about Bain you are no better than, or maybe are, a full blown OWS.

I’ll be waiting for the proof of either or both. Thanks in advance.
UT Cowboy on January 9, 2012 at 11:54 PM

That person Aslan Girl is just one of a dwindling handful of people who support the bozo Perry. She and people like her apparently thinks it’s just peachy that Rick Perry is engaging in nasty class warfare (he essentially derisively calls Romney a “rich greedy wall streeter trying to make money”). Perry is no principled conservative; Rick Perry is nothing but a power-hungry, pro-illegal alien amnesty, corrupt crony capitalist whose national political career is virtually over after the embarrassing way he has bombed in this campaign. Perry has been revealed as a know-nothing moron and a total joke. It is very telling (but not surprising) to see the kinds of supporters he attracts. It’s funny to see how devoted the small group of Perry supporters are to an incompetent buffoon like Perry… sometimes I wonder if these strange Perry-worshipers are Obama plants. Luckily, such people are not the majority of voters.

Don’t worry, though… the empty suit Perry will be gone soon enough, then we won’t have to hear his pathetic attempts at speaking English anymore.

As for pompous, unpopular Gingrich, the man is unelectable and is throwing bombs at Romney out of spite. Gingrich is getting funding to continue his floundering campaign, but don’t expect him to win more than a couple states, if even that. Now I see more clearly why almost none of Newt’s former Congressional colleagues support his campaign.

Right now, the only two people I would feel good about supporting are Romney and Santorum.

I’m looking forward to this primary season being over.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Right now, the only two people I would feel good about supporting are Romney and Santorum.

I’m looking forward to this primary season being over.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Oh, and vote Romney and get a VAT. That’s great. Look what happened to Europe when they got their VAT.

And I guess you were okay with Romney’s attack adds on Newt many of which were outright lies?

And regarding the Bain Capitol issue. There is somewhat of a difference between making a company healthy through divesting unproductive portions of the company vs. legally raiding a company for its assets because it doesn’t have a poison pill. Its called ethics; and even though the actions taken were legal, it doesn’t make it right.

JeffVader on January 10, 2012 at 4:38 AM

I consider the notion that “criticizing Romney on aspects of his work at Bain” is comparable to OWS/Leftist tripe to be nonsense.

To me, this is instead an example of the Right’s form of “Political Correctness,” trying to censor/limit just what someone can be criticized for.

I heard the same yammer – again in defense of Romney – that calling him an “Establishment” or “Country Club” Republican was “class warfare.”
I CALL BULL ON THAT NOTION
.

Czar of Defenestration on January 10, 2012 at 4:51 AM

Conservatives for Marxism.

TexasJew on January 10, 2012 at 5:24 AM

Newt stole 1.6 million from Fannie Mae – ie the taxpayers – for his no-show political payola job and he’s complaining about Romney?

TexasJew on January 10, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Vote for Romney and his “care”, or you’re a socialist bigot!

Gedge on January 10, 2012 at 5:34 AM

From: Legal Insurrection (Prof. Jacobson)

“Republicans should thank Newt for bringing up Bain now”

As you know, I knew this day would come. The only question was whether it would be early enough in the primaries to make a difference, too late in the primaries, or in the general election.

But the day surely was to come when Mitt Romney’s years at Bain would come under scrutiny. After all, Bain is Romney’s entire claim to business experience, and business experience is Romney’s primary claim to the White House.

Yet the reaction among the conservative punditry to any mention of possible trouble in the Bain narrative was met with indignation that Newt was attacking capitalism. Charles Krauthammer famously said Newt was talking like “a socialist” for mentioning that Bain bankrupted companies.

The hyperventilated reaction to Newt’s mention of Bain problems was similar to the use of the race card, it was intended to shut down the conversation. And it did for a while in Iowa, and it provided ammunition to those who didn’t like Newt to begin with.

The argument that Newt was being anti-capitalist was rank hypocrisy from the get-go. While being a corporate raider — if that’s what Romney was, and it remains to be proven — may be legal and part of capitalism, it is not necessarily the type of business experience that makes one worthy of the White House or helps electability.

Czar of Defenestration on January 10, 2012 at 5:39 AM

From: Ace of Spades HQ

“Argument I’ve Been Making: How Come Romney Is Allowed To Go Cheap-Shot On Everyone Else, But the Minute He Gets Some Cheap-Shot In Return, It’s a Crime Against America?”

When Romney went after Perry claiming he wanted to end Social Security, and hitting him generally for calling it unconstitutional (it arguably is) and a ponzi scheme (it likely is), people said, “Hey, these are general election liabilities; Perry should have to respond to these charges. The left will make them.”

Well, same deal with Bain Capital. This is a general election liability; Romney should have to respond to these charges. The left will hit him on this (and in fact already is).

Czar of Defenestration on January 10, 2012 at 5:40 AM

Newt stole 1.6 million from Fannie Mae – ie the taxpayers – for his no-show political payola job and he’s complaining about Romney?

TexasJew on January 10, 2012 at 5:31 AM
===============================================

It is not appropriate or compliant with Jewish law to publicly speak untruths about someone, that is loshon hora.

Newt did not steal anything from Fannie Mae or the taxpayers, he a contactor/consultant for them, like millions of other people, and he got paid for his contract. What money do you get from taxpayers? Do you ever use tax deductions personally or in business…have you ever done business with any government agency?

And on Romney, it is really amazing to see all these supposed conservatives come out for an immoral (and by the way, un Jewish) form of capitalism. What Bain and Romney did in some of their dealing was to take viable, reasonably well operating companies and strip them of their assets so that they did not have sufficient capital to go forward. That may be legal, and it may be part of a free market, but that is not American free market capitalism. American capitalism has values, or do you think that taking whatever you can from other people is OK so long as it is legal? That is the Mr.Potter view of capitalism, and while it is legal it is not moral or compliant with Halacha and it certainly is not the proper background for someone that wants to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party

georgealbert on January 10, 2012 at 5:44 AM

Could somebody please tell me, how does one make money by buying a business and then shutting it down? How does one make enough from the sale of assets to cover the costs of acquisition?

In my observations, shutting a business down after a buyout is a losing proposition made necessary by an inability to make it profitable. Who makes money by placing a losing bet in business (aside from when the taxpayers bail them out such as under Obamanomics)?

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 6:50 AM

I can’t wait to find out if the claim is true, that those “100,000 jobs” which Romney claims to have created, are jobs in Mexico and China.

Czar of Defenestration on January 10, 2012 at 6:58 AM

Both Rick and Newt have either just displayed complete ignorance of how a private equity co, venture capital, -basic business- or have shown themselves to be demagogues who can recite the “Occupy Wall St.” talking points if they think it will get them anywhere.
Lets face it, it’s Ronmey by default and I am starting to believe that isn’t such a bad thing.

V7_Sport on January 10, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Could somebody please tell me, how does one make money by buying a business and then shutting it down? How does one make enough from the sale of assets to cover the costs of acquisition?

In my observations, shutting a business down after a buyout is a losing proposition made necessary by an inability to make it profitable. Who makes money by placing a losing bet in business (aside from when the taxpayers bail them out such as under Obamanomics)?

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 6:50 AM

=====================================================
Clearly, and no personal offense, but I must assume you are kidding. It happens all the time. There is a calculation made that selling off assets or borrowing against assets can bring a rapid return on capital invested, hence the new owners do just that. This happens all the time. The problem with some, but not all, of the Romeny/Bain moves is that they did not take inefficient business and re-organize to get better, they stripped the companies of their capital and then left them without sufficient capital to operate. Romney and Bain made a short term killing, but good businesses that were operating reasonably well went belly up because, just as Newt stated, they were looted. Yes, maybe if Bain/Romney always had a long term view they could have made even more money off the businesses by getting them to grow, but investment houses like Bain have huge pressure from their investors to deliver cash in the short term because they do not want the risk of a long term investment. This is all very common, but it is not a model for a standard bearer of the Republican Party who is supposed to have a long term positive view of the nation, not a get rich quick mentality.

georgealbert on January 10, 2012 at 7:15 AM

Asians Girl, unless you got something illegal or unethical about Bain you are no better than, or maybe are, a full blown OWS.

I’ll be waiting for the proof of either or both. Thanks in advance.
UT Cowboy on January 9, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Yep OWS. She is not along among a bunch of supposed conservatives no less. We’re screwed.

CW on January 10, 2012 at 7:22 AM

Face it… Newt is scum and dragging down the Republican Party. His numbers continue to fall. Go away Newt.

ObamatheMessiah on January 10, 2012 at 7:24 AM

They have until South Carolina to stop Romney…….and the media will start beating the “unite the party” crap.

Throw EVERYTHING at Romney until something sticks.

Mittens is a scorched earth campaigner so let him feel the fire too.

———que “Disco Inferno” circa 1979.——–

PappyD61 on January 10, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Free Enterprise doesn’t mean “freely doing whatever the hell you want to make a buck”.

mitchellvii on January 10, 2012 at 7:32 AM

TexasJew on January 10, 2012 at 5:31 AM

I’m the first one to day that Newt shouldn’t have worked for FM, but he did not STEAL the $$ for God’s sake! He shouldn’t have worked for them because they are destructive to America, but he didn’t steal anything. Overpaid, sure, but not anything worse than that.

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Newt et al’s point here was did Romney engage in predatory capitalism or capitalism for the good of society? Not all capitalism is created equal. Its’ why we have regulations that keep banks from stealing you house just to make a profit.

mitchellvii on January 10, 2012 at 7:38 AM

georgealbert on January 10, 2012 at 5:44 AM

ITA and I have faith that Newt and Perry will present the evidence. They are right to attack that corrupt form of capitalism.

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 7:39 AM

So, did Bain try and save companies but some failed anyway – as is sure to happen, or did Bain simply go into weak companies and bleed them dry then let them die while Bain made huge profits? Was Bain an ambulance or a scavenger?

The distinction is important.

mitchellvii on January 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Newt’s point is that if Romney is going to sell himself as a businessman to become POTS, what kind of businessman was he?

mitchellvii on January 10, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Newt et al’s point here was did Romney engage in predatory capitalism or capitalism for the good of society? Not all capitalism is created equal. Its’ why we have regulations that keep banks from stealing you house just to make a profit.

mitchellvii on January 10, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Exactly. China has capitalism, but without the moral foundation that America has, China’s version is corrupt. The same thing happens in America. Businessmen are human. They are sinners. There are going to be good ones and bad ones. We’re vetting Mitt/Bain to see which kind they are and the initial things I’m reading aren’t painting a pretty picture.

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 7:44 AM

PappyD61 on January 10, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Yep, I like scorched earth against Mitt!

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Clearly, and no personal offense, but I must assume you are kidding. It happens all the time. There is a calculation made that selling off assets or borrowing against assets can bring a rapid return on capital invested, hence the new owners do just that. This happens all the time. The problem with some, but not all, of the Romeny/Bain moves is that they did not take inefficient business and re-organize to get better, they stripped the companies of their capital and then left them without sufficient capital to operate. Romney and Bain made a short term killing, but good businesses that were operating reasonably well went belly up because, just as Newt stated, they were looted. Yes, maybe if Bain/Romney always had a long term view they could have made even more money off the businesses by getting them to grow, but investment houses like Bain have huge pressure from their investors to deliver cash in the short term because they do not want the risk of a long term investment. This is all very common, but it is not a model for a standard bearer of the Republican Party who is supposed to have a long term positive view of the nation, not a get rich quick mentality.

georgealbert on January 10, 2012 at 7:15 AM

That makes no sense whatsoever. Before Bain could sell off or borrow against assets it must, you know, have purchased those assets. Stripping a company of capital can only happen after they’ve purchased the capital that makes up that part of the company’s book value. So no, I’m not kidding. You are not describing a business model of any form. The fact is that nobody acquires a business without the intent and belief that they can make that business successful. It’s only when they’ve failed that the attempt to salvage what they can of their investment.

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 7:50 AM

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 6:50 AM

I remember reading about the demise of the large publishing firms (or other firms that happened to have publishing establishments as part of them) that were attacked in the 1930′s by this form of cut-throat competition (I think it was by Fred Pohl, Asimov didn’t have this sort of business acumen but I could be wrong).

What happened is that failing firms or competitors got bought out by better managed firms in the 1920′s. Now these competitors had distribution networks: printing plants, warehouses, trucking centers, etc. It was soup to nuts distribution back in the day, and when you got a competitor you got all their baggage, as well. By the early 1930′s there were still a large number of publication firms that now owned all sorts of goodies: warehouses they didn’t use, trucking centers, closed printing facilities or underutilized ones, and even such things as rail sidings and train stations, plus right-of-ways for them and even mineral rights. These firms became asset rich, but cash flow poor and became the target of the great die off of the pulp magazines in the mid-1930′s as the larger firms were bought up and sold off piecemeal and even marginally profitable magazines were shut down as razor thin margin wasn’t the idea: liquidation was the idea.

Post-WWII came the rise of the conglomerate: amalgams of companies that were supposed to each be profitable under a larger management system. This fine theory hit the problem of competent management as a requirement in each field, which was often at variance with business practices in general but were necessary for individual niche markets. If you buy up a large company that has a number of niche markets and you still have to service them, then you bite the bullet and lose the profitability to keep the minor market. By the late 1970′s you had large firms that were marginal across all of their sub-units as they could no longer offer a coherent management system across a wide-variety of markets because the markets began to shift and 1950′s management schemes were not adaptable to the 1970′s changes. Thus you hit the Mergers & Acquistions (M&A) period of the 1980′s of large banking and capital firms buying out not just conglomerates but sub-units that are not profitable but that have liquidation potential.

During that period from the 1950′s to 1970′s the tax laws also changed in how companies got treated not just for investments but capital outlay, and how they pay for that. Some barely marginal firms bought up in M&A could serves as investment ‘sinks’ for debt: debt got shuffled from what were thought to be just badly managed and bloated firms that had profit potential to firms that while decently run would not turn a decent profit due to the markets they served. All of that financial shifting was and is perfectly legal but is sponsored by our regulatory system for banking, finances and taxes not just at the federal level but at lower levels as well.

Bain was but one part of that larger change in corporate outlook and while I don’t like how the regulations were set up, I don’t disagree that the actions were legal. That said the entire system is corrupt to the point of illegality via subsidies, tax write-offs, and bailouts. Bain is an actor in that and a symptom of the problem.

To fix the problem the system needs not just to be overhauled or ‘streamlined’ with plenty of AstroGlide for the American Citizen, but scubbed down to its basics and entire sections of the federal government made to go away. Republicans are not running on that platform, nor is Mitt Romney. Two parties are unwilling to address the disease and point fingers about the symptoms. While the attacks are detestable the worst part is that Mitt Romney cannot turn this around to say that he will use his business acumen not just to ‘streamline’ government but to start junking large sections of it, wholesale and auction them off piecemeal. If he were saying ‘Remember what I did to Kay-Bee Toy? I will do the exact, same thing to the IRS and EPA’ then I would vote for him as the insider turning against the system and using his knowledge to dismantle it.

Not just trim a program here and there, but start scrapping all this stuff to see if any of it is actually needed: what is needed can be rebuilt and have safeguards enacted with it so that it gets regular review to survive, say every 5 years. That works and kept the government relatively small up to the Progressive Era. Putting all government sections on a re-up cycle on the last number year that they were formed basis would achieve the same thing, save make the survival for 10 years, not 5.

I’ll sign up for that candidate and campaign for them.

So far, no luck.

ajacksonian on January 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM

News flash to the pundits and other candidates out there, all this Bain Capital stuff is having the opposite effect of waht you want to do. It’s making me lean towards Romney. Which I really don’t want to do, but you’re at least showing that Romney has an idea on what capitalism is supposed to be and it’s showing that he knows what it’s like to actually invest in business in this country. Regardless if you agree with what they did or not, for the most part, it was still their money they invested and they were in the private sector.

Given our economy, that’s a huge plus for him.

Pcoop on January 10, 2012 at 8:11 AM

ajacksonian on January 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM

So, the argument (not necessarily from you) goes that the tax code encourages perverse business practices and it’s the businesses that are at fault. Much like the banks were given perverse incentives to lend and they’re the evil ones for doing what the tax code encourages.

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

That makes no sense whatsoever. Before Bain could sell off or borrow against assets it must, you know, have purchased those assets. Stripping a company of capital can only happen after they’ve purchased the capital that makes up that part of the company’s book value. So no, I’m not kidding. You are not describing a business model of any form. The fact is that nobody acquires a business without the intent and belief that they can make that business successful. It’s only when they’ve failed that the attempt to salvage what they can of their investment.

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 7:50 AM

That’s not entirely right. A company that is skilled in selling off the assets of a failed business may acquire businesses that they know won’t be successful. If the company is skilled in selling off those assets, those assets will go to the business most able to exploit those assets. This creates more job than would have been created otherwise. (I don’t know that Bain did this, but I would guess that did given what has been reported.)

thuja on January 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM

It’s funny how Bain Capital has suddenly become such a hot topic of conversation. It rarely came up in 2008. These Romney haters will latch on to anything they can in an attempt to hurt Romney. Romney haters are like animals that will devour any kind of meat you throw at them…. but when they finish that meat, they wait eagerly for the next piece. It doesn’t matter what you throw at these people; they will eat it up whole without even thinking.

Unfortunately for them, the attacks are backfiring. Romney is going to come out of this stronger than ever! Looks like this has the potential to unite more people behind Romney.

Here are my top choices for Romney’s VP:

Marco Rubio
Nikki Haley
Susana Martinez
McDonnell
Chris Christie

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM

It’s come to this……

I thought for sure that tagline would show up on the front page instead of buried on the first line of AP’s post.

I’m not at all surprised that the more desperate campaigns have unloaded this drivel against Romney but all of the comments are loaded with support for these attacks.

I think many in here are gonna have to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that the vetting process has reached a point where Romney, Santorum and Paul are the only three campaigns that are viable(with Paul’s foreign policy still hamstringing him). Perry has been done for a while, Huntsman never even got started and the vetting process worked on Gingrich……I think we all have had enough of a thin skinned Commander In Chief that uses class warfare.

How can anyone defend Gingrich on this…Jeez…..Romney Derangement Syndrome indeed.

Zybalto on January 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Don’t worry, though… the empty suit Perry will be gone soon enough, then we won’t have to hear his pathetic attempts at speaking English anymore.

As for pompous, unpopular Gingrich, the man is unelectable and is throwing bombs at Romney out of spite. Gingrich is getting funding to continue his floundering campaign, but don’t expect him to win more than a couple states, if even that. Now I see more clearly why almost none of Newt’s former Congressional colleagues support his campaign.

Right now, the only two people I would feel good about supporting are Romney and Santorum.

I’m looking forward to this primary season being over.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Thank you for your post…I would not vote for Newt, Perry, or Huntsman for dog catcher now, or any time in the future, now that I have learned more about them. They think they are doing damage to Romney, but what they have done instead, is shown themselves unfit to put an R after their name on the ballot. Not long ago, I maintained that I would pull the lever for any Republican that secured the nomination except Ron Paul…but these maggots have changed my mind about that. I still support Romney, but if Santorum were to somehow get the nod, I would vote for him. Obama must go!

jibjab75 on January 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM

I liken this to a situation where people in a dangerous job were being sold on some equipment made by someone’s brother-in-law’s company, and a group of workers are objecting because they see a big and dangerous flaw in the equipment.

Management’s all going to Abilene, Bob’s brother-in-law would just never ever never sell bad equipment to them, they are assured, and it looks like it’s all going to get shoved down their throats. Until a couple of cheeky workers manage to blow a hole in the prototype exactly where they had been arguing a hole would be blown. They figured whatever trouble they would get in for damaging equipment was worth the lives saved by demonstrating how unsafe the equipment was.

So naturally, the cheeky equipment damagers get in a lot more trouble than was really their due, but hopefully, it wakes management up and they don’t go with the unsafe equipment.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Not long ago, I maintained that I would pull the lever for any Republican that secured the nomination except Ron Paul…but these maggots have changed my mind about that. I still support Romney, but if Santorum were to somehow get the nod, I would vote for him. Obama must go!

jibjab75 on January 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Totally agree. I’ve never had any big problems with Rick Santorum. I am aware of his imperfect record on spending, but would feel very good voting for him. No one is going to be absolutely perfect. I also very much liked Bachmann, but felt she had no chance of winning. Early on I came to the conclusion that Romney is, by far, the candidate with the best chance of winning in November, and nearly everything that has happened so far in the campaign has reinforced that thinking.

Although I was more or less indifferent about Gingrich in the beginning, now I can’t stand the man. Gingrich is nothing but an erratic, petulant, pompous hypocrite with delusions of grandeur. The fact that he bought this anti-Mitt video (which some people believe was researched and possibly funded by Soros allies) and has been engaging in leftist-style attacks on Romney is rather disappointing. The pathetic thing is that Gingrich is just using these attacks in an attempt to hurt Romney, not because he really believes them.

And, as for Perry, what more needs to be said about that clown. I actually feel sorry for him. The man is a walking joke. No one (except for a few clueless, hero-worshiping posters on here that I’m convinced are actually Obama plants) takes him seriously.

It’s in the party’s best interest to get this primary season over sooner rather than later.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I don’t understand….
Why does Mitt get the “hands off” treatment?

I think Newt is doing US ALL GOOD.
Don’t you think that Axelrod and Obama bring this up in the General? I’d much rather have this come out now…let Mitt deal with it….and let the voters decide if BAIN is an issue or not.
Then…if Mitt is the nominee….this will be an “easier blow” and will not be a HUGE issue….right?..wrong?

Hey Newts 3 wives, Freddie Mac, Sitting on the couch with the Princess and whatever you can criticize Newt for that Romney used in his ads….ALL FAIR GAME.

However: BAIN did take a Federal Bail out….and that change the whole conversation about BAIN in my mind.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees. AT THE EXPENSE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!!

“Politics isn’t a BAINBAG”.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

That makes no sense whatsoever. Before Bain could sell off or borrow against assets it must, you know, have purchased those assets. Stripping a company of capital can only happen after they’ve purchased the capital that makes up that part of the company’s book value. So no, I’m not kidding. You are not describing a business model of any form. The fact is that nobody acquires a business without the intent and belief that they can make that business successful. It’s only when they’ve failed that the attempt to salvage what they can of their investment.

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I did consulting in mergers and acquisitions a few years ago, but not for this kind of leveraged buyout.

If the business plan for an acquisition finds that the company is worth more dead than alive, it is less risk and higher reward to do exactly that. You just have to be numb to the damage you do to the lives of others. That is why Romney needs to prove Bain did not do this sort of thing, or justify it (good luck with that.)

Leveraged buyouts are based on using the assets of the target to get the loans needed to buy the target firm. Often the margin for the acquiring firm to make a profit comes from using excess cash, securities, intellectual property etc. owned by the target firm. That and stopping payments into the pension fund if there is a way to justify suspending contributions.

WhatNot on January 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

@Bluegil:

And, as for Perry, what more needs to be said about that clown. I actually feel sorry for him. The man is a walking joke. No one (except for a few clueless, hero-worshiping posters on here that I’m convinced are actually Obama plants) takes him seriously.

Feeling Sorry for Perry? Are you kidding?
You’re a Romney shill and for you to make that statement is Pathetic.

You sound like an elitist..”It’s in the party’s best interest to get this primary season over sooner rather than later”.

Who died and made you Queenie? What are you a Commie Marxist? Seriously, what your statement is actually saying: “Sit down and shut up….you stupid fools….we will tell you who our Nominee will be”.

Yeah…that just makes me all fuzzy and warm to run out and vote for Mitt….NOT.
Let the VETTING PROCESS continue…then let the voters decide who our nominee will be…THANK GOD for that…Commie Bluegil.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Leveraged buyouts are based on using the assets of the target to get the loans needed to buy the target firm. Often the margin for the acquiring firm to make a profit comes from using excess cash, securities, intellectual property etc. owned by the target firm. That and stopping payments into the pension fund if there is a way to justify suspending contributions.

WhatNot on January 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

To back that up…..

“What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees”.

I agree….McRomney needs to come out and explain all this(good luck with that). Tax payer money…Bailing out Bain.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Did Bain at any time leave the taxpayer liable for employee funds in a company they dismantled that could have more than comfortably been handled in their bottom line? Remember, that when it was obvious that Sylandra was going belly up, the government went in and renegotiated the loan to allow private investors to be paid before the taxpayers. Did Bain do the equivalent with pension funds?

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Jennifer Rubin nails it on this stupidity from Gingrich and others who should know better:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-stupidity-of-attacking-romney-capitalism/2012/01/09/gIQAlaKslP_blog.html

mountainaires on January 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

@Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 9:13

I will let you be the judge…..

In October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

mountainaires on January 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Not when Bain gets bailed out by tax payer money….

Good luck with that…..

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM

The democrats are licking their chops over the prospect of getting Romney for an opponent. For a year at least Dinkhead in the WH has been demonizing Fat Cat Wall Street Bankers and Investment Capitalists and lo and behold the Republican establishment presents them one on a silver platter. Nothing that Newt, Perry et al are doing is different from what the Dims are planning so it is good vetting. By the way Bluegill, back to your pond.

kenny on January 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

These attacks smell of the same tactics that the left uses. I read that ace of spades article. It is exactly right. How come Romney takes a cheap shot at everyone else not get any criticisms and once some candidate attacks Romney, they get hounded by critics saying how dare you attack him that way. As Donna Brazile put it the reason Romney won the debate is that no one attacked him and with that means that he is the weakest candidate. No one has properly vetted him. I do not like the lefttist tactics being used by Gingrich and Perry, but this is what the media and the Democrats are going to do to Romney if he is the nominee. I would rather have this happen now than later.

pb88 on January 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

In October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

ROFL, you’re kidding, right? This is your idea of an argument against Bain? You cannot be serious!

TEN YEARS AFTER BAIN, when the company was in the hands of new owners, etc, the company went bankrupt but it’s BAIN and ROMNEY’S FAULT?

Yeah. Good luck with that Coach.

“Some of the companies that ran into trouble did so after Bain was no longer involved and new owners had taken charge. Bain declined to provide information on when its involvement in its investments ended. The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50% to 80% annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.”

mountainaires on January 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM

So, capitalism is bad? I thought all this time that the Republican position was that capitalism is good was the Republican position. Oh well, live and learn. So, the Perry-Gingrich position will be to prop up failing business models in order to save jobs? Will they use the Justice Department to attack venture capital firms? But, then won’t those people lose their jobs, or will they prop up venture capital firms as long as they don’t make money?
Are they going to support Obama in the general? He seems to be more in their line of thinking on matters of free enterprise, and it looks like the OWS crowd has a couple of Republican supporters.

claudius on January 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I heard a rumor of a more egregious example but I will hold off mentioning it since I don’t know if it is true or campaign fodder.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Did someone show Huntsman the Queen of Diamonds?

claudius on January 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM

These attacks smell of the same tactics that the left uses. I read that ace of spades article. It is exactly right. How come Romney takes a cheap shot at everyone else not get any criticisms and once some candidate attacks Romney, they get hounded by critics saying how dare you attack him that way. As Donna Brazile put it the reason Romney won the debate is that no one attacked him and with that means that he is the weakest candidate. No one has properly vetted him. I do not like the lefttist tactics being used by Gingrich and Perry, but this is what the media and the Democrats are going to do to Romney if he is the nominee. I would rather have this happen now than later.

pb88 on January 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I am NOT a Romney Fan…..but I agree with you 100%.
This is the process…no matter who it comes from. The “hands off” crap is just laughable. I much rather have this come out now…if Romney is our nominee. You can just imaging when Obama and the MSM in the general excoriate Romney on Bain. This…then will be no suprise.
Let the voters decide if Bain is a big deal
As saying goes: “don’t shoot the messenger”.
One question:
If Bain took a “federal bailout”…does that make a difference?

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM

It seems the kitchen just got a little hotter. Odd, when Gingrich makes money from a consulting firm, its crony capitalism. And if anything is said about Mittens plundering corporations, well that’s just plain blasphemy. Go figure.

DDay on January 10, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Will Newt, Perry, Huntsman et al start cheer-leading TARP and the auto bailout next? I.E. “Unlike Mitt who puts companies into bankruptcy, I’m for a federal government who bails out companies with taxpayer money.” Will Obama embrace TARP and the auto bailout in the 2012 election cycle to show how he is different from Romney (again, if he is the nominee)?

Conservative in NOVA on January 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I heard a rumor of a more egregious example but I will hold off mentioning it since I don’t know if it is true or campaign fodder.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I have a feeling that this will be a HUGE issue in the end…NEWT, PERRY or not leading the questions.

I do believe that this will be the “Haliburton” of 2012.

You know that Axelrod has something in his little war chest on Romney. I think that this Vetting process is good and getting “ahead” of Axelrod is going to make this issue a NON factor if Mitt can explain all this…and sooner better than later.
This does however…question Romney’s electability as Indy’s and Moderates are weary of Romney’s type of “capitalism”…which includes me.
However…one thing..I will NOT be voting for Obama…period.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Surely Gov. Romney has acceptable answers already compiled for this situation to allay the fears of the public who, as rockmom pointed out, will be sick of hearing it by October. After hearing much of Gov. Romney’s famous campaign apparatus and superior organization, I know he is prepared for this.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Surely Gov. Romney has acceptable answers already compiled for this situation to allay the fears of the public who, as rockmom pointed out, will be sick of hearing it by October. After hearing much of Gov. Romney’s famous campaign apparatus and superior organization, I know he is prepared for this.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

With that being said…..that will make Mitt a MUCH BETTER CANDIDATE….correct?
So…why are Mitt fans and the MSM shooting the messengers?

I think Newt’s Super PAC is doing the GOP a great service….and is part of the Vetting process. This whole “capitalism” thing is a bunch of crap and people hide behind labels terms etc……
I’m all for “AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM”.
Lets get it all out…..then Obama has nothing to “suprise” us in the general..(With crossed fingers).

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I agree and since the same tactics he used are being used against him, I fail to understand the problem.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

JUST OUT:

ANYONE UP FOR A PIOUS BALONEY SANDWICH??….

http://youtu.be/Douad0v1f-Y

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

blink on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Right. That explains why the Democrats already have a commercial looping the “I like to fire people” comment from yesterday. Seriously, did you really expect that Gov. Romney was going to get a pass on Bain Capital?

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The problem is that the disgustingly misleading argument can’t now be dismissed as crazy communist propaganda because Republican candidates are the ones that first used it.

blink on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Your assuming that everyone thinks like you. I am an Indy…and seeing all this play out is good for everyone on the right.
You are under the presumption that Romney is the nominee. This to me is an “electablity issue” which the Indy’s like me are suspicious of Romney’s intentions. Unlike Obama….Everyone needs to be Vetted running for public office….and again….I will NOT be voting for Obama…Period.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

MJBrutus on January 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

You’re getting better answers to your question than I can give you.

The entire LBO scene is one that started to smell, to me, like some of the things going on in the run up to the 1929 Crash, and was indicative of not lack of regulation but regulation that could never address the problems of swapping debt and incurring more than an organization was worth in order to saddle it with that debt for further acquisitions. The direct leveraging of the pre-Crash era just got a step once-removed and a few other bells and whistles added in… the regulatory environment actually made this possible via the tax code and direct regulations, plus various other incentives that have been wedged in over the years. I can understand the old fashioned types of work from the deconstruction of companies that had a greater value in their physical assets than their product flow, and the dis-integration of the conglomerate system, but only up to the point where business units start to get spun off. After that there gets to be a smell in the air, and not a good one.

Just because something can be done, legally, doesn’t mean that it is an overall good for the economy, and leveraging debt increases with little up front means that there is a debt bubble being built that MUST be paid down… or liquidated as the case may be.

At the far other end of the scale, that of Nation States, one of the best ways to liquidate debt is via warfare and war production, plus just cutting off debt to cripple enemies or dumping it to make them insolvent. Once a political system believes it can create a major debt accumulating economic system, then the end state is war to eliminate debt or being foreclosed on via warfare by those looking to collect on it. That has been going on ever since trade began… and we are headed into the teeth of this ill-created end state right now. Bain and Romney, in this perspective, are sympotms of the disease not the disease, itself.

It sure would be handy to find a politician who can recognize the disease… but I’m starting to look for a War President because that appears on our near term horizon with the way the world is going. I wish this wasn’t the case, but it is. And a War President who can get the clout to remove this crony based system with insane rewards/subsidies/tax breaks/leveraging would be an added bonus.

So far, no luck.

ajacksonian on January 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Right. That explains why the Democrats already have a commercial looping the “I like to fire people” comment from yesterday. Seriously, did you really expect that Gov. Romney was going to get a pass on Bain Capital?

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

And this is why NOW not LATER. One on One with Obama…this would be a NIGHTMARE. I am estatic that this is coming to light now…that we still have 48 states to go after today to select our nominee….that is VETTED thoroughly. I detest being “spoon fed” and “the most electable” montra…

We have 5 players….let them battle it out…..

All’s fair in love and war= behaviour that is unpleasant or not fair is acceptable during an argument or competition…Game ON!!!

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Obama will play Romney like FDR played Hoover

Too easy.

Newt & Perry revealed that Romney is not electable in this economy.

Let’s see what tid-bit the democrats will delight in…

Romney taxed the Blind for being blind…

“Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness. Romney also billed blind people $15 each for discount-travel ID cards.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48596

Or that democrats balked at his tax hikes?

“That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe​ reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase.”

Or that Taxachussettes tanked in ranking during Romney to #47 in job creation

“The Tax Foundation dropped Massachusetts from America’s 29th most business-friendly state to No. 36.”

Romney’s company got bailouts

Check Out This Unaired Ad…Politico uncovered a tough ad that never aired against Mitt Romney in his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign in Massachusetts, but its allegations about his business experience — including Romney’s role in mass layoffs and a federal bailout — would resonate loudly in today’s political environment.

The ad “remains an unexploded grenade from that race, underscoring Romney’s vulnerability in the first presidential election fought since the 2008 financial meltdown.”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/14/unaired_ad_could_still_haunt_romney.html

Undescored by that recent soundbite gem “I like to fire people”

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

It helps me as a Republican because I consider Gov. Romney uninspiring as a governor and his business experience was his only bright spot for me. It is very shortsighted of his supporters to assume that people will be unable to distinguish an excellent record with a few failures from a scavenger profiting on the misfortune of others. I look forward to Gov. Romney’s promotion of his business skills and successes. It really shouldn’t be that difficult.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The problem is that the disgustingly misleading argument can’t now be dismissed as crazy communist propaganda because Republican candidates are the ones that first used it.

blink on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Ummmmm….NO

Teddy Kennedy used it to great effect first.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Romney is not electable in this economy.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

+ One Trillion.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Even if Romney survives the Bain Capital issue in the primaries it is certain that he is not going to survive it in the general elections. It is going to be the main factor that would destroy him.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Obama has been testing and preparing his populist FDR style campaign crapola for over a year.

He will try to fold Texas into his jobs numbers and claim credit saying “I’m turnin’ it around folks” & the media will cite one stat after another removing the Texas ID.

The only candidate who can stop that is the Governor of Texas…That’s why he entered the race…oh and to kill the EPA & the Dept. of Ed.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM

What is amazing is the extreme delusion of Romney and his supporters thinking that America in this environment is ready to elect a Wall Street banker. The delusion is so strong with these people.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Even if Romney survives the Bain Capital issue in the primaries it is certain that he is not going to survive it in the general elections. It is going to be the main factor that would destroy him.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Yep!

Romney will become the 21st c. Hoover & he’ll be stalked by eager John Doe’s laid off by Bain allover the country.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM

It is very shortsighted of his supporters to assume that people will be unable to distinguish an excellent record with a few failures from a scavenger profiting on the misfortune of others. I look forward to Gov. Romney’s promotion of his business skills and successes. It really shouldn’t be that difficult.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I understand that perfectly. However…from your statement above, does taking a Federal Bailout (Taxpayer money) while stripping a Company of Millions and leaving the bill for me and you to pay make it right? This is NOT straight up “capitalism”.
I am just saying that Romney’s record is NOT what is being presented to the people. His “electability” issues are now being Vetted…and may OUR best candidate win the nomination.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

What is amazing is the extreme delusion of Romney and his supporters thinking that America in this environment is ready to elect a Wall Street banker. The delusion is so strong with these people.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM

The primaries have been over-run by vanity candidates pumped up by the media.

Only a few have solid records that can win against Obama & Romney isn’t one of them.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Romney is not electable in this economy.
workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Serving up a bite from the reality sandwich:
Among GOP hopefuls, Romney fares best against Obama

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

His “electability” issues are now being Vetted…and may OUR best candidate win the nomination.

coach1228 on January 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Agreed.

Newt & Perry have blown a hole in that electability theory because it is realistic and has been used before against Romney by Kennedy.

The current economy makes this strategy easy for Obama.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I always expect disgustingly misleading attacks from democrats.
I don’t like for Republicans to give disgustingly misleading attacks any credibility. That’s what has occurred here.
It’s despicable.
blink on January 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

This is why conservatives are denouncing the Perry and Gingrich OWS-based attacks on free enterprise. Their campaigns are only reaping the shame of such shameful tactics and stances.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Serving up a bite from the reality sandwich:
Among GOP hopefuls, Romney fares best against Obama

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Sure…sheeples to the chute driven by BS.

Happened in 08′ with the democrats…happened in 08′ with the GOP.

At Least after the Romney loses to Obama Gov. Perry will be here in Texas to continue to fight Obama and the federal government…economically Texas will do well for the next 5 years unless Obama shuts off our grid.

Yeah…Obama tried to shut off the grid in Texas.

Think about that while you revel in your Hoover candidate Romney.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM

blink on January 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I’m sorry you delicate sensibilities have been wounded. Maybe Gov. Romney should have taken Newt up on his offer of a campaign that directed all it’s criticism towards Obama. Romney chose unwisely and is reaping what he sowed. You should have more faith in your guy, he needs to handle this. Now rather than September or October.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

blink on January 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Obama is bad for the country yet 52% of the population knew no hesitation. And will probably do it again. It is what it is and your arguments, regardless of the validity, are no longer applicable. Promote and link proof that your candidate is a wise and fair business man who worked hard for his money and reputation. That’s the best you can do for him now.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

This is why conservatives are denouncing the Perry and Gingrich OWS-based attacks on free enterprise. Their campaigns are only reaping the shame of such shameful tactics and stances.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Bull Crapola!

It’s sad to see so many in the Republican Party so incapable of distinguishing between economic and political arguments.

In a capitalist system, that process of weeding out weaker companies and reallocating resources may serve a greater good, much as natural selection helps to make the population stronger. In a political candidate running for the presidency in the general election, however, it is potentially fatal.

The question all along has not been whether a predatory style of investing should be legal, or whether it serves some larger purpose in our economic system. The question is do we want the entirety of the general election turned into a referendum on Bain, which it will be if Romney is the nominee regardless of whether or by what means the issue is raised in the primaries.

I want the general election to be about Obama, and his movement of the country towards a West European style of socialism. Capitalism, which achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people, easily should win that argument. Yet it may not because the Republican Party now has equated capitalism to Bain.

Capitalism can beat Obama, Bain cannot.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/selling-out-capitalism-in-the-defense-of-romney-and-bain/?utm_source=fee

Argument I’ve Been Making: How Come Romney Is Allowed To Go Cheap-Shot On Everyone Else, But the Minute He Gets Some Cheap-Shot In Return, It’s a Crime Against America?

When Romney went after Perry claiming he wanted to end Social Security, and hitting him generally for calling it unconstitutional (it arguably is) and a ponzi scheme (it likely is), people said, “Hey, these are general election liabilities; Perry should have to respond to these charges. The left will make them.”

Well, same deal with Bain Capital. This is a general election liability; Romney should have to respond to these charges. The left will hit him on this (and in fact already is).

But instead it’s this full-court press that you can’t say that.

Why not? Why does Romney get a complete Hall Pass throughout the entire primary season? – Ace

http://minx.cc/?post=325472

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Basically Romney is a manager and a technocrat. Those qualities do not necessarily translate into leadership. The government and military are not a for profit venture capital business, or certainly shouldn’t be, as witnessed with the present administration. So what supreme qualifications does business experience bring to the presidency? Jobs are not created by government so that argument won’t hold. Tempermentally, Romney would seem closer to Corzine than to Reagan.

kenny on January 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Workingclass artist:

“Obama has been testing and preparing his populist FDR style campaign crapola for over a year.

He will try to fold Texas into his jobs numbers and claim credit saying “I’m turnin’ it around folks” & the media will cite one stat after another removing the Texas ID.

The only candidate who can stop that is the Governor of Texas…That’s why he entered the race…oh and to kill the EPA & the Dept. of Ed.

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM”

I totally agree with you. But didn’t you get the memo regarding Perry. He is not a good debater and he cannot think quickly on his feet and by thinking quickly on his feet they mean give a 30 second buzzword answer to a question. For many on our side the debating skills become the most important factor to select a President. Of course who care about the real world where Presidents do not govern in 30 second sound bites and do not enact policies in 30 second sound bites. Presidents do not have an ******* moderator ringing the bell for them if they do not make a decision in 30 second. But it seems that many fools on our side want the President to make decisions that would change the nation and the world in 30 seconds and may be they would like some Hollywood production going with that like some really powerful music in the background and the President looking deep in the horizon after delivering his 30 seconds sound bite decision. It is really sad to see this, very, very sad.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM

blink on January 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Oops, sorry. As another Gingrich supporter the only problem I have with the focus on Bain Capital is the remarks about Gov. Romney’s homes and the like. I begrudge no one their wealth unless it was obtained illegally. As for the running of Bain and it’s policies, fair game. Along with Gov. Romney’s weak explanation of his unsuccessful political campaigns as public service. Exactly how many times does the public have to tell someone “No thanks”?

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

“Serving up a bite from the reality sandwich:
Among GOP hopefuls, Romney fares best against Obama

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM”

As I said many times Romney and his supporters are the most delusional people in America, Do you realize that Romney is only fairing well against Obama because a vast majority of voters do not know a thing about his Bain Capital crap and once they know it, and be certain that is the main thing Obama will use against Romney, then Romney is going to be utterly destroyed. In the meanwhile keep the delusions strong with you and enjoy those polls while they last and they are not going to last for long.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM

And the best I can do for this country is to criticize Perry and Gingrich for using a disgustingly misleading attack that hurts this country.

blink on January 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Really, that’s the best you can do? Obviously we will have to agree to disagree because that horse has left the barn and I have more faith in the country’s ability to survive hardball politics.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Newt adopting the left’s position to promote himself? Whoever could have seen that coming?

Chuckles3 on January 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

“Basically Romney is a manager and a technocrat. Those qualities do not necessarily translate into leadership. The government and military are not a for profit venture capital business, or certainly shouldn’t be, as witnessed with the present administration. So what supreme qualifications does business experience bring to the presidency? Jobs are not created by government so that argument won’t hold. Tempermentally, Romney would seem closer to Corzine than to Reagan.

kenny on January 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM”

Kenny, I totally agree with you.

mnjg on January 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9