Audio: Limbaugh hits Gingrich for Bain attacks

posted at 3:40 pm on January 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

A snippet from a sustained critique. This came earlier in today’s show but, according to Guy Benson, Rush was still laying into Newt at around 2:15 for sounding like Elizabeth Warren.

Are we sure Newt’s the worst offender, though? From ABC:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures,” Perry said during a townhall at a retirement community here. “They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton.”…

“I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company,” Perry said of Romney. “His other remark is elect me president because I’ve been in the private sector and I’ve created jobs. Well that’s we’re starting to see maybe not a honest assessment of what he did. He was also involved in the destruction of a lot of jobs in South Carolina.”

Lefty Greg Sargent, stunned to hear this sort of rhetoric pouring forth from America’s “jobs governor,” vents his amazement:

As Steve Benen notes, this is all a sign of how much the debate over free enterprise has shifted: “For all the talk about this being a center-right nation, there’s a realization that Americans are uncomfortable with excessive greed and the kind of ruthless, screw-the-workers style of capitalism Romney used to get rich.”

I’d go even further. This general election will turn heavily on a battle over the two candidates’ visions of capitalism and the proper role of government in regulating it. Yet the leading GOP candidates are on record arguing that Romney’s practice of it — which he regularly cites as proof of his ability to create jobs, as a generally constructive force and even as synonymous with the American way — is not really capitalism at all, but a destructive, profit-driven perversion of it. Thanks to them, this is no longer a left-wing argument. As the GOP candidates have themselves confirmed, this argument reflects concerns about Wall Street excess and lack of accountability that are thoroughly mainstream, and you’ll be seeing plenty of footage of these Republicans making it in battleground states this fall.

Indeed you will. But wait: Couldn’t the same be said of Romney’s early attacks on Perry for criticizing Social Security? That also played into the left’s hands by giving them bipartisan cover on a major ideological flash point. And that wasn’t a case of Romney attacking a marginal candidate either; had Perry been smoother at the debates he could have been the nominee and Mitt surely knew it when he dropped that entitlement bomb on him. Like I said yesterday, I think part of the reason Newt and Perry are getting grief now is because they waited so long to toss this grenade. If you’re going to do it, do it early before the field is settled. Doing it now, when Romney’s odds of winning the nomination have become nearly prohibitive, smacks of vindictiveness and desperation. (I didn’t hear Rush’s show this afternoon but Benson claims he made the same point.) The other difference is that entitlement reform has faded a bit as an issue over the past six months. It’s still vital and will remain vital, but after the Ryan budget passed, it looked like it might be the Democrats’ main weapon in trying to distract voters this year from unemployment and the economy. That seems less likely now: After the OWS hype and Obama’s embrace of gimmicks like the “Buffett rule” and the millionaire surtax, a crude class-warfare campaign against the predatory “one percent” seems more likely. (Ryan’s stepped away from his budget too and joined forces with Ron Wyden.) Newt and Perry are playing directly into that, as Sargent notes. Hence the anguish from some on the right.

For a thoughtful argument on why attacks on Romney’s Bain tenure should be fair game, read Jonathan Last at the Standard. The chief problem with the Newt/Perry attacks isn’t that they object to the practice of acquiring a troubled company with an eye to liquidating it — although we can, and will, have that “creative destruction” debate in cases where it happens — but that the demagoguery about “looting” implies that that’s all private equity firms do. Not so, as Last acknowledges. Sometimes they provide venture capital to grow a fledgling company, sometimes they take over with an eye to turning a struggling company around. To ignore that for some halfwit “vultures” talking point is to endorse the left’s caricature of financiers as Gekko-esque bloodsuckers. Didn’t think we’d have to worry about that in a Republican primary. Click the image to watch.

Update: Ron Paul to the rescue?

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works,” Paul told me. “They are either just demogoging or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.”…

” I think they’re way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people, he doesn’t care, Paul said. “You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Compare and contrast: Team Gingrich’s rhetoric on “predatory” companies with that of … Britain’s Labour Party.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru sarcastically echoes Rush’s point about who Gingrich sounds like.


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 3 4 5

ANYTHING is possible this time around. Go Perry!

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Well, lot of the reason Santorum did so well is Perry did so bad. Perry’s not going to change as a candidate in 12 days, and I think he has to win SC big over Romney to be a player at this point.

It’s hard to see him beating Romney in Florida. Or Santorum beating Romney in Florida, for that matter.

Romeny just has the kind of looks and personality that independents and a lot of Republican voters prefer. It’s not that much about his record or the issues.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

@avgjo 9:21

wow, that was stupid!

‘I’ll vote for him and give him money and…’

sorry about that redundancy typo…

avgjo on January 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I don’t see the base staying home. That’s the entire basis for Romney’s campaign. The base will vote for him b/c they hate Obama so much, and he can attract more independents than other conservative candidates.

It’s kind of a cynical way to approach winning the presidency but it is what it is.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Dr. Tesla 9:23

I hope you’re right.

avgjo on January 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

It would have been preferable if Romney had made his money as CEO of Microsoft or something that seems more wholesome and people understand.

Obama going to make Romney the face of layoffs and corporate greed.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Romney’s job with Bain capital is probably going to strike people like George Clooney’s character as a layoff specialist in Up In the AIr or the layoff specialists in Office Space.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:30 PM

This just seems like the worst year to run our richest Republican candidate….the economy sucks and having a more blue collar candidate would be a benefit in getting independents and disgruntled white Democrats to vote REpublican.

If Santorum had Romney’s face and personality, he’d be the guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM

If Santorum had Romney’s face and personality, he’d be the guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM

The only reason you like Santorum is because he believes in the same creation myths you believe in. What do engineers like you know about turnaround firms like Bain Capital. Maybe you should just stick with subjects you know something about.

Bandit13 on January 10, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM

LOL. Santorum suppots regulating the internet. And he is on record as saying that contraceptives are “wrong”, and I’m not talking about the O’Reilly interview. He’s a Big Government believer in a Tea Party age. No sale.

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I will always admire Santorum for his pro-life stance and his fighting for the unborn, but his love of Big Goverment regulations shows he is not fit to be POTUS.

Aslans Girl on January 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM

In 2011 Rush said Mitt Romney is not a conservative.

In 2008 Rush said Mitt Romney is the three legs of the conservative stool

Mitt Romney has not changed.

So why is anyone listening to this idiot Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously, you stupid people have any decency?

Have any respect for yourselves?

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Rush Limbaugh has devolved into an elitist snob who has little regard for those who put him where he is now. Mom/Pop middle America whose jobs are disappearing and reappearing overseas at an alarming rate. Ronald Reagan had the good sense to protect our nations economy. Reagan protected Harley-Davidson, the semi-conductor industry, the steel industry, et al. I didn’t hear Limbaugh or Krauthammer smearing Reagan for being a trade realist and protecting US private sector jobs. So why hammer Newt? DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 10, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Reagan protected Harley-Davidson, the semi-conductor industry, the steel industry, et al. I didn’t hear Limbaugh or Krauthammer smearing Reagan for being a trade realist and protecting US private sector jobs. So why hammer Newt? DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 10, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Reagan didn’t speak like a leftist, Darvin. Far be it from me to criticize if it’s comfortable, but I could never live with my head as far up my as as yours is up yours.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Seriously, you stupid people have any decency?

Have any respect for yourselves?

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I’ll take you seriously when you start asking those questions of Newt for spewing his leftist talking points.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM

It’s funny because it’s correct. When an ignorant person calls you out for being ignorant, you are being major league ignorant. Embrace your moment of being.

ray on January 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Ok, Here I go again – I am a die hard conservative, and a strong supporter of capitalism because it is by far the economic system that best allocates resources for the benefit of a society. I’ll even add that I love Rush, just hearing his voice on the radio must release endorphins in my system, because like a Pavlov dog, there is nothing else going to be on the radio when I have the (too rare)opportunity to listen. I should probably pony up the $50 bucks/year for Rush 24/7 to get the podcasts.

That said, Rush (and the others) are dead wrong about the Corporate Raider mime in a lot of cases. First off, Capitalism is an effective way of allocating scarce resources, but let’s not pretend that peoples lives, efforts and dedication have no value or that the investment that employees make in the success of an enterprise don’t have merit. It’s not just money that makes up a company’s total value.

I’m going to end up sounding a little like Liz Warren here, but there aren’t ANY companies around that succeeded just because somebody put up money. Of course, there may be some or even a lot of the employees that could care less about the company, they just showed up and put in time, got their paycheck and at the end of the week, the ledger is square. But there are other employees who put in long hours (not on the clock) and busted their butts to make that company successful with the idea that they were making an investment in their own futures. I’ve worked with many such individuals.

A few years back, I would have been the first to argue that if there is is a more productive use of the capital, then extract it, and put it where the return is higher. My life experience has changed that view however. I’m not talking about companies whose business plans aren’t viable going forward, or those whose value was based on a technology that has become obsolete or whose products are no longer in demand etc. There are firms that really should go out of business, and they should be liquidated as effectively as possible. There are also many firms that are quite viable, but because of temporary economic conditions, become vunerable to unethical businessman whose only consideration is turning a quick buck.

More particularly, in the present economic conditions, there are many automotive suppliers who find themselves in dire straits due to the downturn. The automotive business offers companies long term contracts to supply parts, which is good, but it requires large capital investments, and has low profit margins. The auto companies have sales forecasts for each model (often pipe dreams), and in order for a supplier to land a contract, require the suppliers to invest the capital required to be able meet the desired capacity, which is rarely acheived. That’s part of the business, you always have to invest in excess capacity just in case your customer actually needs it.

In the last few years, the number of parts required has fallen well below plans, and many suppliers have become vunerable. Temporary cash flow issues leave the company tettering on the edge of bankruptcy, and anyone with a large amount of cash can buy these companies at drastically undervalued prices.

If the buyer goes in thinking hey, this is temporary and I’m getting a hell of deal on a perfectly viable business that just needs enough cash to weather the storm – great. All to often, they see that they are getting a company whose hard assets are worth more than the ridiculously low purchase price. They have no desire to operate the business long term, and make a moderate steady profit over time. They are just turning a quick buck. They aren’t creating value, they are looting it.

I no longer except the black and white premise that capital is everything, and that capitalists need not accept a social responsibity for the employees who depend on a company for their livelyhood. If an investor doesn’t like the rate of return an enterprise offers, then don’t invest in it. The idea that it is morally acceptable for anyone to destroy a viable company just because they personally can benefit is wrong.

A wealthy person who “capitalizes” on such opportunities to get even wealthier at the expense of average working class Joes is contemptable. Capitalism that creates value and opportunity for others can be a great benefit to our society, Capitalism driven by shear greed and a blind disregard for others isn’t.

HoosierHawk on January 10, 2012 at 10:32 PM

A wealthy person who “capitalizes” on such opportunities to get even wealthier at the expense of average working class Joes is contemptable. Capitalism that creates value and opportunity for others can be a great benefit to our society, Capitalism driven by shear greed and a blind disregard for others isn’t.

HoosierHawk on January 10, 2012 at 10:32 PM

So…I’ll ask you the same question. Should there be a law against the existence of firms like Bain Capital? If not, what’s your beef? If so, don’t peddle that “I’m a conservative” bullshit. You sound just like the OWSers. And so do Newt and Perry.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Romney’s job with Bain capital is probably going to strike people like George Clooney’s character as a layoff specialist in Up In the AIr or the layoff specialists in Office Space.

Dr. Tesla on January 10, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Also shades of Wall Street.

It would be nice if businesses competed with each other according to the free enterprise theory-that is, a company builds a better mousetrap for a better price and makes more money, another company builds an even better one for less…

But businesses aren’t “nice”. They exist to make money for people. OK, certainly fine with me, but I am willing to entertain the argument that if certain businesses make life worse for many people, then why should we so hot to defend them? In a strong economy, so what if you lose your job? Everyone could find a job with a different concern though in some hardships may be encountered, but that’s one of the risks of life. There again, what about when jobs are scarce? Then you’re looking down the mouth of Socialism if the unemployed truly become the masses.

On the other hand, if they do nothing illegal then it’s none of my business as far as I’m concerned. But because of the cozy relationship between politicians/lawyers and some businessmen, they can get the laws changed so that what was once illegal no longer is. At that point it does become a rigged game and crony capitalism.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM

The Private Equity model is not corporate raiding. At least get some factual information before making indefensible assumptions. This place is getting beyond ignorant, some are sounding like a DU comrades.

ray on January 10, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I heard Rush’s show today. His critique was a little more nuanced than “Newt’s crossed the line.” I got the impression Rush was pretty much exasperated with Romney, who he feels started the whole scorched earth primary tactic in 2008, thereby opening the door for other candidates to violate the 11th commandment. In fact, he explicitly said that Newt was “acting in self-defense.”

Nom de Boom on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I heard Rush’s show today. His critique was a little more nuanced than “Newt’s crossed the line.” I got the impression Rush was pretty much exasperated with Romney, who he feels started the whole scorched earth primary tactic in 2008, thereby opening the door for other candidates to violate the 11th commandment. In fact, he explicitly said that Newt was “acting in self-defense.”

Nom de Boom on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

And in doing so, Newt has damaged the Republican brand. Good job, Newt!/

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Rush Limbaugh has devolved into an elitist snob who has little regard for those who put him where he is now.

Darvin Dowdy on January 10, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Thanks for keeping it real. Salute!

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM

In 2011 Rush said Mitt Romney is not a conservative.

In 2008 Rush said Mitt Romney is the three legs of the conservative stool

Mitt Romney has not changed.

So why is anyone listening to this idiot Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously, you stupid people have any decency?

Have any respect for yourselves?

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I’ll take you seriously when you start asking those questions of Newt for spewing his leftist talking points.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Give me a break. I’ve been critical of Nancy Gingrich you low life piece of garbage. You are just excusing Rush’ bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior. Never acceptable, man. Nice try though.

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Give me a break. I’ve been critical of Nancy Gingrich you low life piece of garbage. You are just excusing Rush’ bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior. Never acceptable, man. Nice try though.

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 11:53 PM

I said nothing about Rush, douchebag. I’m waiting for you to acknowledge that Newt is using leftist talking points, unless you’d prefer to argue that he isn’t. Rush’s opinion of Newt and Romney have NOTHING TO DO with mine, so try stringing a coherent point together before you sling around the ad hominems.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Good for Rush, stepping up to slap down Gingrich for this attack on entrepreneurship. It really needed to be done.

If Gingrich can’t come up with a better argument than this leftist crap, then he should step aside.

ghostwriter on January 10, 2012 at 11:57 PM

What is at issue is not conservatism or capitalism, but electability. Romney spent big to convince voters Gingrich was not electable, and Newt is returning the favor tomorrow. What goes around comes around.

Nexialist on January 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

What is at issue is not conservatism or capitalism, but electability. Romney spent big to convince voters Gingrich was not electable, and Newt is returning the favor tomorrow. What goes around comes around.

Nexialist on January 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

As I understand it, the attacks on Gingrich were on his conservatism, not his electoral prospects. This leftist nonsense about Bain that Newt has been serving up makes Romney’s point for him.

It seems to me that running a tough campaign to try to win is one thing, but taking cheap shots with no real hope of winning is quite another. This spitefulness of Gingrich serves nobody. It only diminishes Gingrich and hurts the party.

ghostwriter on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I heard Rush’s show today. His critique was a little more nuanced than “Newt’s crossed the line.” I got the impression Rush was pretty much exasperated with Romney, who he feels started the whole scorched earth primary tactic in 2008, thereby opening the door for other candidates to violate the 11th commandment. In fact, he explicitly said that Newt was “acting in self-defense.”

Nom de Boom on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

No, I didn’t get that impression at all. What happened on his show was pretty rare. When you put together what Rush himself, had to say, along with his reactions to Megyn’s interview with Newt, it was clear who Rush was exasperated with, and it wasn’t Romney.
Newt has dishonored himself, and his party. Hopefully, he will be shunned if he refuses to fade away.

Haldol on January 11, 2012 at 1:27 AM

I especially enjoyed the part on Rush’s show where he slapped down Romney for attacking Perry with Democrat senior scare tactics over social security reform….oh, wait that never happened.

Malachi45 on January 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM

So is obamaromneycare pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist, I can’t remember.

Malachi45 on January 11, 2012 at 1:45 AM

One more question: is it worse to use anti capitalist rhetoric to criticize predatory business practices, or is it worse to actually institute socialist programs like Romneycare? Last I checked out of the 2008 field only one candidate actually forced people to be part of government run healthcare. Now it’s a different year and a different field and still only one candidate has instituted government run Heath care.

Back to pillorying Newt for talking like a socialist about the guy who governed like one.

Malachi45 on January 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

@Malachi45

Yeah, agreed.

I saw an insightful comment about gingrich today. They said where most of our ‘good guys’ talk right and govern more left, Newt talks left and governs more right, per his record.

Newt rarely says anything that doesn’t poll 70% or more. If that scares people, they might want to think real hard about where the defense by the right of ugly ‘capitalistic’ practices is getting us. ‘Free enterprise’ used to imply morals and self-governance. Now, many on our side take a ends-justify-the-means approach to profit (but interestingly enough, not to politics) and that’s turning off a lot of people, especially in a crappy economy.

It’s as a Bain-loving mittbot said, you have to live in the world you find yourself in, not some ideal world…

avgjo on January 11, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Limbaugh has lost it. He is the Liberal, Not Newt, Rick

& Rick | PolitiJim’s Rants for Reasonable People |

http://bit.ly/xlYZ5Z

In a sense, Limbaugh’s theory about liberals can now be applied to him. He often argues that liberalism is a “faith,” and they will throw their cause of woman’s rights, racism and concern for the poor under the bus if it threatens their power. How many times has Rush explained that Jewish Democrats are liberals first because liberalism is their true religion.

My first gut reaction to Newt’s line of questioning on this Bain business a few weeks ago was nauseous to me for this very reason. I felt the same way when Herman Cain said he was “Main Street” and Mitt was “Wall Street,” – like that was a bad thing. I AGREE that once we start attacking the fundamental role of investment banking, we have no chance to truly educate America on the superior benefits of capitalism despite some pretty evil people residing there. Like Obama’s chief financial advisor who stole ran MF Global into the ground. And that undergirds my point. Why are we so worried about warranted criticism of Wall Street firms? Or Romney’s Wall Street firm?

PolitiJim on January 11, 2012 at 2:59 AM

@politijim

I read your entire article.

That’s the problem. Morality, specifically Judaeo-Christian morality, is the essential ingredient in a successful free market society.

Too many ‘conservatives’ think that the root of America’s greatness is economic freedom. This is a reductionistic view. The secret to America’s success is that we have recognized as a society the fact that our rights come from our Creator, that those rights are specific, and that no man can take them without Divine sanction (such as the law). A corollary to this is economic freedom. But the Creator from Whom these rights come puts conditions on them, namely that you must observe His law while you enjoy them. Fail to do so and He will take them from you. History bears this out. ‘Capitalism’ without morality will fail, just as every other Godless system has. Free societies remain so because the people in them govern themselves, and generally, they will only govern themselves if they feel a divine obligation to do so.

avgjo on January 11, 2012 at 3:29 AM

Here’s the article I’ve been referencing about China’s horrible abuse of capitalism:

Jesus in China from the Chicago Tribune

Christianity is thriving in part because it offers a moral framework to citizens adrift in an age of Wild West capitalism that has not only exacted a heavy toll in corruption and pollution but also harmed the global image of products “Made in China.”

and from page three:

Indeed, many of the church’s new adherents profess a common belief that 30 years of ungoverned capitalism, amid the fading of communist ideology, has opened a yawning spiritual gap.

A public debate in China over ethics in business has bloomed in recent years from an unlikely source: the same unsafe products that have bedeviled U.S. consumers. In the most infamous case, 13 Chinese babies died and 200 were sickened in 2004 when a manufacturer skimped on the ingredients in infant milk. The case became a symbol of an economy so out of control that people could no longer trust their countrymen to adhere to the most basic ethical standards.

And of course there was the pet food scandal where poison was used instead of protein to boost profit and also the lead scandal in childrens’ toys.

Capitalism is not always “good” and “perfect”. In the wrong hands it’s very dangerous. In America, where we have a moral foundation, it tempers it, but we must be watchful. Americans are only human afterall; we are sinners. Once profit becomes God, ethics and morals are thrown out the window.

Aslans Girl on January 11, 2012 at 4:46 AM

Aslan’s Girl

Agreed. The only problem is that America’s moral foundation is suffering from serious cracks. And too many people in our country think nothing’s wrong…

avgjo on January 11, 2012 at 4:55 AM

avgjo on January 11, 2012 at 4:55 AM

ITA. And then when someone does stand up and say something, they are attacked as being un-American and accused of “attacking the very core of our nation!!eleventy111″ No, the “core” of the US is that we are endowed by our Creator with certain, unalienable rights.

Aslans Girl on January 11, 2012 at 5:50 AM

So…I’ll ask you the same question. Should there be a law against the existence of firms like Bain Capital? If not, what’s your beef? If so, don’t peddle that “I’m a conservative” bullshit. You sound just like the OWSers. And so do Newt and Perry.

You didn’t comprehend my post. I am not entirely familar with Bain’s operation, but I am (unfortunately) familar with a class of jackels that destroy people’s livelyhoods because they can turn a quick buck.

I am not advocating communism, socialism or anything like that. I am a firm believer in Capitolism for the reasons I gave. I don’t think anyone is entitled to someone else’s property just because they have more.

Blindly defending everything that can happen in a free open economy is moronic. When there is a perfectly viable company, that temporarly finds itself vunerable, is dismantled for the profit of a small number of wealthy individuals, it’s wrong.

I am also a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment and the right to defend yourself, loved ones and property. Armed robbery? Not so much.

If a capitalist is an entrepreneur who creates value and opportunity, I hope they get filthy rich. If they are a destroyer of the value created through the hard work and dedication of others, simply because they have enough wealth to do so, it’s a different story.

If Bain capital falls into the second category, yes there should be a law against the activity. Wealth is a great thing, humans are important too.

HoosierHawk on January 11, 2012 at 6:34 AM

Seems to me you’d have more success demonizing Romney by elaborating on his stupid stunt of lashing his dog to the roof of the car in a carrier then speeding down the highway.

This silliness of beating him for his job with a venture capital firm reminds me of the Democratic class warfare tactic. Really poor taste.

patfish on January 11, 2012 at 7:51 AM

What is at issue is not conservatism or capitalism, but electability. Romney spent big to convince voters Gingrich was not electable, and Newt is returning the favor tomorrow. What goes around comes around.

Nexialist on January 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Idjit! Many people come here at HA for believing it’s a conservative blog, promoting conservative ideals… and not who’s electable.

They always get disappointment with commenters like you and writers like AllahP.

Fortunately, they also realize it’s just a blog, nothing more.

Enjoy your electable Romney when he loses to Obama by November and loses some of his Bain Capital’s prestige (and probably clients) due to Obama’s dirty tricks. Just hope that he won’t get bankrupt in the process coz, in the end, there’s no more willing SUPERPACs and dirty honchos to financially support him … except idjits like you!

Ahhhh, the Bain of Rombots!

TheAlamos on January 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM

This silliness of beating him for his job with a venture capital firm reminds me of the Democratic class warfare tactic. Really poor taste.

patfish on January 11, 2012 at 7:51 AM

As if Romney has never done any dirty tricks in this election season.

Get Real!

Romney is 10 times dirtier than the rest of the GOP field when it comes to election stratagems and you know it.

Pray that he’s a bigger Demon than Obama to win the election for you to receive his trojan Red Fedzilla!

TheAlamos on January 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

I was stunned when I listened to Rush yesterday. He revealed Newt for the vindictive and dishonest person he really is. The attacks coming from Newt are exactly what Reagan was talking about and tried to stop other republicans from doing. Newt is never going to promote himself by these attacks on Mitt. We don’t have a great field to choose from and this is proven by the surges in popularity for all the candidates. I’m still going to vote for the R, whoever that might end up being. I can’t face 4 more years of Obummer.

Kissmygrits on January 11, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Its always the kid that hits back that gets caught. The media (with FOX leading the way) is giving the kid who hit first (Romney) an absolute free pass on this. I think some credit should go to Romney for knowing how the game is played.

I like Rush better when he doesn’t show his cards.

DeeKay on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Capitalism is nothing more than survival of the fittest. If you take the position that a company should be salvaged and workers not laid off just because they are doing a terrible job, then you are 100% for bail-outs and entitlements, because that is exactly what you are defending. Sure, it’s bad when a company goes under and people lose jobs, but it is also very healthy. Those people move on to better companies that are in positions to give those people better wages and benefits. Romney performed a valuable service, saving many jobs and letting the losers go. Gingrich and Perry have shown their inner souls, and they are not pretty…

Oracleforhire on January 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

If Bain capital falls into the second category, yes there should be a law against the activity. Wealth is a great thing, humans are important too.

HoosierHawk on January 11, 2012 at 6:34 AM

Okay. Next question: Do you consider yourself conservative? If so, why? You sound like you belong at an OWS camp.

gryphon202 on January 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

It sounds to me like there’s a legitimate debate to be had somewhere in all this about the differences between capitalism and crony capitalism, and between what should be legal and what should be considered admirable. And also about how we conservatives should address the situation that arises when the accumulation of wealth results in the encouragement of abuses of freedom. (And please, nobody call me an OWSer because I believe that freedom can be abused; that would be silly.) So Newt et al have the opportunity to bring up a valuable issue, but so far they have handled it in a way that sounds much like how Brit Hume characterized Newt’s M.O.: a willingness to grab “any weapon to hand.” Disappointing.

Mycroft Holmes on January 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Rush was playing it cool yesterday until a caller admonished him for being wimpy about the way Newt and the rest of the trailers in the pack were attacking Romney.
Rush himmed and hawed and even acknowledged he was having fun keeping the audience guessing about his personal view of the race.
Eventually he must have felt cornered and as a result made what we will soon understand is his first, though not strong endorsement of Romney.
He does not want to be the last person in the roo to realize the deal is closed.
We can use him too. As well we can use a strong voice from Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, Ingraham etc..

FireBlogger on January 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Romney is 10 times dirtier than the rest of the GOP field when it comes to election stratagems and you know it.

thats why he’ll beat OBAMA

gerrym51 on January 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Capitalism is nothing more than survival of the fittest. If you take the position that a company should be salvaged and workers not laid off just because they are doing a terrible job, then you are 100% for bail-outs and entitlements, because that is exactly what you are defending. Sure, it’s bad when a company goes under and people lose jobs, but it is also very healthy. Those people move on to better companies that are in positions to give those people better wages and benefits. Romney performed a valuable service, saving many jobs and letting the losers go. Gingrich and Perry have shown their inner souls, and they are not pretty…

Oracleforhire on January 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

WOW….what an enlighting statement!! Are you so sure that Romney doesn’t agree with Bailouts? TARP come to mind?
Also…seems like Romney this MORNING ON CBS NEWS said this:
Romney likens work at Bain Capital to Obama’s auto industry bailout Have a look for yourself: http://thehill.com/video/campaign/203497-romney-likens-work-at-bain-to-obamas-auto-industry-bailout
Was Newt right about Romney’s role at BAIN??
Politics ain’t no BAINBAG!!

coach1228 on January 11, 2012 at 1:59 PM

It’s not like Romney took as much in donations from Bain Capital as Obowma has:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/obama_raises_more_from_bain_than_romney

dthorny on January 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM

A wealthy person who “capitalizes” on such opportunities to get even wealthier at the expense of average working class Joes is contemptable. Capitalism that creates value and opportunity for others can be a great benefit to our society, Capitalism driven by shear greed and a blind disregard for others isn’t.

HoosierHawk on January 10, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Great post, HH. Why should we be for over-the-top dog-eat-dog capitalism that doesn’t care how much it hurts people as long as it rakes in at least $65 million for the consultant firm? How about “compassionate capitalism?” I owned a business for 20+ years and knew that the success of my company depended on treating my employees well. I’m not talking about legislation or regulation. I’m talking about character and humanity. The Bain issue is worth bringing up because it exposes these issues in Mitt. I don’t want Mitt as my president because of this (as well as his moderate record)–and now is the time to stop him.

wordmum on January 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

FYI, Rush’s program is carried on Clear Channel which has been owned by Bain since 2008, and of which Romney is the biggest shareholder.

See any conflict there?
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/04/05/mitt_romneys_quiet_contributors_neil_cavuto_ignores_the_billionaire_candidates_connections_to_bain_capital_carlyle_group_kkr_and_clear_channel.php

avagreen on January 11, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Politics is nothing more than survival of the fittest. If you take the view that certain messages from candidates should be off limits and that they should drop out of a race just because you don’t like their class warfare, then you are 100% for Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold and restrictions on free speech. Sure, its bad when class warfare knocks people out of a race, but its blah blah blah.

Again, do you not see the danger in defending utilitarian, ends-justify-the-means, there’s not morality involved capitalism? Aside from the bad PR it gives the free market to many people, it legitimizes the same kind of tactics in politics…

avgjo on January 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I got the impression Rush was pretty much exasperated with Romney, who he feels started the whole scorched earth primary tactic in 2008, thereby opening the door for other candidates to violate the 11th commandment. In fact, he explicitly said that Newt was “acting in self-defense.”

Nom de Boom on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I said that about Romney first. Read here.

BTW – Rush Limbaugh should NOT be trusted. In 2008 he told us that Mitt Romney WAS a conservative and now in 2011 (only three SHORT years later) he says Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative. Romney hasn’t changed his policies. BTW 2, please stop taking Rush’s words seriously, OK. He and these other media talking heads are a part of the problem, not the solution. Thanks.

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

In 2011 Rush said Mitt Romney is not a conservative.

In 2008 Rush said Mitt Romney is the three legs of the conservative stool

Mitt Romney has not changed.

So why is anyone listening to this idiot Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously, you stupid people have any decency?

Have any respect for yourselves?

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I’ll take you seriously when you start asking those questions of Newt for spewing his leftist talking points.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Give me a break. I’ve been critical of Nancy Gingrich you low life piece of garbage. You are just excusing Rush’ bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior. Never acceptable, man. Nice try though.

apocalypse on January 10, 2012 at 11:53 PM

I said nothing about Rush, douchebag.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

I spoke truth. Read your 10:18 PM post and then give your head a shake. In 2008 Rush Limbaugh told the Republican voters that Mitt Romney embodied all three legs of the conservative stool and that he WAS a conservative. In 2011 (only three short years later) he is telling Republican voters that Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative. Now that’s a fact. And the way you come at me and respond to me and this fact is telling me you CANNOT take this seriously until I acknowledge that Newt is using leftist talking points?! I don’t have to acknowledge anything you low life piece of garbage. Rush Limbaugh is hitting Newt Gingrich and everybody, you know, who is a smart thinking person and is using their head for more than a hat rack can see that if you can’t trust what this guy is telling you, how can you trust him with criticism of other candidates, voting advice, or who is and isn’t conservative?

I’m waiting for you to acknowledge that Newt…

Get lost.

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM

If Bain capital falls into the second category, yes there should be a law against the activity. Wealth is a great thing, humans are important too.

HoosierHawk on January 11, 2012 at 6:34 AM
Okay. Next question: Do you consider yourself conservative? If so, why? You sound like you belong at an OWS camp.

gryphon202 on January 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Ok, I’m trying to follow you here, if I’m concerned about human beings and think that our economic system should benefit our society as a whole, rather than a few rich individuals that profit by destroying average people’s livelihoods just to pocket the assets of a viable company that is undervalued in an economic downturn, I’m not a conservative? Wow, you really are who the lib’s say we are.

The alternative to Orwell’s 1984 style of governance isn’t necessarily a Mad Max type anarchy. We long ago realized that for all the advantages of free market capitalism, monopolies cannot be allowed to exist. Trusts, cartels and other forms of collusion must be prevented, and we can’t permit speculators to leverage their investments beyond what they have the ability to cover. Insider trading has been deemed unacceptable for obvious reasons.

I suspect that there are a few other activities that wealthy people take advantage of that benefit nobody but them, and damage our society as a whole. In Europe, there are scads of laws that enforce “Corporate Responsibility”. We don’t want to go there, it’s positively stagnating. That’s where we will end up, if we don’t intelligently curtail the abuses.

I know the theory, corporate raiders free up capital for more productive uses, The capital will be used to create new opportunities and everyone is better off. And the check’s in mail. The folks that specialize in these activies aren’t the ones who create, innovate or take the risks that true entrepreneurs do. I’m not sure that capital intensive, low profit margin enterprises like manufacturing can survive in the US. We have a cyclical economy, and there are feral dogs about.

BTW, the OWS crowd thinks that they are entitled to a share of other people’s assets (without working for it) just because someone has more than they do. Elizabeth Warren thinks the Government is entitled to a large portion of peoples assets because they benefited in some way from our society, as though the Government and our Society are the same thing. Thought I’d try to clarify that for you, since you can’t seem to differentiate between them and a fellow Conservative who doesn’t see eye to eye with you on a particular subject.

HoosierHawk on January 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM

If the buyer goes in thinking hey, this is temporary and I’m getting a hell of deal on a perfectly viable business that just needs enough cash to weather the storm – great. All to often, they see that they are getting a company whose hard assets are worth more than the ridiculously low purchase price. They have no desire to operate the business long term, and make a moderate steady profit over time. They are just turning a quick buck. They aren’t creating value, they are looting it.

If they are not interested in operating the company long term, then unless they are making an honest mistake, this means that it is worth more to dismantle the company then to invest in it long term, AND it is worth more to dismantle it then to sell it to someone else who can invest in it in the long term.

Therefore, your so-called “raiders” are either

A) making an honest mis-appraisal of the potential for the company
or
B) dismantling something that should be dismantled.

I no longer except the black and white premise that capital is everything,

This is a non-sequitur, since any “greedy” self-interested “raider” is quite aware that capital is not everything, and has included his assessment of the value that can be added by labor.

and that capitalists need not accept a social responsibity for the employees who depend on a company for their livelyhood.

What an absurd notion – you call this conservative? People have a responsibility in life to educate themselves and equip themselves with as many skills as possible, so that they have other opportunities when their job goes away. One does not have an inherent right to have someone else provide their livelihood by giving them a job.

I dislike welfare as much as the next guy, but the one thing worse than the government assuming responsibility over someone’s life is that government assigning the responsibility to a third party. If we don’t want the government assuming the direct role of national nanny, should we then assign the role, either through legislation or through moral coercion, to employers?

If you are a worker, your employer is not your parent. If you are an employer, then your investor is not your parent. In either case, the other party is someone with whom you make a trade (labor for money, or money for the possibility of more money, respectively).

If you are depending on the existence of a company for your livelihood, rather than working hard to make yourself employable elsewhere, then it is you who is being socially irresponsible.

If an investor doesn’t like the rate of return an enterprise offers, then don’t invest in it. The idea that it is morally acceptable for anyone to destroy a viable company just because they personally can benefit is wrong.

Why shouldn’t he invest? If the rate of return is not optimal, then that means either
A) The resources can be put to more efficient use in another business model
B) The resources can be more efficiently put to use when divided among several other businesses

In either case, the resources are used by someone who can make better use of them, ultimately providing more sustainable jobs.

A wealthy person who “capitalizes” on such opportunities to get even wealthier at the expense of average working class Joes is contemptable.

What absolute nonsense. Where do you think the money to hire “working class Joes” comes from, the money fairy? It comes from someone investing in a new, or growing, company. Where do you think the investor gets the money? Again, believe it or not, he doesn’t get it from the money fairy either.

If no one were ever fired, then no one would ever be hired in new, sustainable companies. The “greed” of so-called raiders is what puts food on the table for “working class Joes.

Capitalism that creates value and opportunity for others can be a great benefit to our society, Capitalism driven by shear greed and a blind disregard for others isn’t.

HoosierHawk on January 10, 2012 at 10:32 PM

How can you possibly call yourself a conservative with such complete ignorance of how and why capitalism works? Capitalism does not run on generosity. You would do well to recall the famous quote of Adam Smith, describing the “invisible hand”

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

This is not, contrary to the protestations of ignorant leftists, a celebration of greed for it’s own sake. It is the observation that people, including corporate “raiders”, will inevitably satisfy the needs of others when satisfying their own.

RINO in Name Only on January 12, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5