The New York Times declares that the Bain attacks are working, Bain Attacks Make Inroads for President
Propelled by a torrent of blistering television advertisements, President Obama is successfully invoking Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital to raise questions about his commitment to the middle class, strategists in both parties say, as the candidates engage in a critical summer duel to set the terms for this fall.
Despite doubts among some Democrats about the wisdom of attacking Mr. Romney’s business career, Obama commercials painting him as a ruthless executive who pursued profits at the expense of jobs are starting to make an impact on some undecided voters, according to strategists from both sides, who differ on whether they are causing any substantial damage.
The rest of the article, however, provides little backup for the headline and opening paragraph, and mostly focuses on how money Romney is raising and the advertising Romney plans on running.
This strikes me as The NY Times trying to create a narrative, rather than reporting on an actual narrative.
The Obama Bain attacks have not been particularly well-done, and have created a rift in the Democratic Party itself, with numerous politicians (e.g. Cory Booker for a time) pushing back against it. I expected a much better researched and communicated Bain attack from Team Obama.
But, over time, I can see even poorly-executed attacks creating an image of Romney which is not helpful, and which fits into the mainstream media narrative.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
BIG GOVERNMENT wastes, ruins, and destroys choice.
Markets innovate, use resources effeciently, and raise the standard of living for everyone.
It is that starkly simple, and that plainly true.
Pres. Composite has one single answer to every problem…BIG and BIGGER GOVERNMENT.
Romney has been a successful market player.
‘Nuff said.
“Propelled by a torrent of blistering television advertisements, President Obama is successfully invoking Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital to raise questions about his commitment to the middle class,… “
This November isn’t a referendum on Romney but on Obama’s proven commitment to destroy the private equity and liberties of the middle class aka Obamacare.
Technically, yes, the Bain attacks are working. But that’s only half of the story.
According to the most recent polling I’ve seen on the issue, the number of people who say that the Bain management issue would influence their vote to not vote for Romney is up 6% (to 24%, if I remember correctly).
However, the number of people who say that the Bain management issue would influence them to vote FOR Romeny is up 7% (to 19 or 20%, again if I remember correctly).
One of the articles I read recently put it quite succinctly: While the Bain attacks are working, they are a double-edged sword in that they are also exposing a large part of the population to something they don’t know that Romney did that they might largely agree with.
All right, apparently I’ve either managed to annoy some individuals, or they simply don’t like my comment and yet don’t want to discuss it.
It’s exactly what you think.
This is how the New York Times operates. They don’t do research, they don’t check facts. They start with a purely speculative article, actually printing the result they eventually hope to obtain, and then they follow up with self-referential articles, apparently hoping somebody else will do the actual work of reporting.
Some of their friendly talking heads will take the allegations and run with them, without ever checking back to notice whether a foundation exists. Then the NYT will publish a “mounting questions about” article — still without any foundation.
That’s how they trashed Dick Cheney’s reputation using the name of his former company, despite their utter failure to find any evidence that he had a corrupt relationship with that company after he left it.
This technique forcibly came to my attention after the invasion of Iraq, when the New York Times published a pack of lies about a blogger that eventually became a founder of Pajamas Media. That’s when I, and perhaps others, began to take a closer look at the foundation for the New York Times articles. They didn’t stand up to our scrutiny, and we said so.
Howell Raines and Jayson Blair were not aberrations, they were part of the business model.
Yes, that’s how it works. It was the same way for the Plame story, Duke Rape Case, the McCain affair, Palin hit pieces, and countless others. Plant the fabulist seed (giving it incontrovertible NY Times authority) support it with follow-ups, wait for the rest of the MSM to repeat it, cite the multiple affirmations, and voila, we have a Narrative. Conversely, they ignore any counter-narrative stories — simply refuse to give them coverage or credence (e.g., Fast and Furious, Solyndra). The hope is to watch them shrink into non-stories, deprive them of any Narrative legs or power.
For probably over half of the electorate, Mitt Romney is an unknown quantity. Obama and his SuperPACs are trying to paint the narrative first.
I’m surprised the NYT is so wishy-washy on this, as they have played a dedicated role in that narrative. I don’t read the paper much any more, because in my field (energy) even their “reporting” is political and requires outside research to corroborate or refute. Why waste time? I won’t read this article in full, either. But the phrase that caught my eye from the excerpt is, “…are starting to make an impact on some undecided voters, according to strategists from both sides, who differ on whether they are causing any substantial damage…”
So, I think it a wise choice to NOT read something that tells me there are differing opinions on either side about the impact and effect. My 10 year old can figure that out without any research.
Hi – I ive in Northern Virginia. Bain attacks won’t work here. Despite the reputation for being government centric – it’s an incorrect understanding of the political climate here – it’s far more wealth creation focused; there are many Bain-boutiques here and that industry affects the voting blocks here in a big way positively. There are tens of thousands of entrpreneurs in NVA.
The gov-communists mostly live in MD not NVA –
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I though the NVA voting record was solidly Democrat, especially in 2008. I don’t recall in 2010 but I seem to remember hearing a few interviews with Rep. Moran who came across as a pompous ass who eagerly insulted Tea Party types and some GOP peers. Doesn’t he represent the DC suburbs? I might be mistaken. Perhaps there are plenty of voters willing to vote out Obama in that area, they may just need to be energized.
Obama’s Bain attacks aren’t effective.
Romney hasn’t run that well of a campaign.
It because of Obama’s path of self-destruction that is so pervasive that Romney is moving ahead.
People are actually living Obama’s anti-growth policies of destruction and loss of small businesses/jobs.
He can’t run from reality by attacking Bain.
Romney is being too careful by half. But that is what happens when you have a candidate who has no strong feelings and just runs on how he perceives people will react to him. Sort of like John Roberts.
Do I sound bitter? I am as astringent as an unripe persimmon.
[…] Legal Insurrection is 100% correct, the Obama- Bain attacks are poorly done and false. However, even when something is poorly states and a falsehood is said enough by the liberal MSM complex, it becomes its own truthful narrative. […]
The NY Times is not a journalistic enterprise. It has nothing to do with “reporting the news.” It’s a narrative factory. It’s business, its purpose, is manufacturing narratives. It takes the chopped up remains of news, the bits and pieces and tissue, and reconstitutes them into a “story,” i.e., a narrative.
Manufactured, thematically consistent narrative is propaganda. The New York Times is a propaganda organ.
I think the whole Bain thing was largely squelched by contravening words from Bubba Clinton, Deval Patrick and Corey Booker. Also, everyone pretty well knows the back story of the KC steel mill, and that is that Bain kept it alive until cheap Chi-Com steel killed it, and then, Romney’s successor, an Obama bundler, shut it down.
Of course, when you have nothing for your candidate to run on, Bain is an avenue of desperation by 0Bama’s team of
muckrakerscampaign strategists. The thinking here, of course, is that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!Rod-jor that. PLUS we now have a WONDERFUL tool in the internet and videos readily available. Clinton will be saying nice things from now until the cows come home, every time he’s needed. Just loop the tape…er…electrons…
Romney used private capital and helped some companies, Obama used public funds to enrich his campaign bundlers before their companies went bankrupt.
Romney believes is using capital to build productive companies. Obama believes in redistributing wealth (from successful producers) to his government unions and to put even more of the population on welfare of one sort or another.
“Are Bain attacks working, or is NY Times trying to create reality?”
Rhetorical question of the week.
NYT editors: “Damn, the Bain attacks aren’t working. We’re getting Pinnochio-ed to death and the polls aren’t moving. The people just aren’t buying it and the base grows nervous. Well, we can fix that. They have no idea how the 99% are thinking unless we tell them, so.. let’s say the Bain attacks are working.”
The NYT and other lib media take a page from Mythbusters re: people who cannot accept facts:
“I reject your reality and replace it with my own!”
Huh, you know it’s funny I could’ve sworn some folks warned about this late last year. Who were those people…? Lessee now…
The Bain attacks are absolutely decisive for those people who dislike rich people and, especially, rich Republicans (i.e.: The New York Times). Since they, themselves, are convinced, they are certain the attacks are working.
In reality, most people have not heard the attacks and don’t really care. However, Liberals never abandon an attack just because it isn’t working. They double down on it in the expectation that it will work eventually.
IOW, the NYT thinks it’s reporting facts, and will continue to report them as fact, no matter how much evidence accrues that it’s just fantasy.
What’s interesting is that Romney had a truly exceptional career at Bain. First as a first-rate management consultant – well thought of by his clients – and then as head of Bain Capital – which he turned into a great business.
For people to attack him on that front is really dumb and it shows how little they know about his career there. Unlike Obama, people actually worked with Mitt and can go on the record.
On top of that, Romney’s academic credentials are truly superior to anything Obama ever did. I’m waiting for his people to do his bio so America can see who and what Mitt is and where he came from.