Revealed: Bain & Company advised Obama on auto bailout, recommended cutting dealerships; Update: CNBC retracts story, misidentified Bain

posted at 10:00 pm on January 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

Does it matter that Romney hasn’t worked for Bain & Company in nearly 20 years or are the optics of this one bad enough to make it newsworthy regardless?

The car dealership episode was one of the most controversial of the auto bailout — as many dealers across the country complained they were being put out of business by government fiat. A special inspector general looking into the matter concluded that the decision to slash dealerships resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs. But the Obama administration argued at the time that there were too many dealerships chasing too few customers and streamlining them was an important piece to getting GM and Chrysler back on their feet…

A 2010 report by the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program reveals that Bain — referred to as “Bain Consulting” — was one of several private sector firms the Obama auto team turned to for advice as it wrestled with what to do about the dealerships. (Romney spent years at Bain Capital, a spin-off of Bain & Company, and also served as interim chief executive of Bain & Company during a turnaround effort.)…

“An expert from Bain Consulting also stated many dealerships have too much inventory relative to their market area, particularly in smaller markets or markets where there are more dealers than necessary, because they have to have sufficient diversity in their inventory to cover the manufacturer’s entire portfolio and to meet varied customer needs,” the inspector general’s report said.

“This leads to higher floor plan financing costs per vehicle. In addition, because it is difficult for a smaller dealership to match its mix of inventory with actual customer demand, they end up with higher quantities of slow moving inventory that can lead to a need for increased customer and dealer incentives to sell their vehicles.”

CNBC speculates that this might explain why Obama’s “car czar,” Steve Rattner, ended up slobbering all over Bain in a surprising op-ed in Politico today. Rattner purported to offer “full disclosure” in that piece by acknowledging that he’d worked with Bain Capital “on several projects” after Romney left, but he didn’t mention that the White House had been advised by its sister firm, Bain & Company (which Romney led briefly during the early 90s), on closing down dealerships as part of the GM restructuring. Maybe he figured Bain’s role in that was bound to come out sooner rather than later and decided to go on record as being a fan before reporters demanded to know why he accepted advice from those darned job-killing corporate vultures so despised by Democrats. An interesting quote given what happened with the dealerships: “While no one likes seeing jobs disappear, eliminating unnecessary overhead and even entire divisions if they cannot be made sufficiently profitable is at the heart of a successful economy — the process Joseph Schumpeter famously described as ‘creative destruction.’ How strange for conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Perry to be questioning the core of free market economics.”

And maybe this also explains why Romney was willing to implicitly equate what Obama did with the auto bailout to what Romney himself did at Bain Capital in the private equity industry. Romney may have calculated that if he tried to draw a sharp contrast between his own work and the White House’s handling of GM, the connection to Bain & Company would eventually trickle out and be used to embarrass him no matter how valid his point about the contrast. As it is, he has a ready-made defense once Obama starts demagoging him on jobs in the fall: If The One has such a problem with the Bain group’s perspective on layoffs, how come he accepted advice from the Bain group on layoffs? Now, the question: Will this end up increasing the pressure on Romney to release his tax returns? The NYT reported recently that to this day, as part of the deal he negotiated when he left, Romney still gets a share of Bain Capital’s profits. Whether he still gets anything from Bain & Company is unclear because not much is known about his finances; if he does, Gingrich could argue that he benefited financially from the fees Bain received for its advice on closing the dealerships even though Romney left the firm decades before.

I’ll leave you with this, from TPM:

“I would have preferred to wait, yes, to keep the bottle of whup-ass fresher,” one Obama campaign strategist told TPM. “At the same time — and this is important to note — having the Republicans eat their own actually makes the Bain story more potent than we ever could because it instantly validates it as a line of attack and falls on independent ears as a matter of legitimate debate, not as a partisan line of attack.”

And when the real Bain attack comes, it will be anything but old news to the voters it needs to reach. After all, it’s hardcore Republicans who are paying the closest attention to the GOP campaign and its Bain moment right now, and they’re not voting for President Obama anytime soon.

Update (1/13): Go ahead and scratch everything I wrote above. This is what I get for having trusted CNBC:

A previous story incorrectly reported that Mitt Romney’s former firm, Bain & Co., was part of a team of consulting companies that advised President Barack Obama on a decision to shutter car dealerships during the auto bailout.

Bain & Co. said it has no connection to the “Bain Consulting” firm referenced in government documents.

Apologies to Team Mitt for having passed along bad information.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The irony of you quoting Reagan is almost too much to bear…under questioning by Kennedy, Mitt stated emphatically, with stern determination, “I am not a Reagan conservative”…do we have to post the video of this exchange to shame you?
Here and look at 2:15, where Romney is a “independent”…
I don’t think Mitt has ever refuted anything he ever said in that debate…btw, he lost to Ted, a telling of what the future holds if a similar debate between Obama and Mitt happens.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM

This is what I get for having trusted CNBC

Hey, if you trusted Newt you’d be blaming Romney for his actions at Bain a year or more after he left regarding company closures, etc.

I’m not a Romney fan (you can check my comments here; I think anti-Romney is about the nicest I’ve been)… but damn he’s been getting an unfair set of attacks lately.

1) Capitalism isn’t bad. Buying a failing company and getting it to work so you can resell it sometimes involves layoffs.

2) Factories closing due to a purchase Bain made a year after you left probably has nothing to do with you.

3) working for a company doesn’t mean you’ve worked for every company similarly named.

I’m still not a Romney fan; but I see no reason to go for inaccurate or fabricated attacks.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Well, the damage is done now. That lie already spread around the world and people who were quick to share that misinformation are probably not so quick to share the correction. Many will go forward thinking the original information is true. Lies spread faster than truth when they are spectacular.

crosspatch on January 13, 2012 at 12:19 PM

pointed out to you Reagan’s philosophy on fees is the same as Romney’s and vice versa.

I do not have an issue with the gov’t raising fees if they were established in the 1950′s and have not been touched in 50-60 years when there is a budget deficit and people are still benefiting off of a service where the cost does not cover the service provided. All taxpayers end up paying for it to cover that gap unless you raise the fees. Reagan said the same thing.

I agree that spending is the problem and Romney is for Cut, Cap, and Balance.

bottom line though is no matter what any Romney supporter says to you, right2bright, et al, you DO NOT like Romney and are not going to change your opinion no matter what we say. Right? Right. :o)

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM

1. Not all the fees were decades old fees paid by a few people. A couple were. The vast majority of the $550M was on every day things like marriage licenses and drivers licences which affect pretty much the entire population.

2. If you agree that spending is the problem why do you applaud Romney’s approach to the MA deficit, when he didn’t cut any spending but closed the deficit through more revenue?

3. No I don’t like Romney. For the reasons I pointed to. His approach to fiscal responsibility was to raise revenue instead of cut spending. Oh and that whole health care mandate thing too.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Regarding his time as governor, and the spending involved… I’ve not seen anyone post the numbers…

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Massachusetts_state_budget

He was governor from Jan 2003-Jan 2007 (so I’ve included some years before & after; not all years are Romney’s):

Year … Nominal Spend …. Real Spend ….. Percent change
2008 … 31,694.416[42] … 34,213.722[42] … 0.1%
2007 … 29,913.923[42] … 34,194.834[42] … 7.5%
2006 … 26,592.198[42] … 31,811.763[42] … 0.6%
2005 … 24,846.982[42] … 31,610.590[42] … 0.8%
2004 … 23,331.771[42] … 31,350.891[42] … -2.2%
2003 … 23,011.620[42] … 32,046.556[42] … -4.7%
2002 … 23,289.777[42] … 33,617.370[42] … 0.7%

I think that the Governor runs the budget for the next year, so Romney’s years are 2004-2007 inclusive (the 2003 budget was before he took office, and he did the 2007 before leaving).

I don’t see this moving the ball for him on fiscal policy.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM

There’s plenty there – where there’s smoke there’s fire. I like Mark Levin and listen to his shows. He’s has a law degree so he does not make accusations lightly. I find this particularly enlightening and disturbing about Romney. These kinds of facts need to be exposed before the republican establishment can hide it:

Levin is rather dismayed at a video that has emerged where Mitt Romney is not only misrepresenting capitalism, but saying that he isn’t a classical Republican when it comes to economics, which he also misrepresents. Levin says he just doesn’t know who Romney really is:
I honestly do not know if Mitt Romney is a conservative or not! I honestly don’t know if he’s a free market conservative or not! He has evolved on every single major issue I can think of, and not over a course of time, but over a course of a few years. Pro-abortion, now pro-life. Against classical Republican economics, whatever the hell that is, now he’s for it. And I can go down the line. 1994, trashing Ronald Reagan.

I mean, who is this man? Can somebody tell me WHO IS MITT ROMNEY? It’s a simple question! I don’t know! And the problem is, 75% of you don’t know either! And we want an answer! …Honest to God, I want to like the guy! Who the hell is he?! I don’t know!

And that’s the problem.

mozalf on January 13, 2012 at 12:28 PM

gekkobear, you don’t seem to understand Mass. politics. Romney neither made the budget nor could he veto the budget. The General Court (legislature) would have all of the say with Republicans outnumbered by Democrats by 4 to 1.

Romney would be a completely different animal had he had a Republican legislature with enough votes to actually matter.

crosspatch on January 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM

If Romney was a smart politican, he should have moved, established residency somewhere else and ran for senate or governor somewhere other than Massachusetts.

monalisa on January 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM

bottom line though is no matter what any Romney supporter says to you, right2bright, et al, you DO NOT like Romney and are not going to change your opinion no matter what we say. Right? Right. :o)

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Bottom line, no matter what facts are brought to you you will not change your opinion, right? right?
See it works both ways, the problem with your analogy is that I have been consistent for years…I do like Romney, I think he is honest, hard working, a great faithful family man, intelligent, and has been raised and primed to do exactly what he is doing, he was born and raised to be the president…the problem is, he can’t connect with the common ordinary conservative public.
I have consistently stated he would be a great VP, he brings a lot of horsepower, so to characterize me as saying “I don’t like him” is foolish, I want him to be the second most powerful person in the world, hardly a vote of no-confidence.
My stand confuses the Mittwits, they think it is all or nothing, and here I stand and say he is worthy of everything but the President, actually he is worthy, but he can’t win. And I don’t want to waste this great opportunity on someone who can’t beat Obama, as weak as Obama is, he can beat Mitt.
The two “coasts” will rally against Mitt, his elitism will be used against him, his top ten supporters are the poster children of corporate greed (right or wrong, that’s who they are), Mitt was for TARP, he was the father of ObamaCare, he was for abortion (as was his mother, so he stated in the famous debate), he grew Mass government, raised “taxes” (fees)…yes he was great on the Olympics, so was Peter Ueberroth (only Peter was better and not presidential material)…he has nothing on Obama, since his only real debate with a liberal, he tried to out liberal him.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM

governor somewhere other than Massachusetts.

monalisa on January 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM

He could not beat a conservative, that was his only option…he is a liberal at heart, look at the debates, you have to assume he was honest and he out liberaled Kennedy.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 12:44 PM

How many Romney hit-pieces have had to be retracted in just the past couple of months??? I came to HotAir just before the 2008 primary season started to get under way to avoid the fabricated stories I found at MSM sites…. seems like HotAir is following their lead down a slippery slope.

luckedout26 on January 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You are a clown. You don’t know the first thing about me. I was a Wall Street attorney for 17 years, a mergers and acquisitions specialist. I worked on the some of the most famous Wall Street deals ever done. I’ve got more than a clue. I bet I know just a bit more than you do, friend. The first time I retired I was 32 years old. After six months of golf I was bored, so I went back for more and stayed into my forties. I finally did retire from Wall Street and moved back to the South, where I’m from. I’m still a transactional lawyer, just on different type deals.

Stayright on January 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I got out at 33. Went west instead of south. Still playing golf and skiing 5 years later. No snow this year though.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I think that the Governor runs the budget for the next year, so Romney’s years are 2004-2007 inclusive (the 2003 budget was before he took office, and he did the 2007 before leaving).

I don’t see this moving the ball for him on fiscal policy.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Raised taxes.
Increased spending.
That’s the Romney record.
But we’re supposed to forget about that and just focus on his speeches.

BTW in 2010 the DEMOCRAT governor cut spending significantly. WHAAA? How can that be, he has a Democrat legislature and stuff? Yeah exactly. It is possible to cut spending even with a Democrat legislature in Mass. Romney didn’t even try.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM

gekkobear, you don’t seem to understand Mass. politics. Romney neither made the budget nor could he veto the budget.

crosspatch on January 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Why does he list it as a major accomplishment then, seeing as he had nothing at all to do with it and couldn’t have done anything at all about balancing the budget of Massachusetts?

When Mitt was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the state was in severe disarray, its budget was out of balance, spending was soaring, and taxpayers were being required to pay more and more in taxes for diminishing services. The state economy was in a tailspin, with businesses cutting back on investment or even closing and unemployment ticking up. Mitt made hard decisions that brought state spending under control. He restructured and consolidated government programs, paring back where necessary and finding efficiencies throughout.

Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, Mitt cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes.

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt

You’re saying none of these accomplishments on Mitt Romney’s website are actually attributable to Mitt Romney? There was nothing he did, or even could have done here, this work was done by someone else, and Romney is just taking credit?

Sorry crosspatch, you can’t have it both ways. Either Romney gets the good & the bad for the Mass Budget while he was Governor; or he doesn’t.

You can’t have him getting the good and not taking the bad; I don’t see how that argument works.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Actually, he seems to have cut spending his first year in office; maybe his first 2 if he did anything to affect the 2003 budget or spending…

2007 looks like his only “bad” year spending-wise.

As I said, I don’t see this moving the ball either way. Those numbers are neither good enough to be amazing for spending cuts, nor bad enough overall to be an over-spending monstrosity.

A less than 1% increase per year in spending isn’t a horrible record… it’s not cuts, but it’s not terrible.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Dang, I can’t edit. the “less than 1% per year” was for 2005 and 2006, not his overall record (which is about 9% increase over 4 years running the 2004 & 2007 numbers; the ones I think can be attributed as his first & last budgets).

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I am not voting based on fanciful ideas projected on a candidate: that is ‘Hope & Change’. And if he wants to explain why he couldn’t act as a competent executive to hold government to its constitution in MA and start cutting departments and services there that are not chartered to the government, I would be glad to listen. It is always possible that someone will finally get a clue after being pounded with a cluebat for a few decades… of course that should transform his entire outlook on what he is running to do… so far, no luck. Yeah, nice words after NH. No changes to his plans based on those nice words so no indication of cluebats having registered on their target.

ajacksonian on January 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM

THIS. If he had a conservative bone in his body, his experience would be formidable in cutting back big govt. The problem is that he’s moderate and sees fees, laws et al as just the cost of doing business, not that some might be inherently wrong for the govt to do. He’s a technocrat: “Oh you want mandatory HC”? “Ok, I’ll draw up a plan”. “Want single-payer”? “Can do”. “Ban guns”? “No problem”. “Abortion, Entitlements, cut/raise Spending”? “No prob!!!” “Just vote for me, tell me what you want and I’ll figure out a way, because Obama hasn’t got a clue on anything and I can do it better”.

AH_C on January 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM

His budgets are FY 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

2007 … 29,913.923[42]
2006 … 26,592.198[42]
2005 … 24,846.982[42]
2004 … 23,331.771[42]
2003 … 23,011.620[42]

2007 (his last budget) is 30% more than 2003 (the last budget before him).

If he were to do the same thing federally, it would mean an extra $1T of spending PER YEAR in 2017 compared to 2012.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM

like seriously??? ‘my apologies to team Mitt’…how about you do your homework next time, allah, and research the issues you write about….you are no different than NYT and other leftists outfits with your blatant disinformation piece….this is lack of professionalism on your part, tens of readers pointed to the Bain misinformation in the yesterday thread, but you didn’t care to check their facts and take that silly post off…oh, and how ‘graceful’ of you to post the apologu to team Mitt today!

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Get your panties unbunched already.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM

what is interesting is reading other posts here on HA and other sites and I just have to say this to all you Romney bashers:

Romney won a FAIR election in Iowa
Romney won a FAIR election in NH
We will see how he fares in SC and FL next

If Perry was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.
If Gingrich was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.
If Santorum was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.
If Paul was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.
If Cain was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.
If Bachmann was a great candidate she would be leading and winning.
If Huntsman was a great candidate he would be leading and winning.

What is apparent to MOST of the voters across America is that Romney is a great candidate and they are supporting him. This may make a few of you upset on HA BUT the American people are speaking and Romney is our choice as of this date.

Everything else you continue to post bashing Romney is not being heard by the rest of America. We like him…gosh darn it!

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM

the problem is, he can’t connect with the common ordinary conservative public.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM

you got to be kidding me. what are you, 5? what do you need some sort of warm, fuzzy feelings with your president? I guess we all have family members and freinds for that. I don’t want my president to be some father figure, I want him to be a cold, effective technocrat, that’s what a head of state should be. That’s why parliamentarians systems are better in that they do not place so much weight on the charisma of their leaders…they come and go, and there to do a job, who cares about their charisma…the funny thing, now that you brought this, is, who of the rest of the GOP field connects with the public??? Gingrich??? Get serious, most conservatives in my circles are repulsed literally by him, they think he’s a sleazebag and an egomaniac, so,no appeal whatsoever, and guaranteed no ‘connection and fuzzy feelings’ there. Santorum?? Puh-lease, that man has the charisma of a rag and the only connection he can possibly have is with his family and a bunch of bigots, jus listen to his speeches, he’s ridiculous really. Perry?? :-) Problem there is he first has to learn how to articulate an idea or two and put together a sentence, don’t see how you can connect with anybody if you can’t express yourself properly. That leaves us with Paul, I give it you that he has some sort of a charisma, bit incomprehensible to me, not sure what his appeal is, but obviously he has groupies and very faithful and vocal followers. I say kudos to him, but you are deluded yourself if you think that appeal goes beyond his bunch of faithfuls, the rest of the country views him as a loon…so, yeah, say that again, who has charisma and ‘connects with the conservative public’?…and please keep in mind that there are millions of conservatives who are not religious zealots or even religious, or soc con, and all, so to all of those Mitt is the perfect candidate…so, when you say ‘the conservative public’, maybe you should ad the ‘evangelical, soc con conservative public’, that is just a part of the conservative/Republican electorate, like it or not…

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Get your panties unbunched already.

angryed on January 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM

get your meds, already…

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, Mitt cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes.
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt

You’re saying none of these accomplishments on Mitt Romney’s website are actually attributable to Mitt Romney? There was nothing he did, or even could have done here, this work was done by someone else, and Romney is just taking credit?

Sorry crosspatch, you can’t have it both ways. Either Romney gets the good & the bad for the Mass Budget while he was Governor; or he doesn’t.

You can’t have him getting the good and not taking the bad; I don’t see how that argument works.

gekkobear on January 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The other thing that gets me is this weasel word. That mitt uses it informs my view that he is a weasel.

many a times, the Mittbots around here argue: “Mitt did it without raising taxes !E1venty!!!”

BS. What are taxes and what are fees? They both raise revenue. To whit, is the excise tax on cigarettes or a fee? Doesn’t matter if you called it a “Smoking Permit Fee” or not, it’s still a form of taxation which in this case is aimed at consumers who smoke. Or say road infrastructure: The govt can use property tax (which EVERYONE) in MA pays a portion, or income tax, or gas tax or even a registration fee. The point is that Mitt raised revenue by raising rates and/or fees. Running around saying “I did it without raising taxes” is disingenous or worse a flat out deception.

I hate people who use weasel words to sell something and because of that, I can’t trust Mitt.

Hey Mittwit! Speak bold and plainly, you’re running for President for Pete’s sake!!!

AH_C on January 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Start off with an insult, and then you fill your post with garbage…no I am probably old enough to be your father.
I probably want a similar leader as you do…but it’s not what “I want” it is what or who is electable.
Do you think the last person chosen to be president was chosen because their record was so “technocrat”, or that conservatives hated him, or do you think his charisma and ability to weave a story swayed the people…or was it his terrific voting record that won him the election.
We need the conservative, certainly, but what we need even more is the “independents”, you know the ones that say they are independent, but vote as a bloc.
Mitt won’t appeal to the conservative public, that was my point you missed…he never has, never will. Especially when it is revealed who his real backers are…the top ten are the gallery of corporate wall street whores, at least that is what they are defined as.
Next time try to be a little more cohesive with your comments, you are all over the place, first saying you want a “technocrat” than saying you want charisma…you are weird.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Mitt won’t appeal to the conservative public, that was my point you missed…he never has, never will. Especially when it is revealed who his real backers are…the top ten are the gallery of corporate wall street whores, at least that is what they are defined as.
right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Right2bright,
The last 2 elections defy what you stated above…this is backed by post election surveys covered in multiple news pieces…to the dismay I am sure to those “other conservatives” that cannot believe it.

In regards to your other comment about who is real backers are…Who cares? Your comment sounds “liberalish” to me and others. As a conservative we do not care how much money someone’s backer makes. They are backing them because they have the resources to help fund that candidate. Why is it “bad” if Romney has “the top ten” as you say BUT Gingrich’s Adelson is okay?

Frankly, I do not care how much a person makes in their life. I say good for them. Have them teach others how to be just as successful; do not denigrate their success. :o)

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

3. No I don’t like Romney. For the reasons I pointed to. His approach to fiscal responsibility was to raise revenue instead of cut spending. Oh and that whole health care mandate thing too.

Debbie Wasserman angryeyed on January 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM

More lies from the Obama shill.

Gunlock Bill on January 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM

the problem is, he can’t connect with the common ordinary conservative public.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM

THAT explains it.

I was wondering why he was winning.

Thanks to your detailed and in depth analysis I now know.

Gunlock Bill on January 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Easy there. I like what Allah does and don’t want him to change. There was nothing wrong with him relying on CNBC’s information.

blink on January 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM

my point was that he waited until today to post the apology, while a lot of posters actually pointed to the fact that the two Bain are not the same on the yesterday thread…all he had to do was check, most of the info on the two Bain & Company and Bain Consulting is out there…

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 2:24 PM

gekkobear, you don’t seem to understand Mass. politics. Romney neither made the budget nor could he veto the budget. The General Court (legislature) would have all of the say with Republicans outnumbered by Democrats by 4 to 1.

Romney would be a completely different animal had he had a Republican legislature with enough votes to actually matter.

crosspatch on January 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Democrats balked at Romney’s tax hikes.

“In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as “loophole closures,” totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe​ reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase…”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48596

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Next time try to be a little more cohesive with your comments, you are all over the place, first saying you want a “technocrat” than saying you want charisma…you are weird.

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM

can you read?? I never said I wanted charisma in a leader, NEVER.I am actually weary of ‘charismatic leaders’ (see the current occupant of WH). I just followed your line of argument and pointed to the fact that if you bring in the charisma part, none of the candidates in the current GOP field has it. So, to make that a uniquely Romney issue, I find it to be dishonest and hypocritical.

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM

This is my point I was making earlier that conservatives are supporting Romney to the dismay of the “other conservatives”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/real_life_righties_stC9BMJ8kYV6q3UTHUJFjN

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Debbie Wasserman angryeyed on January 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM

More lies from the Obama shill.

Gunlock Bill on January 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM

LOL, always knew ed was angry, but never knew he used Dippity Doo on his hair…

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Only one of them could legally use violence to achieve their goal if needed.
 
Figure out which one and you’ll have your answer.
 
rogerb on January 13, 2012 at 8:47 AM

 
Romneycare is enforced by violence.
 
the_nile on January 13, 2012 at 9:11 AM

 
Agreed, but that wasn’t the topic:
 

Every repub and conservative, myself included, that blasted Obama for his auto industry takeover needs to STFU since he did the same thing Romney did at Bain. How is it capitalism…
 
Mdbills484 on January 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

rogerb on January 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Look at his track record, he has never appealed to a broad base…just to some RINO’s…he isn’t a conservative, even he acknowledges that.
I will ask again, and this is after a day of posting and still not one answer to the question:
What debate point is he going to make, that will defeat Obama in a debate?
ObamaCare? Hardly he was the father
TARP? Hardly he supported it
Bailouts and takeovers? Hardly, he just said Bain did the same
and add to that (and I have stated I don’t care but the public does) his top ten supporters are the rogue gallery of Wall Street elitists, Goldman Sachs being number one…people don’t vote for an elitist, never have, never will.
So tell me…give me Romney’s best shot at winning a debate point…so far no Mitt supporter can come up with just one winner…

right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Look at his track record, he has never appealed to a broad base…just to some RINO’s…he isn’t a conservative, even he acknowledges that.
right2bright on January 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM

…looks to me that he’s winning as we speak :-), so, meanwhile that base that he appeals to might have become pretty broad :-)

jimver on January 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Don’t you get it? Don’t you see? How can you not know about The Establishment with their mind control beacons and ray guns? I know that you’ve been living in a war zone and may not be able to know what’s going on state side, but it’s perfectly clear that we’re all being bombarded with mind rays! We don’t really like Mitt. We’re just having our thoughts scrambled and rewired covertly by The Establishment! They’re forcing us to vote for Romney against our will with most of us not even knowing it.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Go ahead and scratch everything I wrote above.

No worries, AP. I haven’t believed a word you’ve had to say for some time now.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

As previously mentioned, NO difference between Obastard II and RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite). If there are no SHARP distinctions, who do you think STUPID American people will vote for??? Stupid Americans probably includes the Republicrat establishment, apparently.

Colatteral Damage on January 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Mhit-For-Brains, it’s spreading!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on January 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I can’t believe I’m still reading this thread. It’s turning into one big circle jerk.

Don’t you people realize that the highly anti-Romney people are merely trolls following the leader L. Ron Paul Hubbard. They lack the rationality needed to examine this from a logical perspective.

I bet they couldn’t even say one good thing about Romney or any other candidate except their dear leader.

Are you geting tired of p*ssing up this flagpole?

Pcoop on January 13, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Boy, those durn bloggers don’t have to meet journalistic standards like CNBC! Er, oh, it was CNBC that didn’t check its facts. Dang.

billrowe on January 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

But never mind all that. Timeline means nothing in this bizarre game of gotcha the purists are playing. They are fine with acting like Democrats while they complain that some other Republican is not a true conservative.

The hypocrites.

Terrye on January 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Exactly !! Let’s NOT talk about the fact that the auto bail-out was really socialistic union pandering at it’s finest and that the Bain story as I alluded to earlier actually WAS and IS a non~story, particularly in light of CNBC’s retraction. This was the equivalent of the WaPo writer apologizing to Santorum about his dead baby comments.( aka closing the barn doors after the cows have escaped).

Terrye? Methinks they actually ARE Democrats. It would explain their commentary/behavior as you rightly pointed out…..lol

DevilsPrinciple on January 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Easy there. I like what Allah does and don’t want him to change. There was nothing wrong with him relying on CNBC’s information.

blink on January 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Of course there’s nothing like having your facts wrong about a non~story (sarc) :o

DevilsPrinciple on January 13, 2012 at 11:01 PM

You are a clown…

Stayright on January 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM

No need to say more this one sentence confirms you as a lawyer. Attack people not ideas.

Wade on January 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You might have to retract the retraction;

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-13/wall_street/30622823_1_auto-bailout-audit-report-sigtarp

narciso on January 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You might have to retract the retraction;

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-13/wall_street/30622823_1_auto-bailout-audit-report-sigtarp

narciso on January 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Hmmm, funny that. Nice dig!

astonerii on January 14, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I know here in MI the dealerships clossed were owned by Republicans.

Bullhead on January 14, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I know here in MI the dealerships clossed were owned by Republicans.

Bullhead on January 14, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Someone did a study at some point, almost all of them were Republicans.

astonerii on January 14, 2012 at 11:54 PM

As part of its July 2010 audit report, SIGTARP interviewed individuals with whom the Treasury Auto Team consulted. As stated in the report, the Auto Team noted that its conversations with the individuals were “off-the-record” and “not documented.”

One of these individuals identified himself to SIGTARP as being with Bain Consulting, which was how SIGTARP referenced the company in the report.

It appears that the gentleman is a representative of Bain & Company, Inc., the consulting firm.

The identification of Bain Consulting in SIGTARP’s audit report was imprecise.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-13/wall_street/30622823_1_auto-bailout-audit-report-sigtarp#ixzz1jVHmSUnu

Do not expect the in the bag for Romney guys to get rid of the retraction…

astonerii on January 15, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8