Romney camp pulls negative ads in PA as Santorum stays with Bella

posted at 1:21 pm on April 9, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum was supposed to be back to campaigning today, but, with Bella still in the hospital, he’s extended his pause in activity. Out of deference for that decision, the Mitt Romney campaign indefinitely pulled a snarky spot that was supposed to air in Pennsylvania.

“We have done this out of deference to Sen. Santorum’s decision to suspend his campaign for personal family reasons,” Romney spokeswomanAndrea Saul said in an email.

Mr. Santorum’s three-year-old daughter Bella, who has a genetic condition, was hospitalized Friday.

The negative spot has been pulled until further notice, Romney aides said Monday morning. Mr. Santorum’s campaign has said the candidate plans to return to the campaign trail Tuesday.

The ad, which was scheduled as part of Romney’s reported $2.9 million ad buy in the Keystone State, posed this zinger to Pennsylvanian voters, who rejected Santorum’s 2006 bid for the U.S. Senate by 17 points: “We fired him as senator. Why promote him to president?” The Romney campaign now plans to run a positive ad that focuses on the former Massachusetts governor’s record instead.

It might not seem like much, but the decision is probably both a sign that Romney feels increasingly confident and secure in his status as the likely nominee and a sign that he genuinely respects Rick Santorum, who has proved himself not only a worthy competitor but a man of character. (Could it be that it counted with Romney that Santorum never stooped so low as to attack Romney’s time at Bain Capital, never fueled the conservative opposition with misplaced attacks?) Romney wants to sew up the nomination as quickly as possible — but he’s unwilling to do it at the expense of the personal peace of a man of integrity like Rick Santorum. It should be encouraging to conservatives across the country that these men are the finalists for our nomination. As evidenced by their commitment to their own families, they both understand “the permanent things.”

In good news, though, the Santorums have announced that Bella could be out of the hospital as soon as today. Santorum says he plans to return to the campaign trail tomorrow.


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 2

It doesn’t matter who the messenger is. the point is that the tantrum prevented the story from being fully heard, so we will get to hear all about Mitt’s Bain record (which includes lots of layoffs) in the general. Congrats, great strategy.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Newt tried to get the story out there, but like you said, the ads were ineffectual. The voters decided that they had heard enough of this story and sided with Romney. No one stopped Newt from continuing to run the ads. If he wanted to be the helpful messenger as you claim, he could have continued. Newt isn’t the one to adhere to conventional wisdom, is he? He stopped because he realized the ads were backfiring and cut his losses.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He stopped because he realized the ads were backfiring and cut his losses.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I don’t see where we have an argument here.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

More freaking spin. Can’t you be honest? Corporate raiding is bad for America and capitalism. It enriches a tiny number of people at the expense of a viable business that employed people and made things other people wanted to buy. In other words, it enriched a tiny number of people at the expense of real capitalism.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Question… if it was a viable business to begin with, why did it end up needing restructuring by Bain?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Question… if it was a viable business to begin with, why did it end up needing restructuring by Bain?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Didn’t “need” restructuring. Hostile takeovers are just that: hostile. someone thought they could exploit the business for profit. That it ruined the business doesn’t matter to them, they made their money.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

More freaking spin. Can’t you be honest? Corporate raiding is bad for America and capitalism. It enriches a tiny number of people at the expense of a viable business that employed people and made things other people wanted to buy. In other words, it enriched a tiny number of people at the expense of real capitalism.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I completely disagree. This is part of how business is done (whether you like it or not). You strip down failing enterprises, restructure the companies which comes at the expense of jobs sometimes, with the hope that the companies will be able to become more financially solvent. This creates more jobs in the process. He was considered one of the finest businessmen at the time. Surely, he was doing something right.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Let’s put it this way: you have a house. I look at you and say, give me your house, I think I could make more money tearing it down and putting up a gas station. You say, no, you’re making the payments and you want to keep your house. So I go down, throw a lot of money at the condemnation board, and convince them to give me your property for next to nothing. You fight it, and you lose. I get your house and you get bupkiss. Yay capitalism!!!

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I don’t see where we have an argument here.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It’s okay. I didn’t see you having much of an argument in the first place, but decided to respond, in hopes of humoring myself.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You strip down failing enterprises, restructure the companies which comes at the expense of jobs sometimes, with the hope that the companies will be able to become more financially solvent.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Bain didn’t just take failing enterprises, they took any enterprise where they saw a good chance of loading up the business with debt and cashing out. Doesn’t matter that the business can’t support all the debt and they go bankrupt, because you used the debt proceeds to pay yourselves millions of dollars in fees. They knew it wouldn’t be solvent and they didn’t care.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

It’s okay. I didn’t see you having much of an argument in the first place, but decided to respond, in hopes of humoring myself.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Jacka$$.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM

First of all Romney does need to be positive and sell himself as an alternative to the Won.

Secondly, it’s praiseworthy that he showed some humanity by pulling / delaying this commercial. Some commenters think “hey this is a political site and all’s fair right?”

Somehow I doubt that’s how Romney and Santorum think about a 3 year old girl with a potentially fatal illnesses whose Dad just happens to be running in the Primary…

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Creative destruction, my friend. Look it up.

Amputate the foot to save the patient.

Metal Head on April 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

This refresh thing when you’ve just finished writing something is a pain. Sigh.

I wish I could believe the suspension of negative ads were a class act prompted by some kindness, but history indicates that Romney doesn’t care about the long-term consequences to his opponents. Mr. slash and burn has pretty much split the Republican Party. He and his supporters have called Santorum some awful names; he didn’t want to defeat, he wanted total destruction of the human being.

As a result his negatives are in the tank and his reputation as a nice man is in the same mud he took the campaign. Perhaps this once his tone deaf etch-a-sketch campaign guru’s understood that trying to destroy the reputation of a decent human being while that man’s child is having a medical crisis might not look great on the nightly news.

Portia46 on April 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Question… if it was a viable business to begin with, why did it end up needing restructuring by Bain?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Finally we can discuss what a “consultant” does…it often takes a business, sometimes making money, often losing money. They sell off assets to obtain cash, and create long term liabilities. With that cash they infuse marketing, and payoff off the commissions to the consultants (commissions come first).
With the infusions of cash, sales or at least the “profits” for the sales increase (since liabilities were converted to long term debt)…than they resale (or merge) and make a hefty commission–again.
It worked great for about 15-20 years during the hay day of our economic growth…similar to the mortgage loan fiasco.
And, like the banks, “consultants” made millions, like the Insurance companies, “consultants” made millions upon millions.
So now we have an expert at selling off assets, and converting them to long term liabilities…and making a huge commission.
Not exactly a formula for a successful Government turnaround.

That is why economic experts like Thomas Sowell is not sold on Mitt, in fact, do not support his tactics and his “economic” savvy at all.
Great at the micro/business level…but so wrong at the macro/government level.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Creative destruction, my friend.

Metal Head on April 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

creative destruction = bankruptcy. Not hey-let’s-take-someone’s-hard-earned-life-work-and-destroy-it.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

0bama’s gonna be pissed off by this:

Obama fundraising off Romney’s negative ads

That will teach Hussein to go golfing during a campaign. /S

DannoJyd on April 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

creative destruction = bankruptcy. Not hey-let’s-take-someone’s-hard-earned-life-work-and-destroy-it.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Were you personally affected? Or did you just buy into that propaganda movie that Gingrich’s PAC put out?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I would only substitute “long-term liabilities” with “debt”, but otherwise thanks.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Of course they have character, that is what is so confusing about Mitt running these shameful ads…I will say it again…If they are wrong when a child is sick, they are wrong when she is well…

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Because Rick is not able to respond due to being with his daughter.

Swerve22 on April 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I have seen no movie about Bain, put out by Gingrich or otherwise. That’s just what firms like Bain do. I understand there is a mill or factory in SC that went just the way I have described under Bain (mis)management.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Great at the micro/business level…but so wrong at the macro/government level.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

That’s a very cynical look a “consulting” as you term it with the scare quotes. Are there Gordon Gecko or even Jimmy Goldsmith type asset-strippers around still? Sure, there are a couple.

Most consulting firms take an equity stake in the company they buy out (cf. 3i and the rest). It is fundamentally against their interests to asset strip a company because they won’t make out on the back end. This goes triple if you take a company private, restructure it, and the list again.

I’m guessing you’re bright but have next to zero private equity experience. :X

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

He was considered one of the finest businessmen at the time. Surely, he was doing something right.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Don’t get carried away…there were thousands, upon thousands who did as well or better than he.
He had great connections, sharp guy, and took advantage of a rising economic market…just like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae…were they “great businessmen” also? They made a lot of money…For awhile Country Wide was a great business, brilliant for decades…thousands of home loan firms made millions like Mitt…surely they were doing something “right”.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Read all about it: Bain’s SC Company Took Gov Incentives, Went Belly Up But Took Huge Profits

So if Bain=Capitalism, then taking gov’t incentives and deliberately ruining a functional business is also “capitalism”.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Liberal is as Liberal does, or A History of Romney’s negative political campaigns:

Mitt Romney ’02 Playbook Of Negative Ads, Money Provides Hints For Likely Fall Campaign

FTA:
Ben Coes, Romney’s campaign manager in 2002, said the multimillionaire businessman won the election because he didn’t worry much about whether voters liked him.

Sketchy wins! Most voters Do Not Like Him!

Mitt Romney’s Sinking Approval Ratings

Liberal is as Liberal does.

DannoJyd on April 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Don’t get carried away…there were thousands, upon thousands who did as well or better than he.
He had great connections, sharp guy, and took advantage of a rising economic market…just like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae…were they “great businessmen” also? They made a lot of money…For awhile Country Wide was a great business, brilliant for decades…thousands of home loan firms made millions like Mitt…surely they were doing something “right”.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Haha sorry. Perhaps I did get a tad carried away. However, Jim Cramer did call Romney the “best businessman in North America.”

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

However, Jim Cramer did call Romney the “best businessman in North America.”

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Why do you care what a TV shill says, particularly one who got the asset bubbble so, so, soooooo wrong?

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I’m guessing you’re bright but have next to zero private equity experience. :X

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Guessed wrong…of course.
This is a few paragraphs to show what a consultant can do…not a 13 week class on investments.
How many “equity” firms (they were scaring quotes to you, but to most they mean a generic term) are still in existence today, that were running wild in the 70′s/80′s/90′s…that is why Mitt was so adamant about the TARP and bailouts, it was his friends that were at risk, not America.
Take a look at some of Mitt’s great “consultations”…some have done great, but many are burdened with the debt.
Selling off a manufacturing plant, than leasing it back to obtain cash, is what he did…and some of that cash went for his commission…sheesh, I get that you are a supporter, but don’t pretend you think that companies don’t sell of assets for cash, and lease back the sold assets. Even I with “zero” experience knows that.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Why do you care what a TV shill says, particularly one who got the asset bubbble so, so, soooooo wrong?

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Nice – and correct.

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Let me add…there is no, absolutely none, correlation between making millions as a businessman, and being a great political leader.
They use totally different skill sets…
Carter was a good businessman, Kennedy, Forbes, Perot, Rockefeller…

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Why do you care what a TV shill says, particularly one who got the asset bubbble so, so, soooooo wrong?

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Using your logic, someone shouldn’t be taken seriously just because they’re not 100% accurate? No one should be taken seriously, then.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Let me add…there is no, absolutely none, correlation between making millions as a businessman, and being a great political leader.
They use totally different skill sets…
Carter was a good businessman, Kennedy, Forbes, Perot, Rockefeller…

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Agreed.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Why do I get the feeling that if the campaign had not decided to temporarily pull the ads, that RomneyHaters would be calling him heartless and cruel?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You just can’t please ABRtards.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Selling off a manufacturing plant, than leasing it back to obtain cash, is what he did…and some of that cash went for his commission…sheesh, right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Really and truy, I don’t have any business for financial acumen. I’m just a lowly middle class grunt.

But… wasn’t the whole point of what Bain did to make money for it’s investors?

Isn’t that the whole point of any kind of business venture? To make money?

Sure, it’s fair to not totally agree the methods. But it’s a bit Occupy-ish to say that what they did was wrong in some way.

Some investments paid off, some didn’t. Some businesses later flourished, others went belly-up. That was part of the risk.

But, Bain was there to make money (even off the ones that eventually failed). If they made money, then they were a successful business. Is that not so?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Sorry…lots of typos in the opening… should read:

“Really and truly, I don’t have any business or financial acumen”

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I’m guessing you’re bright but have next to zero private equity experience. :X

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Guessed wrong…of course.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

The truth is finally admitted.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Yeah, the whole “integrity” thing with Santorum….Dont see it.

All is see is a right-wing mirror image of Obama: intolerance, hubris, ideological rigidity and more than a touch of nanny-state condescension.

What I dont see is Presidential ability, experience or temperment.

Sacramento on April 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

But, Bain was there to make money (even off the ones that eventually failed). If they made money, then they were a successful business. Is that not so?

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I never argued they didn’t make money, a lot of money…where did you get that idea?
And Bain was successful, and successful (even more so) after Mitt left, the company is a money machine.
But Goldman Sachs made money, Country Wide Loans made money, a lot of companies “made” money.
If that is the sole arbiter to what is successful, and what is not, than in your eyes they were successful.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

and some of that cash went for his commission…

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Is money not fungible in your world? Some of that money went to … anything they spent money on. This isn’t news, this is the definition of a budget… your income goes to your expenses.

It’s not like we can trace every penny and see what bills were paid with which pennies; nor would it be meaningful to do so… Some or that money went to office supplies; or repainting the parking lot every few years, or anything else they spent money on.

gekkobear on April 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

The truth is finally admitted.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And absolutely true to your history…you only took part of the quote and that is all you saw…you are so predictable, that is what makes you such a good, loyal, puppet.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM

But it’s a bit Occupy-ish to say that what they did was wrong in some way.

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Not at all. It’s populist. Occupy doesn’t have a lock on populism, nor should they. Occupy is full of morons who have no experience with small business and couldn’t explain any of this.

Some people use wealth, power and connections to ruin the businesses of people who lack wealth, power and connections, just as much as they take private homes for dubious “public/private partnerships”. Just because its legal doesn’t make it right.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

gekkobear on April 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Do you know what helps??? Reading he whole post and taking the sentence in relation to the post…I know that is a strange and cumbersome way of thinking, but you will find it more accurate than cherry picking a comment, pulling it out of context.

Did you miss this first sentence?

This is a few paragraphs to show what a consultant can do…not a 13 week class on investments.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Not at all. It’s populist. Occupy doesn’t have a lock on populism, nor should they. Occupy is full of morons who have no experience with small business and couldn’t explain any of this.

Some people use wealth, power and connections to ruin the businesses of people who lack wealth, power and connections, just as much as they take private homes for dubious “public/private partnerships”. Just because its legal doesn’t make it right.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I’ve come to the conclusion that Conservatism and Populism are mutually exclusive.

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

“An American Success Story”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/romneys-work-with-bain-capital-an-american-success-story/2011/12/16/gIQA4WbhyO_blog.html

By another Romney (and Huntsman!) donor, Ed Rogers.

“Bain Capital represented capitalism at its best”:
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Mitt-Romney-Bain-Capital/2012/01/09/id/423495

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

By Ronald Kessler, another Romney donor.

Yes, he has very well-placed defenders. Gingrich lost due to lack of organization, no doubt. Couldn’t compete with the guy who has spent the last four years doing nothing but build his own Republican machine. Certainly he couldn’t be bothered to oppose ObamaCare or raising the debt limit or any of the other fights we’ve been having. It’s far more important that he tend to his own career.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I’ve come to the conclusion that Conservatism and Populism are mutually exclusive.

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I have not. We should always be on the side of the little businessguy, because that’s how this country was made. The big guys make the rules to suit themselves and are not concerned with liberty or fairness.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

By another Romney (and Huntsman!) donor, Ed Rogers.

Of course Huntsman also attacked Romney on Bain Capital. Ed Rogers seems to agree with Romney, and not Huntsman, on the issue of Bain Capital.

By Ronald Kessler, another Romney donor.

Yes, he has very well-placed defenders. Gingrich lost due to lack of organization, no doubt. Couldn’t compete with the guy who has spent the last four years doing nothing but build his own Republican machine. Certainly he couldn’t be bothered to oppose ObamaCare or raising the debt limit or any of the other fights we’ve been having. It’s far more important that he tend to his own career.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

So, Romney supporters admire his work at Bain Capital and Romney detractors don’t? Gasp! The problem is that others that dislike Romney or ambivalent about Romney seem to side with Romney about Bain Capital (Cain, Santorum, Giuliani, Malkin, Morrissey, to name a few).

Gingrich wasn’t serving in public office, either. He could have attempted to build an organization as well. He didn’t. Not Romney’s fault. Romney has raised the most money so he gets to spend the most money. That’s how it works. Competence is kind of important if you’re asking to be elected as President.

Romney has commented on the debt limit and Obamacare. I suppose you just see/hear what you want to see/hear.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I have not. We should always be on the side of the little businessguy, because that’s how this country was made. The big guys make the rules to suit themselves and are not concerned with liberty or fairness.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I guess you and I just understand Populism differently.

I see it as the precursor to the Progressive Movement, which morphed into modern Liberalism.

Not exactly a direct lineage… more like a mutating evolution from one to the next.

RightWay79 on April 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM

“An American Success Story”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/romneys-work-with-bain-capital-an-american-success-story/2011/12/16/gIQA4WbhyO_blog.html

By another Romney (and Huntsman!) donor, Ed Rogers.

So?

“Bain Capital represented capitalism at its best”:
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Mitt-Romney-Bain-Capital/2012/01/09/id/423495

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

By Ronald Kessler, another Romney donor.

Yes, he has very well-placed defenders.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Classic “ad hominem” fallacy.

In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Just saying.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Haha sorry. Perhaps I did get a tad carried away. However, Jim Cramer did call Romney the “best businessman in North America.”

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

You rely on Cramer…I will take Thomas Sowell…I think I may have the edge on experience, education, notoriety, success, integrity, and most any other besides TV ratings, but then Dancing with the Stars would beat either one of them I suppose.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Classic “ad hominem” fallacy.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Tell that to the “appeal to authority” schmuck in the other corner.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

…and since we’re talking about opinions, not facts, your Wiki research doesn’t even apply. You get an “F” for the day in Rhetoric.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

You rely on Cramer…I will take Thomas Sowell…I think I may have the edge on experience, education, notoriety, success, integrity, and most any other besides TV ratings, but then Dancing with the Stars would beat either one of them I suppose.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

That’s fine. I admire Thomas Sowell. I think he’s one of the brilliant minds of our time. He endorsed Newt, but he also said that:

“Mitt Romney’s boasts about what he did at Bain Capital are as irrelevant as Newt Gingrich’s demagogic attacks on Romney’s role there. Romney is not running to become head of Bain Capital.

While Gingrich backed away from his demagoguery about Bain Capital, Romney is continuing to press ahead with his charges that Gingrich was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. As someone who has been a consultant, but never a lobbyist, I know the difference.”

He criticizes both Romney and Newt here. I appreciate his intellectual honesty.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Romney has commented on the debt limit and Obamacare. I suppose you just see/hear what you want to see/hear.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Show me where he said anything on either of these topics while it was relevant; i.e., before the applicable vote. I’ll wait.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Selling off a manufacturing plant, than leasing it back to obtain cash, is what he did…and some of that cash went for his commission…sheesh, I get that you are a supporter, but don’t pretend you think that companies don’t sell of assets for cash, and lease back the sold assets. Even I with “zero” experience knows that.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Lease backs have been going on forever and are still going on today. They are one of the preferred ways to release capital to support restructuring efforts. And yes, typically unless you have the in-house expertise you will need to hire consultants to advise on how to structure the deal.

A brief search of HA would show that I’m hardly a Romney cheerleader. I’ve mocked him as a cult leader and an unprincipled RINO more than once.

It is highly likely the Democrats will paint Romney as a Gordon Gecko type figure. After all its a movie and it had Michael Douglas in it so it’s accessible.

But that story was written, directed, and acted out by ardent leftists (who made money out of asset stripping of course but then leftist hypocrisy really knows no bounds).

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I would only substitute “long-term liabilities” with “debt”, but otherwise thanks.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Liabilities only because consultants like Bain create liabilities other than debt.
Taking a company, not ready, to issue stock puts them at risk with the SEC, creating a long term (forever term) with the SEC…without the issuance of stock, than federal agencies, like the SEC, has much less interest.
Along with the SEC comes accountants, attorneys, brokers, etc. all liabilities to some companies…that is why I use liabilities and not the normal “debt”.
There is more than monetary debt that brings a company down.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Lease backs have been going on forever and are still going on today. They are one of the preferred ways to release capital to support restructuring efforts. And yes, typically unless you have the in-house expertise you will need to hire consultants to advise on how to structure the deal.

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

If it happened as you say, that the business would have to succeed for the raiders to get any return, tell me how Bain could earn a 20% return on a business that shut down for insolvency. Because that’s what happened in SC.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

…and that’s 20% annualized return. Put in $10mil, get out $22 mil 4 years later, company goes bust. Would it have gone bust if those millions had gone to strengthening the company? Who knows.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

…and since we’re talking about opinions, not facts,

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Oh, that clears it up.

You are not interested in facts, just opinions that happen to agree with yours.

Got it.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Show me where he said anything on either of these topics while it was relevant; i.e., before the applicable vote. I’ll wait.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I suppose you don’t remember Romney campaigning for Scott Brown so he could be the 41st vote against Obamacare?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

CorporatePiggy on April 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I guess I wasn’t clear…those are all acceptable practices in private business, of course they go on and have for years…but those practices have no value in running a government, or balancing a government balance sheet.
Thanks for clearing up that Gordon Gecko, I had no idea who you were talking about.
Sell and leasing back can be an effective way of releasing cash, short term…but it can be a burden also.
Especially if the “profits” are commissioned, it can prove to be more lucrative for people to sell than lease, if you are someone who works on a profit commission…it happens more with boards who give officers profit incentives, they sell off 100 mill of offsets, get their incentives, than bail on the company…that is not what Bain does or did.
But what they did, does not convert to being anything but a consultant for a private company…not a leader of the most powerful country in the world.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Santorum never stooped so low as to attack Romney’s time at Bain Capital,

It would be a nice change if Romney’s example was followed now. Why keep up the attacks on Newt? The man is beaten. Is it really necessary to keep kicking him?

never fueled the conservative opposition with misplaced attacks?

Forgive me, but wasn’t it Mr. Santorum who chose to attack Romney with that “stay with what we have instead of taking a risk” line?

lynncgb on April 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I suppose you don’t remember Romney campaigning for Scott Brown so he could be the 41st vote against Obamacare?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Did Brown actually cast that 41st vote? No, no he didn’t. And Scott Brown has been a terrible disappointment in every other area. Did Romney ever say anything against OCare before it passed? No, no he did not.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Did Brown actually cast that 41st vote? No, no he didn’t. And Scott Brown has been a terrible disappointment in every other area. Did Romney ever say anything against OCare before it passed? No, no he did not.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Lol that wasn’t the point. You asked if Romney took a stand about Obamacare before the vote and I was just providing an example of when he did. He said that we need to elect Obama so Brown could be the 41st vote against Obamacare.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:18 PM

He said that we need to elect Obama so Brown could be the 41st vote against Obamacare.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:18 PM

You do know that the “applicable vote” happened before the Brown campaign, yes? And read this if you want to know why he was so ineffectual about it. He can’t admit he did anything wrong, ergo he cannot really oppose OCare.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:23 PM

(Could it be that it counted with Romney that Santorum never stooped so low as to attack Romney’s time at Bain Capital, never fueled the conservative opposition with misplaced attacks?)

It could be, Tina. But obviously it didn’t count enough to have avoided making the ad in the first place. I’m glad he’s pulling it, since kicking a man while he’s down is scummy, but why kick at all if you have positive ads about yourself?

He needs to keep giving us reasons to vote for him, not vote against Santorum, Gingrich, or Obama. And that goes for all the candidates that are left, and those that have fallen by the wayside who started slitting each other’s throats far too early while still tip-toeing around Obama.

Get well soon, Bella.

DrAllecon on April 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You do know that the “applicable vote” happened before the Brown campaign, yes? And read this if you want to know why he was so ineffectual about it. He can’t admit he did anything wrong, ergo he cannot really oppose OCare.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Think about what the beginning of this conversation was about and think about how different it is now. You put a charge out there, I refute it, and you change the subject. I sense a pattern.

Like I said earlier, I understand that Romney can do nothing right in your eyes. That’s fine. You go ahead and vote for Obama or a third party.

This site is going to be pro-Romney for the new few months, considering he’s the presumptive nominee. I’m sure that’ll be quite annoying for you. Sorry in advance.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM

You strip down failing enterprises, restructure the companies which comes at the expense of jobs sometimes, with the hope that the companies will be able to become more financially solvent.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Now apply that principle to the US.

What would be stripped down, restructured (how do you lay off citizens?), and sold off?

Mitt layed off employees to reduce labor costs. How do you layoff citizens to reduce entitlement and other government costs?

Do you think Mitt might try to sell off California to raise some cash? How about selling stock in Vermont, using an LBO financed with long-term debt?

Show me how Romney has operated and grown a business, like Jack Welch or Bill Gates.

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You put a charge out there, I refute it, and you change the subject.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM

nonsense. We are still talking about the same subject. You just want to cast ad hominems to make me go away. Just like your candidate, you will fail.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Bob, I never claimed that the U.S. should be run as a business. I was defending Romney from Newt’s anti-Bain ads, and why people who didn’t even support Romney condemned Newt for the attacks.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

nonsense. We are still talking about the same subject. You just want to cast ad hominems to make me go away. Just like your candidate, you will fail.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

We’re clearly not. Saying that you like changing subjects, when that’s clearly the case, is not ad hominem. It’s fact.

Will my candidate fail? Perhaps. Unfortunately, I don’t have the ability to prognosticate. We do know one thing for sure though: your candidate has failed. By your logic, I guess you have already failed?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Let me add…there is no, absolutely none, correlation between making millions as a businessman, and being a great political leader.
They use totally different skill sets…
Carter was a good businessman, Kennedy, Forbes, Perot, Rockefeller…

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM


Say it often and loud, because some people are very hard of hearing.

There is no correlation between business success and political success, and no correlation between intellectual accomplishment and political accomplishment.

Obviously you want a president who’s smart, and you want a president with a track record of success. But it doesn’t follow from the first that you want a president with an advanced degree, and it doesn’t follow from the second that you want a successful businessman.

There’s absolutely no reason to believe that a successful businessman is a great candidate for president. That’s wishful thinking at best.

didymus on April 9, 2012 at 4:51 PM

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Have you figured out the timeline of late December/mid January yet?

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Have you figured out the timeline of late December/mid January yet?

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Depends. Have you figured out not to move the goalposts?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Saying that you like changing subjects, when that’s clearly the case, is not ad hominem.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Wow, you just can’t stop, can you? First you say I change subjects, now it’s I “like” to change subjects. Next it will be “I engage in a deliberate campaign to change the subject”. That’s how smears work, you know. Like a big game of telephone.

Conversations travel. I think we’ve gotten as far as we’re going to get WRT I think Bain is a blotch on Mitt’s record and you don’t. Your defense of Mitt is as uninspired as he is.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Depends. Have you figured out not to move the goalposts?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I don’t know what “goalposts” you refer to. Mitt did not come out against ObamaCare until it was too late to make a difference. Prove me wrong.

Newt’s attacks on Bain were proper but countered with Mitt’s noise machine and Newt was not organized or funded enough to effectively counterattack. We disagree on whether they were proper. The rest is history.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Wow, you just can’t stop, can you? First you say I change subjects, now it’s I “like” to change subjects. Next it will be “I engage in a deliberate campaign to change the subject”. That’s how smears work, you know. Like a big game of telephone.

Believe it or not, when people change subjects, it’s often because they like to. Understandably, they go hand-in-hand.

Conversations travel. I think we’ve gotten as far as we’re going to get WRT I think Bain is a blotch on Mitt’s record and you don’t. Your defense of Mitt is as uninspired as he is.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Your attack on Bain Capital is not too unlike your candidate: ineffectual.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Newt’s attacks on Bain were proper but countered with Mitt’s noise machine and Newt was not organized or funded enough to effectively counterattack. We disagree on whether they were proper. The rest is history.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM

So Newt is allowed to attack Bain, but “Mitt’s noise machine” isn’t supposed to counter? Not only did it counter, but it did a more much effective job than Newt ever did with his attacks, which is why the plurality of Republican voters sided with Romney, even when Romney wasn’t polling that high.

You’re right…Newt was not organized or funded enough to effectively counterattack, and I’m supposed to believe that he would be able to face Obama, who’s going to have a lot more money to work with than Romney?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Your attack on Bain Capital is not too unlike your candidate: ineffectual.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

We’ll see. I think Obama is going to get a lot of mileage out of similar criticisms. And the test will be in November.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

So Newt is allowed to attack Bain, but “Mitt’s noise machine” isn’t supposed to counter?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM

You have a major problem with timelines, don’t you? Mitt attacked long before Gingrich attempted to slug back with Bain. Look it up.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Newt was not organized or funded enough to effectively counterattack, and I’m supposed to believe that he would be able to face Obama, who’s going to have a lot more money to work with than Romney?

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Have I asked you to vote for Newt? You’re the one changing the subject now.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

You have a major problem with timelines, don’t you? Mitt attacked long before Gingrich attempted to slug back with Bain. Look it up.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Right. I never disputed that Romney started attacking first. That’s the point of a primary: to properly vet the candidates. The only difference is that Romney’s attacks weren’t seen as anti-conservative, whereas Newt’s attacks on Bain were.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Have I asked you to vote for Newt? You’re the one changing the subject now.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I never claimed that you did. I just found it interesting that you think the fact that the organization and the fundraising of Romney’s “noise machine” is a bad thing, whereas Newt’s lack of judgment (his sudden realization that he didn’t have the organization or funds to compete with Romney’s “noise machine”) isn’t a liability if you’re asking to become the next President.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Now apply that principle to the US GOVERNMENT.

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 5:13 PM

You just want to cast ad hominems to make me go away.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Oh, the IRONY!!!!

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 5:14 PM

The way to be classy is to relentlessly attack your opponent with dirt and slime filled with primarily lies and distortions to go along with the tiny bit of truth required to make it effective and then when things look bad for your opponent to drop the negative ads.

I dunno, the classy thing would be to put honest positive self promoting ads on the air, and then you do not have to worry about looking to a complete jerk by running them, even when your opponent has a family crisis.

Real CLASSY

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM

We’ll see. I think Obama is going to get a lot of mileage out of similar criticisms.

It’s possible. But like I said, I expect those kind of charges from the Obama campaign and liberals. Capitalism is an anathema to them. I don’t think too many conservatives expected that from Newt.

And the test will be in November.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM

We can agree on that much.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The way to be classy is to relentlessly attack your opponent with dirt and slime filled with primarily lies and distortions to go along with the tiny bit of truth required to make it effective . . .

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You are describing Richard Santorum perfectly.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM

The only difference is that Romney’s attacks weren’t seen as anti-conservative, whereas Newt’s attacks on Bain were.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM

…because Mitt had people in place to make it sound that way.

I just found it interesting that you think the fact that the organization and the fundraising of Romney’s “noise machine” is a bad thing

No, organization is never a bad thing. Newt’s loss can be directly attributable to his lack thereof. My objection is substantive, not procedural: Attacking Bain is not Attacking Capitalism, no matter what the machine spins.

whereas Newt’s lack of judgment (his sudden realization that he didn’t have the organization or funds to compete with Romney’s “noise machine”) isn’t a liability if you’re asking to become the next President.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM

He lacked organization, not judgment. It is possible to win a campaign without organization of you have a lot of people willing to pick up the slack. In this campaign those folks were bloggers, and the bloggers decided to back first Perry than Santorum. That does not mean Newt had bad judgment. It means things didn’t ultimately work out.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You are describing Richard Santorum perfectly.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Really? Is that a joke? I did not catch a slight bit of sarcasm in your typeset. Where are you? Certainly not in the universe that the rest of us are in…

(Could it be that it counted with Romney that Santorum never stooped so low as to attack Romney’s time at Bain Capital, never fueled the conservative opposition with misplaced attacks?)

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I don’t think too many conservatives expected that from Newt.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:18 PM

They should have coped with it. The message is more important than the messenger. A GOP that is friendly to small business is a more popular GOP than one that only values big business.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM

…because Mitt had people in place to make it sound that way.

Hmm…I didn’t know Romney’s people had such an effect on Cain, Malkin, Morrissey, Santorum and Giuliani. That must be quite the machine he has.

No, organization is never a bad thing. Newt’s loss can be directly attributable to his lack thereof. My objection is substantive, not procedural: Attacking Bain is not Attacking Capitalism, no matter what the machine spins.

Thankfully for the Republican party, the plurality of primary voters disagree with you.

He lacked organization, not judgment. It is possible to win a campaign without organization of you have a lot of people willing to pick up the slack. In this campaign those folks were bloggers, and the bloggers decided to back first Perry than Santorum. That does not mean Newt had bad judgment. It means things didn’t ultimately work out.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Fair enough. It’s just as possible to attribute it to poor judgment, though and he’s admitted as much yesterday when he said that it was mistake for the campaign to try to match Romney, when they didn’t have the capacity to do so. That can be blamed on a lack of organization and poor judgment.

Santorum doesn’t have near the organization of Romney either, but he’s done much better than Newt, because he’s used better judgment.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Im in philly and all i’ve is these anti-santorum attack ads from romney. I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that they’ve been running all morning and they are still running… pretty frequently too.

Utica681 on April 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I wonder if his Super PAC decided not to pull their ads.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Some stations did not have to take them down after the directive from the Romney campaign. Props to Mitt for having some class.

Philly on April 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Guess that answers that.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Correction for an omission: The stations did not have time to take them down by the time the Romney campaign asked for them to be suspended. Sorry about that. Haste makes waste.

Philly on April 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM

They should have coped with it. The message is more important than the messenger. A GOP that is friendly to small business is a more popular GOP than one that only values big business.

alwaysfiredup on April 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The message is indeed more important than the messenger. Unfortunately for Newt, the voters seemed to agree more with Romney’s message than Newt’s.

GOPRanknFile on April 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Aren’t those poster weird who run around highlighting what they want, changing other posters words…as if they can’t come up with something themselves.
They remind of the kids on the side of a sandlot game, wanting to get in, but never invited, so they whine and pick apart the people competing…never understanding that they are there for a reason.

right2bright on April 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM

You are describing Richard Santorum perfectly.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Really? Is that a joke?

Yes, really. No joke.

I did not catch a slight bit of sarcasm in your typeset.

Good, because none was intended.

Where are you?

Realville! You should come and visit sometime. Perhaps even stay.

Certainly not in the universe that the rest of us are in…

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The ABRtard universe is a crappy place to live.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The ABRtard universe is a crappy place to live.

Gunlock Bill on April 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Yeah right. Living in a Sketchy Liberal Wonderland is just so much better. /s

DannoJyd on April 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

REED: Bain coverage won’t be Romney’s ‘Swift Boat’
Liberal press tried to ignore revelations about Kerry’s distorted war accounts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/20/bain-coverage-wont-be-romneys-swift-boat/

Audio: Limbaugh hits Gingrich for Bain attacks [ plus Ron Paul to the rescue ]
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/10/audio-limbaugh-hits-gingrich-for-bain-attacks/

Newt Gingrich Is Taking His Talking Points From The British Labour Party
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/newt-gingrich-is-taking-his-talking-points-from-th

Republicans rally behind Romney on Bain charges
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8081SI20120112

Capitalism Comes Under Fire in Republican Primary Campaign
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/capitalism-comes-under-fire-in-republican-primary-campaign-20120109

Pawlenty: Why are Republicans attacking capitalism?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/09/pawlenty-why-are-republicans-attacking-capitalism/

The 99 percent: Gingrich, Perry rip Romney for Bain work
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/09/the-99-percent-gingrich-perry-rip-romney-for-bain-work/

Save the blacksmiths! Why creative destruction is at the core of free-market capitalism
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/creative-destruction-is-at-the-core-of-free-market-capitalism/

And there’s a lot more where that comes from.

Face it, if you’re attacking Bain, you’re on the wrong side.

CanofSand on April 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Are we suppose to give Romney credit for pulling snarky ads that he should not have been running in the first place? Romney has spent tens of millions of dollars on negative, snarky attack ads, first and foremost against Newt and more recently against Santorum. And what do we see from Romney supporters? Complaints about the Bain ad that a former Romney aide did and that Newt ran for a relatively short period but then stopped to focus on a positive campaign based on his 21st Century Contract With America, which was Newt’s intent from the start before Romney spent millions on negative, snarky attack ads. In contrast, Romney has throughout the campaign run negative, snarky attack ads.

Phil Byler on April 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

As for Bain, criticizing private equity firms is not necessarily attacking capitalism. Debt-leveraging companies for purchase is not an essential feature of capitalism and can have effects that may be exploited by the Left. Making that criticism may not work in the GOP, but the general electorate may be a different thing. The whole issue came up because Romney touted his private sector experience. But that experience was as a money guy, not as a day-to-day operations executive like Dick Cheney at Halliburton or Don Rumsfeld at Searle. I look to Romney’s performance as Massachusetts Govenor as a more relevant guide when Romney increased spending, oversaw Massachusetts being 47th in the country in job growth and championed RomneyCare.

Phil Byler on April 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2