Image 01 Image 03

Add Bain to list of things we cannot discuss (Update: Politico story in doubt)

Add Bain to list of things we cannot discuss (Update: Politico story in doubt)

Politico has a story about Newt agreeing not to go after Romney any more about Bain, and Newt was just on Hannity’s radio show on the issue.  (I’ll post the audio if I can get it.)

Newt said there are three or four instances where the record is really bad and Romney needs to defend it.  Newt said the challenge is not to the model but how Romney acted in specific instances, and how odd it is that Romney runs on his business record but doesn’t want to discuss the record.

Newt made the point that it is impossible to discuss the issue without being accused of class warfare by people trying to protect Romney, but the issue will come up if Romney is the nominee without knowing how much it would hurt Romney.

Newt did not back away from the issue, but said he is moving on.

You know my position.  Newt is making a purely political decision to move on.  Once he lost Rush and Hannity on the issue — wrongly I believe — it no longer was politically tenable.

So we will go through the primary process and possibly nominate someone with a potentially devastating electability problem.  The electablility problem will not go away, we just will not find out how bad it is until September and October 2012.

So add Bain to the list of things we cannot discuss, for fear of being labeled anti-capitalist.  Along with Jeremiah Wright, for fear of being called racist.

(added) Here’t the Hannity audio:

Update:  Politico’s story was headlined “Newt Gingrich on Bain attacks against Mitt Romney: I crossed the line.”  The Gingrich campaign denies that Newt ever uttered those words, and denies the thrust of the Politico article.  The campaign statement is consistent with Newt’s Hannity interview. Newt is not pushing Bain as an investment model problem, but a problem of specific instances of problematic behavior by Romney.  The Hannity interview makes pretty clear that it’s not going to be the focus of attacking Romney, at least not from the Newt campaign.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So “Bain” is the new “Hussein” then?

David Alexrod brought up Jeremiah Wright the other day. He claimed that the 90-seconds of “God Damn Amerik-k-ka” were cherry picked.

Maybe Romney scrubbed the Bain hard drives too and the elitist leadership of the GOP vetted him and know this. NOT.

Romney is going to be eaten alive by the media and the occupiers, all summer long.


Mr. McCain also went after Mr. Romney for his work as head of Bain Capital, a leveraged-buyout firm. “As head of his investment company he presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers.”

Barely pausing to catch his breath, Mr. McCain also answered Mr. Romney’s criticism of his sponsorship of global warming legislation, which Mr. Romney charged would cause steep increases in energy prices and drag down the American economy.

.. oh, that was 2008

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm

It may already start to have an impact on the believe in his electability argument. Karl at Patterico’s put it nicely:

“the critique could prove more potent as the race shifts to South Carolina, where shuttered mills dot the landscape, unemployment is higher and suspicion of financial elites is not limited to left-leaning voters.”

Anything the dings the veneer of electability is poison to Team Romney… because that’s all they really have to run on…

    Not at all. Mitt has a lot of qualities that would make him an effective president. He’s smart, articulate, has loads of executive experience, understands the economy, and is showing exceptional competence in handling the present campaign. He also doesn’t seem to view the job as an opportunity to get laid, get rich, build a cult following, become an international media sensation, or engage in social engineering, as other would-be (and have-been) presidents do.

      retire05 in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm

      Well, one thing’s for sure; Mitt Romney’s global warming gurus will be happy to see Mitt win. They won’t have to move since they are already working for Obama in D.C. SSDD.

      Or didn’t you know about John Holdren and Douglas Foy?

      Ok, Obama is smart and articulate too…just look where that got us. We’re on the edge of the abyss…and we have candidates who cannot lead, refuse to face Democratic party hacks who masquerade as “moderators” and use Democratic talking points as “questions” in bullshit debates that very few people will watch, because they are using Dem party hacks as “moderators.”…

      I’m NOT a Newt fan, but so far, he’s the only candidate who is willing to take on the “moderators” and call bullshit, when he sees bullshit.

Newt wants to claim his attack on Mitt isn’t anti-capitalist, but he also wants credit for “vetting” Romney on an issue the anti-capitalist left will use against Mitt in the general election.

So both Newt and the anti-capitalist left are making, or plan to make, the exact same argument as to how Bain engaged in “vulture capitalism” at the expense of common working folk. But when Newt makes this attack, heaven forbid we should call it anti-capitalist!

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    So by your logic any attack on Gingrich’s time as an elected official is anti-democracy. Any attack on Perry’s time as governor of Texas is anti-Tenth Amendment.

    So exactly why do you hate America and the Constitution so much?

    See how that works?

what he says and what his pac is doing are at odds and may hurt him.

DINORightMarie | January 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm

I just watched the “King of Bain – When Romney Came to Town” video. It is class warfare all right. But, boy, is it powerful. Romney is the epitome of “Wall Street greed” – there is no escaping that.

Whoever made that movie did a great job (whether you like it or not). Personally, I am wondering how much of it is true (fact check?). The anecdotal stories, the faces, the imagery. It will destroy Romney when the Axelrod Alinsky-ites get a hold of it – even excerpts. Powerful.

Of course, this was what the left was planning all along. Just in October 2012. Not now.

I’m not sure Bain will be off the table; perhaps just not emphasized by Newt and Perry, now that the more conservative states are in the limelight. Bain, and the ample ammo the left has to attack Romney, MUST be vetted by the Republicans if Romney continues to win primaries.

I am hoping that IA and NH won’t be the bellwether they’ve been in the past; that Conservative states will eliminate him – because Mitt is toxic. Just watch the movie… could kill Romney’s chances to win against Obama. It’s that effective at painting Mitt as the destroyer of jobs, not the creator of jobs.

Krauthammer, NRO, Hot Air, Beltway elitist insiders, etc. – what have you DONE?!

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    The thing about the movie that isn’t being discussed is that it was made by a former supporter of the Romney 2008 Campaign.

    “it was made by Jason Killian Meath, who worked on the Romney campaign in 2008 and is a former colleague of one of Mr. Romney’s top strategists today, Stuart Stevens.”

    So how come that little nugget never comes up???

    It IS powerful, but beneath the emotion there is a very simple core: intentionally running a company into debt by paying management fees that have no relation to any value that you put into the company, all the while having no intention of continuing to operate the company to make a profit to pay off the debt over time, is IMMORAL. Peel it back and that’s what you find, and that is UNDERSTANDABLE and POWERFUL and is an issue that will not go away.

    Even Ayn Rand herself (of whom I am a big fan)never wrote a vulture capitalist (nothing wrong with that term as it is very accurate) into her novels as a hero.

      pamiam in reply to TJSC. | January 11, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      I just watched KING BAIN OMG Newt and Perry are right to call him out on this. Romney keeps harping on his 25 years of working in the private sector,this happened during the 25 years.He owns it.Deal with it.I can tell you another way obama will attack Romney on this If you haven’t guessed.Mitt’s made to much money,how much money do you need Mitt? People Mitt says he wants to help you Just like he helped these people.

      turfmann in reply to TJSC. | January 11, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Orrin Boyle, perhaps?

      retire05 in reply to TJSC. | January 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      Corporate raiders. That’s the old name for what Mitt, and Bain, did. Look up the term: find a money man (in Bain’s case, someone from Latin America), buy controlling interest in a company whose stock value has deflated (due to any number of reasons; market competition, lack of demand, temporary downturn in the industry, etc), take control of the board votes, sell off anything of real value while maintaining enough to keep the company open, transfer the cash from reserves to profit and pay investors, leverage the company with financed debt (often using bogus ledger sheets) and then drive the stock prices down basically driving the company into bankruptcy (when assets such as stock and brick and mortal property no longer exceed the debt).

      The whole gist is to get the initial investment, plus major profits, out quickly. Selling of assets and loans provide cash that is promptly taken as profits. Only Bain has an added tactic, it worked as advisors getting millions of $$ in fees for that.

Sarah Palin made the same point about Bain and an October surprise. She also says (contrary to Rush and Hannity) that Bain is a fair issue. [starting about the 1:35 mark]

    imfine in reply to T D. | January 11, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I don’t know why in the world why people think that the Republican running a Capital Raider as their candidate would be a good idea. If the guy has been doing that all these years to all these people what do you think he will do as President to us? A President has to be someone with at least some set of decent, a basic moral check against the implies for gain.

Henry Hawkins | January 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm

I keep getting this disturbing image of Mitt Romney, naked and trembling, curled up into a fetal ball beneath the stairs of his Massachusetts headquarters, lips barely moving as they repeatedly utter in whispery tones the words, “…bain… …romneycare… …bain… …romneycare…”, while staffers encourage him to come out, get cleaned up, and give his concession speech to volunteers.

One point that seems to get lost in the histrionics over Bain: If his career as a “vulture capitalist” is so obviously fatal to Mitt’s electability, how in the world did he ever get elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the country? Massachusetts voters heard all about Mitt and Bain going back to ’94. Even knowing that history, Massachusetts voters clearly didn’t see it as disqualifying, because they elected him governor in 2004.

Bain may be a vulnerability for Mitt, but let’s not exaggerate how much of an albatross it is.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    “Bain may be a vulnerability for Mitt, but let’s not exaggerate how much of an albatross it is.”

    True… that honor is reserved for his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Just wait until they start ripping into that.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    “…how in the world did he ever get elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the country? Massachusetts voters heard all about Mitt and Bain going back to ’94. Even knowing that history, Massachusetts voters clearly didn’t see it as disqualifying, because they elected him governor in 2004.”

    You’ve brought up a great question! How did he manage to get elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation? Thats a question every Conservative Republican should be asking. Probably had something to do with his opposition to the Contract With America and distancing himself from Ronald Reagan when it seemed politically expedient to do so. Or maybe is was his refusal to sign the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge in 2002 (though he flipped later and decided to sign it in 2007 after he was safely out of office), or perhaps it was his support of Paul Tsongas in 1992. Any of these would, I think, help explain it.

      You guys need to make up your minds whether Romney is an ultra liberal who beat Shannon O’Brien by running to her left, or whether he’s a ruthless laissez faire capitalist with no concern for the little guy. To alternate back and forth between the two caricatures just isn’t that credible.

        retire05 in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm

        While I would not call Romney an “ultra liberal” (more like a Hillary progressive) being a liberal and a ruthless laissez faire capitalist with no concern for the little guy are NOT mutually exclusive.

        Hello!!! George Soros!!!!

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | January 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      Massachsetts went for Romney because of his supposed business acumen, the notion that he’d know how to create jobs and how to remedy their growing budget problems. After one term, Massachusetts was not satisfied and his polls dropped so far he declined to run. Business expertise and job creating abilities….

      Sounds familiar, huh? But I’m sure America as a whole is far less complicated and a much easier chore than Massachusetts.

    janitor in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    My guess would be less internet as well. Times were very different.

    retire05 in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Conrad, the answer to your question is so simple I am surprised you don’t know it.

    Mittens is the son of a big-time GOP player, who was not only the Governor of Michigan, but a one time contender for the GOP nomination for POTUS.

    When he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate, it was name against name, but at that time the Kennedy name still held the most clout in Massachusetts.

    But when Mitt ran for governor, he ran on the GOP ticket, well funded with not only his own money, but family money as well. He was the epitome of the “priviledged son” candidate that MA so seems to love (i.e. the Kennedys) and he was preceded by four Repubican governors. It was a no brainer for Massachusetts voters; wealthy, name recognition and would follow the other Repubican governors.

    Romney managed to break that track record, giving MA Devel Patrick who is a sorry excuse for a governor.

      Conrad in reply to retire05. | January 11, 2012 at 9:00 pm

      Oh I see: Massachusetts liberals just love Republicans, especially wealthy ones from other states. They didn’t care a whit about Romney’s personal qualities or administrative skills. They just wanted to get another wealthy, out-of-state Republican in there, pronto.

      Thanks again for enlightening me with your superior insight into Massachusetts politics. It’s remarkable that a Texas conservative would have such intimate knowledge of the Bay State electorate.

        retire05 in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 9:19 pm

        Are you trying to be obtuse, are are you just plain silly? Mitt Romney was not a home boy, true, but his father had been the Governor of Michigan, ran for POTUS in the GOP primary, and was later Secretary of HUD. When Mittens ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he had the full force of the RNC behind him.

this bain thing is a third rail for anyone that messes with it now. its too late to have a rational discussion about it, I think it will hurt anyone who messes with it as much as it hurts romney. At this point I think any dealings with it will help obama.
its pure toxic now. it was mishandled by every candidate right from the start IMO.

Midwest Rhino | January 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Good … Newt made the point, and can move on to several other good points about McRomney. The PACs and blogs can continue to expose Romney as the establishment moderate candidate with good hair.

Bain will continue to be the skeleton OUT of the closet. PAC ads will continue to run .. and every time Newt takes the high ground and says he WON’T discuss BAIN” … he will have just talked about it.

And I’m taking the high ground and NOT talking about Christie talking about “going down” … cuz he meant something else … and I’m NOT going to talk about what you deviants think he might have meant by “going down tonight … sweetheart”, cuz he didn’t mean that … THAT thing we are NOT talking about.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    I think the next subject will be his tenure as gov of Mass… followed by ‘More than just footwear… the History of Flip Flops’ starring Mitt Romney. Just a hunch as to where this path leads…

Dailycaller is reporting this “back off” was bogus.

It sounded that way from beginning. Drudge seems to be on a tear trying to make Newt look bad.

NC Mountain Girl | January 11, 2012 at 5:26 pm

The Whig party tried to stop members from talking about slavery. It didn’t work out real well for them.

Pathetic. We’re beyond the Twilight Zone.

Fox seems to be pushing Romney. Did the word go down to Hannity?
Rush is the star of Clear Channel Communications, owned by Bain.

    Awing1 in reply to gabilange. | January 11, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    You mean the employee of a Bain-owned company doesn’t hate them? But I thought when Bain bought a company, it just stripped all the assets, built up its debt and left the employees out to dry?


Wow, he really never got it did he? The issue was never just “talking about Bain”, it’s about HOW you talk about the issue. If you want to question whether some of the deals he did were bad, go nuts (or maybe he knew that a few failed deals didn’t mean much against the mountain of successes)! Want to take a swing at the pension plan ‘bailout’ at GS Technologies? Step up the the plate (of course, you’ll have to deal with the facts that; no taxpayer money was used, the amount in the pension plan at the time of bankruptcy was union negotiated and that the pension plan had paid its premiums to PBGC for the plan’s entire existence).

But when you say things like “… financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed.”, you’re making a statement about capitalism. That’s an attack on an extremely important part of capitalism, reallocation of resources to their most efficient use. It’s suggesting pretty strongly that when a PE firm takes over a company that has too many employees doing useless tasks, essentially digging holes and filling them back in, and it purchases the company (undervalued because of its waste of resources) and cuts the pay rolls, that that’s somehow immoral because of the jobs lost.

That’s an attack on free-market capitalism. Unlike every false analogy you’ve tried to make from Animal House to Michael Vick, you cannot logically hold the argument he’s made here and accept free-market capitalism as an appropriate economic theory for our country. It’s arguing that if you find a company that has more workers than it needs, you shouldn’t buy it and fire the excess workers if it means you’ll make a profit. This goes against the very nature of free-market capitalism, which values this type of behavior because, while in the short run it sucks, in the long run it makes for a society that is using it’s resources in a more productive manner.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Awing1. | January 11, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Then, my dear Awing1, by your own logic any attack of Newt Gingrich’s record as an elected official is an attack on our representative democracy. Any attack of Rick Perry’s tenure as Governor of Texas is an attack on the 10th amendment of the Constitution. Any criticism of Barack Obama’s actions as President is an attack on the Office of the President.

    See how that works? You may not have liked the format of the criticism (I didn’t particularly), but to defend against it with your form of bombastic rhetoric is, frankly, something the Left does. And the reason it is done that way is to shut down discussion of the issue rather than debate the issue.

      So, because I’m saying you shouldn’t attack Bain IN A SPECIFIC WAY that directly implicates a fundamental aspect of capitalism, but that it’s ok to attack Mitt’s time at Bain on a variety of other issues, by logical extension I can’t make ANY comment about Newt’s time in elected office without also criticizing democracy? Yeah, that’s a completely fair analogy. (you see what I did there?)

      Nobody is saying Romney’s record at Bain is completely off limits. For example, if it came out that Romney was a lazy figurehead who only came into the office 2 hours a day, that would be a legitimate criticism. Or if he wasn’t actually involved in any of Bain’s successes, that would be fair game. Or if he was messing around with his secretaries, etc. The problem isn’t criticism per se, it’s the specific criticism that Newt is making. Newt isn’t focusing on how Mitt performed as head of Bain, he’s delegitimizing the entire industry of which Bain was a part.

      It would be like attacking a candidate’s military record by suggesting that someone involved in taking so many human lives shouldn’t be president. That’s really a slur against the military per se, not against the specific candidate’s record.

        janitor in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm

        Or it would be like attacking someone’s record as an farmer by pointing out that he repeatedly worked land into dust bowl and then moved on…

        Or it would be like attacking someone’s record as a real estate developer who made lots of money building sub-par tenements with crooked windows and mold problems…

          Conrad in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 9:25 pm

          Enlighten me: Is farming land so intensively that it ruins the soil considered a viable business strategy for an agricultural concern? I would think that would it lead to bankruptcy in most instances.

          Similarly, building houses that are unsaleable because of code violations or mold is not a viable business strategy for a developer. The lawsuits alone would wipe you out.

          If these examples were truly analogous to Mitt’s performance at Bain, then Bain would have gone bankrupt and its owners would have lost their entire investment.

          Instead, Bain is one of the most successful businesses in its industry.

          Awing1 in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 9:41 pm

          You’re still not getting it apparently. Both of those examples are similar to making particular criticisms about how Bain and Romney went about their business, which is perfectly acceptable if you read my comment.

          Awing1 in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 9:46 pm

          I can’t think of a good example of how you would criticize a farmer that hits the core of some philosophical tenant, but for a landlord what Gingrich’s attack amounts to would essentially be “these landlords, they use the law to evict tenants all in the name of lining their pockets”.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 10:27 pm

          You seem to be defining “capitalism” as including “any practice that enables someone to accumulate wealth that formerly was held by someone else, provided it isn’t done illegally.”

          I don’t think that’s necessarily the definition.

          Awing1 in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 10:47 pm

          Where did I say, or even imply, that that was included in the definition of capitalism?

        janitor in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 10:51 pm

        I didn’t mean you, Awing1; the thread function doesn’t keep indexing.

    retire05 in reply to Awing1. | January 11, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Awing1, so what you are saying is that just because the venacular has changed, and we now call it “venture capitalism” instead of what it was known as 20 years ago, corporate raiding, that it is not legitimate to point out that while free market capitalism is the best system in the world, it still has flaws?

    To consider the shady practices of some in the capitalist game as hands off IS like saying that any citicism of Michael Vick is bashing all of pro-football. Same difference. Or a better analogy:

    saying that we have the best voting system in the world but we should not point out the abuses of ACORN and LaRaza because it is an attack on the entire system.

      Awing1 in reply to retire05. | January 11, 2012 at 9:34 pm

      Please see my previous post to you.

        retire05 in reply to Awing1. | January 11, 2012 at 10:14 pm

        So you are saying that all things being equal, we cannot criticize Romney’s actions with Bain because it slams all the entire capitalist system but we can slam ACORN although it shows the dark side of our great voting system?

        And pigs can fly.

          Awing1 in reply to retire05. | January 11, 2012 at 10:23 pm

          Yep, that’s what I’m saying, despite the fact that I explicitly said I have no problem with criticizing Romney’s actions at Bain.

          Seriously, try that reading comprehension test. This is the last time I’m responding to your moronic statements.

And Hannity is an idiot. Every time he opens his mouth I feel sorry for conservatism.

Count me as the newest passenger on the Romney bandwagon. I’m a believer.

I haven’t seen a surefire juggernaut like this since that fateful day a few decades ago … that day that started the musical “British Invasion.”

That’s right. I speak of the Bay City Rollers’ historic appearance on Howard Cosell’s variety show. The Rollers rolled over an innocent, unsuspecting America. We were never the same.

Speaking of British invasion music … I hear a fat lady singing “Don’t Let The Sun(unu) Catch You Crying (and badmouthing capitalism.”)

LukeHandCool (who, as a six-year-old boy in 1965, was at LAX Airport with his mom and four-year-old little sister to see their Grandmother off. Luke’s little sister, Judy, recognized a man standing nearby whom she’d seen on TV, talking to some other men. The man saw cute little Judy pointing at him and came over to talk. Ed Sullivan called Judy adorable, called Luke handsome, and then started talking with Luke’s mother. His mother politely told him that we watched his TV show faithfully every Sunday night, at which point Luke came that close to interjecting, “No we don’t, Mom. We always watch Disney’s Wonderful World of Color.” But Luke’s mom shot him a glance and he could read his mother’s look … which kinda said, “I know what you’re thinking of saying young man … don’t you dare!” Luke didn’t know the term “little white lie” at the time, but he realized his mom was lying to be nice. It was years later that he realized he’d shook hands with the man who brought the Beatles to America … they had arrived on Luke’s fifth birthday).

What’s sad is that when/if Romney loses, his supporters will blame Newt, Perry, all the Conservatives who thought he sucked as a nominee – anyone but Romney. In losing he will be elevated to a walk-on-water candidate.

NC Mountain Girl | January 11, 2012 at 6:16 pm

In the short run the private equity guys like Romney move between their multiple luxury homes – lawns carefully tended by illegal aliens- while the laid off mill workers in the Carolinas have been on food stamps for years. That’s the electoral reality and the fact that Romney has been flat footed in responding to it shows just how poor a politician he is.

In the long run this generation of business leaders has done an excellent job of rearranging assets, deconstructing ideas and playing off their contacts to enhance their own personal wealth. What they haven’t done a very good job of is actually creating much of anything. Maybe its because so many of them thought they were smart to avoid the GPA busting math, science and engineering classes when they were in college in favor of marketing and management classes. With a few exceptions such as Steve Jobs at Apple way too many of America’s businesses have been in the mode of recycle, rework, rebrand, remake and cover ideas created by past generations. That’s one reason lawyer/MBA types along with other forms of crony capitalist skimmers are increasingly held in very low repute on Main Street.

I watched it and Hated it.

I’m a Newt supporter and have even contributed to his campaign but I hope this film isn’t the direction his campain goes. If you are going to criticize the actions Romney took at Bain, do it with facts. I saw a lot of accusation, appeals to envy, hard luck stories, but not much specifics regarding bad behavior on Romney’s part.

Romney is such a weak candidate in the first place. It shouldn’t be this hard to beat him. I pray the south is going to slow this train down.

So, have the Democrats and their Legacy Media Lapdogs also agreed not to mention Bain during the general election should Romney win? Of course not. Failing to vet your candidates during the primaries is self-defeating.

Also, one more nail in the coffin of Politico’s credibility…

But when you say things like “…financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed”, you’re making a statement about capitalism.

There will always be some gaming the system when artificial rules are in play. Corporations, their personhood and their investors’ limited liability, as well as the investment markets divorced from the assets, all are artificial creatures of the government — not a natural or inevitable outcome of capitalism. Don’t confuse gaming the system as it is with capitalism.

    Awing1 in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Which artificial rules exactly allow Bain to “game the system”, and make it a government construct?

      janitor in reply to Awing1. | January 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm

      I thought I was pretty clear. The corporation is not a creation of capitalism, but of the government. Stock ownership, buying, selling, what stock is and what the rules are for trading it, and thus ultimately the stock markets themselves are not creations of capitalism, but of government.

No matter who brought it up, venture capitalism, in general, and Bain capital in particular, are now front and center in the Presidential debate. Obama was going to bring it up against Romney, so we had better figure out how to educate the masses about it now. Look at it as a positive,9 extra months to present our case and time to remove Romney as the poster boy.

Henry Hawkins | January 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Not to worry. Today Romney offered full cover to Obama’s takeover of GM and Chrysler on behalf of his union cronies, stating Obama was just trying to save these companies for the workers, and gee, it wasn’t a whole lot different than what he did with Bain Capital. Well, can’t ding Obama on GM/Chrysler bailouts without incurring yet another flip/flop charge. Way to go, Sparky.

So, what are we up to now? A Romney nomination means attacking Obamacare is off the menu, Romney’s voiced approval takes federal bailouts in general off the menu, and now the horrific, pure socialism GM and Chrysler bailouts are specifically off the menu.

Not to worry. I’m sure a Romney campaign against Obama can focus solely on Cash For Clunkers and succeed. Oh, wait… that was a federal bailout too.

Let’s see… there must be *something* Obama did that Romney hasn’t already approved…. Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Hehe . You & Mountain Girl got that NC flag flying high today.

    You just gotta encourage those new Raleigh /Wilmington liberal types to do a bit of ocean swimming.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm

When you start apologizing for saying the truth and facts as they are, in reality, because of political appeasement, then you have already lost the battle, as battles are never won on defense alone..  Offense is the best defense, as General George Washington and Ronald Reagan, had proved.

The Republican Party establishment, and colluding Independents, not to mention the far left liberal media, are absolutely determined to put that Liberal RINO Romney, in the Republican Party Nomination seat, and then the White House, instead of Newt, which would be the death nill of the Tea Party Conservative influence, thus would destroy any and all Constitutional Conservative Tea Party causes and issues to be implemented, let alone addressed..  such as limiting the US Federal govt, in size, scope, and power..
Romney is the Anti-Tea Party candidate, who is being touted as the sensible moderate middle class electable Republican. Romney will absolutely maintain the status quo, as well as destroy Reagan Conservatism, forever.

Romney is the Anti-Ronald Reagan Conservative, thus the antithesis of Reaganism..
“The principles of wealth creation transcend time, people, and place.  Governments which deliberately subvert them by denouncing God, smothering faith, destroying freedom, and confiscating wealth have impoverished their people.”
~ U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan ~

mittens romneycare CANNOT beat comrade downgrade.
He is NOT the most electable, he is the least electable.

As I’ve said elsewhere, Mitt Romney is not electable. He”s the candidate the Obama campaign wants to run against most of all. It’s a dicta in both military strategy and politics, that you don’t do what your opponent wants most.

Mitt Romney’s myth of “electabilit” rests on his winning 1 single campaign, his narrow election as governor of Massachusetts. He chose not to run for reelection, because he didn’t want to lose…and lose he would have.

He will not beat Barack Obama in November if he is our candidate…

Damn, I really hate being one of those lone voices on the edge of the wilderness…

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland

[…] are not allowed to mention Bain Capital for fear of being labeled Marxist. Bull. Like David Niven’s character wrote in Please Don’t Eat […]