A bigger problem than Bain?

posted at 8:29 pm on January 11, 2012 by Karl

The New York Times picks up where I left off, reporting on Team Romney’s reaction to the attacks from Mitt’s rivals on his tenure at Bain Capital. The news is not particularly reassuring:

Although the advisers had always expected that Democrats would malign Mr. Romney’s work of buying and selling companies, they were largely unprepared for an assault that came so early in the campaign and from within the ranks of their own party, those involved in the campaign discussions said.

Even as Mr. Romney coasted to victory in New Hampshire, they worry that the critique could prove more potent as the race shifts to South Carolina, where shuttered mills dot the landscape, unemployment is higher and suspicion of financial elites is not limited to left-leaning voters.

They should be concerned, given that New Hampshire and Iowa have among the lowest unemployment rates in the country. But many more people should be concerned that behind a facade of denial of the Bain issue, Team Romney was surprised it already came up. During the last presidential nomnination campaign, John McCain raised the Bain issue. Duncan Hunter raised a Bain issue. And Mike Huckabee raised the Bain issue, recycling a lefty conspiracy theory, but most famously in his pre-Iowa quip on the Tonight Show: “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off.” There is no way these attacks (regardless of their ultimate merit) should have surprised Mitt Romney or his campaign.

Back to the NYT:

The attacks on Mr. Romney are especially unsettling to his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, who worries that a narrative depicting Romney as a heartless corporate raider will drag down his favorability rating and be sustained by the Obama campaign, said two people told of the internal discussions. (Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, played down such concerns. “I wouldn’t read too much into the rumors,” he said.)

While his campaign advisers generally agree that Mr. Romney must explain his work at Bain, they are wary of engaging in an exhaustive public examination of the nearly 100 deals he was involved in, anxious that it could bog him down in the inevitably messy details of fixing troubled companies, whether they are job cuts or big financial payouts.

Does Team Romney not realize that the candidate’s image is not fully within their control? Do they not know that the left — from Team Obama to the establishment media — will have some (perhaps more than some) say in the matter? People who have $19 million in the bank might have spent a few thousand assigning someone to work on the Bain issue, both in terms of general message and having rapid responses to specific cases ready to email to the media, instead of leaving it to Rich Lowry to explain them after taking the hit.

Mitt Romney is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination primarily because he is the one with experience running for president. He is the one who has worn a suit to the job interview, while his rivals, to put it mildly, have not. If GOP voters begin to think Romney is not running a campaign that competently responds to attacks, he will have a bigger problem than Bain.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

Unfortunately, as Rush mentioned he was not astute enough to understand the underlying implications of his argument and therefore failed.
Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I know. It is sad that Rush wasn’t astute enough to understand the underlying implications of Romney’s argument.

Give Rush more time. He will come around.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Falcon46 on January 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

The only problem is that those ads (Mostly from the Paul camp) were devastatingly truthful.

The Newtron had no way to respond to the truth.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Capitalism 101 – good products, ideas, services, et al usually win, but not everything comes up roses. There is always the last zebra (or the unlucky one) that gets jumped by the lion. How to present this when you are among the winners now running for political office is the trick. Overall, my guess is the electorate would rather have winners running things but who knows?

Bernfp on January 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Nice out of context quote. Apparently the use of a pronoun is forbidden in debates with you.

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Can the Newtron explain this?

Mr. Gingrich’s South Carolina support also dropped 25 points in December, according to the CNN/TIME/OCR poll, as Palmetto State voters reacted to the issue without even seeing the ads.

Carl Rove

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Anyone hear Mark Levin last night? He stated that what really disturbs him about Romney’s “Obama fired people at GM” defense was that Romney in a search for equivalency didn’t seem to understand the real Constitutional issue: this isn’t a dictatorship and our Constitution doesn’t provide for taking over private property or companies chavez style.

Newt’s on my “s” list right now, but his commercial about Romney’s debating skills are right on. Teleprompter Mitt really does not get it. He’s a bit like Al Gore. Raised to be the heir apparent to the presidency, so like a technique actor, has the right moves for the part but hasn’t a clue about the character.

I notice Jonah Goldberg is peeking out from under the establishment’s romney blanket and finally asking the obvious: can Romney get Republicans to vote for him in the general.

After I’ve said several times that I didn’t like Mitt but would vote for him and work for him and tried to get his supporters to ease up a bit, they took out after me like rock-tossing Iranians and I was the adultress. They told one woman she needn’t bother asking for anything after Romney became Abraham Lincoln and by the end of the thread, they’d mocked Jesus, pastors and The Shroud of Torin. The bottom line? I’m not welcome in the Romney tent either (and no, I won’t put on the burqua).

Today I see Romney’s so called superior money machine is so inefficient, they had no contingency plans for the Bain attack (and why they didn’t see this coming when the Romney geniuses did everything they could in Iowa to turn Newt into Mitt’s mortal enemy, I do not know. Opposition research fail. One of the reasons I LIKE Newt is because he does know exactly where to place the device to blow up the bridge and knows where the bodies are buried in Washington.)

And I can absolutely assure you they have no contigency plans for the extensive harm being done right now by Mitt’s sheeple because I can assure you that the same Obama talking heads who gave us Santorum is crazy over his dead child know at least what I know about Romney’s beliefs. Like Scientology and Islam, there’s an arsenal of material and they will use it.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Especially when the disingenuous “vulture capitalist” label was used by conservatives. Regardless of who wins the primary, this has hurt conservatism.

blink on January 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

How is this an attack from the left by conservatives? The mere fact it was made proves neither Gingrich nor Perry are conservatives. They may say they are, but they don’t think or behave like conservatives. They may come from conservative states, they may espouse conservative principles on occasion, but in their guts they are not conservatives. On the contrary, they are instinctively far more liberal than the man they’re attacking.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Falcon46 on January 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

The only problem is that those ads (Mostly from the Paul camp) were devastatingly truthful.

The Newtron had no way to respond to the truth.

Gunlock Bill on January 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Well Ron Paul has been consistent for constitutional government over his entire career. As Republican strategist Terry Holt said on FOX TV this morning Paul is a humble man, stands on his principles, was not a man the lobbyists went after to get his vote because he can’t be bought. He has written many thoughtful books. He can go after Newt and not worry about his own past.

Romney is an altogether different animal. Newt knows it and is going after him. For people like Limbaugh to say he’s coming after Romney from the left tells me he doesn’t get it. Capitalism barely exists in this country today – thanks to a Federal gov that has shredded the constitution it, as an agent of the states, was to stay within unless changed through amendments. Many people think Gingrich is correct to point out the checkered history of Bain Capital (good and bad) and Romney’s use of the tax code (that favors financial elites and insider-trading-legal politicians) if Romney’s PAC is going to go after Gingrich and include falsehoods in its ads. Making money building something is one thing – using the Too-Big-To-Fail financial system with its unconstitutional fiat money system is something else.

Falcon46 on January 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM

No, actually I think that Team Romney, as am I, is surprised that Republican candidates and their supporters have suddenly turned against the free-market and used Romney as their desperation foil.

Furthermore, I suppose many are further shocked that so-called Republican’s have lent credence and legitimacy to a disreputable, divisive, Un-American argument we expected to start after our nominees selection in the fall.

This line-of-attack has effectively started the Obama campaign offensive early, not with OWS, but with the support of people whom we allegedly, or formerly shared a set of principles.

Marcus Traianus on January 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Anyone hear Mark Levin last night? He stated that what really disturbs him about Romney’s “Obama fired people at GM” defense was that Romney in a search for equivalency didn’t seem to understand the real Constitutional issue: this isn’t a dictatorship and our Constitution doesn’t provide for taking over private property or companies chavez style.

That wasn’t Romney’s point. The primary reason the Bain story is a winner for the left is because it says Mitt fired a lot of people–which doesn’t play well with a public worried about jobs. Romney responded by saying that Obama fired a lot of people as well–and that neutralizes the argument. It’s a good response.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Hmmm, John McCain and Mike Huckabee raised the Bain issue in 2008.
Interesting, and very under-reported in this whole hysterical ‘anti-capitalism’ smear going on against Newt and Perry.

IndeCon on January 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Of course McCain and Huckabee raised the Bain issue. Neither one is a fiscal conservative. Neither is Newt. I’d characterize Gingrich as an opportunist who adheres to no ideological principles other than what benefits him personally. As for Perry, he’s apparently too stupid to know he’s attacking free enterprise. Both are attacking from the left, using leftwing thinking and leftwing language to smear another candidate. It’s a scorched earth tactic–and will tear the GOP apart if it continues.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Scorched earth in Iowa re Romney begets scorched earth in SC re Gingrich and Perry. Politics ain’t beanbag, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. (quoth establishment candidate Mitt Romney) No concern about tearing the GOP apart when Romney was palinizing each of his conservative opponents.

The ‘attacking free enterprise’ meme is getting very old. BS…another deflection technique from the real issue. I can’t believe that Romney’s defenders actually think that every capitalist venture is above board. Oh no, it’s a capitalist company; how dare anyone suggest that there might be some improprieties going on there. Get real. Romney’s Bain records are fair game.

IndeCon on January 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Silly me, I thought this election was about getting a conservative in the whitehouse, and it turns out it’s all about getting a capitalist in the whitehouse. This is a goldmine to the Democrats who only have to exploit “The Republicans only care about the wealthy”. Shhhhhh, if we don’t mention it during the primaries, no one will figure it out.

It is becoming more obvious every day that Donna Brazil (sp) was correct when she said that Romney is the weakest candidate and the Dems would love to run against him.

lea on January 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Your problem is you don’t know what a conservative is. You think if somebody’s pro-life and pro-gun and against illegal immigration and for a strong national defense that takes care of conservatism. It doesn’t. No one can call himself a true conservative if he leaves out free enterprise principles.

Some of you are pretty quick to label NE fiscal conservatives like Rudy and Christie and Romney moderates–but you fail to acknowledge that Gingrich and Perry and Santorum are moderate also when it comes to free enterprise. To you they’re true conservatives. Therein lies the fault line in the GOP.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM

That wasn’t Romney’s point. The primary reason the Bain story is a winner for the left is because it says Mitt fired a lot of people–which doesn’t play well with a public worried about jobs. Romney responded by saying that Obama fired a lot of people as well–and that neutralizes the argument. It’s a good response.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Thank you. I understood that. I’m fairly certain Mark Levin did too.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I do not see anyone arguing against free enterprise. I see people arguing that the moral character of a person is significantly compromised if they do business the way Romney did business. I agree, and Romney should not be considered presidential.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Scorched earth in Iowa re Romney begets scorched earth in SC re Gingrich and Perry. Politics ain’t beanbag, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. (quoth establishment candidate Mitt Romney) No concern about tearing the GOP apart when Romney was palinizing each of his conservative opponents.

The ‘attacking free enterprise’ meme is getting very old. BS…another deflection technique from the real issue. I can’t believe that Romney’s defenders actually think that every capitalist venture is above board. Oh no, it’s a capitalist company; how dare anyone suggest that there might be some improprieties going on there. Get real. Romney’s Bain records are fair game.

IndeCon on January 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM

There’s a big difference between attacking an opponent and siding with the Democrats. The meme might be getting old, but it’s valid. You don’t attack an opponent from the left and then claim you are a conservative. That’s absurd. What you’re doing, in fact, is helping the enemy, using their thinking and their arguments, making their job easier in the fall.Some of you don’t seem to mind getting Obama for four more years–as long as you don’t get Romney. That’s what this is coming down to. Because it sure as hell won’t get Gingrich or Perry the nod. It’s suicidal–satisfying only to a vengeance freak like Newt.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Romney responded by saying that Obama fired a lot of people as well–and that neutralizes the argument. It’s a good response.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Well, Mitt …and you …think that its a “good” response. Which means two people are on board.

The rest of us are wondering if you know what the adjectival modifier “good” means in this context.

…and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means …well, unless you meant to end both those sentences with question marks and just forgot.

The voice-to-text on my Android phone does that – leaves off the question mark, I mean – in text messaging. So it’s a believable go-to defense if you want to use it. Feel free. Just sayin’.

davisbr on January 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The mere fact it was made proves neither Gingrich nor Perry are conservatives. They may say they are, but they don’t think or behave like conservatives. They may come from conservative states, they may espouse conservative principles on occasion, but in their guts they are not conservatives. On the contrary, they are instinctively far more liberal than the man they’re attacking.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Rick Perry, the 1 percenter, oh wait..he only got 0.7% in New Hampshire..!!

Your problem is you don’t know what a conservative is. You think if somebody’s pro-life and pro-gun and against illegal immigration and for a strong national defense that takes care of conservatism. It doesn’t. No one can call himself a true conservative if he leaves out free enterprise principles.

Exactly.

And this is where Perry shows his true colors when he subsidizes private (failing) companies through his Texas Enterprise and Emerging Technology Funds, thereby proving that he doesn’t believe in the free market responding (negatively) to his Business Margin tax that he passed which taxes businesses on their gross receipts whether or not they make a profit!

If you don’t believe how atrocious Perry’s Business Margin Tax is, just Google: Texas Business Margin Tax

Mcguyver on January 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The ‘attacking free enterprise’ meme is getting very old. BS…another deflection technique from the real issue. I can’t believe that Romney’s defenders actually think that every capitalist venture is above board. Oh no, it’s a capitalist company; how dare anyone suggest that there might be some improprieties going on there. Get real. Romney’s Bain records are fair game.

IndeCon on January 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM

How is vulture capitalism different from Robber Barons? I’ve been a life-long conservative and am not a laissez-faire capitalist. Barry Goldwater wasn’t one. Neither was Reagan. Nor was Buckley.

The anger seems to center around Newt and Perry using the “language” of the left. Really? Are we honestly making the argument that the same use of federal tax law and pure power plays in the market place–the same kind of corporate croneyism that created the houseing bubble–is the conservative economic model?

That picture of Romney with a hundred dollar bill in his mouth coming to a bill board near you.

The Establishment really needs to get out more. Electability, taken from a poll 18 months out from the election, without taking the pulse of the electorate is beyond believable. Romney is a tail wagging the dog situation if there ever was one. Liberal media, conservative media tells us all that Romney is the best. Those of us who have watched him for years are very sure there’s nothing there. He’s an empty suit just like the empty suit he’s trying to unseat. Different tailors, same problem.

So, Romney can get the independents. How is he going to get the rest of us? With his charming and intellectually superior bot army?

My money, my time, my ferver will go into Senate and Congressional elections, and I pray that we can take the Congress with enough reformists that we can get through four more years with a President determined to empty the treasury and confiscate all private property.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM

There’s a big difference between attacking an opponent and siding with the Democrats. The meme might be getting old, but it’s valid. You don’t attack an opponent from the left and then claim you are a conservative. That’s absurd. What you’re doing, in fact, is helping the enemy, using their thinking and their arguments, making their job easier in the fall.Some of you don’t seem to mind getting Obama for four more years–as long as you don’t get Romney. That’s what this is coming down to. Because it sure as hell won’t get Gingrich or Perry the nod. It’s suicidal–satisfying only to a vengeance freak like Newt.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

The problem is that we don’t see that our arguments as “leftist” and I doubt you will be able to convince me that ethics and honorable behavior are leftist ideals. I’m ABO before I am ABR but I will never turn a blind eye to actions I disagree with no matter how much I support a candidate.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 12, 2012 at 1:30 PM

No concern about tearing the GOP apart when Romney was palinizing each of his conservative opponents. . . Romney’s Bain records are fair game.

IndeCon on January 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM

You WILL drink the Oromneyade, NOW!

Your Masters,
The RNC

TheClearRiver on January 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I do not see anyone arguing against free enterprise. I see people arguing that the moral character of a person is significantly compromised if they do business the way Romney did business. I agree, and Romney should not be considered presidential.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 1:10 PM

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Romney was motivated by a desire to loot and destroy–which is what Newt is claiming. He fired people, yes. He sold off assets, yes. Some businesses went under, yes. But he did what all chief executives do when they prune for growth. It’s clear Gingrich doesn’t appreciate this any more than Obama or the most far left ideologue would.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

If attacking Bain’s business practices is an attack on capitalism, then attacking Newt for his democratic election campaign practices is an attack on democracy and our entire way of life.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Romney was motivated by a desire to loot and destroy–which is what Newt is claiming. He fired people, yes. He sold off assets, yes. Some businesses went under, yes. But he did what all chief executives do when they prune for growth. It’s clear Gingrich doesn’t appreciate this any more than Obama or the most far left ideologue would.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

How does giving yourself a large dividend from selling of company debt promote growth for that company? Shouldn’t the money the company borrows go for the needs of the company itself?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM

You sell $100M in KB-Toys bonds. Then you proceed to use $50M of that to pay dividends. Why go into debt just to pay dividends?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

My money, my time, my fervor will go into Senate and Congressional elections, and I pray that we can take the Congress with enough reformists that we can get through four more years ….

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Word.

…this is the bedrock TP position. The same one that gave us the 2010 victory.

(It’s also the explanation why no candidate is showing significant underlying support. “None-of-the-above” is the unheralded, understood – though unstated – primary leader.)

The current primary pretty much lays transparent that the GOP still thinks the old playbook matters.

Oh, they’ve got their chosen candidate(s?) in place alright …but we’ve moved down ticket to the real, long-term, fight.

Playing the game, but marshalling forces.

davisbr on January 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Thank you. I understood that. I’m fairly certain Mark Levin did too.

Then why bring Levin’s comment up at all? Romney wasn’t addressing the constitutional concern. Doesn’t mean he didn’t appreciate it.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:44 PM

davisbr on January 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

word?!? LMAO — you are such drama queens. guess you and Portia are queuing up Ice Ice Baby to do a little anti-establishment dance…

Bradky on January 12, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Yes, but how many voters who actually prefer terms like “vulture capitalist” were ever going to vote for a GOP candidate? As far as those Marxists are concerned ALL GOP candidates are “vulture capitalists” or at least enablers of “vulture capitalism.” And if that description doesn’t work on a particular GOP candidate then they’ll fall back on some other form of “extremism.”

There are plenty of independent voters and even moderate Dim-o-crats who have enough intellectual honesty to recognize that business is business and that sometimes the hard choice is the right one.

cicerone on January 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Let me get this straight. You are saying Rick Perry is a Marxist who would never vote Republican anyway? And jettisoning all Paul supporters, all Perry supporters, all Newt supporters (Marxists all) is a mere nothing because Mitt will pick up independents and “Dim-o-crats”? That’s Mitt’s plan?

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Many of Romney’s sycophants are arguing that Newt is attacking Romney from the left.
When someone argues against Obama, you are attacking his race, and are a racist. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against global warming, you are attacking science and are anti-science and do not care about our children’s future. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against the welfare state, you are trying to throw grandma off a cliff, want to kill or let people die, do not care about poor people and are in general heartless. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against specific business practices made by a presidential candidate with the name Romney, you are anti-capitalist and want our way of life to end. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.

Who exactly is attacking who from the vantage point of the left? Romney fights like a progressive leftist, his supporters fight like progressive leftists, and I am to beleive he is going to govern as a conservative? LOL

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Romney was motivated by a desire to loot and destroy–which is what Newt is claiming. He fired people, yes. He sold off assets, yes. Some businesses went under, yes. But he did what all chief executives do when they prune for growth. It’s clear Gingrich doesn’t appreciate this any more than Obama or the most far left ideologue would.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Buys a company, sells massive amounts of bonds on that company’s back, takes the lions share of the money raised and turns it over to his crony company so that the company itself ends up being insolvent. There is no evidence at all that he just wanted to take other people’s wealth without adding any value, none at all?

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Well, Mitt …and you …think that its a “good” response. Which means two people are on board.

The rest of us are wondering if you know what the adjectival modifier “good” means in this context.

…and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means …well, unless you meant to end both those sentences with question marks and just forgot.

The voice-to-text on my Android phone does that – leaves off the question mark, I mean – in text messaging. So it’s a believable go-to defense if you want to use it. Feel free. Just sayin’.

davisbr on January 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Whether it’s a good response or not remains to be seen. But what’s certain is that Newt is tearing the party apart without doing himself much good. That goes for Perry in spades.

It’s a kamikaze attack, effective to an extent since it certainly creates problems for Romney. But it helps Obama as well, without doing anything at all for Newt. That’s the part that’s difficult to comprehend. Why help the left by using its arguments to pull down a fellow Republican with good chance to win the nomination–unless you don’t give a damn who wins in the general election? That’s not only a betrayal of the party but ultimately a betrayal of the country.

Rudy’s right–what the hell is Newt thinking?

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Especially when the disingenuous “vulture capitalist” label was used by conservatives. Regardless of who wins the primary, this has hurt conservatism.

blink on January 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Not totally convinced that it hurts conservatism as it hurts “clasical republicanism”.

Where were the republicans to defend SP? Especially when the disingenuous “abdicator” label was used by republicans. Regardless of who wins the primary, this has hurt republicanism.

Feel your pain at having to defend Mitt, but don’t think it’s time to do that yet. Not on Bain and the “Vulture” vs “Venture” until we know exactly what it is that we’re defending.

Besides, if Mitt truly felt what he did at Bain was pure venture and pro-capitalistic, he would have already had the numbers to back it up and nipped it in the bud months ago.

I even warned the Mittbots that Bain would be a bigger issue than they assumed since late Spring. But noooo. “Mitt is awesome”, “Mitt saved Capitalism”, “Moderates will flock to Mitt”. Blah, blah, blah…

That he can’t demonstrate it as of yet means 1 of 2 things; 1) he can’t because while financially successful, he was a failure at turning around companies or 2) incompetent – he can get registered to be on the ballot at all 57 States, but doesn’t have a 30 sec elevator pitch for Bain.

As this conservative and many others have stated time and time again, don’t count on our blind “R” support if Mittness is the nominee.

Where was Mittness when she was railroaded by DWS as the reason Gabby was shot last year?

Where were the repub establishment when her name got dragged thru the mud over vicious lies & jokes?

Ditto for Mitt’s pooches that crouch under the sofa waiting for any mention of SP here at HA; if only his ankle biters had the decency to debate SP on the merits of her bold ideas and avoided MSM memes. Then if SP failed on the merits to catch fire, a lot of her defenders would be amenable to shifting to Mittness.

But that didn’t happen and now we hear the loud wailing and lamentations of the GOP. Know what? I’m really having a hard time feeling sympathetic to the establishment for the numerous betrayals and only pray that the GOP is dissolved after this election — if any CINO is the nominee.

AH_C on January 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Just heard Romney tell folks in South Carolina that Obama’s leftist philosophy isn’t the problem. He’s just incompetent.

Did Romney bring Schmitt on board as his speech advisor?

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Many of Romney’s sycophants are arguing that Newt is attacking Romney from the left.
When someone argues against Obama, you are attacking his race, and are a racist. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against global warming, you are attacking science and are anti-science and do not care about our children’s future. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against the welfare state, you are trying to throw grandma off a cliff, want to kill or let people die, do not care about poor people and are in general heartless. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.
When someone argues against specific business practices made by a presidential candidate with the name Romney, you are anti-capitalist and want our way of life to end. This is meant to shame you and make you shut up.

Who exactly is attacking who from the vantage point of the left? Romney fights like a progressive leftist, his supporters fight like progressive leftists, and I am to beleive he is going to govern as a conservative? LOL

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Bingo. If you try to point out some serious vulnerabilities, you are a hater and bigot. If you’ve studied something, your studies are “anti…” Facts are facts and facism is facism.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

How is vulture capitalism different from Robber Barons? I’ve been a life-long conservative and am not a laissez-faire capitalist. Barry Goldwater wasn’t one. Neither was Reagan. Nor was Buckley

Who’s talking about laissez-faire capitalism? Venture capitalism is attractive for new companies unable to raise capital. In exchange for the risk that venture capitalists take by investing in immature companies, these businesses give up some control over decision-making. The point is not to loot companies, but to make them ultimately successful. There wouldn’t be any venture capitalism at all if the purpose were solely to loot and destroy as Newt is suggesting. In fact, according to the National Venture Capital Association, 11% of private sector jobs come from venture backed companies and venture backed revenue accounts for 21% of US GDP.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The problem is that we don’t see that our arguments as “leftist” and I doubt you will be able to convince me that ethics and honorable behavior are leftist ideals. I’m ABO before I am ABR but I will never turn a blind eye to actions I disagree with no matter how much I support a candidate.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 12, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Of course you don’t see these arguments as leftist. Which makes you a useful idiot. You don’t see that Romney was engaged in legitimate capitalist risk-taking, its purpose being to make businesses more profitable. You see him as looting and cruelly firing people because he’s heartless. I’m surprised you don’t also agree that Republicans favor cuts in spending because they want to starve little children–or want to reform social security because they want to throw grandma off a cliff in a wheelchair. Same difference.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

How does giving yourself a large dividend from selling of company debt promote growth for that company? Shouldn’t the money the company borrows go for the needs of the company itself?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM

No. For the venture capitalist to take on a company in the first place, a high return equal to the risks involved would be expected. It’s just sound business. Capitalists are not in business to do good works or to be nice, they’re in it to make money. The more risk they take, the more they expect to reap in rewards if they score.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Oh, and anyone that uses the word bankster is a putz.

antisense on January 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Why?

AttaBoyLuther on January 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Let me get this straight. You are saying Rick Perry is a Marxist who would never vote Republican anyway? And jettisoning all Paul supporters, all Perry supporters, all Newt supporters (Marxists all) is a mere nothing because Mitt will pick up independents and “Dim-o-crats”? That’s Mitt’s plan?

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM

A lot of them are useful idiots whose chief concerns are not fiscal but cultural. They don’t understand how free enterprise works–and they don’t much care.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Nice to see all the so-called true conservatives piling on here with the usual Romney hate…

I bet a lot of you guys will love this new ad featuring Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman from the DNC: Right Speak

Gee, don’t it make you proud?

Terrye on January 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM

So, Romney can get the independents. How is he going to get the rest of us? With his charming and intellectually superior bot army?

My money, my time, my ferver will go into Senate and Congressional elections, and I pray that we can take the Congress with enough reformists that we can get through four more years with a President determined to empty the treasury and confiscate all private property.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM

THIS.

As to the “getting the independents”, I disagree only to the point that vis a vis his acting like a moderate as governor yes, but Bain will sink him with the very same indies. Especially when they see Mitt and friends rolling in dough at Bain. That and “vulture” will turn them off to Mitt, even if they despise Oboobi. Wait til there’s a 3rd party, worse, if it’s a trojan 3rd party like what Deval Patrick used to win his reelection in MA. That was the trial run and worked. Soros and cronies will use it this year to split the indies.

Bottom line, the whole “electability trumps principles” was a farce and the GOP establishment has had many a republican bamboozled

AH_C on January 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Of course you don’t see these arguments as leftist. Which makes you a useful idiot. You don’t see that Romney was engaged in legitimate capitalist risk-taking, its purpose being to make businesses more profitable. You see him as looting and cruelly firing people because he’s heartless. I’m surprised you don’t also agree that Republicans favor cuts in spending because they want to starve little children–or want to reform social security because they want to throw grandma off a cliff in a wheelchair. Same difference.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Your side’s argument is far more leftist than anything that Newt has ever thrown out there.
When your entire defense is simply shut up, that is a leftist argument. Shut up or we will call you anti-capitalist! It is how the left operates. Racist, Anti-science, Bigot, Denier, Your trying to throw grandma over the cliff, you must not have a heart, you do not care, you want people to die. Those are the lefts defense tactics. Congratulations on your move to where your heart truly is, that of the progressive left and far removed from the conservative right where we are willing to debate.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Nice to see all the so-called true conservatives piling on here with the usual Romney hate…

I bet a lot of you guys will love this new ad featuring Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman from the DNC: Right Speak

Gee, don’t it make you proud?

Terrye on January 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM

No it makes us sad that you and cohorts have been bamboozled by the “electability trumps principles” mantra.

I prefer the old proverb, stand for something or fall for anything. Y’all fell for Mitt because, like King Saul, he stood tall and handsome, but was the wrong man. If Mitt is nominated, he will fall because of Bain, he can’t win the moderates under any scenario, even if Newt & perry didn’t attack him from the ‘left’.

Chew on that for a while: You. Can’t. Win. With. Bain. As. Your. Resume. Not. Ever. As. A. Republican. That’s what OWS was about, the 1% Wall Streeters represented by Mitt the Job Destroyer.

He says he created 100K jobs? The MSM will show how he destroyed 300K jobs.

AH_C on January 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Thank you. I know what venture capitalism is. I asked about vulture capitalism and what it had in common with robber barons or the George Soros school of venturism.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Romney is unelectable.

The sooner we realize that the better. Obama would win relection comfortably if Romney is the nominee.

Norwegian on January 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Bingo. If you try to point out some serious vulnerabilities, you are a hater and bigot. If you’ve studied something, your studies are “anti…” Facts are facts and facism is facism.

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

When you use the language and reasoning of the left, you’re either a lefty or a useful idiot too ignorant to realize the harm you do to your own cause.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Is Karl saying that Bain capital caused all the failed mills in So. Car.? That’s a little hard to swallow.

flataffect on January 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM

When you use the language and reasoning of the left, you’re either a lefty or a useful idiot too ignorant to realize the harm you do to your own cause.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Congratulations on your move to the lefty side or the useful idiot title. It is well deserved. As a parting gift, I hope the door does in fact hit you on the way out. Since you use the tactic of the left, it means you are one of them or are a useful idiot, I do not care which one you want to admit to, that is your life, just glad you placed yourself there.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 4:44 PM

When your entire defense is simply shut up, that is a leftist argument. Shut up or we will call you anti-capitalist! It is how the left operates.

Nobody said shut up. Make all the phony claims you want, use all the leftwing rhetoric you choose. That still doesn’t change the fact that what you say neither conforms to reality nor to conservative fiscal principles. A smear is a smear, leftwing arguments are leftwing arguments. As Rudy said this morning, it’s the way Alinsky would argue about capitalism. No wonder he was shocked. Even more shocking is how many Republicans buy into this way of thinking–yet still consider themselves true conservatives. They’re not. They’re every bit as compromised as conservatives as they accuse Romney of being.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Romney is unelectable.

The sooner we realize that the better. Obama would win relection comfortably if Romney is the nominee.

Norwegian on January 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Then why is he ahead in the polls? I’d agree he’s unelectable if this smear campaign keeps up, however. It’s always possible for the haters on our side to blow up our chances in the fall. That seems to be Newt’s strategy–not to win himself, but to make sure Mitt doesn’t. Ditto for those who buy into his smears. They don’t seem to give a damn if we hand Obama a victory by forming a circular firing squad.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Newt rightly points out in his 30-second ad currently running in South Carolina about Romney’s pro-abortion (anti-life) agenda while in Massachusetts. NOW we’re to believe Romney is pro-life?? Romney is a flip-flopping hyopcrite on many issues–especially on abortion. He needs to be defeated.

jfs756 on January 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Nobody said shut up. Make all the phony claims you want, use all the leftwing rhetoric you choose. That still doesn’t change the fact that what you say neither conforms to reality nor to conservative fiscal principles. A smear is a smear, leftwing arguments are leftwing arguments. As Rudy said this morning, it’s the way Alinsky would argue about capitalism. No wonder he was shocked. Even more shocking is how many Republicans buy into this way of thinking–yet still consider themselves true conservatives. They’re not. They’re every bit as compromised as conservatives as they accuse Romney of being.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Actually, every single time you type out the argument, attacking Bain or Romney’s actions at Bain is an attack on capitalism, you are in fact saying, shut up! So own it!

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 4:55 PM

When you use the language and reasoning of the left, you’re either a lefty or a useful idiot too ignorant to realize the harm you do to your own cause.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM

A lot of them are useful idiots whose chief concerns are not fiscal but cultural. They don’t understand how free enterprise works–and they don’t much care.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And you’re on a roll!

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Romney is unelectable.

The sooner we realize that the better. Obama would win relection comfortably if Romney is the nominee.

Norwegian on January 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with this post.

jfs756 on January 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM

And you’re on a roll!

Portia46 on January 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Quite the roll when it purely reflects upon him that he is using the same arguments of the left to shut down discussion. Newt never attacked capitalism, he attacked a specific activity that one company did, just like we all do from time to time when we disagree with them. Your side of the argument decided it did not want to debate, so instead of debating and arguing against the specific charges, you elevated it to an existential threat as an attack on capitalism and thus anyone taking Newts side was anti-capitalist and was working for the destruction of our way of life. It is a ridiculous charge and a pure progressive leftist method of argument, it is called SHUT THE HELL UP and the extremist Muslims use it, and now you use it.

Like I said earlier, if arguing that Newt is attacking capitalism is legitimate form of argument on this, then everyone saying anything bad about Newt’s campaign is against our entire Representative republican form of government. You want to argue facts, feel free to remove yourself from the progressive side. Want to keep arguing that any attack on Bain is an attack on capitalism, OWN IT!

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

It is beyond frustrating to have the right ideas and the wrong messenger.

johnboy on January 12, 2012 at 5:23 PM

And then there is that Massachusetts gun thing ,,,,

tarpon on January 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Regardless of the virtues of venture capitalism or of Bain as a company, the situation should worry anyone in the ABO camp. This is a mild attack compared to what Axelrod has in store for the Bain angle. That picture of Mitt with all the bills hanging out of his pockets is going to be plastered everywhere, making him appear completely out of touch with the lower and middle class. They will hammer that angle and paint Mitt as a member of the 1% (which, if we are honest, he is), the Wall Street bankers, that the OWS fools were so fired up about. It’s going to give Obama ammunition to fire up his base that is currently fairly underwhelmed with his performance, but will get as fired up to vote against a 1%’er as the right is to vote against a ‘socialist-in-chief’.

What should really worry the ABO crowd that is willing to go along with the sham of Mitt Romney’s electability, is that Mitt’s camp had no good response for it. The other candidates tickled the subject in ’08. His campaign has had three years to see how Obama works the class warfare rhetoric to the public. Of all the candidates for the GOP nomination, Mitt is by far the most susceptable to the class warfare angle. And yet, apparently Mitt’s campaign in four years still doesn’t have a bag of well-polished and quick answers for the Bain attacks to pull out. They should have had a whole slew of them ready to pull out at a moment’s notice.

Obamacare will come off the table as an election issue with Romney as the nominee. Romney can say all he wants about not intending Romneycare as a model for a national health care system, but that’s going to be a hollow argument. Any other candidate could have beat Obama like a rented mule with the Obamacare stuff, except Romney. And then Obama is going to lay into him with the class warfare angle, which the polls indicate seems to be working for him at the moment. And that picture of Romney with the “dolla’ bills yo” all in his jacket, and them trotting out every person who ever got laid off from a Bain company, is going to make for some seriously bad press for Romney. The conservative arguments may be good (assuming for a moment Romney is actually a conservative… hold the laughter), but with Romney at the top of the ticket the Obama campaign is going to have a feast on the optics of it all.

And given all that, the argument is that Romney is the most electable of the candidates? Really?

It’s no wonder the Dems are salivating at the chance to face Romney in the general election. The GOP is going to serve up the election to Obama on a silver platter. If the GOP doesn’t deserve to go the way of the dodo for it’s conversion to a party of big gov’t, then it deserves it just for being effing stupid!

gravityman on January 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Can anyone please tell me what would have happened to those 100 companies and their empoloyees that Bain acquired, turned around… ***IF*** Bain had not acquired them in the first place?

stuartm80127 on January 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Can anyone please tell me what would have happened to those 100 companies and their empoloyees that Bain acquired, turned around… ***IF*** Bain had not acquired them in the first place?

stuartm80127 on January 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Somebody else would have done what Mitt did. The idea though is that I want a president that did not do the things he did with several of those 100 companies. he did good with some of them, maybe most of them, but he got pretty dirty on a few.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Several out of 100? Is that the best you can do??

And what specifically was wrong with what he did to them?

And try to remember the case study of the ABC Ice Cream Corporation that I gave you early today.

blink on January 12, 2012 at 7:06 PM

You know, I met a hundred people today, and I only killed one. Yeah, in fact several out of a hundred is a few more than I need to make my decision.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

No, Newt FALSELY attacked the specific activity.

blink on January 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Prove it false. Give exact details how it is impossible for his accusation to be true. You should probably take your time here….

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Newt rightly points out in his 30-second ad currently running in South Carolina about Romney’s pro-abortion (anti-life) agenda while in Massachusetts. NOW we’re to believe Romney is pro-life?? Romney is a flip-flopping hyopcrite on many issues–especially on abortion. He needs to be defeated.

jfs756 on January 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

The country is sinking fast into socialism–and you want to focus on abortion? He says he’s pro-life. You don’t believe him so you want to destroy his candidacy and help hand the election over to Obama by buying into this smear campaign? How many strict constructionists would Obama nominate in a second term, I wonder? And you want to help him? How many babies would you save?

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM

The bottom line is a lot of you who complain that Romney’s not a true conservative are not yourselves true conservatives. You don’t recognize how fiscally moderate you are. No wonder we keep winding up with nominees like Nixon and Ford and both Bushes and Dole and McCain. Not one of them was a fiscal conservative. Every single one of them was a fiscal moderate.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The bottom line is a lot of you who complain that Romney’s not a true conservative are not yourselves true conservatives. You don’t recognize how fiscally moderate you are. No wonder we keep winding up with nominees like Nixon and Ford and both Bushes and Dole and McCain. Not one of them was a fiscal conservative. Every single one of them was a fiscal moderate.

writeblock on January 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I am too young for your first two, but I did not like any of the other’s listed. It was because they were not conservative enough. I was about to reluctantly vote for McCain only because of Palin, until he suspended his campaign and voted for TARP, I voted for Bush Jr in 2000 reluctantly and abstained in 2004 due to his fiscal and social weakness, I voted for Dole reluctantly, I voted for Perot as I could not come to vote for Bush Sr’s 2nd term even after I voted for him reluctantly for his first term. I could not, but would have happily voted for Reagan, I grew up watching him lead the nation all the while my grandma talking about how virtuous democrats were and having her vote for Clinton because he was more handsome than the other guy…

If I thought Romney would do to this country what he did to the companies where I see his actions were not kosher with me, I would be backing him in a heartbeat. Underfunding social security and medicare would be a god send policy forcing them into failure and as part of the dustbin of history would be so completely conservative. Firing all the unionist federal employees and then hiring half of them back at cut rates and drastically reduced pensions and benefits and making them do the work of two federal employees (about equal to 1/4 of any private sector non union worker) would bring me out to the street knocking on doors for the man. Selling off the government assets of the nation such as land and mineral rights and taking those off the books would get me to open my wallet to send him a maximum donation (at least if I get this second job I just applied for).

If Romney was a conservative, I would support the man. He is not even to the level of RINO in my book. It is how I see him, how he has shown himself to be, and is how every one of his sycophant supporters demonstrate him to be.

astonerii on January 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5