Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

(Posting this paragraph does not mean I hate capitalism)

(Posting this paragraph does not mean I hate capitalism)

From The NY Times:

While his campaign advisers generally agree that Mr. Romney must explain his work at Bain, they are wary of engaging in an exhaustive public examination of the nearly 100 deals he was involved in, anxious that it could bog him down in the inevitably messy details of fixing troubled companies, whether they are job cuts or big financial payouts.

Okay, let’s all agree not to talk about it and it will go away…. until The Times runs a 100-part series on the deals starting the morning after Mitt Romney accepts the nomination.

(Btw, I saw this posted by Karl at HotAir’s Greenroom and Patterico.  “Karl” … hmm … I give him high marks for his post.)

Update via Big Government (full interview here):

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I think you should count on the fact that the NYT will run a bunch of unflattering stories about whomever the GOP nominee is. I’d also pretty much rule out getting the coveted Times’ endorsement. Hopefully it’s possible for a candidate to win 270 electoral votes without the support of the NYT.

Also, if I read that excerpt correctly, Romney campaign is saying they DO plan to talk about Bain, so I’m not clear on who you think is advising we not to talk about it so it “will go away.”

littlebeartoe | January 11, 2012 at 9:26 pm

It’s time to drop your Newt obsession. You’re getting silly.

I wonder if Romney will talk about all 100 deals, or the ones that capture the media’s attention. Or will he just continue to say, “I am a businessman and can fix this country and have been married to the same woman for 42 years.” By the Republican convention, he will be blenderized by the NYT.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to gabilange. | January 11, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Exactly. Unlike some of the commenters below who have given up, I’m not gonig to stop warning about the disaster coming our way unless Bain is thoroughly vetted before we hand him the nomination.

      I certainly hope you don’t stop….and you can be as opinionated and biased as you like….after all, it is YOUR blog and the only one I’ve found that let’s all of us speak our minds….like today’s Herman’s Hermits says “I’m into something good” 🙂

“Fixing troubled companies”. Sounds nice.

Bain has offices in New York, Chicago, Palo Alto, London, Luxembourg, Munich, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo (3 of 10 are in the U.S.) How much of the money from liquidating fixed troubled companies has gone back into investments in the U.S.?

Anyone know how many deals Bain has done with Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, Merrill Lynch?

Professor, are you just going to ignore the reality that the criticism was never as broad as “no attacking Bain”, but instead regarded the way in which Gingrich went about it, or is being the victim really just too much fun for you to turn down?

    It’s gettin’ weird in here. By Legal Insurr’s estimate, highlighting + objecting to Newt’s (and Perry’s) use of left wing vernacular in criticizing a competition makes you an uninquisitive conservative who doesn’t care about ascertaining the quality and durability of a candidate. And according to some comments, an anti-proletariat.

    I’m sorry Newt for objecting to your earlier left wing reproach of Paul Ryan’s plan as ‘Right Wing Social Engineering’?

      Red4Liberty in reply to Aucturian. | January 12, 2012 at 10:30 am

      How about answering the questions instead of shooting the messenger? It happens to be a liberal tactic to avoid the substance by dismissing the person asking. You are guilty.

        Guilty of what? Of not willing to ‘vet’ Romney? Like how you’re not willing to vet Newt?

        Newt -> Individual Mandate is ok as long as its implemented by a compassionate big government conservative.

        Strikes me that you’re more Red4Newt than you are Red4Liberty…

          punfundit in reply to Aucturian. | January 12, 2012 at 9:49 pm

          I don’t know. It seems there’s been a lot of Gingrich vetting goin’ on, in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and so on. You hear it on the radio and see it on television every day. Practically every hour.

Romney fits the bill as not Obama. A loaf of day old bread also fits the bill as not Obama and I would vote for it if that was my option. Anyway, a horrifying thought then passed in my mind. So I checked. Good news for Romney! Bain seems to have no connection with the Hostess bankruptcy.

What a shame. I enjoyed your site, but your anti-Romney obsession has just become too tedious. So, I will have to tune you out, just as I did Rush Limbo. (Actually, the wife had him on in the car today and the chubby hypocrite is now supporting Romney the Capitalist out of one side of his mouth, while still taking the occasional gratuitous shot out of the other..)

I don’t know what Romney did to get your knickers in such wad. He is demonstrably a decent, very competent person who is certainly qualified to lead this country. He was the Governor of a Liberal state; but John Hinderaker documents that he maintained conservative credentials even through that ordeal.

If you haven’t heard, I have to break the sad news to you that John Bolton endorsed him tonight. Bolton, Christie, et al. Guess they do not carry any weight. (no pun)

Some day, you, Peggy Noonan and a host of others are going to have to face the fact that Ronald Reagan is not coming back. You have to choose from living candidates who are willing to enter the arena, and put aside your dreams of a mythical man who was never as quite large as you remember, and in any case is long gone.

    “Some day, you, Peggy Noonan and a host of others are going to have to face the fact that Ronald Reagan is not coming back.”

    I think that’s what the professor has done in choosing Gingrich. Setting up straw men doesn’t really help your case.

    punfundit in reply to Oldflyer. | January 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Bye.

Okay, let’s all agree not to talk about it and it will go away…. until The Times runs a 100-part series on the deals starting the morning after Mitt Romney accepts the nomination.

What a compelling argument for supporting Gingrich, who as we all know has absolutely no issues on which the MSM would hound him mercilessly…

One of the reasons I am not that concerned about Romney and Bain Capitol (and I know this site disagrees – strenuously)is that criticizing a Republican for engaging – successfully – in a (somewhat) free market isn’t going to “rally the base.” In fact, it is more likely to engender more anger towards those issuing such criticism, especially when coming from a political mercenary who worked for a GSE largely responsible for the market cratering and someone who willingly sat down with Nancy Pelosi to push for more government action to fight anthropogenic global warming. (I am knowingly singling out Gingrich because this is a pro-Newt site – but both Perry and Santorum have proudly supported decidedly pro big-government/anti free-market solutions for issues that should have been relegated down government, not up.)

Furthermore, I am well aware of Romney’s problems – I have issues with him. But it is folly, petulant in fact, to join in on this circular firing squad just because ones candidate is not polling as well as one would like. This site took great umbrage when Romney “went negative” on Gingrich (Ron Paul was actually the chief instigator of that in Iowa), yet almost every post I read here is caustically anti-Romney. Seems this site is quite alright with going negative after all…

    William A. Jacobson in reply to bains. | January 11, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    Has nothing to do with supporting Gingrich; I’d make the same argument if I supported Perry, or Santorum, or Ron Paul. Unless Bain is thoroughly vetted, we are walking into a blind alley, and one which does not look very good from what we know.

      Thank you! I agree! There is much to vet.

      What the Mitt supporters and surrogates don’t seem to understand is that if Mitt becomes the nominee without vetting, and then a lot of info comes out in the general election that makes him unelectable, a lot of Republicans will feel betrayed by their own party.

        Joy in reply to JonB. | January 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm

        “….a lot of Republicans will feel betrayed by their own party.”

        Unfortunately we already do.

          JonB in reply to Joy. | January 11, 2012 at 11:44 pm

          The contortions and contradictions that people have to go through to rationalize support for a Mitt Romney candidacy, I fear, will split the party.

          One one side, the Republican elite and right-o-sphere (with a few exceptions) are basically telling conservatives to sit down and shut up and show up to vote in November. On the other side, rank-and-file conservatives are beginning to wonder why they ever trusted the elite/right-o-sphere to have their best interests at heart.

          It’s beginning to look like the party Establishment is turning on its own rank-and-file. All this over a man who represents a lot that the rank-and-file find repugnant.

          Neo in reply to Joy. | January 12, 2012 at 6:41 am

          I found myself feeling this just yesterday.

          If Ronmey becomes the candidate and loses, these folks will go to the “back of the bus.” The Coulter-s and the Frum-s of the world won’t be seeing any face time on any TV outlet.

          Red4Liberty in reply to Joy. | January 12, 2012 at 10:39 am

          Neo – Coulter and Frum will just blame the racist tea party for bringing it up and causing the loss. They are lost souls.

        I’ve been voting since 1980 and I have never seen a Republican primary candidate as divisive as Mitt Romney. Like the professor, I don’t think he’s been vetted at all. I think he’s being given a free ride by the right wing pundits and establishment. When he slandered Rick Perry and Newt, no one said a thing. When anyone attacks Bain, they all go bonkers.

        I can see Romney getting slaughtered in the general election. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but when I wargame the Obama strategy in my head, the campaign writes itself.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to KT Cat. | January 12, 2012 at 9:02 am

          You almost turned me into a cat lover. Almost.

          dmacleo in reply to KT Cat. | January 12, 2012 at 9:33 am

          my 3 cats tell me (I hear voices) romney is worse than a dog.
          thats pretty bad insult from a cat.
          I listen to the voices 🙂

          LukeHandCool in reply to KT Cat. | January 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm

          “my 3 cats tell me (I hear voices) romney is worse than a dog.”

          Some good ones on LI today. I’m feeling cheerful with all the chuckles.

          Of course, I’ll soon revert back to my usual depressed state.

      Fair enough, but at what point does this become a Ron Paul-bot like obsession, cuz the jury is yet to be impressed?

      Has nothing to do with supporting Gingrich…

      Horsepucky. You are the one that keeps on pushing Bain Capitol; you are the one that keeps on pushing releasing his 1040.

      As of now, I dont have a horse in this race (neither Palin nor Rubio chose to run and Bachmann has pulled out). All along I have viewed Romney, Perry, and Gingrich as, when all cards are laid upon the table, equally flawed. Now you seem to be on a quest to vet Romney, and I have no problem with that as long as it is undertaken honestly.

      Yet only Romney has run a national campaign which means the eyeballs looking over his past have been far more rigorous than those looking over Perry, or Gingrich, or Santorum. Now you have done excellent work in pushing back scurrilous attacks against any of the GOP candidates. But from where I stand, you, via this site, are yearning for something to arise. And the logical conclusion to what strikes me as approaching an obsession, is that you want your man Gingrich to take advantage.

        punfundit in reply to bains. | January 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm

        “You’re the only one…”

        Bullshit. Palin is asking for the tax returns. Human Events and (some) National Review commentators are asking about Bain.

        You just seem to have a problem with the Professor.

      As I posted previously, talking to Romney people is getting as bad as trying to talk to Obama bots in 08. They are willfully walking into the briar patch and are happy to take everyone with them.
      I hate to say that, there are aa lot of Romney supporters I like but I fear confirmation bias runs rampant in camp Romney. Everything that doesn’t show how wonderful Romney is rejected for (name your excuse). How so much like Obama bits when trying to tell them their emperor has no clothes.

      I could be wrong, but the way it has played out I don’t see a safe way for anyone to ask about it now without it also harming them.
      its just odd how questioning this has turned into such a toxic topic. its damn odd…..
      anyone that questions it gets as much, if not more, harm then romney gets from the questioning now. damn odd…

      I REALLY want to know more about the history of these ex romney people who made the bain video.

“Okay, let’s all agree not to talk about it and it will go away….”

It’s really difficult to tell a Mama Grizzly that this should not be discussed….might I suggest that everyone take the time to watch the full interview with Sarah before they rush to judgement about this vetting process?

you know, when you go into Chapter 11 ‘BANKRUPT” in the re-orginazation you get to get rid of the deadwood staff and their bloated retirements funds…
Maybe that is just what we need for the federal government…, He knows how to “hold ’em and when to fold e’m and I think many of the government employees need to be folded out of exiseance….
just saying a “corporate raider” may just be what we need.

OT: Meanwhile, trying to respond to Warren Buffett, Arthur Laffer has mentioned that unrealized capital gains are not taxed. Thereby he puts the matter of taxing unrealized gains on the table: “currently taxed at zero percent“…great choice of words, Art. You just gave the Democrats an opening for a brand new tax (in addition to a VAT)–and the logical step after a tax on unrealized capital gains is a direct tax on assets.

The more time that passes, the more remarkable is Reagan’s achievement of creating a governing coalition from such unpromising material.

    punfundit in reply to gs. | January 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    I don’t think the left needs any statement from Laffer to spawn new taxes.

    I think you just don’t like Laffer for supporting Gingrich’s plan over Romney’s.

We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. When you look at his business record, you find that Mitt Romney was willing to do whatever it took to make money.

Most Americans work hard and play by the rules. Mitt Romney worked hard at not playing by the rules.

Although the right-o-sphere insists on shutting down any discussion of Romney’s Bain experience, the media will be happy to examine each of the deals. Unfortunately, we will learn a lot about how Mitt made his money in the general election.

The problem with Mitt is his past business deals. Many will not look good under scrutiny.

A Mitt Romney candidacy will split the party between its elite/right-o-sphere and the rank and file.

    bains in reply to JonB. | January 12, 2012 at 12:06 am

    A Mitt Romney candidacy will split the party between its elite/right-o-sphere and the rank and file.

    Any of the candidates running, and those that we wish would have run, would cause a split. With the exception of Palin all looks under the hood would reveal things that some on the right would find to be disqualifying. (Palin is excluded because her hood has been opened, the engine disassembled, the fluids tested, and the concrete underneath jack-hammered apart. but she would cause a split just as well.)

    I know of some prominent Republicans here in Colorado that yearn for a brokered convention. It is their belief that that is the only way we could get a real Republican – such as Chris Christie (cough cough…) – to be the nominee. They are blinded by their own political proclivities.

      JonB in reply to bains. | January 12, 2012 at 12:57 am

      The rise of the Tea Party seems to have revealed a widening chasm between the Establishment of the party and its foot soldiers.

        bains in reply to JonB. | January 12, 2012 at 1:50 am

        Agreed. And by and large, I think it is a good development. In 2010 the establishment lamented Christine O’Donnall, Ken Buck, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. But I think they are starting to realize that the foot-soldiers want more than just an R next to the committee chairmanships. We want that Chairman to be responsive to their constituency. 2010 put a fear of losing a primary into the entrenched Ruling Class (to borrow a term from Angelo Codevilla). The problem now is that all us foot soldiers yearn for the next Ronald Reagen up front with out acknowledging that Reagen’s greatness was not realized until after he had been in office for a while. Right now, what we see is the active supporters yammering that their primary opponents are the antithesis of Reagen.

        Frankly, I think anyone of the GOP candidates would win, as long as this petty internecine primary battle doesn’t spill over into the general. My biggest fear is that a large swath of conservative voters turn school-yard brat, “taking their ball and go home because others dont want to play by their (fickle) rules.” And looking around right now, that is a possibility irrespective of who the eventual nominee is.

        Also irrespective of whom our nominee is, we need to populate Congress with strong anti-Ruling Class folks. McConnell and Boehner (along with everyone else in the leadership) need to have their feet held to the fire.

Settle down professor… a cogent argument is a sharp blade and the Bain “scandal” was like arming zoro with a butter knife and in the end, Romney gained ground while the other candidates sounded like crybaby lefties.

Quite honestly the tax return item is smart on Romney’s part. It’s a play right out of the chicago jesus handbook and the rest of the field is playing right into it.

I don’t mind him playing this crap now or in the main election-to keep the media fettering away on non-issues- So long as the bolo punches to Obama are about the right issues.

I dare say I’m impressed with it for the moment.

wow, didn’t realise the professor really loathed Romney this much.
I’ll vote for a potted plant if that’s the repub nominee. I’ve heard of Bain, its a PE firm, of course some things worked, some didn’t, at least it doesn’t use tax payer monies. I know some of my retirement funds I have invested in, invested in companies that were rescused by Bain. BlackRock is a pretty good PE company as well. I’m a recovering democrat, now independent, if repubs really want to go down this road, maybe they need to just become the moveon version 2.0 and be done with it.

Since this site seems to really not like Romney, while he seems like the strongest to beat that idiot in the WH, maybe Sharron Angle might be a better stronger candidate? Because, I guess its better to have a “pure” canidate than the most electable candidate.

    JonB in reply to alex. | January 11, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    “at least it doesn’t use tax payer monies.”

    How do you know that Bain didn’t use taxpayer money? Have you analyzed all the deals?

      alex in reply to JonB. | January 11, 2012 at 11:54 pm

      Uh, its called “private” equity firms for a reason.

        JonB in reply to alex. | January 12, 2012 at 12:18 am

        Oh really?

        Bain has never owned companies that received government subsidy monies (taxpayer money) or received other tax advantages?

          alex in reply to JonB. | January 12, 2012 at 12:23 am

          Good luck finding any company of any size in america that’s never received any tax credit. A company of 1 person gets tax credits for all sorts of thing, printers, pens, office equipment, commute expenses.

          JonB in reply to JonB. | January 12, 2012 at 12:46 am

          I’ve noted your deflection. Your answer doesn’t reflect your assertion that “it [BAIN] doesn’t use tax payer monies.

          You didn’t address the issue of subsidies and chose to take the absurd route on tax advantages.

          If a Bain company received a government subsidy, isn’t this taxpayer money?

          Conrad in reply to JonB. | January 12, 2012 at 9:11 am

          Where are you going with this? What difference does it make if Bain companies received government funds? Virtually all companies receive some kind of government money or benefit. I believe Alex’s point is that Bain is a private equity firm. It invests in companies using Bain’s own funds and/or investors’ funds, to try to make money. It’s not like a government entity building a convention center or high speed rail for the purpose of improving a run-down neighborhood or realizing some other kind of public benefit. As such, I don’t really get what an examination of Bain’s deals is meant to accomplish. If the bottom line is that deal “x” didn’t work out (or perhaps DID work out), and 50 people lost jobs, what would that tell us about Romney’s fitness for the presidency? Deal “x” wasn’t a government jobs program, it was a private investment.

Professor, I agree with you. If this issue is left out there and Romney becomes the nominee the MSM will trot it out for the entire general election. Romney must get out in front of the cameras and give a full and compelling explanation of his Bain Capital experiences. If he can communicate clearly then he can diffuse this issue, if not then it is a liability for all of us, in attempting to beat Obama. I want to our nominee to win.

If Romney is the nominee, the dims (and the media) will talk incessantly about corporate raiders and what they do. They will describe them as rich republicans (ignoring the fact that a lot of the dims do this too) who destroy litte companies and lose jobs for the little people employed there and make a lot of money doing this. Billions, in fact. Bain did make billions while Romney was there. Heartless will be the minor claim. They will go on to claim that the dim party has always been for the little people. The majority of voters don’t understand much of this and will buy into this stuff. The dims likely wanted this Bain mess to be the October surprise.

I haven’t made up my mind yet about who my candidate is…it is between Newt and Perry. I would rather have Perry but it looks like he was left at the gate. Mayb a few years down the road he can succeed. I’m not that crazy about Newt. He does have a lot of baggage most of which is aleady known. I would like to see him debate obama though. If Newt should be the nominee, I guarantee there be only one debate not the thousand the republicans are having. Debating Newt is the last thing obama and his followers want.

    It’s amazing how the Perry candidacy collapsed and never recovered in such a weak field of candidates.

    PERRY: A Governor with a great record, but a flawed candidate with an inept campaign organization

    NEWT: A flawed candidate (baggage) with a mixed record (great conservative accomplishments, big heresies), an almost non-existent campaign organization, but an excellent debating ability

    SANTORUM: A flawed candidate (couldn’t get re-elected in his own home state) with a mixed record (big government social conservative), almost no campaign organization, but a strong work ethic

    PAUL: A deeply flawed candidate who sounds rational on economics but not so rational on foreign policy, with a record of little to no accomplishment for all those years in Congress, but a committed, well-functioning, grassroots campaign organization

    ROMNEY: A deeply flawed candidate with a moderate-liberal record, a great campaign organization, but with a message that is contradicted by his past messages

NC Mountain Girl | January 11, 2012 at 11:58 pm

The media will beat Romney like an old fashioned rug on Bain and his flip flops. Hot Air just linked to a 2003 video in which Romney was talking about how traditional Republicans were too soft on corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC1ZNyCpV-g&feature=youtu.be

    I’m not sure Obama really wants to “go there” on flip-flops (Gitmo, no individual mandate, signing statements, no net spending increase, etc.)

    Also, the flip-flop charge makes it harder to cast Romney as a right-wing extremist, which is pretty much the line of attack they use on all Republicans. If Obama spends time and money informing voters that Romney used to be a pro-choice moderate, this will make him seem less menacing to a lot of CURRENT moderates and libs.

      punfundit in reply to Conrad. | January 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      But of course Obama has the advantage of a fawning leftist media establishment which will cover for him at practically any cost.

      Romney will not enjoy such a kindness (nor any other Republican). Even Fox News has been known to criticize a Republican from time to time, even during elections.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 11, 2012 at 11:59 pm

Ok, let me explain this to everyone..

Ronald Reagan did not mean LBO’s, Bailouts, Buyouts, and Crony Capitalism, when he implemented his pro-capitalist economic recovery policies, so that American wall street firms, and corporate businesses, can practice corporate raiding, insider trading, and other such profitable enhancement and enrichment practices, at the expense of healthy/profitable business companies, the working employees, their pensions, their families, and their communities. 

In other words, just because Romney and Bain Capital, could legally destroy companies, jobs, people’s pensions, lives, and their communities, does not mean it is good and right.

If a company fails on it’s own through bad business practices, and declares bankruptcy, then so be it, that’s the free market system.. But when a company like Bain Capital and Romney, comes in, and buys out the company, that is business healthy, and supporting working families and communities, then carves it up for sale to the highest bidder, making hundreds of millions of dollars at the company and workers expense, thus destroying those people pensions, communities, and lives, then that is NOT Free Market Capitalism, like Gov Parry aid, that’s vulture capitalism.. and it’s wrong, and should be illegal, as far as I’m concerned.

That’s why Romney is the real life Gordon Gekko, the epitome of corporate greed. He must be vetted on it, and should and must be accountable for..

This is not merely about legal or illegal corporate practice, more so than it is about Romney’s core values of Morality, Integrity, and Ethics, thus is about Romney’s personal character, especially if he wants to be the US President.

This Bain issue matters, as it is all about who we really want to be at America’s helm, as the next U.S. President. Someone who exemplifies courage, morality, integrity, ethics- ie; conservative values and principles, or not.

    “But when a company like Bain Capital and Romney, comes in, and buys out the company, that is business healthy, and supporting working families and communities, then carves it up for sale to the highest bidder, making hundreds of millions of dollars at the company and workers expense, thus destroying those people pensions, communities, and lives, then that is NOT Free Market Capitalism, like Gov Parry aid, that’s vulture capitalism.. and it’s wrong, and should be illegal, as far as I’m concerned.”

    This is dangerously naive, IMO. The logical consequence of your position is that a company would need to go through some kind of government approval process in order to make decisions affecting the lives of workers. It would be like the Boeing/NLRB episone on steroids. The company would no longer have private property rights; the government (or courts) would get final say as to whether a retailer could close a particular store or whether a factory could outsource or automate a part of its production line.

    Once you establish as a matter of public policy that private entities — which includes corporations, obviously — have a paramount DUTY to provide jobs and a certain standard of living to workers, or a tax base to their “community,” or whatever other kind of social benefit a business provides, then it is no longer a private enterprise. You have just nationalized it, in effect.

    This is why Newt’s remarks about Bain and layoffs is so ghastly, and why he was right to back off and apologize for those remarks when he first brought them up. Obama and the OWS crowd would LOVE to accomplish the “reform” that you are describing: criminalization of the free movement of private capital that doesn’t serve the GOVERNMENT’s agenda. As a deep, “conservative” thinker, Newt knows or should know what the lefties are trying to do, and how going after Bain because SOME of its deals resulted in layoffs serves this leftist agenda.

I’d like to pass along something that has come to my attention while perusing a another blog. I’ve just read from statements made by a commenter that Bain Capital is being investigated by the FBI.

Thus far I have not located any objective/non-biased sources elaborating on the matter but for a document where the FBI evoked FOIA exemption 7(a) and denied access to all Bain Capital records. http://www.scribd.com/doc/77201586/FBI-Response-to-FOIA-Re-Bain-Capital (FBI Response to FOIA Re: Bain Capital.) What does anyone know of this? Looks to me like they’re under investigation.

FWIW: I just watched “When Mitt Romney Came To Town” and I see absolutely no attack on capitalism. I see sunlight on a side of Romney’s tenure there that isn’t being fairly discussed. I’m as free market as they come but Romney is no free market guy.

theduchessofkitty | January 12, 2012 at 12:35 am

The one thing about all this that bothers me is that someone today predicted that the GOP nominee would likely be decided by the end of January, and that it will likely be Romney. This gives me two reactions:

1. The TX primary is in March. What are we, chopped liver?
2. This is giving me the impression that Romney is buying the nomination, or that the GOP establishment already “chose” him for us and expect for the “rank-and-file” to line up and support him as blindly as they supported Dole and McCain.

This is, IMHO, unacceptable.

It’s better for these stories on BAin Capital to be out in the open now than in October. The GOP Joe Sixpack needs to know all the facts about Romney before throwing their primary vote on him.

I believe the SC primary may stop this insanity, but I believe it might replace it with the Paul insanity.

O Captain! my Captain, the trip is as I feared;
The ship has weathered every rack, but we’ve been commandeered;
The port is near; but what I hear, our people all infighting;
And no one sees the rocking keel; the vessel’s groan and cracking;
. . O Bama! Must! Go!
. . . For the fixing of the realm,
. . . . Yet ahead disaster looms,
. . . . . It’s Romney at the helm.

I’m honestly curious how Romney supporters think the MSM will deal with Bain. Can it be true that they believe the MSM won’t bring it up if Republicans don’t first, or that the MSM will be intimidated off the subject by the elitist scolds at National Review or by Jennifer Rubin? Is it true they really believe that if they manage to succeed in stifling critique NOW it won’t come up LATER? Do they honestly think that if we all just unite around Romney and don’t ask any awkward questions, this will matter to the MSM?

I’ve noticed a chronic cluelessness about the Left in Romney and his people for some time. But could it be this bad?

    LukeHandCool in reply to raven. | January 12, 2012 at 2:21 am

    Yep. As Ipso Facto commented on a different post:

    “This is all getting to be so convoluted. Can we get some talking bears to explain it?”

    Maybe there’s truly nothing to hide. I sincerely hope that is the case. But remaining convoluted will allow the Democrat-media complex to plant all kinds of sinister suspicions in John Q. Public’s mind when he’s already pissed off about our political class not living by the rules it sets for the little people.

    John Q. Public isn’t stupid … he’s just sick of hearing spin coming from opposite directions … and he’s busy with his life. He has to rely mostly on his gut instinct.

    And the mainstream media just love to help people get in touch with their gut instinct. They’ll do all the work while you’re busy glancing at a headline here and there as you hold that slice of toast in your mouth, grab your bag, and hurry off to work … having the connotation those headlines created reinforced at the workplace water cooler by coworkers who glanced at the same headlines under similar time-pressed conditions.

    The media helped Obama set up the smoke and mirrors when he turned questions about his 20-year affiliation with a raving mad anti-American, anti-Semitic, psychopath into a scolding lecture of the American people about race, the oratorical greatness of which hadn’t been heard since the Gettysburg Address … or so the media said.

    Call me a doubting Thomas, but somehow I’m doubtful they’ll extend the same gracious treatment to Mr. Romney and help him turn questions about Bain into a lecture to the American people about the superiority of capitalism.

    If he becomes the nominee, on day one John Q. Public should be able to pull aside any talking bear walking down the street and have that bear explain to him in simple terms why Bain is of no worry.

    LukeHandCool (who has racked his brains for even the most tangential anecdote in his life involving bears … and has come to the sad conclusion that there aren’t any).

    Conrad in reply to raven. | January 12, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Does anyone seriously think the MSM won’t attack the GOP nominee WHOEVER he is? It’s not like Newt doesn’t have any baggage.

    Seriously, if we’re looking for a nominee the MSM will support, we might as well give up now.

I think the attitude by high ranking Republicans towards conservatives is quite simply the same as that of high ranking Democrats to Blacks.

They reckon “where else are they going to go?” and so far, for 20 years for conservatives, they’ve been correct in that assessment.

Blacks consistently vote Democrat even though it is blatantly obvious that the party does little or nothing to deserve that loyalty. So too do conservatives for Republicans.

In fact one could say that the party only concerns itself about Blacks (or conservatives) when a strong and charismatic person appears to threaten the anointed candidate and has the potential to siphon votes away from the candidate. (sound familiar?) Especially candidates that run on a platform of actual reform.

When an election rolls around a few conciliatory gestures are tossed around, churches are visited, speeches are made with local accents and mantles of civil rights (or supposed capitalist) warriors are pulled over the candidates’ shoulders whether deserved or not.

Criticism of the Candidate (or details that contradict their new legened) is claimed to be couched in racial or class terms hinting that the critics somehow are aiding their opponents just by bringing up facts at odds with the candidate’s new found civil rights (or economic/defense wizardry) cred.

When the candidate fails the “captive block” are criticized as having been too faithless or divisive and that that is the sole reason for the loss.

Soon everything is back to normal though as the party continues to payoff it’s financial backers with taxpayer money and make laws that are actually detrimental to their “captive block” in the long run no matter the appearances.

Lesser election candidates are raised and praised using campaign money and similar tactics until the next Presidential election comes around and suddenly the party heads remember who they have to convince to vote for them and disregard all the failures, false promises and outright betrayals they’ve perpetrated over the previous 4 years.

Welcome to the “Conservative Plantation”.

    Conrad in reply to jakee308. | January 12, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Romney isn’t being appointed the nominee, he is being elected. If conservatives are so opposed to him, why are so many voting for him? This whole meme that the “establishment” is forcing Republicans to accept Romney is nonsense.

    LukeHandCool in reply to jakee308. | January 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    “I think the attitude by high ranking Republicans towards conservatives is quite simply the same as that of high ranking Democrats to Blacks.”

    Great analogy.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 6:42 am

Wow Professor… you must be ruffling feathers to attract so many Mitt-bots.

Dear Mitt-bots – let me put it this way. You and your candidate are not persuasive. Your arguments on his behalf are a mile wide but an inch deep. Your candidate’s record shows him to be unprincipled, thin skinned and secretive (face it – Mitt Romney is Nixon with good hair) and without an actual record to run on… thus the ‘electability’ campaign theme. That’s all he’s got. And he doesn’t really have that, come to think of it.

Should your candidate gain the nomination, he will break your hearts.

He’ll either be soundly beaten by the Democratic Machine and their Handmaiden the PRESS (in which case you’ll blame conservatives and the tea party… that narrative is already being set up), or he’ll eek out a victory.

Should he win, he’ll put his finger in the wind, read the polls, and end up doing whatever he thinks isn’t going to make him look like a bad guy… to the the Dems and the Press. Because – like it or not – that is his character. That is who he is. Nothing will change in Washington.

One way or the other this will not end well.

jakee…I think that is ridiculous…the idea that Republicans look at conservatives the way Democrats look at blacks is absurd. It really is. The truth is the Republican party is more conservative today than it has been in years…maybe more than it has ever been. And conservatives have had the opportunity to come up with viable and electable candidates, but instead they come up with people who bomb and then they blame the GOP when they face failure.

And now we have the rightie blogs and even some talk radio wondering if being a businessman is more of a problem for Romney than being as lifetime politician or a publicity hound might be for someone else. They are the ones who are acting like Democrats.

I don’t care what Sarah Palin says anymore. I used to love this woman. I was thrilled when McCain picked her for VP, but now here she is selling herself on Fox and a reality show and turning herself into a money making scheme while she strings people along so that they will send money to SarahPac..and her husband just endorsed Gingrich. I would think that would make some people wonder if she has a motive in going after Romney from his left..and that is just what she is doing.

It was not Romney who was facing ethics violations..Gingrich was and conservatives squandered a lot of their credibility on that candidate. They do not need to complain incessantly about how badly treated they are considering the fact that they have had every opportunity to come up with someone who can win and they failed to do so.

    janitor in reply to Terrye. | January 12, 2012 at 9:05 am

    It was not Romney who was facing ethics violations..Gingrich was and conservatives squandered a lot of their credibility on that candidate.

    Being frivolously accused in the absence of wrongdoing is a liability? whereas not having been tested or questioned is a credential?

    What cause has Mitt Romney championed?
    What philanthropy is he known for?

    jakee308 in reply to Terrye. | January 12, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Well it’s not a perfect allegory but then what is.

    However:
    What we do have is more Republicans who TALK about conservatism but don’t actually practice it.

    They don’t defend it they don’t attack socialism or big government.

    As I said they talk it up but look at what they actually do.

    The proof is in the pudding, look at what they DO not what they say.

    Who couldn’t manage to eliminate funding for one program while in the majority in the Congress and having the Presidency?(and even lately as the House majority) Who has finagled supposed program cuts into tax increases? Who has rah rahed programs to cut taxes and cut spending in Medicare but doesn’t pass any all the while voting in ANOTHER give away (Medicare plan D)? Who began the increase in the National Debt into the stratosphere before 2008?

    “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
    Matthew 7:16

    punfundit in reply to Terrye. | January 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Elected Republicans are more conservative than they have been in some time. However, the GOP politicos who handle campaign business, lobbying, fundraising, the primary process, and so forth, not to mention the self-appointed intelligenstia, are the same old goats who screw it up time after time.

Snorkdoodle..Romney is not going to break my heart, because unlike a lot of the Palinistas I know I am not in love with my candidate. I support him because I think he is the best man for the job.

I don’t know for sure who win the nomination, although I think it will be Romney and I am not sure if he can beat Obama, but I think he has the best chance.. He has a better chance than the other candidates he is beating right now…after all if these people can not survive a Republican primary process how can they survive a general election.

Besides, if people are going to be quoting Sarah Palin in this regard, they obviously do not care about electability anyway and by the way, Sarah Palin could have run herself if she was so inclined..she did not do that. She bailed out..she lead people on, took their money and then refrained from running..now she is making demands on Romney while her husband endorses Gingrich. Please, that is so transparently self serving.

This is one of the major differences between “Conservatives” and “Liberals”. Conservatives aren’t afraid to have their candidates vetted, while Liberals refrain from doing so if it means that their candidate will win the election. Case in point-B.O.

(posting this sentence does not mean I hate Newt)

Populism is not conservatism.

(posting this sentence does not mean I love Romney)

Private sector business reorganization and venture capitalism is legal and worthwhile.

(posting this sentence does not mean I hate people)

Sometimes investors make money and sometimes jobs are lost.

(posting this sentence does mean I hate statism)

The government has no business picking winners and losers but the free private sector market does.

(posting this sentence does mean I like a conservative option better then Romney)

Keep Romney in the private sector.

Reading these comments gives me an even worse feeling about Romney and Bain. All it will take will be a few cases where Bain whacked a healthy company (or one that just seemed healthy) and the guy will be slandered as the greedy job killer.

Given the self-defense techniques he used after the Fox News interview, his response may be even worse than the accusations.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to KT Cat. | January 12, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Yes, it is amazing how many have accepted at face value that Bain only tried to rescue failing companies. Maybe, maybe not, but if that was all it did it would be unusual. What is more likely is that in many if not most instances it bought underperforming companies, in other words companies which were viable ongoing enterprises but which were not fully maximizing the value. Bain then came in, levergaged the company, took its profit from the leveraging, and then tried to make the company work or gave up and sold it off. In some cases the company succeeded and thrived, in other instances the leveraging ended up sinking the company, but by then Bain already had pulled out its profits. It’s all legal, but it will look horrible in a general election, particularly in this environment. The biggest problem is that we don’t know right now (although we do know there are at least a handful of problematic takeovers), we’re being asked to take it on faith.

      “but it will look horrible in a general election, particularly in this environment”

      Yes, if you think the OWS is the majority of voting Americans who love the idea of more regulation and villainization of the free market.

      This is the kind of Teddy Roosevelt populism that plays in to class warfare and, by all accounts, Americans are fed up with class warfare. It’s a losing strategy for a Republican candidate and a Democrat candidate.

        Conrad in reply to iambasic. | January 12, 2012 at 10:10 am

        Amen. The GOP shouldn’t capitulate to “economic populism.” And all this talk about “vetting” boils down to so much hedging on whether or not we SHOULD capitulate. It’s like, “Well, Bain did some deals where they DIDN’T destroy lives, but then again, they did deals where they DID destroy lives, so we need to vet Romney with a comprehensive examination of all of Bain’s deal to see if they were destroying lives more often than not. Then we’ll know if the NYT considers Bain acceptable or not and choose our party’s nominee accordingly.”

          janitor in reply to Conrad. | January 12, 2012 at 10:43 am

          Isn’t this as valid as those who would discount a long resume of Gingrich’s conservative accomplishments by pointing to isolated “issues”?

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 12, 2012 at 9:59 am

      Professor: Having been on both sides of the table dealing with these kinds of takeovers, I can assure you it has nothing to do with ‘saving companies’. An organization like Bain is not that altruistic. It’s about maximizing profit. And if sacrificing a business to get that profit is what it takes… well… so be it.

      Is there anything wrong with that? Well… it isn’t tasteful, but it isn’t illegal either. The simple truth is it is usually easier to strip the acquired business of as much overhead expense as possible… i.e. ‘human capital’ (jobs). Make the company look profitable or potentially profitable on paper and then unload it an move on to the next. It isn’t quite the ‘entrepreneurial’ endeavor some would have you believe. It’s really quite a bit more cannibalistic than that. Oh, don’t get me wrong… some companies do come through the process as viable. But many do not… and depending on the strategy pursued by the acquiring entity, that might not always need be the case. Nothing illegal about it, but again… quite distasteful when you dig into the nuts and bolts of it. That is why they don’t want Bain on the table. It’s a business practice that is particularly hard to defend in the current economic climate.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | January 12, 2012 at 11:20 am

        “It’s a business practice that is particularly hard to defend in the current economic climate.” But it’s the business model to which we are tying the general election if Romney is the nominee — are we stupid or what?

          No – “we” aren’t. The Democrats will – and like all snarky stupid recent Democrat efforts it will fail.

          Let us allow the Democrats to fail at that and not allow conservative candidates to fail at that.

        Distasteful? Maybe. There is an overall benefit to reallocating assets, including labor, to more productive activities. That can be true even if it means shutting down the operation. Should someone profit from that? Why not?

        What aspects of the distasteful takeovers should be illegal? Theft, for example, should be illegal. Hence, “raiding” pensions should be illegal? What are the contractual obligations of the original owner? What have government regulations and Social Security done to distort the market? I’m not in the business world, but suspect there are multiple compelling answers to these questions. (This is one reason we have lawyers and legislators, right?)

        Additionally, looking at the original owners, what’s their part in this? Are they just victims, or did they make bad decisions? Did they go public too soon? Did they get in debt over their head? Did they sell out their workers? Do current laws provide them bad incentives?

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 9:22 am

Terrye… your premise is flawed and, quite simply… you’re wrong. It is evident from the actions of the Republican leadership that they are most certainly not ‘the most conservative it has ever been’.

“conservatives have had the opportunity to come up with viable and electable candidates, but instead they come up with people who bomb and then they blame the GOP when they face failure.”

So the GOP leadership throws all of its resources to the lest conservative candidate while using its surrogates to savage any contenders and it’s the rank and file republican’s fault? Seriously?

“It was not Romney who was facing ethics violations..Gingrich was and conservatives squandered a lot of their credibility on that candidate”

Gingrich was cleared of 74 of the 75 ethics charges because they lacked merit. He ultimately was cleared of the final charge as well.

“I support him because I think he is the best man for the job.”

Based on what? What he’s saying now? His history of ‘situational ethics’ and changing of positions to suite political expedience pretty much tosses any credibility he may have had. The man is unprincipled… he has shown time and again that he’ll say whatever he thinks you want to hear. His record in that regard is one of saying anything to get elected. Are you basing it on his record? What record? His time at Bain? Apparently we can’t look too deep into that. His time as Governor of Mass.? He ran as a ‘Jobs’ candidate and ended up ranking 47th in job creation. He promptly raised taxes and fees on the backs of businesses in his state. He brought Romneycare into existence… a program that is well on its way to fiscal meltdown. Is that really the record that screams ‘he’s our guy’ to you?

The only thing he has to run on is this bogus ‘Most Electable’ strategy. And as the primaries wear on, his mythical ‘electability’ will evaporate away. And then what will he have left to run on?

I wonder how many people don’t support Mitt for deep logical issues but because he has the charisma of a slug and comes across as a stiff-necked rich guy lacking any “human” touch? Maybe not good reasons but some people want a leader more than a bean-counter as POTUS.

Gov. Perry in an interview on Fox News this morning did a good job of turning the “attacks on capitalism” theme toward “how does the Republican party want to be seen on job creation” theme. I also found it interesting he mentioned two towns in South Carolina that had been affected by companies being restructured by Bain Capital. It made me think that there’s probably many states that have a couple or so towns that have been affected by Bain Capital, whatever “affected” might mean. So, as a conservative voter, glad the candidates, bloggers, and yes, Gov. Palin is bringing this to the fore now. Otherwise, a generic ad regarding Romney and Bain Capital could be written accurately or inaccurately, and then personalized for each state. Vetting in the original sense of the word was seeing if the horse was sound and healthy enough to run. We’ll see.

“..the charisma of a slug..”

There you go. My opposition to Romney came not recently, but in 2008, based on his poor record as governor of Massachusetts, and a record as a successful businessman that is shared by thousands of other people out there and bettered by thousands more – why him?

This go around, Romney is possibly even less charismatic and that’s a crucial element, particularly when running against an abject failure like Obama whose only remaining strength is his personal charisma – many folks still like him despite his failures.

The GOP candidate is going to have to communicate the GOP vision, the GOP platform, to the general public, and is going to have to pull voters out of the middle third independent bloc. Our candidate is going to have to both display and evoke enthusiasm. His arguments need to not only reiterate already well known Obama negatives, but also explain the pathway to resolutions, communicated in a way that generates excitement and support. Given that a dozen mikes and cameras will be trained on him 24/7 for the duration, there must be an innate ability to think on one’s feet and speak extemporaneously, without consulting staff and strategists and, again, with a certain fervor that attracts rather than makes the listener think, “huh, whut he say?”

Romney’s speeches and releases are fairly generic, cookie-cutter, boilerplate material that look good on paper, rarely objectionable, but his personal affect in the media, on camera, is wooden, affected, often plastic, and anything but charismatic.

2008 is when I first rejected him, but based on this blind establishment support, this cycle is when I began thinking of Romney as the Stepford Candidate. He’s like a preprogrammed robot candidate in terms of personal charisma.

[…] I’m not the only conservative on the planet who sees Newt and Perry’s line of attack against Mitt as justified. There’s a difference between “capitalism” and forcing taxpayers to bail out pension funds for laid-off workers after you’ve gutted a company for all it’s worth. Just sayin’. It tickled me this morning to see Sarah Palin asking for proof of Mitt’s claims to have created 100,000 jobs. Much like his tax returns, we’ll never see proof of anything. […]

Romney’s use of the straw man is so “Obamaesque”, and like Obama, for now he has the support of the media. The following immediately preceded the above video of Palin. (slightly paraphrased)

These other desperate candidates are “attacking the free enterprise system, and making an enormous mistake for themselves and for the country”

Yeah right Mitt … they’re not questioning your Bain job creation claims, they are attacking free enterprise and the country. Why not just say they hate America? And what kind of health care mandates will YOU be forcing on the free enterprise system Mitt?

I think Mitt must read this blog, and took that directly from the Animal House argument. “I will not stand here and listen to Newt and Rick bad mouth this country”. heh

I have Mitt’s bit on pause now, and note that his head is tilted to the left as he says this. lol. Next thing we know, he’ll be claiming he didn’t run for re-election not because he was so far down in the polls and had spent the year campaigning for president, but because he only wanted one term. (oh wait, he already trotted that lie out there)

Of all the candidates running for the Republican nomination Romney is my least favorite (other than Paul). So I’m with you there, professor. I like Gingrich to a point, but the problem is as a candidate Gingrich is horribly flawed, probably even worse than Romney. Thus, he’s no alternative. Bachmann, Perry, and Cain were systematically deconstructed, so Romney is what we’re left with.

The reality is only twice in my lifetime (I’m 62) have the Republicans nominated a true conservative, Goldwater in ’64 and Reagan in ’80, and usually it’s not the conservative who gets the nomination. That’s how we got Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain. So, actually, Romney comports with history, whether we like it or not.

To those of you who haven’t lived up close and personal with ‘Flipper’, aka Mitt Romney, I must keep going back to the WORST piece of legislation He shoved down my and the Massachusetts taxpayers throat, ROMNEYCARE.

Unless you live under it and pay for it, YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND this utter failure. Our healthcare contributions are the HIGHEST in the country. I have posted exclusively about the wait time (months) to see specialists and primary care doctors. Our ER’s are manned with police protection. They are so full up day and night with Non-English speaking illegals and vagrants, there is barely room for a taxpaying American born citizen, with an emergency. Staffing is thread bare and overworked.

The greatest hospitals in the world were in Boston. Resources are stretched thin and the costs are astromomical. Those of us in the middle paying for it all have to rely on our prayers, while we wait in line with the freeloaders, our equals. Education here has gone the same exact way. I sound bitter and I am. If your not poor MassHealth costs nearly the same as BCBS. It’s a unsustainable tax burden, that just goes up and up.

Thank You Mitt for the bill.

Free market capitalism is currently on trial by Obama and the Democratic Party. It would be nice to have a nominee who can clearly articulate why socialism will not improve matters and indeed is the root of our problems. It would be nice to have a nominee who understands the power of emotional arguments and can actually come up with arguments that can counter the power of emotion with easy to comprehend reasoning.

So far, Romney has not demonstrated that he has any capacity to present the clear, reasoned arguments that are crucial to countering Obamanomics. Regardless of the actual record of Bain, it isn’t exactly difficult to imagine the powerful emotional appeal of an unemployed worker sobbing in a DNC campaign commercial contrasted against a not very sympathetic appearing Romney. In an economy that isn’t exactly booming thanks to Obama’s unflagging efforts, it would presumably resonate with a decent chunk of the electorate.

If Romney cannot come up with an effective argument, then he should not be the nominee. So far it does not appear that Romney’s awesome private business experience at Bain has given him the ability to effectively and passionately defend the free market to voters. Otherwise, he would be passionately and effectively explaining his career rather than complaining of ‘anti-capitalism’ when his career is questioned.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to forsooth. | January 12, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    “..Romney’s awesome private business experience..”

    Not sure if this is sarcasm, but there are plenty of people who believe it true. The fact is that there are thousands and thousands of businessmen and women out there who are even better than Romney is business, so what exactly makes Romney the one who ought to be president? Pull up the full list of people with equal achievements in business and Romney fades to the middle of that set.

      punfundit in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 12, 2012 at 9:46 pm

      HH, I’m with you but the argument of course is that Romney is the businessman who is running. They aren’t.

      But then again:
      – Herman Cain was a businessman.
      – Newt Gingrich runs a small business.
      – Ron Paul ran a doctor’s office and published a newsletter.

      Hmm, it seems your point still stands.

      Nevermind.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend