« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What if Bain made porno films?

By: barleycorn (Diary)  |  January 13th, 2012 at 11:37 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I am astounded by the apparent inability of many conservatives to think in logical progression. Frankly I expect liberals to be irrational and confused but I’m nonplussed in the face of the firestorm surrounding the Newt Gingrich attack ads against Bain Capital and Mitt Romney.

How can any intelligent human take a criticism of a specific TYPE of business as an attack on all of capitalism? Imagine if Bain Capital has instead been Bain Bare Skin Productions and in the business of making porn flicks. Would the same people who now castigate Newt Gingrich be singing the same hymn?

Adding to the absurdity is that no one disputes what the Gingrich ads say! Instead they cackle like a bunch of old hens about Newt “attacking capitalism”. That charge is so totally without merit that I have to believe its being pushed mainly by Romney-bots. Then however I see two people as ideologially unalike as Rudy Giuliani and Jim Demint each chattering about how awful it all is.

Where were Rudy and Jim when Romney was slicing, cubing, and pureeing Newt Gingrich in Iowa? Mitt Romney has ran a vicious campaign against anyone who has gotten in his way but when someone fights back suddenly he is untouchable? It reminds me of an old movie where the spoiled little rich kid could smack other kids around but they were not allowed to respond in kind. This is exactly the same dynamic. Mitt Romney is an untouchable child of privilege so we mustn’t kick dirt on his shoes or muss his hair.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • texashistorian

    The left has so hammered large scale business and finance pursuits that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction on the right to any criticism of large corporations or large-scale financiers.

    The argument Newt has made, whether you agree or not, is not about legality. It’s about morality. As with all moral issues, your mileage may vary, but to defend Mitt and Bain simply on the grounds that they engaged in legal business practices misses the bigger point.

    Well said.

    • aesthete

      Oh wait, Bain doesn’t do that — nor does it make pornos. I’d like to know exactly what Bain did that was wrong, that does not involve firing people or closing shop on failing businesses (both being practices that are at the core of the free market’s prosperity and basic functionality).

      • Ender

        What was immoral?

        • joshdunn

          Gingrich has been called a lot of things during his 50-year career as a politician and lobbyist for Freddie Mac. But “mature” is not one of them.

          Gingrich, unfortunately, can’t even do revenge right. He is too dumb to realize that his staying in the race hurts Santorum and helps Romney.

          But the $5 million that one of his idiot supporters spent on the 28-minute “neanderthal” video may end up hurting Romney in the general and helping Obama.

          Which is fine with Gingrich. Remember when Gingrich suggested in 2006 that the Democrats use the slogan “Had enough?” against Republicans? Yeah. Gingrich is like that. Rhymes with “prick” and has the same meaning.

          • snowshooze

            Gingrich has a shot.
            What is he supposed to do.. pull a McCain and be afraid to even state the obvious?
            If you do not address the weaknesses of the competition… how can you expect to ever make a move?
            What would you do?
            I notice the great number of delagates assigned…
            We aren’t even on the runway, although we can see it from here.

          • lineholder

            attacks against Romney hit a bit too close to home and your taking them personally?

            LOL, That happens a lot during the primary season.

          • clowngirl

            Gingrich was never a “lobbyist” if there’s so much wrong with his record why can’t you make your point without lying?

            And if Newt is such a non-factor why even waste energy attacking him.

            As to “taking votes from Santorum” Gingrich is a clear second in South Carolina (with some polls showing him within the margin of error for first) and in the latest Florida poll, Newt is at 25% — the only candidate besides Romney in double digits.

            He has clearly the best case as the emerging conservative alternative.

      • deVere

        You buy a business with a small down payment and then have the business borrow money to pay you a large “management fee” that is much larger than your original investment. The business then collapses under the weight of debt, leaving government to pick up the tab with unemployment compensation and pension guarantee funds. This is all perfectly legal, but just maybe it shouldn’t be?

        • Finrod

          For the simple reason that we have too many things illegal now that shouldn’t be. What it should be is unpopular, and let the court of public opinion render its judgement.

      • barleycorn

        A. Newt thinks what Bain did was wrong.
        B. You apparently disagree with him.
        C. A + B don’t add up to Newt attacking capitalism.

        • aesthete

          My contention has always been that there are perfectly valid reasons to attack Romney and his Bain record, and that Perry and Newt are going about it the wrong way by implicitly attacking the mechanisms by which the market allocates resources efficiently, and without which it cannot work (namely, firing people and shelving failing businesses). (Then people act like this should be legal, but seen in a suspect or un-Christian light [which makes me wonder what they think of Republican candidates who want to reduce the rolls of government employees, cut benefits, stop bailouts, etc].) It was very considerate of you to attribute a position to me that I don’t hold, but I’d prefer if you’d argue with the real me, instead.

          Your contention per the OP appears to be that some businesses do immoral but legal things (true). From this you appear to infer that any attack on a specific type of business model or corporation is fine — to which I ask, how was Bain’s business model wrong or inappropriate? Newt’s response (at least in part) is that it’s inappropriate because jobs were lost and businesses shuttered, which is very much an attack on a necessary part of capitalism. I asked a simple and valid question pertaining to the subject of your OP — one that deVere answered to my satisfaction, which Newt and Perry did not, and which you have yet to answer. An answer on your part would be instructive, methinks.

          • barleycorn

            Perhaps if you wrote in a coherent style, people could understand you better.

            Your question “I

          • aesthete

            Since you appear to be too stupid or dishonest to address the many and sundry responses to the 30-minute attack ad linked to Newt Gingrich’s campaign, allow me to update you: a Newt Gingrich-affiliated PAC releases an ad which contains chestnuts like, “[Bain Capital's] greed was only matched by their willingness to do anything to make millions in profits. Nothing spared, nothing mattered but greed.” Perry echoes this ad by mumbling something about vulture capitalism. Conservatives and libertarians respond to this quite badly, explaining what they believe to be flawed about a “People over Profits!!” line of attack from a capitalist perspective.

            In response to this kerfuffle, you post, “WHAT IF BAIN WAS DOING PORNOS?!?!”, which is either a hilariously bad non-sequitur, or a simply terrible analogy. Allowing for the assumption that it was the latter, I offered you the opportunity to criticize Bain Capital on moral grounds consistent with the basic fundamentals of the capitalist system. Given that we are talking about an actual ad that was realized recently within our space-time continuum, and not having a theoretical, abstract conversation about the possibility of capitalist critiques of businesses in a mixed-market economy, I assumed that you would be game for that — especially since your diary notes said, specific ad. Your response, in keeping with the nature of your diary, has a key lack of understanding of context — and idiotically reiterates the rather basic point that there exists somewhere the possibility of an attack on Bain Capital that is not anti-capitalistic in nature. Uh, duh, dude.

            Now that we’re up to speed, let me clear something up for you: we are, all of us, aware that there exists the possibility that an attack on Bain Capital is not anti-capitalist in nature. We have been discussing for the past week whether Newt’s particular attack was anti-capitalist in nature, and why. We have, pro and con, been providing examples for why this may or may not be the case. Whether right or wrong, we would never have been able to get to the “evidence” point in the argument if both parties did not acknowledge the mindnumbingly obvious: that yes, there does exist the possibility that attack on Bain =/= an attack on capitalism. I do apologize for assuming that you were with the rest of us vis a vis basic argumentation and flow of conversation; Lord knows that won’t happen again.

            As to my coherence, I will note that two (2) people, in responding to this thread, appear to HAVE understand my point well enough to write on-topic responses, and that hundreds of people throughout the course of my posting on RS seem to have managed a similar feat. It is not surprising that you would resort to an attack on someone else’s text when yours proves so wanting, but I would appreciate that you not drag the rest of the RS commentariat down to your sorry level of demonstrated intelligence by implying that they possess your same (almost nonexistent) level of reading comprehension.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            …and, frankly, the crux of what I think is important here (and which you brought up) is the scorched-earth tactics of the allegedly Squeaky-Clean Mitt Romney– who is more than happy to hide behind the skirts of his Super PACs, and pretend to be above the fray, while his super-bundlers absolutely eviscerate Newt Gingrich with demonstrable half-truths, hearsay, and personal smears, — and then have the gall to set up the narrative in the popular entertainments in which Gingrich isn’t allowed to respond in kind. It is grotesque.

            If the Romney Plan for Primay Electoral Victory is allowed to succeed, all future GOP primary races, (at least those in which the nomination is contested), will only be contests based on PERSONALITY rather than solutions or ideas, –and only the most well-heeled need apply. As I’ve said earlier, it also is a dagger in the heart of Reaganism, in that it destroys his Eleventh Commandment, and also in that Romney’s campaign is stuffed with those well-known peddlers of Reagan-loathing, like Karl Rove (who purged the Texas GOP of Reaganites in the years of George W.’s ascendency), John Sununu, and George HW Bush, whose Anti-Reaganism was well documented. Romney is manifestly NOT a Reaganite. He’s said as much.

            Mitt Romney has absolutely disgraced himself, based on his Neutron Bombing of his opponents in Iowa, and allowing himself to also enjoy the fruits of the Paul attacks, as well. Romney ALONE has turned the GOP primary race into a muddy cattle-wade, and he must be called to account.

            What a disgrace if this man becomes our nominee…

          • barleycorn

            Is this course good for a full credit or just half?

            Aesthete, I’m sure you are fine person so I’m not going to respond by questioning your intelligence or honesty.

            From my perspective the only impediment to our good fellowship is your failure to grasp that my post was confined to Topic A while you want me to engage you on Topic B.

            Whether the anti-Bain ads were good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, fair or unfair, is decidedly NOT what my post dealt with and is therefore NOT a subject I’m interested in debating with you.

            Whether or not Bain was a wonderful company that provided an essential service in a demand economy is likewise not within the purview of my post.

          • aesthete

            We all understand what you describe as being Topic A, otherwise we would not be here. It’d be like writing a primary describing the basics of what a primary is on RS… during primary season.

          • barleycorn

            n/t

        • joshdunn

          Michael Moore was so pleased with the 28-minute attack video that Gingrich’s shoe-string campaign supporters somehow paid for.

          I watched that 28-minute piece of crap and I thought it was one of the worst “fake-umentaries” I’d ever seen.

          It was 28 minutes of people with Southern drawls saying stupid stuff like “Well ah don’t unnastan wah mistuh romney hassa make all dat money offa paypull.”

          By the time I got done, I had to read the Wall Street Journal just to feel human again.

          Read Michael Moore’s gushing praise of Mr. Gingrich and his political hacks: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/media/romney-film-shows-hollywood-techniques-at-play-in-politics.html?_r=1&src=dayp

          • lineholder

            ROFL, you really aren’t making much headway for Romney today, are you?

            I keep trying to tell you and you haven’t been listening. This is a Conservative site. Romney is a self-professed moderate who has changed positions as often he changes underwear.

            If you want to win over Conservatives, you aren’t going to succeed by using the inevitably meme, the “he’s a Conservative” meme, (progressive or otherwise), by attacking his opponents or by attacking any specific demographic of voters with whom you personally disagree.

            You have to prove how Romney is trustworthy and on what things he has proven he can be trusthworthy. That’s what it comes down to.

          • pttx333

            is merely pushing for Romney to win with an agenda from another group, IMHO. Gee, wonder who that could be? /s

          • lineholder

            That’s his agenda, plain and simple.

          • pttx333

            aggressive and ugly than usual for most candidates. Either way, he is catching a lot of flak, and rightfully so.

            Thanks for the info!

  • acat

    and .. really, that’s one of the two problems.

    Romney says something about jobs, people laid off by Bain start showing up – portrayed very sympathetically – on the nightly news.

    Romney says something about healthcare, experts start outlining all the parallels between Romneycare and Obamacare start showing up…

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the ecological niche Bain filled – herd cullin’ cheetah – but the visuals suck.

    The second problem is that Romney needs to reply to this .. and while it would have been better if the media or a debate moderator had raised it, that hasn’t happened. Draw your own conclusions.

    It’s going to come up… but so far, he hasn’t had an *effective* reply.

    Mew

    • joshdunn

      These were just whoever they could round up to complain about “rich guys on Wall Street”.

      It was a desperate attack from a desperate man (Gingrich).

      Gingrich has to come to terms with the fact that he will never be president. It won’t be easy. But once he comes to terms with that, the rest of his life will get better.

      • acat

        every single GOP candidate in the country would like a word with you.

        Shall I go dig up the “throbbing Dan Rather memo” for you?

        …

        Get serious.

        Mew

        • pttx333

          was the very first election I was old enough to vote (21+), and that vote went for Goldwater. This is how he portrayed Goldwater – as a war monger. LBJ was a man with filthy dirty hands, and I hope he’s spinning in his grave to this very day!

      • clowngirl

        And Ted Kennedy was so unpopular after his nephew’s rape trial that 68% of citizens in Massachusetts thought he shouldn’t run for reelection in 1994. They thought – by a 2 to 1 margin – that he misled the police, and in a hypothetical election between Ted Kennedy and Republican Governor William Weld projected Kennedy to lose by 25 points.

        1994 also happened to be the 25th anniversary of Chappaquiddick.

        Given these factors, it’s not surprising that with a month to go Romney was within the margin of errors.

        But he couldn’t withstand attacks on his record at Bain.

        From what I saw in a quick look back his main response tactics seemed to be asking Ted Kennedy to play nicely and having his strategists call Kennedy and his campaign “desperate”

        And yet — even with a Republican Governor who won with over 70% of the vote (by a record margin of victory) providing very long coat tails….

        Romney lost by 17 points.

        Amazing that he hasn’t changed tactics.

        When scrutiny of his record at Bain was so predictable it’s odd that Romney is so unwilling to address the particularly cases under discussion.

        In detail.

        Unless the attacks are basically true.

        In that case it would make sense to counterattack and scream “class warfare” while desperately trying to change the subject.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and wrote a diary last night to come out at three that lays out the same argument, what if A candidate owned porn shops, would that be off limits. Having said that, even with Romney having this, he is still a far better choice than Newt or Santorum. I’m not big into electing former lobbyist, or D.C. information pushing former elected officials into the White House.

    • snowshooze

      I’m all ears.

      • acat

        There ya go, snowy.

        Mew

        • snowshooze

          No. I am looking for something really good. Possibly something outstanding.
          Every other Candidate has something really outstanding, if not excellent that they can toot their horn on.
          I am unable to find anything for our boy, Romney. Nuthin. Zip. Nada.
          Now what is it about him that would make me want him for a President?
          Look… I am really struggling here.

  • clowngirl

    They aren’t attacking private equity — they are scrutinizing one specific company on 4 specific deals.

    In ” When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond” (a recent article in the Washington Post) William Cohan writes that when he was a deal adviser on Wall Street Bain Capital used a deplorable bait and switch scheme (offering the highest bids in early rounds so they could eliminate competition and then giving a low ball offer — when the company was now in a weakened position and had lost a great deal of leverage) he said others on Wall Street also saw them do this and that is was “unique”

    That means other venture capitalists didn’t employ such techniques and presumably were more honest than Bain.

    It’s not an attack on venture capitalism (Which shouldn’t be compared to the porn industry) just on Bain.

    • Common_Cents

      Bidding high in early rounds comes with little risk most often, because its based on some prelim due diligence. After competition is eliminated the winner could find something about the business that would make it less valuable.

      Often times it could be so far down the path that the company finds it better to negotiate rather then restart the process w/ other bidders.

      In my case, Bain bid so low on my company they were out in the first round. A strategic buyer come up w/ some big numbers.

      • clowngirl

        There could be legitimate changes — but Bain did this so often (even up to the final supposedly near binding bid so as to be allowed to negotiate alone) and changed the bid so drastically that it seemed like bad faith.

        He also said this was back when Romney was CEO of Bain — he has heard Bain Capital doesn’t do that anymore.

        When were you considering selling your company.

        Anyway– I’d recommend reading the article for yourself and would be curious to hear what you think of it.

        • Common_Cents

          But there was a potential adverse threat was real as one of my large customers got bought out by Clayton Dubilier and Rice during my deal. There was a potential threat of losing biz so my bidder offered 50% less. I told them to pound sand. After 6mos we doubled our business and I doubled my original price.

          I negotiated directly w/ the CFO of the fortune 200. He said the material adverse change clause only worked in the buyers favor, I told him, not anymore ;) and he went off on me at the final negotiations, dropping F bombs and then agreed to my terms. I figured he was the worlds best actor or I got him to his limit. hehe

          They then proceeded to strip my company down a couple years later to save money on headcount and lost half their business.
          We were their most profitable company worldwide running about 22-24% EBITDA and they just had to tinker with it. Idiots.

          • clowngirl

            and I could see that there could be times there would be a legitimate reason to drop the price substantially.

            But I also could imagine a company operating in bad faith and dropping the price substantially for mere pretenses and I found the bad and switch charge fairly persuasive.

            It would take more corroborating evidence to know for sure (or even reasonably sure) if Bain is really guilty of this particular dishonest tactic — but, if they were– it would be extremely damaging in the general election.

            What concerns me about this unwillingness to deal with Romney’s record at Bain during the primary season is that he could go into the General Election only half vetted and with a genuine time bomb ready to explode.

            we shouldn’t assume Romney’s conduct was honest at Bain. He hasn’t conducted himself that way as a politician and if he did employ dishonesty (via bait and switch tactics or anything else) to increase his pockets at the cost of a companies viability it would be a charge more devastating under the current climate than almost anything else imaginable.

          • jakeofalltrades

            it speaks well of your candidate that he has your support.

          • Common_Cents

            nt

  • deVere

    Mitt needs to be tested, and if he can pass the test, it’s at least possible he can do the same against Obama. Mitt does seem to be Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life”, so it’s not going to be easy.