Conservative Leaders Condemn Attacks on Romney, Bain Capital
Several days after the New Hampshire primary, conservative leaders are still seething about the three Republican presidential candidates who alleged presidential front-runner and former businessman Mitt Romney made profits by destroying companies and laying off workers. The political attacks against Romney were led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose super PAC has produced a 27-minute video about the former Massachusetts governor and his investment firm Bain Capital. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman joined Gingrich in the line of attack.
Following the New Hampshire primary, PJ Media conducted a series of discussions with national conservative and libertarian leaders. Their comments shed light on the troubled campaigns of Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman as they head to South Carolina.
PJ Media contacted free market leaders who have remained neutral in the presidential race, have not endorsed any candidate, or are leaders of non-partisan organizations. While many expressed some misgivings about Romney, they also expressed universal condemnation for the three Republicans who are trying to unseat Romney from his front-runner status.
David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, told PJ Media:
Interestingly enough, they may be making free-marketers more sympathetic to Mitt Romney, who is not their favorite candidate.
Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, told PJ Media the attacks on Romney for making money were “bizarre” and “destructive.” He said all three candidates ought to apologize to Romney:
In the heat of passion, in a campaign, people say and do things that they regret. I hope the people who have engaged in this will apologize for it and move on.
The consensus is that the three have tarnished their bona fides as Reagan Republicans, an important turn as the presidential race turns from liberal New England to conservative South Carolina.
On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, Gingrich said he was the only true conservative in the race. He told his supporters he was a conservative in the mold of Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Yet all of the conservative leaders contacted by PJ Media scoffed at this. Said Norquist:
I think if you’re a Reagan Republican you don’t attack people for investing, taking risks in the free market. … That’s the kind of thing we expect to hear from Obama. It’s not something we expect to hear from Republicans.
Tim Phillips, president of free market activist group Americans for Prosperity, agreed:
Are they Reagan conservatives? I got to tell you, they are not talking and sounding like a Reagan conservative. That’s not what a Reagan conservative would say.
Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he was shocked by the candidates’ behavior:
I’m never shocked when you hear anything from Newt Gingrich’s mouth. … I was shocked when I heard it out of Huntsman’s mouth. And I was surprised when it came out of Perry’s mouth.
Cato’s Boaz:
When you think about Gingrich bragging about how he’s a Reagan conservative and he worked with Ronald Reagan, I try to imagine Ronald Reagan making a criticism like this of an opponent. … Criticizing a political opponent for having made money in business, that is something you would not expect Ronald Reagan to do.
Gingrich’s super PAC “Winning Our Future” has produced a 27-minute documentary on Romney and Bain Capital. The documentary has not been released but a brief trailer hosted on the PAC’s web site accuses Romney of callous greed, of trying to make a quick buck as a “corporate raider,” and of being “more ruthless than Wall Street.” So far Gingrich appears unrepentant, although he confessed to CBS News he cannot “talk rationally” about Romney and his investment firm. Gingrich limped out of New Hampshire with only single digits of support, but vowed to continue his attacks on Romney for his leadership at Bain Capital and promised South Carolina would be the “Armageddon of all attacks.”
Thursday, Governor Perry omitted his charge from a speech in South Carolina that Romney and Bain were “vulture capitalists,” but ABC News reports he continued the venomous line in interviews. On the night of the New Hampshire primary, the Texas governor vowed to go to a number of South Carolina cities where Bain invested in companies that eventually closed down or laid off workers. Earlier in the week, he said Bain and Romney “looted” a photo company in Gaffney, S.C., and a steel company in Georgetown, S.C. Perry declared:
I would suggest they are just vultures. … They are vultures that are sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick, then they swoop in, they eat the carcass, they leave with that and they leave the skeleton.
Perry’s stance is taking a toll on the Texas governor. Investment fund manager Barry Wynn, a major donor, said he was withdrawing his financial support for Perry and supporting Romney.
What bugs me about those conservatives condemning those who criticize Romney about this (e.g. Gingrich) as “anti-capitalist,” is that these same folks are indirectly suggesting that a parlour discussion about Schumpeter (or his “creative destruction”) will persuade voters more than addressing their – ahem – more immediate concerns.
Naive. Suicidal.
Helloooo, kiddies, we’re talking about an election here. Real voters. Who eat. Hellooooo?!? *sigh*
*sigh* how do you think people get the resources to eat?
THAT’S supposed to persuade voters? On what planet?!
Voters who understand, even if only intuitively, how business works. If Romney wasn’t already a lock he certainly is now.
Not to mention that the Market Ticker, which is a very pro-free market site, has roasted these so-called conservatives for defending Romney since the business model of companies like Bain is basically pump-and-dump.
The damage has been done. Mitt Romney says raising questions about his record at Bain—which includes benefiting from federal bailouts and earning huge profits by bankrupting companies—is akin to attacking the free enterprise system itself. The reality is is that the policies he supports have nothing to do with free enterprise. Mitt Romney represents everything that is wrong with America. Romney and his ilk are practitioners of crony conservative capitalism. They privatize profit and socialize their losses. They are part of a tight knit little club and they don’t want any new members.
What bailouts? Also, remember that Romney hasn’t been at Bain Capital for the last 12 years. The rub is that moving capital from a failing enterprise to a better use of the capital is the only way that capital won’t be wasted. Try to get past your tribal instincts on this. It is the way things work in economies that include more than 50 or so people.
Way past Tribal Instincts here. Only Constitution American Freedom Instincts. Romney is tribal. $, likes to fire underlings, belongs to cult that rejects Jesus Christ as the Son of God. He is lucky to be in the USA and allowed to do his cult dance, but got way out of the circle with his greed and disrespect for the founding of our country… on Christian principles, NOT on Mr. Smith’s principles of polygamy etc. O won’t be run again by his commie controllers because Americans didn’t fade and leave him alone in his illegibility and lies, and they don’t want to be caught… so they latched on to Herman Munster who will obey, has no reason not to obey, and the commie controllers think they can shoe in HoimanMunster just like they did O. Go back to your Mansion, Hoiman, stop the demolition because you won’t need to build a palace over it as your Presidential Library. Go chant somewhere else, we won’t buy it.
I can see that you are way past your tribal instincts. sheesh.
Please describe how making long term investments and using your own management skills is pump-and-dump. I’ll help you out. It isn’t. Read about the actual Bain Capital and not the picture the MSM paints.
Forget Libertarians. They are every bit as fantasy-utopia driven as Leftists. Humans live in societies — all humans; everywhere; at every time in history. Societies impose mutual duties and mutual rights on members. Unless you are a solitary survivalist somewhere in wilderness Idaho, you will live in some type of social organization, with obligations to other members. ‘Capitalism’ is a term created by leftists 150 years ago, but it is not a synonym for economic freedom, as discussed by the classical economists. It has become a term referring to speculation, as opposed to investment. It refers to those who make money on manipulating markets, or making money on money, not on production. Do you beleive for one nano-second that Adam Smith would have approved of credit-default swaps (whatever they are)? No way, Jose. The classical economists did not condone cornering markets nor establishing monopolies. Not many societies are gonna tolerate the enrichment of some at the expense of others, without the obvious trade-offs of voluntary buying/selling, lending/borrowing.
Please learn something about Libertarians before deciding to comment on them. Instead of wasting time refuting each point let’s just say that you have nothing correct. Also, before you decide that Libertarians are really anarchists you should study about the basis of true anarchy too. These are much preferable ways to organize society than anything we are doing now. Go ahead. Study the real deal and not what you assume or have made up in your head.
If Libertarians understand the real deal better than the rest of us, why haven’t we all aquiessed to their enlightened insights? They ARE just like leftists, spewing ideology that sounds real good until you look down at all the potholes in the pathways they will take you down.
The major pothole is that the entire philosophy is predicated on the assumption that ALL the players are honest and will always do the right thing. Obviously that isn’t true- there are always a few who will try to game the system and that’s all it takes to bring the whole thing crashing down. That’s also the fatal flaw of the “laissez faire” approach to the markets, which the latest market meltdown so amply illustrated.
FROM: Legal Insurrection
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/starting-to-count-the-price-of-defending-bain/
Romney likens work at Bain Capital to Obama’s auto industry bailout
“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business,” Romney said Wednesday on CBS.
President Obama has publicly touted his plan to “retool and restructure” the auto companies as “an investment in American workers.” Romney was strongly opposed to the auto bailouts, but on Wednesday likened the president’s strategy to his own.
“We also had the occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business,” he said.
So in order to defend his record at Bain, Romney is forced to defend the government takeover of GM and Chrysler and the process by which the companies were downsized.
Let me preview Obama’s argument in defense of how he “rescued” the auto industry:
Why, Mitt said just the other day that what we did with GM and Chrysler was no different than what he did at Bain. But it was different. Mitt got rich off of it, I didn’t.
*****
You don’t have to love Gingrich, but he is the only one of the bunch wily enough to confront and defeat Obama.
All Romney has to do is say to the voters:
“I invested my own money–and if the venture failed, I took the loss. The taxpayers didn’t lose money. Whereas Obama invested YOUR money–and you taxpayers take the loss.”
That is factually untrue. Romney’s companies received federal bailout money. He privatized the profit and socialized the losses. Those socialized losses were made possible with your tax dollar. Time to wake up. Romney does not represent capitalism in the Adam Smith sense. His brand of capitalism is the crony conservative vulture capitalism.
Again, what bailout?
Gingrich and Perry defenders have gone off the reservation.
The arguments supporting the attack on THE FREE MARKET is not resonating or having any positive effect on their campaigns. It is tone deaf.
To suggest that everyone else (Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Kevin Williamson)…don’t “get it” but THEY do…is myopic and utterly foolish.
They are pissed at Romney (most, not all…never liked him one whit to begin with)…and offer up thin gruel in support of an unsupportable tactic.
Painting BAIN as the “bad guy”…as Hollywood would paint “Larry the Liquidator)…is an asinine, low rent, cheap, dirty, below the belt, scorched earth shot that only a fanatic or an imbecile who doesn’t understand the free market could support.
But, but, but ….Mitt started it!
No excuse. Gingrich has once again shown himself to be erratic and unreliable. And Perry is simply a dunderhead. Add in Huntsman and you get the march of the sellout brigade.
This attack is clanging off the ears of the base that needs its warriors to be carrying the banner AGAINST the small c communists intent on slandering capitalism and tearing it apart. How does this crap help THAT mission?
Gingrich, Huntsman and Perry assaulting capitalism for cheap theater and smarmy playground insults is, sadly…typical of this whole primary season.
Watching “B” teamers handle the most important issues of the day, in fact, quite likely of our lifetime has been a cringe-worthy spectacle…damaging the Republican brand, the salvation of capitalism, the honor of the free market…and the necessity of a strong military, homeland and border security and virtually every issue near and dear to the hearts of people who care about this country.
Frankly, it has been a clown car crackup.
A weak, vacillating, milquetoast, marginal “frontrunner”.
A lunatic, gut the military, newsletter writing, paper-hanging goosestepper who wants a sieve for Israel’s borders…and our own. He attacks Republicans from the left.
A guy who speaks Chinese at his press conferences and thinks the global warming hoax is just swell. He attacks Republicans from the left.
A guy who debates like a stroke victim on Quaaludes, says we have no heart if we don’t love border crashers as much as he does and calls capitalists vultures if they fire anyone or reduce expenses, must be having a flashback to the Al Gore days. He attacks Republicans from the left.
And then there’s the guy who got up off of Nancy Pelosi’s couch (and a few of his secretary’s as well) and stopped shilling for the global warming hoax and Freddie Mac long enough to lob some bombs at Paul Ryan…and now at the free market…and THIS is the guy we should respect and trust his stability and judgment? He attacked Paul Ryan…FROM THE LEFT. “Right wing social engineering” is not a slogan of a “Reagan Conservative”.
How does that UNPROVOKED attack square with this mewling, puking “Mitt deserved it, what do you want him to do?” excuse?
It’s an out of control, irrational tantrum that scores almost no hit on Romney but riddles the pro-capitalism banner full of bullets. In a time and at a place in history when capitalism is under full assault…and needs every warrior to be extra-vigilant in its defense…it gets slimed by “B” team unworthies…and their idiot base of fanatics.
The sane are watching in horror and cringing…voting “None of the above” with every fiber of their being. Please….please…get these undignified, self-absorbed, unqualified, uninspiring, slobbering fools off the stage.
It has been a dismal, disheartening spectacle. Our best and our brightest are on the bench. And, this circular firing squad hasn’t landed a glove on the small c communists. They have done a fine job of attacking capitalism, the free market, the military, border control, …whose side are they on again?
And every defense of them gets more lame by the minute.
Brokered convention…or broken nation. What a sad choice.
Please…get these clowns off the field. We need someone who actually believes in the system enough to save it…and not their crippled fantasies of vanity and self-glory. For the sake of saving the nation…stop them before they destroy us.
Kudos to you for this tweet-worthy post, CFB. *applause*
You just declared, vehemently, that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have attacked capitalism and free markets.
You’ll believe anything the conservative msm tells you cf.
Next you will be arguing that they are small c communists.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
I know you are able to read FA Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” and the first chapter should give you a satisfactory answer. Hint: It has to do with the difference between things that sound right versus things that work. Politically, Romney is in a tough sell position, but his position is the right one for any large country. The alternative will be Communism with a great big capital C.
So now we consider ones questioning another man’s business ethics to be a slandering of capitalism. You have a tiger by the tail proreason. Good for you.
Unlike the radical left we should be unafraid to shine the light of intelligent debate on each other.Your priciples and courage are intact and serving you well.
And unlike the radical left, we should also be able to recognize our mistakes. There is no tiger and there is no tail here, only the tale of a tiger. Once again, what bailout?
Proreason, you are so right. I am normally a big fan of the Wall Street Journal, but somewhere along the way they have imbibed an overdose of Romney Kool-Aid. James Freeman’s piece on Santorum this morning says “attacks on free markets may disqualify Messrs. Gingrich and Perry in the minds of many Republican voters.” What attacks on free markets? They are only saying that it might not be a good idea for the head of the Republican ticket to be a person who will forever be identified (c’mon, admit it, not so farfetchedly) with Gordon Gekko. You sophisticates out there may be able to explain the difference between venture capitalists and corporate raiders, but, face it, anyone without an MBA in finance will not. If you think what Newt is coming up with (his “battering ram”: Peggy Noonan) is rough, just wait ’till Bambi’s Boys get their sleeves rolled up. Few people could correctly explain in 3 minutes or less what happened to bring our financial system to its knees. But everyone knows it has something to do with sharpies like Mitt doing financial engineering that makes them very nervous. And THIS will be the Republican’s brand? Do we want as president someone who looks, smells, and acts like the guys who hurt our country so badly? Far from “damaging himself” (Noonan), Newt may be doing the Republicans a favor while there is still (a little) time to rethink….
I have been in business before. I have faced choices about how to make money. All legal, but not all personally morally comfortable. The patriotic conservative bell ringing in defense of CAPITALISM and the FREE MARKET is heartening and exciting! Problem is, Gingrich is not attacking those things. I’ll say this quietly and hope not to be stoned… he is doing us a favor. If you watch the video that his PAC bought the rights to, you’ll get a glimpse, a preview of how Obama and the press will KILL Romney in the general election.
I love the free market. But even I know that there are ways … and then there are ways to make money. Watch the video. Read the article below. And remember clearly that Republicans (and Democrats) cannot win without the Independent (and the young) vote. Gingrich is doing a *tiny* bit of what the Obama machine will do to Romney. OWS was a prelude of how-to-destroy the “corporate greed looter” Romney.
I love business. I love capitalism. I’m a devoted fan of the free market. And yet I would not have done these things Romney did. If it disturbs me, what will it do to independents and younger voters?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287707/battle-bain-capital-michael-walsh
Sorry MtcCougar, if you question Mitt Romney’s business practices, you are attacking capitalism.
All the pundits have declared it to be so, so your opinion matters not. Don’t you know enough not to dissent once the ruling class has spoken?
All Mitt will have to say if he gets the nomination, in the extremely unlikely case that the dems ask any questions about Bain Capital, is that they are attacking capitalism. Then the country will vote overwhelmingly for him.
(smile) well said. tongue-in-cheek firmly, I presume. are there more out there? I’m getting disheartened.
There is only one God, and His name is not Capitalism. Human slavery is a form of capitalism, so is drug-running. The question is not whether capitalism is good or bad – it is both. The question is how did a man make his money? And once made what did he do with it? And does that make him more or less qualified to hold the office of the presidency? You cannot say that if the United States government is hopelessly laden with debt and so inefficient, then we can sell off all its assets, fire all its people, close it down or sell what’s left to some other country and pat ourselves on the back for making money on an act of creative destruction. The presidency requires a very different set of skills and character traits. So what does Bain have to do with that?
And now, predictably…we hear from the Paul Krugman wing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/krugman-america-isnt-a-corporation.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Like I said, tanstaafl….it’s back to the re-education camps with you. Our hopey, dopey, changey, imbeciles love to hit at capitalism just like their small c communists taught ‘em in the indoctrination factories and in their propaganda machine. Just peachy.
Well, you know, we might end up losing our country this time because suddenly I discover that even most of the people on PJM have bought into the collectivist story line already. It is depressing, all right.
Sorry guys, this is not about capitalism, it’s about a man. So go ahead and vote for Mitt, and find out what Obama has planned for the rest of your lives. One thing defines Romney for me: he has changed his “convictions” every time it was convenient to do so. His insincerety is obvious to anybody who has been around the block. So take a walk and get wise. And btw, I have voted a straight Republican ticket for 30 years.
“suddenly I discover that even most of the people on PJM have bought into the collectivist story line already. It is depressing, all right.”
suddenly I discover that even most of the people on PJM has bought into the cynical RoveRomeny con to get the most liberal republican politician in the past 100 years nominated as the Republican candidate. It is depressing, all right
I wouldn’t be a pundit on this subject until I knew what the hell I was talking about, proreason. They 27 minute video was so full of lies and distortions that its authors are admitting errors and gleefully asking Romney to tell them what the facts really are. The questions should be asked about the ethics used by its producers? If Bain Capital was unethical, back when Clinton was President and Romney actually worked for them, why was this not an issue then?
All the major competitors have now accumulated long lists of why they are either undependable, too radical or elderly, have voted with the Democrats, have promoted bills or causes that harm liberty, have a strong anger reaction, can’t think on their feet, or otherwise conflict with what they say they stand for. Not a very good picture for the strong conservative we need to unite the Republican Party and defeat the Socialist-in-Chief. Of course, the party elite have to recognize we are in a new era, and the same old stuff doesn’t work.
There is plenty of time to reevaluate Jon Huntsman and what he stands for, could do, and can be relied on to accomplish.
Whatever the final decision may be, ALL of the candidates must come out in strong support for the winner, and even campaign for the winner. None of this selfish “I’ll run as an independent” stuff, or “I might vote for Obama if I’m not the winner” baloney that tells us all that the nation is not foremost in their priorities.
I think Gingrich is still outraged over what the Romney campaign did to him in Iowa. You know what? If Romney thought it was OK to smear Gingrich in Iowa, claiming that “It was just politcs,” then Gingrich has a right to smear Romney if he thinks it will get him votes in South Carolina. And for all this whining about what it will do in the general election, forget about it. People are not going to remember any of these fights, even if Obama tries to bring them up. Do you seriously think Obama will bring up what Romney did at Bain Capital with PRIVATE money after what Obama and his friends did with PUBLIC money at Solyndra? Go ahead, Obama, try it. Make my day. No, there is plenty of material to hit Obama with on the economy. Nobody will remember these primaries come November.
Please read my post #2: OBoy could jujitsu the Bain thing to his own advantage.
But I fully agree that turnaround is fair play in a blood sport like politics. And Romney’s smear ad campaign does not even take into consideration the MSM (and some right wing lackeys/camp followers) pre-Coronation of Romney, which has been going on for months.
What bailout, Mr Ed?
The problem is that the TYPE of smearing that Gingrich and Perry are now engaging in, isn’t just smearing Romney.
It’s smearing free-market venture capitalism.
This is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Once this smearing is over, tell me how Gingrich and Perry can get back to defending the free market in the face of Obama’s left-wing attacks. Because what’s the alternative to venture capitalism? If a company like Staples can’t find venture capitalists like Bain to step in and restructure it and rescue it, the alternative is to go running to the state or Federal government for a bailout. Which is precisely what Obama is proud of doing.
You sound like the kind of “polite” Republican who will not use certain tactics to win, as it is “uncomely.” Fine. For LOSERS.
This is *not* smearing any kind of capitalism, it is smearing ROMNEY.
Look at Romney’s ads trashing Gingrich: one could have made the “greater/meta argument” that “Romney is attacking this or that fundamental aspect of America” as well…but gee…*funny* how we didn’t hear a peep out of anyone a few weeks ago about THAT.
It’s only a double standard when you don’t “intend” to do it, I guess…huh?
I agree – tit for tat. I found few pundits that would condemn Romney for those attack ads on Newt even though many of them were outright lies. Romney had the ‘firewall’ between him and his PACs to protect him from blame but we all know how those things work – pay no attention to the the man behind the screen.
Newt and Perry could have attacked Romney on any number of fronts that Republican voters would have little or no objection to – why they chose this particular tack is beyond reason. It does resonate with some portion of voters – the trouble is that portion is firmly in the left’s camp. Why isn’t OWS cheering?
“It’s smearing free-market venture capitalism.”
Cite just one reference in which Gingrich or Perry attack capitalism. As a matter of fact, they both go out of their way to say that they aren’t criticizing capitalism.
btw, do you have any issues with famous capitalist George Soros, sinz? How about the government takeover of GM…that was a form of capitalism as well. Any issues with insider trading? market manipulators? monopolistic practices? price collusion? punative tariffs? crony capitalism?
or does everybody who declares himself a capitalist get a free pass to do whatever they choose to do?
You have joined the lemming colony of the fools sucked in by Romney and the least ethical campaign in modern Republican history.
Mitt Romney’s record at Bain includes benefiting from federal bailouts. How does that fit into your “venture capitalist” paradigm?
What bailout was that?
I second the question, Mr. Cynical… How exactly was Bain bailed?
I can not believe what is happening in the Republican primaries. Yes, Romney started it by racking Gingrich over the coals in Iowa. He should have known better. Now the Newt goes to Romney’s throat in South Carolina. Perry is not ready for prime time, Huntsman is a light weight and Santorum, who is the only real conservative, has a big tendency to wine about everything. Watch and see, Obama is going to get re-elected by default. The only hope is for the Tea Party people to get active again and make sure that conservatives hold on to the House and regain the Senate. Notice I said conservatives, not Republicans. Brokered convention, darned right!
Well they sure made my decision process easy. Perry, Gingrich, and Huntsman will never, ever get a vote from me – even if one of these morons was to somehow win the GOP nomination. They have exposed themselves as anti-capitalist leftists.
It’s a two man race now.
I think the attacks on Romney will work to his and America’s advantage. America needs to have a debate on whether it is a capitalist or a socialist country. Romney’s success at Bain was phenomenal and on the whole extremely positive and beneficial. Romney is reserved in his use of language and cautious about using rhetorical bombs. This is to be expected from a man who is conservative by habit and temperament. Some mistakenly refer to Romney as being a Milquetoast however he will prove quite capable of defending himself and capitalism. Romney’s speech after his win in NH was very good. Who better to defend capitalism than someone who has excelled at capitalism.
Romney will compare his success against a president who thinks “the true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra”.
The implosion and newtering of the unprincipled Freddie Mac Gingrich and this further display of the uber unbrightness of Rick Perry are entirely predictable and very welcome.
Terry Gain,
I agree with your analysis. Perry infuriated me with his vulture attack. I had given him money and my support initially. I emailed his campaign and told them never to contact me again and take me off their supporters list.
Gingrich is a classic Republican progressive. He is a wolf in sheep skin. He is a vain and undisciplined individual who possesses a gift for oratory. That fooled people a month ago, but now the wake up phase has kicked in.
The Bain debate is a good thing for Romney. His history with the company needs to be aired and the sooner the better for him. I am not a fan of Romney, he is a moderate who will not rein in the federal government. If he is to be competitive with Obama he needs the Bain story exposed now and he needs to explain his role candidly. He probably has a good story to tell.
Gingrich and Perry will soon be history. They have exposed their desperation and it is ugly to the electorate.
My thoughts exactly. This is exactly the kind of campaign we want to run against Obama. A contrast between the community organizer who has destroyed America and the successful businessman who believes in free enterprise. Let the socialists attack him and he just has to say “you have to chose what kind of America you want. Do you want more of Obama’s failed policies or do you want America to return to it’s free enterprise system that made this country the best in the world.”.
The other thing is he’s thinking about the general. He doesn’t make a lot of bombastic pronouncements because they will be used against him in the end. Romney can’t be the target of “scary extremist” attack ads which would work on some independents/undecideds and soft democrats. He’s been running a front runner campaign, attacking threats as they come up through surrogates but not getting down into the fray. So in terms of strategy and tactics and organizing and raising money he has the goods.
“I think the attacks on Romney will work to his and America’s advantage. America needs to have a debate on whether it is a capitalist or a socialist country.”
Agreed. We must have this debate, and the sooner the better.
We certainly must distinguish between investing public vs private money. Romney absolutely must explain to the American people the dangers of merging big government with big business. If he can make the case concerning the future direction of this economy, he will certainly win my respect.
Those attacking Romney have shown themselves unworthy of serious consideration. We need only remember back to the mid-to-late ’90s to recall how much private investment went into Internet start-ups. Some succeeded brilliantly, the majority failed. You better believe risk was present for all concerned. Should further investment kept every start-up alive, regardless of chance of success? Should the government have stepped in and rescued those about to fail? Think back to that time of amazing success and frequent failure. If we remove risk from the equation, we smother innovation. Safe endeavors are generally not very daring or imaginative. Is this what we now want for our future, a softly cushioned environment with a government bureaucrat to make certain all is fair and free of risk?
I mention the Internet boom because it is a dramatic example of the risks and potential successes of private investment. How different, how much safer, if all had occurred within the regulated boundaries of a governmental bureaucracy doling out grants where only the politically well-connected would succeed. Is this what we now want?
“America needs to have a debate on whether it is a capitalist or a socialist country”
It would be useful to first define what these terms that many people casually toss around really mean. Mitt Romney does not practice or support capitalism in the Adam Smith sense. His is a brand of crony conservative vulture capitalism where losses are socialized (with our tax dollars) and profits are privatized. Romney belongs to an elite little club and they do not want you or me as a member. So, yes America needs to have a debate on what sort of country we are and want to be. However, I think you need to understand the terms “capitalist” and “socialist” better before you use them.
It would be useful to first define what these terms that many people casually toss around really mean. Mitt Romney does not practice or support capitalism in the Adam Smith sense. His is a brand of crony conservative vulture capitalism where losses are socialized (with our tax dollars) and profits are privatized. Romney belongs to an elite little club and they do not want you or me as a member. So, yes America needs to have a debate on what sort of country we are and want to be. However, I think you need to understand the terms “capitalist” and “socialist” better before you use them
I reject your assertion that Romney was not engaged in capitalism on the basis that it’s simply not true. As for the accusation of crony capitalism, as I understand it, in the case of GS Technologies, Romney did negotiate a reduction of 10 million dollars in Bain’s debt. This was after Romney pressured Bill Bain and other principals to repay $100 million because of the debt they had run up when Romney was not even working for Bain. Describing this as crony capitalism may fairly be described as deranged or dishonest.
Maybe someone needs to write about the difference between capitalism and corporatism. Everyone seems to be confusing the two. Corporatism is rightly associated with fascism. In 2008, someone said that we had the choice between a fascist and a communist. Both McCain and Obama were left of center. That is the choice once again. And, those who carry the water for Corporatist Republicans, think El Fatbo, are outraged that someone should question Romney’s strong corporatist bona fides. Except, they substitute the word capitalist for corporatist.
On the John Batchelor Show last night, Batchelor being a very McCain/Romney type of Republican, Batchelor was very upset when a guest pointed out that venture “capitalists” take very little risk and the share holders and the employees typically suffer if they are not able to “save” the company. Corparatist venture “capitalists” get their money first and the Devil take the hindmost.
Remember, I have said that I would not vote for Romney or Paul if either is the Republican candidate.
You are very mistaken if this is what you believe. Go read up on how finance works and what venture capitalists do. Actually it’d be wise to look up in the dictionary what “venture” means first because that will give you a clue about what their purpose is. Venture capitalists are essentially the engine of free market enterprise and small business.
Look up what the word liberal means in the dictionary. Look up what the word progressive means in the dictionary. Oh, the left has rewritten the dictionary. Try reading Liberal Fascism. It was the communists who labeled the fascists right wing. I don’t play that game.
Nobody has critized the form of VC’s in which one business invests in other businesses that are in an early stage of their life cycle.
The charge against Romney is that Bain and he took advantage of mature but struggling companies to transfer hundreds of millions in assets from the stuggling businesses to themselves. And there is little question that Bain did enact some asset transferes, because some of the target businesses went bankrupt after Bain’s involvement.
The issue is whether Bain simply plundered the businesses rather than using other means to turn the businesses around.
But even if Bain and Romney were honorable in all of their dealings, the fact that people were laid off even though some thought the businesses could survive with different forms of rejuvination is inevitably going to be a major issue in the general election if Romney’s deceiptful campaign wins him the nomination.
And there is very little doubt that many Americans are going to have a hard time bringing themselves to vote for somebody who was a principle in a form of business that they find repugnant, even though the form of business is legal and arguably beneficial. It’s hard enough for a businessman to get elected under the best of circumstances. Romney’s form of business is not going to be an asset in the general election. If it can be credibly shown that he was ruthless in some of the transactions, he won’t have a chance.
You do realise Romney will be running against a radical socialist community organizer who has destroyed the American economy right? Against that backdrop his experience at turning companies around and yes sometimes failing at it will be seen as a god damn asset.
Let’s review the “true conservative’s” case against Bain capital shall we? So the main narrative in this attack here is that Bain capital, that evil venture capitalist firm buys comapanies strips them bare and sells them off. Please explain to me how this could be a profitable and viable way to conduct business.
In order for this to be viable you would need to purchase the business for less than the value of it’s assets. The charge that Bain would buy businesses, have them take out loans and then strip them bare is ridiculus too because you wouldn’t be able to buy such a company for less than the amount of debt you could take out on them and you’d gain nothing from doing so. No, the truth is Bain would buy companies in trouble and try to turn them around and sometimes that failed. Romney has an exceptional record at turning companies around which is *exactly* the kind of skillset needed to turn America around.
So, why did Romney call it creative destruction?
I think there is some merit in the argument that a person experienced at turning businesses around could argue successfully that he would be better at turning the economy around than somebody with no experience at similar activities and an awful track record. It’s not a slam dunk, but it will appeal to some people.
But your argument that all private equity firms are virtuous because they can’t operate if they aren’t virtuous doesn’t wash. We all know that businesses make money in lots of ways that aren’t economically sound. From a totally different field, Enron is an example.
As I have said, one of the issues is whether Bain went too far in the transactions that have been challenged. Personlly, I hope Bain is innocent of the charges. Fortune magazine looked into some and says that the transactions were ethical or that Romney wasn’t even involved.
But I can’t see anything wrong with asking Romney to explain any transaction that has been challenged.
And I think it is highly unlikely that American voters will do the knee jerk that has happened in conservative circles to refuse to even consider that a company that engages in a form of business that is widely thought to be unethical is as pure as the driven snow.
Conservatives are extremely unwise to accept the RoveRomney deflection that has conned so many conservatives.
From a post over at iOwnTheWorld: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=113963
“Allow me to explain the issue Obama will use to tear this nation apart, and I see as the greatest risk to our “republic”.
More specifically, how Mitt Romney is the one person who can do nothing about it. It’s not Obamacare. It’s worse.
President Obama is apt, nay skillful, in the use of fear and division to create alignments within his coalitions: Big Labor, Minorities, etc. and the one fear that drives an emotional reaction is the fear of losing financial security.
There is a massive unsustainable obligation of Public Sector Pensions in almost every state, and indeed within the vast majority of AFSCME employees the fear of deconstructed or renegotiated pension entitlements is a looming issue. In almost every state like California, Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, New York, etc. the fiscal issues of unsustainable obligations will require public workers to accept diminished benefits. Unless the federal government steps in.
I have stated unequivocally this will be the end of the Republic as we know it. When one fiscally prudent state is required to bail out the unsustainable obligations of another state by federal intervention through a taxpayer subsidy the republic will have collapsed and one looming federal governmental system will be in place.
It is specifically part of the Obama plan to initiate such a bailout. He has done so already with a $30 billion education sector bill in 2009, not to mention the 70% of the “stimulus bill” that was sent to the states and spent on propping up public sector workers payrolls.
Against that backdrop of a re-election plan this is where a Romney candidacy plays right into the Obama scheme.
Because Mitt Romney cannot advocate against federal pension/benefit intervention when he himself benefitted from the exact same intervention machinations as part of the Bain Capital business endeavors. Part of the ‘success’ in generating wealth for the capitalists corporatists at Bain was their ability to take apart failing business, sell off the assets, and then leave the pension/retirement obligations of the workers to be bailed out by the government and taxpayer.
Personally I see this as a much bigger liability for Romney than his leftist decision to initiate Romneycare in Massachusetts.
The only way out of this State fiscal issue is to either a.) set up a system for a state to declare bankruptcy, or b.) set up a system for the federal government to buy the bonds of the individual states; the latter being essentially a bailout albeit of a different name.
Conservatives have generally held opinion that State Issued bankruptcy is the better option, placing the burden of restructure and reform on the state itself and keeping their unsustainable obligations squarely on the shoulders of the fiscally irresponsible state. Liberals believe in federal intervention to “protect” the workers and “insure” the irresponsible obligations, or promises, are met.
Obama will use this as a key tool in his re-election effort, and the fear created by the leaders within those massive labor unions toward their members will drive support for Obama term 2.
Based on his previous positioning Romney is in no position to advance an ideological argument against this radical Obama plan.”
I think you should vote for Obama, don’t you?
The Crony Republicans defending the weak sister Romney indicates they are fearful that Romney is unable to defend himself. Luckily the other nominees have brought this issue to the forefront and Romney must make a defense of Bain on which he has based his ability. Now he will sink or swim rather than when the Left brings the real ammo against him.
IMO Romney is another McCain/Dole candidate and will lose to BHO!
Gingrich was criticizing Romney’s stint as a well financed loan shark. Don’t like the comparison? Was Romney’s behavior illegal or immoral? No, it was not. Was it a recommendation for the office of President? No it was not.
Have any of you seen the Romney/Kennedy debate?
Gingrich may just save the cheering section from the costs of their passion.
well said
There’s a pattern of behavior with Romney. He will do or say anything to get elected. But he probably only became ruthlessly ambitious after he made his gazillions with Bain. When he worked there, he apparently was a saint. All of the questionable activities were by other people.
And you haven’t noticed that pattern in his opponents?
I have a new one-note groupie.
An egotistical one as well. I thought only famous people had groupies. I disagree with most of what you have said, with great verbosity, in this blog and I feel compelled to say so. Don’t read too much into it.
No, I am watching debates that happen in this century.
Next time try to get some real Conservatives to name when doing a piece on Conservatives condemn something/someone.
It should be clear enough that Romney’s activity at Bain was morally neutral.
He was neither a creative capitalist like Steve Jobs nor a predatory asset stripper. Rather, he was simply a company flipper, no better and no worse than someone who makes money by flipping houses.
But that said, I think there is an important point here that is being missed.
Romney’s primary claim to the nomination is that he is the most “electable” candidate. The anti-Romney attack ads may be marginal in their abstract accuracy, but they underline the very true fact that Romney carries a lot of baggage that could well be fatal in the fall election. He is the poster child for everything the Democrats would like to campaign against. If ads of this character can damage Romney among the Republican primary electorate, they will utterly destroy him among the general electorate. If blue collar Republicans find the portrayal of Romney as a vulture capitalist convincing, you can be your bottom dollar that blue collar independents and democrats will as well.
So this experiment needs to be run. If the Rebs reject Romney, the GOP better move fast to find someone else to carry the banner.
Romney’s election campaign will be about Obama’s record so it’d actually HELP him if Obama attacks him on his work at Bain capital. I really hope the DNC is firing up their engines on this line and really plan their whole strategy around it because it’s so simple to swat it away like a little fly. Picutre debate night and Obama goes in for the attack on BAIN CAPITAL!!!! Romney says “there he goes again, trying to take down free enterprise. We need to move beyond class warfare policies and get this country back to work! I have experience doing that, Obama has shown that he can’t do the job”. Simple. That’s the contrast we want.
I respectfully disagree with your characterization that Romeny-Bain’s actions were “neutral.” A company flipper spots an opportunity and (thankfully) capitalizes on it. It appears that Bain/Romney often did that. Not always. I suppose one could argue motive in certain cases where (to me anyway) it seems clear that the intent was to reap a windfall through stock price baiting.
The problem for Gingrich and Perry is if you’re trying to persuade GOP primary voters that Mitt Romney is too far to the left for the party on several issues, you don’t then go and attack him from the left on Bain Capital.
While that doesn’t negate Mitt’s problems with RomneyCare® or his flip-flops on abortion, it saddles you with your own baggage of being to Romney’s left on free-market capitalism. Who on earth in either campaign thought that was a good idea? Once that’s thrown out as an attack, to get the undecideds who have problems with him to switch to you, you’re now simply asking them to swap one set of ideological problems for another (I leave Huntsman out of this because it’s been obvious from the start that he and John Weaver wanted to run a campaign to the left of Romney, so his attacking Mitt from the Michael Moore viewpoint is consistent with Weaver’s overall campaign strategy. Moronic, but consistent).
I’m appalled that so many people have swallowed the RoveRomney Kookaid.
a. Ruthlessly and unethically attack Perry, Cain and Gingrich
b. Mock them for not responding
c. When one takes the bait and challenges Romney’s record, declare that it’s an attack on capitalism. Kind of like declaring that any attack on obama is racist, donchaknow.
d. Watch the brainless lemmings rush over the cliff
The world is full of fools.
BINGO! 1,000 thumbs up!
You didn’t hear ANY of these folks complaining about Romney’s smear ads being
“CLASS WAAAAAAAARFARE, anti-Washington”…gee…I wonder *why* (/S).
In fact Romney’s not been nearly as critical as he could have been of the former conservative who, long after he was driven out of the House amidst scandal, turns up as a big supporter of the Freddie Mac socialist housing scheme, a supporter of the theory of AGW, and someone opposed to Judicial Independence. With his attacks on venture capitalism Gingrich’s descent into liberalism is now complete.
Computer glitch apparently prevented a previous comment from appearing on some monitors
Repeat.
“The world is full of fools.”
It all begins to come unraveled for the very former Speaker Gingrich this week. Now you will be able to compare vulnerabilities of Romney and Gingrich and discover that fools can be wearing all kinds of stripes. We will go into battle with a fully vetted candidate, for sure, and that will be a good thing in a battle with a completely un-vetted communist candidate. What was Obama doing during the 1980s when he was at Columbia University? Time to start attacking the actual enemy, folks.
Proreason: YES! YES! Bravo. Bravissimo!
Embarrassing and depressing to see these republican candidates attempt to use Bain to destroy the frontrunner, more or less demonstrating where each is capable of going in the heat of battle and how easily they can forget that this election really isn’t about any of them, personally.
And giving fuel to morons like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Representative James Clyburn, so far gone that he likened Romney to Bernie Madoff.
Yep, no way the dems would have every discovered Bain.
We should have kept it a secret.
sheez
The LA Times ran a “piece” on Bain months ago and Romney’s role while heading it up.
A hit piece disguised as journalism.
Now, it is being over-inflated and exploited, by other republican candidates and gleeful democrats, simply for purposes of scoring political points.
You’re smarter than this, tanstaafl.
Correct, Mr Ed. Again, what bailout did Bain Capital get?
What on Earth is Romney going to attack Obama on that Romney hasn’t done himself? Remember, Democrats can get away with ten Pinocchio lies. A Republican opponent will get away with nothing.
What on Earth is Romney going to attack Obama on that Romney hasn’t done himself?
Spending $5 trillion with nothing to show for it ? Currently asking for another $1.3 trillion, after self-righteously and pompously denouncing raising the debt ceiling in 2007 as irresponsible and unpatriotic ?
Jamming through Obamacare after self-righteously proclaiming in 2008 (or thereabouts) that using reconciliation for massive social legislation was totally and completely wrong?
Being stupid, apologizing for America, not knowing his a$$ from a hole in the wall ?
Seems like the potential topics are endless.
In Obamaspeak the stimulus was jobs saved. Obamacare was based on Romneycare. Apologizing or bowing won’t be discussed. Obama’s entire reelection strategy is tailor made to oppose Romney. If Romney is nominated, you will see it all played out.
I know how it will play out, but I also think that establishment republicans are way too timid and way too afraid of facing this putative “great debater” Barack Hussein Obama.
Because, from the getgo, I have found him lame, transparent and laughable.
If anything, it is Romney’s seeming “niceness” and civility that would make him lose points in any one on one with The One™.
And that may happen.
Why is it always some clown from the east side of America that gets to run for this spot in our government?why can’t we try somebody from the west?Never know what we might get,some one who is not a BLUEHAIR!Let all of the people have a chance to try there luck.Right now all we get to chose from is the lesser of two evils!!!!!!!!!!
There is hardly any use in trying to point out the differences between Gov Romney and the health care in Mass and obamacare. Those who hate Romney will never get it!
The health care that was rammed through with obama had no input from the Republicans at all. If you remember the door that Fox kept showing where the dems were holding their meetings and the door was locked and guarded so that no Republicans would have any input, or be able to get in.
The 85% dems in Mass wanted the health care that was put in. It is a state issue, as it should be. The people in each state should decide what they want and how they want it.
You want obama, you will get him and you will get 1 or 2 more supreme court justices who will shape America for our children and grandchildren. Oh, for all the young people who have been schooled by the lefties in the universities coialism isn’t so bad! Watch what you support. Liberalism turns into progressivism, into socialism, into communism. So I guess Jews will be the first to be rounded, and then the Christians and the gays. So don’t think you will be spared.
Now they are watching all the web sites for anything said against the messiah. Can you imagine how many people will be needed to do that.
And several of the hundreds he has employed can be found on PJM trolling every article. This is how they controlled the narrative in 2008 and they think it will work again. I am beginning to think they are right about that.
I notice that nobody, but nobody, is discussing the substance of what Gingrich said. They just claim that talking critically about how Romney handled his role at Bain in some cases is “attacking Capitalism.”
Sure. And that would mean that criticizing the handling of “Fast & Furious” is “attacking democracy.”
In my view of the universe, Romney’s effective ads against Newt in Iowa created a very powerful (and verbally skilled) enemy.
Newt, in going after Bain tooth and nail, is returning the favor.
Republicans can’t afford this garbage.
(over and out)
No tanstaafl…everyone who follows the anti-leftist movement is wrong. Attacking Paul Ryan unprovoked is GOOD for the Party. Ruthless and mindless attacks on conducting private equity business is GOOD for combating leftism.
Sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and shilling for the global warming hoax is good for exposing the fraud.
It’s good…tanstaafl because if the B Team wasn’t hoisting itself upon its own petard, then the leftists would actually have to do their own work.
We don’t want to tire them out, we can just keep on piling out of the clown car and stick big floppy shoes in our mouths ourselves, saving them the trouble.
No…tanstaafl…it’s a brilliant strategy to give them ammunition to talk about how mean, evil, crass and heartless capitalism is…because, you know…people in failing companies lose their jobs. And, we know…if the Workers Party was allowed to secure permanent tenure to any slacker in government, they could do the same in the private sector.
Hell, why have a private sector? It should all just be Wokers Party pensions for everyone for life, starting at age 18. No military presence, no borders…and smores and kool-aid for everyone.
In our “it isn’t rape-rape”, these attacks on the free market aren’t “attack-attacks”…they are the preventive medicine against what leftists were going to say trying to tear down capitalism anyway. Soooo, it’s a GOOD thing, tanstaafl. It’s the GOOD type of smear against the system…that REALLY is ONLY restricted to Romney…and I’m sure that is exactly how those intent on tearing down capitalism are taking it.
ALL the people…some of our best and brightest…who see it otherwise, just don’t see the wisdom in it and fail to marvel at its political brilliance. It’s wonderful for the party. It’s great for defending capitalism and the free market. Now on to your re-education camp, tanstaafl.
Ok, I’ve been re-eddukated, no need for the camp.
Another side effect of this Bain thing is seeing how lamely Perry and Huntsman have latched onto it, as an indicator of their true colors.
“Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.”
http://www.newt.org/answers
short form: Newt was responding to a hypothetical question, not attacking Paul Ryan.
I was originallly surprised when I heard Newt’s “social engineering” comment. “What is he SAYING?” I thought. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought Newt’s approach made more sense. Under the original Ryan plan, old people essentially get a check and they can shop for health insurance and find the best deal that suits them the best. But I don’t know about you, when I was working for a company that had health insurance, I HATED open-enrollment season, when i had to read through all those brochures, compare this to that and figure out which plan would enrage me the least. And at that time, I wasn’t even old and befuddled yet. People don’t want to mess with complicate choices, especially as they get older. They want a card that they can take to their doctor, to their pharmacy, and get most of what they need without a lot of headache. This is what I thought was wrong with Ryan’s original plan. Nice in theory, but what about the practice? In contrast, Gingrich’s plan essentially said, “we will offer you something new. We think you will like it. But if you don’t want to switch, OK, keep the plan you know and are familiar with.” BRILLIANT! And indeed, the new Ryan/Wynan (sp?) plan looks very much like Gingrich’s…
I find it interesting that there seemed to be no such outpouring of indignation by what some call the “Consevative Leadership,” when Romneyites savaged Gingrich. There were, in all probability, gleeful high five all around. Now Romney is getting what his side gave and the RINO’s are unhappy. In the long run the focus on Bain under Romney is a good thing. Let us see the facts. How did he treat management, who were responsable the company’s collapse, as compared to the hourly employees? What was the ratio of saved companies to those that were taken down? What was the ratio, in surviving companies, before and after take over? With these issues fully explored Obama and the Lame Scream Media can be given a handout on the topic. If, however, Mitt was the destroyer of good companies, the savior of bad managers, at the expense of the hourly employees, it is better it comes out now. Be assured it would come out.
So now, Gingrich the super liberal democrat mouth piece is repudiating his own damn ad. This man is a serious piece of work.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gingrich-repudiates-super-pac-for-inaccurate-video
“Gingrich the super liberal democrat mouth piece ”
The nuts are getting as bad as the Paulbots.
This one is happy because he worked for a firm that Bain took over and he wasn’t one of the ones laid off. He didn’t like the people who were laid off, which seems to have doubled his pleasure.
Gingrich is certainly not covered with glory on this matter.
His decision to not stop the PAC from using the video is as questionable as Romney’s was to allow the PAC to smear Newt in Iowa.
He probably should have done a better job to describe that the issue is very specifically about Romney’s behavior.
He probably should have anticipated RoveRomney’s jujitsu conversion of the attack on Romney’s ethics into an attack on capitalism, which has now become the Republican’s equivalent of racism. Anything that even touches on private business can now be used to shout down anything the party that dares to mouth the sacred word “business”.
But to suggest that Gingrich or Perry are anti-capitalists is so over-the-top ridiculous that it is really shocking to listen to many otherwise rational people mouth the words. Anybody who does so is a fool, because they have simply fallen hook line and sinker for the RoveRomney trap that has been sprung to nominate the most liberal republican candidate in probably 100 years.
not anonymous, proreason
The problem is that Romney is being painted to embody the exact person that Obama has decided to run against. All of the sins and evils of Wall Street and the banking industry will be brought up to throw at Romney.
It is too much to expect the typical dolt voter to consider that simply by definition these failing companies that Bain Capital took over had lost any rights to claim anything, any right, above coming to an end. Any job saved was a bonus, any restructuring and an ability to survive was a bonus.
I like Newt, I hope he wins, but I do think he’s barking up a wrong tree in these attacks. He has a great chance to take South Carolina if he sticks to his original mode of campaigning. He really hasn’t strayed too far from that, not as much as his attackers claim in their own attempts to unjustly destroy the man.
I’ve pretty well come to grips that our man may be Romney and to be fair, he has done well this campaign. He stands on some very good conservative positions (I know, is this just talk and will he be a RINO once in office) and I will support him if need be. If they lose big in SC, Santorum and Perry might need to decide if its time to be a patriot and get out and support Newt if they truly want a real conservative to be our standard bearer.
The failure of the Republican party to embrace Jon Huntsman will be its downfall this November.
He really is the only good one in the bunch. No baggage to speak of. However, he does not pass the ideological purity test (not sure how Romney does either though).
Outside of the country-club faction of the GOP, it is understood that some ways of making a buck are more ethical than others. We are all united
in a belief in free enterprise and that is why, unlike Democrats, we propose no legislation or fines targeted at business models we find sleazy.
But that does not mean that we have to admire those businesses or those who run them. It is not an attack on capitalism to disdain a strip-club owner or a buy-out firm because both involve “helping” those who have run out of other options. These owners may be providing a legal service, but Mother Teresa they ain’t.
I think that Speaker Gingrich’s critique of Romney will resonate with South Carolina voters, even if it is slightly unfair, because paybacks are
hell and Romney has earned this one. Secondly, I don’t think the Main Street pro-business Republicans identify with the Wall Street set very
much. A guy who has a dream to start a brick-and-mortar business, works all hours and spends his own money to get up and running and lives
in the same community as his employees is not a natural soul-mate of a dude with a Harvard MBA, a parent who was the Governor of Michigan and the ability to whip up a mean spreadsheet from 800 miles away. It’s the ethics, stupid.
If you’re trying to get me to believe that the guy who balanced the budget, reformed welfare, invented the Contract with America and regained the House for the GOP for the 1st time in 40 years is anti-capitalist, you’re going to have to try harder. George Soros shorted the U.S. dollar the day the markets opened after 9-11 and I think he’s a pig. Does that make me anti-capitalist?
I supported Rick Perry, including a small donation to his campaign. After his “vulture capitalist” remark – which he has repeated – I would not vote for him this year or any other year. Interviewing people who lost their jobs in a Bain reorganization/resizing/liquidation of a company is like interviewing the families of deceased cancer patients to prove that an oncologist is a quack. They have no ability for objective thought and most likely cannot shed any light on the subject. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the 1990s, he laid off 3,000 employees in his first year. This kind of reorganization was key to making Apple the most valuable tech company in the world. If Republicans attack capitalism when it suits their personal ambitions, I’ll stay home or vote for a third party candidate.
Did it ever occur to you that some oncologists are quacks. Their doctor friends will not testify against them. I had a hematologist oncologist nearly kill me. He kept me on Coumadin when I kept telling him that I had only recovered from previout blood clots (dvt) by using Lovenox. As a result, I had 2 pulmonary embolisms whithin 6 weeks. Not a single doctor I spoke with would say anything negative about his practice, even though they said I would have to use Lovenox for the rest of my life. If you wanted to make a film about that doctor would you inteview those other doctors or would you interview me?
It has occurred to me that some oncologists are quacks and I didn’t need you story to know it. My lifetime of experience has allowed me to deduce that some people involved in any business are quacks. I’m just saying that, of course.
No, you drew a parallel. It did not work. It pointed out the fallacy in what you tried to say and you are angry.
Conservative leaders. That would more accurately describe Rush and Sarah. Curiously not mentioned.
When you get home save some for obama.
Nice related article over at Legal Insurrection: “Dear South Carolinians: A vote for Perry or Santorum is a vote for Romney’s “inevitability”"
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/dear-south-carolinians-a-vote-for-perry-or-santorum-is-a-vote-for-romneys-inevitability/
I don’t know how how anyone can defend the practice of “Dividend Recapitalization”, it may be legal, but it seems slimey to me. Lets leverage the host company and pay ourselves “Dividends” from the debt we just saddled the host company with. Conservatives are making a big mistake with this knee jerk defense of Bain. You are making bain the face of the free market, and playing right into the socialist’s hand.
I always thought that dividends were paid out of profits, not debt.
Newt is right when he says that this is not traditional capitalism as we know it in America.
We believe in freedom. The freedom to buy or sell. Are you saying these company owners did not have the right to sell their mismanaged companies to a willing buyer? You guys don’t realize how like Democrats you sound.
Newt’s Bain Bomb Fizzles
I agree with Kevin Williamson
Patriots, how much proof do you need that Israel was behind 9/11? The evidence in this article effectively convicts the “jews” of the worst act of war ever perpetrated against America. And they know we’re onto them, that’s why they just had their buttboys in Congress and the Whitehouse ram through the Detainee Security Act – so they can start silencing people like us who are spreading the truth. Stop fooling yourselves, if “jews” are ruthless enough to blow up the WTC to get us to go to war for them, they’ll be ruthless enough to start making their critics disappear. They did all this when they controlled The Soviet Union. DO YOU THINK COMMUNISM HAS CHANGED ITS MIND ABOUT RULING THE WORLD? http://tinyurl.com/JewsAmericasWorstEnemies
You are just one seriously dumb son of a bitch. Sheesh. ‘Beam me up Scotty. There is no intelligent life down here.’ – Captain Kirk
I believe that was a Super Pac that put together the Bain Bomb. Still a Newt supporter. If Romney can’t handle Newt, Perry & Huntsman, how will he handle Obama? He won’t. RNC has been cramming Romney down my throat and I don’t like it or him. Newt is the only one who will call out Obama. Chris Christie has already said Obama is a “fine” fella.
ABO 2012
These attacks on capitalism show that Newt and the gang will say or do anything to get elected. No integrity or scruples.
Billy of Beds, you velly funny guy!!
AFTER THE LIES ROMNEY SMEARED GINGRICH WITH IN IOWA (he “supports amnesty”),
AFTER ALL THE FLIP FLOPS (among others)
pro-life / pro-choice
pro-RomneyCare / anti?-ObamaCare
IT’S ROMNEY WHO SAYS ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED!!!
boo friggin hoo, Billy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU&feature=player_embedded