« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

If I understand this right, I have a question

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 11th, 2012 at 12:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If I understand this right, Bain Capital profited from the creative destruction of capital. It went in, found the unappreciated or hidden value in companies, restructured and/or chopped up companies, and returned the valuable parts to health.

It did it across the board.

And if I understand it right, attacking Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for what Bain did is unacceptable as an attack on capitalism. Now, this bit may be a bit over broad as I suspect there are things Bain did that conservative might attack, including itself taking government money in the past.

But that’s the gist, right?

Bain participated in capitalism, revitalized defunct companies, spun off as needed, and from the ashes of creative destruction of capital made a profit, saved or created companies, and saved or created jobs therefore let’s not attack Romney for his time there.

If I have that right (and I largely agree with it), I have a question.

If Mitt Romney saw, knew, profited from and participated in the creative destructive of capital, why did he advocate the government passing the troubled asset relief program (“TARP”)? Why not let the creative destruction of capital solve the problem and potentially make a profit off it?

It seems to me, considering his continued involvement with Bain, though indirect, Bain and other private equity groups and others in the private sector could have handled the messiness without government involving itself, deciding some were too big to fail, and now potentially setting up a scenario where people take undue risks thinking the government will do it all over again.

And if the answer is that they are different functions or what have you, then is making the comparison between what Romney did with Bain and Obama did with General Motors a comparison that can hold water? One, after all, is a private company profiting from the creative destruction of capital. The other is the government taking over a business.

Just a question.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sunshinek67

    that’s where my radar went.

  • sunshinek67

    that’s where my radar went.

  • Vaughn Harold

    to the Bain attackes by comparing his role at Bain to Obama’s takeover of GM. I can’t believe this, Romney is running on the premise he is the Republican Obama.

    Wow!

  • standingonthewall

    Did the people and firms that benefited from TARP contribute (collectively) a lot of money to Mitt’s campaign? Anyone got a source?

    If they did… Capitalism or Cronyism?

  • Trubador

    This morning I heard Romney on the radio say that what they did at Bain is just like what the government did with the automotive bailout. And he sounded proud about it… like the federal government intervention/bailout was a GOOD thing.

    Agreeing with the actions of Romney/Bain is one thing.

    Agreeing to and approving of the auto bailout is something entirely different.

    And Mitten’s apparent approval of it (just like his approval of – heck, even his precursor to – ObamaCare) is frightening.

  • lineholder

    Wow! I’m not sure Romney even considered attempting to try to justify his actions by using this comparison. Where has he been? Does he not know that the general public was not in favor of this type of intervention to begin with???

  • jakeofalltrades

    He’s not the paragon of capitalism that people are claiming, and TARP proves it. He’s talking out both ends of his mouth and sadly, usually non-credulous people on Redstate are falling for it.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Here.

    Hat tip: ColdWarrior

  • Ann_W

    They pull out the sad cases about the companies that failed when Bain tried to turn them around, without acknowledging that people were fired and hurt in that same way when Obama tried to turn around the auto companies. To rescue failing companies people get fired sometimes and it sucks, but to ignore that Obama did it, too, is hypocritical.

  • Darin_H

    because this runs counter to the argument that Romney had been making previously re GM/Govt Motors. (yeah, I know, a flip-flop shouldn’t be unexpected…)

  • Ann_W

    Not agreeing, but the hypocrisy should be pointed out.

  • lineholder

    1

  • Ann_W

    Sorry

  • Stan

    Mittens backtrack when the conservative backlash hits. Comparing what he did at Bain to what “Dear Leader” did with GM/Chrysler is telling. And scary.

  • paladin1

    He will lose the election for conservatives and, by making the claim to be a conservative, will be perceived as one by the vast uninformed public and set the conservative movement back 20 years. THIS is something that Governor Perry and Speaker Gingrich should be pounding on, not the legitimate capitalist operation of Bain.

  • jj2012

    See? I’m no worse than Obama!

    (I saw the same thing. Gag me. And THIS is the guy that is so “electable?”)

  • jj2012

    “…speaking Wednesday (1/11/12) on CBS, Romney said that what he did was no different from the Obama administration?s auto industry bailouts.”

    So let me get this straight…Mitt’s brilliant strategy to win in the general election is to tell voters–Hey, I’m no worse than Obama!

    #godhelpus

    http://mobile.thehill.com/video/campaign/203497-romney-likens-work-at-bain-to-obamas-auto-industry-bailout

  • bk

     

  • johnt

    additonal steps to follow.

  • lepelerin

    This kind of slashing and dicing of companies has effected a lot of people. No one feels very good about this kind of capitalism except those profiting.

    Don’t know if Perry or Gringrich will get any traction but Mitt may be peaking right now!

  • acat

    How many UAW folks lost their livelihoods during the auto bailouts?
    How many *dealership* folks lost theirs?

    I can see the point Willard may have been trying to make, but .. what it tells me is how badly out of touch with the electorate he and his team are. .. and that’s not going to lead anywhere good in the general.

    I suppose the old saw of generals fighting the last war applies…

    Mew

  • sbm1

    Mitt Romney seems like a guy who generally has his personal finances in line with most americans….he is thrifty, and only really spends big money on houses and things that his family will use (all the big vacation type houses)….but he seems to have two traits that I cannot stand among a lot of people who have done well financially….he doesn’t think others are smart enough to do what he did….so even though capitalism worked, he doesn’t think it does with people not as smart as him….and the other thing is this chuminess…and that is why so many of the big wigs supported tarp…they thought a true creative disruption that might have left some of the members of his country club suddenly penniless woudl be too harsh….it is rockefeller republicanism, and I am sure it is what his dad was.

  • pttx333

    Mittens has just admitted he and b.o. are one and the same.

    Go for the gusto, Rick Perry … take him OUT!!

  • Scope

    from bailed out Wall Street banks. If anyone doesn’t think the liberals will bury Romney in the gutter if he is the nominee, due to his wall street ties, then here is only the start of it.

  • renl57

    …is that Bain didn’t rescue struggling companies on the taxpayer’s nickel. Unlike the Government bailing out GM, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, etc.

    That’s such an obvious difference that Romney assumed it wasn’t even necessary to state it explicitly.

    If some venture capitalists (probably super-rich guys like
    Warren Buffett) had stepped in to try to rescue GM with their own money at risk, would you have had any objection to that?

  • ethos

    The Left will be forced to cede ground on the value of market principles, that to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of an entity that is failing you have to make painful cuts to jobs and benefits. How can Romney’s private sector successful implementation of these principles be immoral when President Obama resorted to exactly these same principles in helping out the Auto Industry? And so on.

    As to the critique that Romney advancing the effectiveness and need of free market principles by identifying those same principles being put to use by welfare state Democrats makes him a welfare state Democrat…

  • darkstar58

    Liberal Romney pokes his head out again…

    But don’t worry, Romney “do(esn’t) think (Obama) is a bad guy; I think he’s over his head”

    Because we all know he is a good guy with good ideas that he just isn’t experienced enough to get done… right?

    once again, Romney’s 4 years in office:
    - Romneycare (after 30+ years of Dems trying to pass it)

    - Cap & Tax (Romney bragged: ?Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 limits on power plants.?)

    - single highhandedly allowed Gay Marriage (while Dems complained they should ignore the completely unconstitutional court hearing Romney cites as the reaason)

    - gave Planned Parenthood 5 Billion to build abortion clinics

    - gave free abortions through Romneycare (with merely a $50 co-pay)

    - forced Catholic hospitals to give out birth control

    - Planned Parenthood placed on Oversight Committee

    - one of tougher gun laws in country made permanent and vague

    - 3/4 of judge appointments Democrat or agenda-driven Independents (Romney bragged: ?(I have) not paid a moment?s notice to nominee?s political leanings.?)

    - ensuring sanctuary cities get state aid

    - Raised taxes from 9.3% to 9.9% overall over his time

    - Doubled corporate tax rate

    - 100s of new ?sin? taxes, consumption taxes and carbon taxes (including increasing gas tax, internet sales tax, tax on hunting licenses, etc)

    - so much regulation, state only saw 1.4% growth while the Country as a whole witnessed 5.4% over the same time

    - 47th in gob creation

    - State budget up 37.5%, from $23,011,620,000.00 to $31,649,416,000.00, leaving a Debt per Capita of over $15,000

    Romney, sure he’s Left of Obama but he’s also the “real Conservative” in the race… (per our dear Establishment leaders)

  • Darin_H

    While Trubador is a bit misleading is his characterization of it, and it’s not inconsistent with Romney’s previous position (shouldn’t have bailed them out, should have gone through bankruptcy reorg), I see that he’s just trying to diffuse an Obama attack against him in the general – “Agree or disagree with the GM bailout, Obama did exact what I did at Bain with failing businesses, cut some in order to save.”

    Eh, it’s not really anything to go all TRUE CONSERVATIVE!!111! on.

  • http://simplethoughts.weebly.com/ simplethinker

    I believe the logic pushed at the time was that the private sector did not have enough resources to absorb so much. I’m surprised Erick didn’t hear that one.

  • civildebate

    that Bush and Obama didn’t bailout the auto companies to line their own pockets. And neither were taking pictures with the money they got out of the deal.

  • satchman3

    I personally have a lot of trouble squaring that circle but it seems the conservative punditry is giving out passes since the sky was falling.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Republicans maybe, but no conservatives. And when the Republicans supported it they violated their own written party platform.

  • civildebate

    If the auto companies could have gotten loans from a bank or private lender then they would have. But the truth is that no lender in the world wanted to lend to them because it was a bad investment. Those auto companies have been poorly managed for decades now.

    So the auto companies went to the only lender that would listen to their sob story and gave a crap about the effects of them laying off all their workers or being bought wholesale by a foreign gov’t: The US gov’t.

    Since a private equity firm can’t reap the benefits of the employed workers taxes or votes then they’d have no reason to invest in the auto companies.

  • pmb88

    …. refer to him as President Obama. imo it was a freudian slip. Romney’s response just shows that he has similar qualities to Obama that you can not tell the difference.

    Romney just gave Perry and Gingrich more ammo against him. As much as I hate Gingrich and Perry attacking him on Bain, it is what the left will use against him if he is nominated. Look at how he is trying to defend bain by comparing it to obama and the gm bailout.

  • izoneguy

    What Obama did with GM was economic fascism. So Mitt Romney is really saying he is more of a fascist than a capitalist?

    This is Economic Fascism

    At least the auto manufacturing sector of the American economy has come
    under fascistic rule. President Obama and his team have assumed such
    powers pretty much on their own, without a referendum–indeed polls seem
    to show that most American disapprove of what they are doing, such as
    firing the head of GM. (One should ask, who are these people to assume
    such powers? By what right or authority do they do what no citizen of a
    free country could do with impunity?)

    Is this move on the part of Obama & Co. justified? No. GM ought to suffer
    the consequences of its bad management, its loss of costumers, and the
    influence of the union leadership to which most of the workers belong. Big
    or small, there is no justification for a company to stay in business when
    it has lost most of its customer base and has become credit unworthy.
    Indeed, one of the best features of a genuine free economy is that such
    companies go out of business.

  • renl57

    Perry, 10 January:
    “They [Bain] are just vultures. They’re vultures that [are] sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton.”

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/10/perry-romney-acted-vulture-while-bain-capital

    Maureen Dowd, 11 January:
    “Romney may have been a Wall Street predator, looter and vulture gnawing at the carcasses of companies and plotting a White House bid in diapers to finish what his dad started, *as his Republican rivals have portrayed him*. ?Make a profit,? a younger Romney laughingly says in the attack film financed by supporters of *Newt Gingrich*. ?That?s what it?s all about, right??”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/dowd-a-perfect-doll.html

    Perry’s statements–and the attack video that Gingrich paid for–are the perfect ammunition for the Dems to use against Romney if he’s nominated. Maureen Dowd just started the ball rolling for them.

    This is way beyond vetting Romney. This is a deliberate attempt to so damage Romney as to make him unelectable.

    Which on the part of the Perry supporters amounts to a self-fulfilled prophecy.

  • sbm1

    Cerberus bought Chrysler in hopes of turning it around, but it didn’t.

    There would have been enough capital to pick GM or Chrysler up….he question is just always at what cost. Any sane company would have waited for it to go into bankruptcy, and picked it up after it laid off 30% of its workforce, and halved its pension obligations,a dn that would be the best thing to happen medium term to michigan….a state that can’t find its manufacturing footing because the automobile industry overpaid undereducated and inflexible labor union members for the better part of 50 years.

  • jakeofalltrades

    :D

  • sbm1

    to describe private equity firms…..

    It is wrong when he does it, it is wrong when perry does it. Why doesn’t Perry just say Romney is Richard Gere in Pretty Woman…so do you want a president who dates hookers? Because the understanding of private equity is just about as wrong as thinking that the depiction in that movie is accurate.

  • OCBill

    “Mommy, is it because I was bad? Is that why Santa didn’t come this year?”
    .
    “No, honey. It’s because of the ‘creative destruction’ aspect of capitalism. Daddy had to lose his job because otherwise there wouldn’t have been enough money to pay Mitt Romney his million dollar bonus for figuring how many people to fire.”

  • OCBill

    “Mommy, is it because I was bad? Is that why Santa didn’t come this year?”
    .
    “No, honey. It’s because of the ‘creative destruction’ aspect of capitalism. Daddy had to lose his job because otherwise there wouldn’t have been enough money to pay Mitt Romney his million dollar bonus for figuring how many people to fire.”

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    In order to have this creative destruction and what not, one must be able to access capital markets and in late 2008, there simply was no access to capital at all. Thus, the private sector simply was unable (and unwilling/untrusting) to come in and salvage these companies and the ramifications of the failure of those largest banks were such that the collateral damage to the rest of the economy would have been extreme.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    There are two entirely different aspects of private equity. One is the above, buying failing companies and turning them around. The other is buying successful, but undervalued companies and jacking up your return through various means (whether it is asset sales, layoffs, etc). The first one is easy to support, the second less so (at least from an average American perspective).

  • darkstar58

    he was never electable in the first place

    To the establishment, “electable” means “will appeal to the center and Democrats” and will do everything right because they know best – you know, like McCain… And Bush2… And Dole… And Bush1… And Ford…

    Of those 5 candidates who ran in 8 total elections, they won 3 – giving us 3 Bush terms which are so loved by the average person…

    Romney has lost 3/4 elections (including his running away from reelection because of his horrific polling) and has only won once – in a fantastic GOP winning year, against a split Democrat/Green ticket, after a nasty, mudslinging, 5-way DNC primary, in a state where the GOP had held the office for 16 years… and he managed all of 49% of the vote! Woo-hoo, talk about impressive…

  • loganyung

    Erick,

    You can point to each one of the Republican candidates and find equivalently horrible statements or actions (Gardasil, sitting on the couch with Pelosi, Cap-and-Trade support, “Re-invade Iraq” – regardless of the intention it was a stupid statement, among a long list of others). I’ve moved from supporting one candidate to the next as they have disappointed me. And, a couple of weeks ago, I landed on Romney, and I’m sticking there.

    I know that you listened to or read Romney’s New Hampshire victory speech, and I’d like to ask you a couple of questions. Was there anything in the speech where you had a disagreement? Is there any part of the speech where you believe that Romney is lying, and will countermand the promise once in office? If not, what’s your main beef (yes I know the long list of potential Romney issues, but, we’re not in a vacuum here and Reagan isn’t running)?

    I have to say, I’ve been disappointed in your incoherence throughout this primary, but, I’d guess that you’ve been in the similar situation of not being completely happy with any of the candidates either.

  • snowshooze

    I heard on Talk Radio in Wisconsin during my visit here, that Bain would buy a company, sell off every asset, rip off the union retirement plan, re-negotiate it with the Union…and sell off the remaining skeleton. Retirement raider… yikes.
    I am only repeating the gist of the story I heard,
    I believe that Bain was actually a for-profit company, and if Romney thought he could sell any potential good stories about what Bain was doing… he would have done that long ago.
    Now he is just trying to obfuscate the truth.
    He killed companies that were doing reasonable for a quick buck on the backs of the work-force is what I heard.
    Hey, no laws were broken.

  • texastaxpayer

    Didnt stop Romney from advocating for it also did it?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226567/republican-stimulus-plan/mitt-romney

  • texastaxpayer

    The dems where never planning to attack Romney on his “Job Creation Record”. Guess Huntsman should stop pointing out Romney was 47th in job creation as governor and somebody stop Newt from mentionaing he had a job approval rating of 34% and couldnt run again because of it…..

    Jeeze these dumb Republicans just keep letting the dems know Romney isnt perfect… whatever are we to do?????

  • texastaxpayer

    Just can’t wait to try and defend this loser to my less than attentive friends when the ads start. Oh wait thats right, I am not going to bother. Can’t defend someone I dont support.

  • cheetah2

    It doesn’t look as bad if you read what he actually said, but I think it is still weak. “I was not as bad as Obama”, or “Obama did just what I did” are not comparisons a conservative ought to be making.

    I was hoping for better, from our “inevitable candidate”.

    I do expect fireworks at the next debate…

  • unitedwestood

    The cows or chickens come home! Romeny can NOT win this election. It would be impossible to win against a mirror. Romney himself confirmed today what I’ve been spouting off about for weeks now! ( on other outlets) He’s obama lite! He’s confirmed this himself many times over again. This video is VERY telling about Romney. While I’ll admit, I’ve almost unsubscribed from these hard selling Ron Paul pushers…but, some of their stocks have done pretty well. http://inflation.us/videos.html I’m certainly glad I didn’t and I didn’t open this e-mail till this morning, guess I should of opened it sooner.

    If Rick Perry will just hang on – Mitt Romney is on his way out…he’s just NOW being vetted after 6 years of running and he, himself is going to bury him. Boy! People say Perry is gaffe prone.

    Rick Perry 2012 accept no imitations!

  • mtbrimstone

    Erickson, you’ve expressed it well by way of example:

    “If Mitt Romney saw, knew, profited from and participated in the creative destructive of capital, why did he advocate the government passing the troubled asset relief program (?TARP?)? Why not let the creative destruction of capital solve the problem and potentially make a profit off it?” – Erickson (from diary above)

    Mitt Romney wears his private sector experience like a blue ribbon pinned to his chest from an pie eating contest. But his four years of gubernatorial efforts left quite a bit to be desired in terms of economic growth. His experience at Bain Capital simply did not translate into solid results for Massachusetts while he was Governor. But he wants us to believe it will if he is elected President? He will say everything he needs to say to get elected, but it is highly questionable whether or not he will actually deliver while in the Oval Office.

  • pttx333

    that Perry blew the whistle on Romney, so to speak? What a huge joke! The dems have had a huge file on Romney for years, just as they have had on any repub in the spotlight. Good grief!

  • loganyung

    In Massachusetts, toll collectors make $75,000/year as a political favoritism arrangement, which is just indicative of the massive corruption in all levels of Massachusetts society. And, the people in Massachusetts don’t seem to care. You could argue that Romney was stupid for running for Governor, but, I don’t think it’s fair to pin all Massachusetts problems on him.

    I haven’t heard anyone disparage his rescuing of the Olympics, which, I assume almost everyone agrees with the positive assessment. This was a $1B+ operation and was rife with huge bureaucracy and corruption. One question, which of the Republican candidates do you think would have done a better job? Isn’t this a microcosm of what we’re expecting from a potential leader of this country? Results?

    There are enough Americans left who understand that we’re heading off of a cliff and who still care. I think his results are likely to be better with the country than with just Massachusetts.

  • tercel

    question was: “Well Obama is rich too”. Then Romney went to the GM comment then Romney went to well we (meaning he and Obama) would “talk” about it.

    Romney has no answer for his Bain Capital questions. If he can’t defend himself in the primarys…he can’t defend himself when Obama goes after him and then we are going to be stuck with a candidate that is incapable of defending himself and us.

    Bain is Romney’s Achilles heal and Obama knows it. It is what OWS is all about!

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    I have noticed that Erik has gotten several middle page links to RealClearPolitics in the last few weeks – more than I have ever seen before for him. Are the now daily inflamatory posts bashing Romney really about the “conservative” movement, or is about being noticed as the most vocal conservative trashing Romney? I sometimes wonder. Or maybe Erik just wants to know what its like to be Chuck Hagel.

    Anyway – when you all stop sulking, and in hindsight come to grips with the fact that Rick Perry was either one of the worst candidates of all time or ran one of the worst campaigns of all time – then please join the rest of us in trying to defeat Obama.

    On a daily basis – it amuses me that while Romney is lambasted for flip-flopping, how so many here have flip flopped and tied themselves in knots like pretzels justifying statements/positions that were once deemed unconservative, but now are used as the primary talking points against Romney. Conservatism is indeed weak when Rick “1%” Perry is our standard bearer.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Do try to be less repetitive. And, for the love of God: if you absolutely must pretend to be a part of this community then at least learn the name of the man you’re obsessing over. It’s really not that hard to remember.

  • Ann_W

    He took troubled companies most of which would have failed without Bain intervening and tried to turn them around. They were mostly successful– I’ve heard 70% or 80%, much higher than the companies would have done on their own. But then if companies did end up failing, it’s a high risk market niche, then they did try to get their money back out of them. They turned around many companies.

  • RichmondG30

    In September 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed not only the stock market but also the financial markets were in freefall. The capital markets completely stopped functioning. Money market funds (historically the most safe and liquid place to put your cash) began to “break the buck”, meaning that if you put a dollar in, you were getting less than a dollar back. People were so scared that they were willing to take a negative return on their cash just to have a good chance to get most of it back in the future. I believe that a run on the banks was weeks if not days away.

    As a small business owner, that was the scariest time in my life. My business had absolutely no access to financing at any interest rate. An open credit lines that I had for years (but never tapped) was closed overnight. If I did not have enough cash saved up prior to September 15th, I would have gone out of business because my sales dropped 65% within 3 weeks.

    TARP, although in hindsight was poorly structured and badly administered, was I believe a good-faith effort to keep capital markets from completely freezing up. Had the markets stayed frozen for much longer, the 6.3% Q4 22008 and the 6.1% Q1 2009 drop in GDP could have been much, much worse.

    It’s easy for all of us to Monday morning quarterback the decisions made at the time. Also, we should not allow financial companies like AIG that are large enough to bring down the banking system, but I am absolutely convinced that we were extremely close to a global meltdown of the financial system and TARP (with all its warts) helped us avoid a much worse disaster.

  • Ann_W

    They had a reputation as a turn around company. Some failed, more would have failed without their influence. Making money from turning companies around is the essence of capitalism. Using efficiencies so productivity makes a higher standard of living for everyone. It’s not immoral to do this for a living.

    It’s a high risk/ high reward business, but even when businesses failed if the economy is healthy then occupations that you and I don’t support any more (ie vacuum tube makers, covered wagon builders) move on to another job that fits into what people are buying currently; unless the govt. interferes, then you have the high unemployment of the socialist countries.

  • bobguzzardi

    It created jobs and it lost jobs; it hired people and fired people, made money and lost money and Free Market capitalists made things happen, moved the economy forward, called “progress” in the best sense of the word.

  • Ann_W

    that Obama will trot out in the general.

    They send out their people fired more than a decade ago and we trot out all the dealership support people who had their own trials, recently.

    Liberals are hypocritical on this. This isn’t the last war, it’s the war we’ll see in the general if Obama is the nominee. Or even the primary with Newt and Perry, I guess.

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    and yes, good message discipline means you repeat things – over and over.

    at the end of the day, the basic gist of my post – which you didn’t address – is that the rhetoric is getting increasingly hyperbolic and unpricnipled here. A year ago if you told me that at RedState, that a guy who “likes” to be able to fire people that do a poor job, and make enterprises more efficient would be trashed daily, I’d say their nuts. Afterall – this is Red State, where so many comiserate about the evils of big government and the bloated, expensive federal workforce thats crowding out private sector growth and desperately needs some serious trimming.

    Afterall, our government is like a bloated, disaster of a company – the very type of enterprise a Bain would buy up, strip down, salvaging the useful parts that actually added value and make much more lean and profitable. I would think RedStaters would see the potential there. Perhaps not. But let’s at least be civil – as Romney will soon be our nominee.

  • acat

    As it is, not gonna happen.

    Amy dealership folk we could trot out would immediately get the Joe-the-Plumber treatment, while anyone Bain laid off would be given acting lessons to better play the part of the victim.

    Mew

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    And what you call ‘good message discipline’ is perilously close to what I call ‘manual spambotting.’ Guess who wins that debate? Spoiler: it isn’t you.

    As for whatever your point was in your last comment – I frankly just skimmed it for profanity – there’s a standard answer: help let the market decide by quitting this site, since you hate the way that we run this one so badly and we’re so clearly not interested in changing things to suit you. Another spoiler: we already both know that you won’t.

    Moe Lane

  • acat

    That they are is a legal fiction, created for legal convenience, starting IIRC around the U.S. Civil War. I don’t have a problem with continuing it, but saying that “companies benefited” has no meaning.

    What Bain does is to increase efficiency by cutting excess staff and non-profit-generating operations. This is not a negative, it’s a necessary part of the corporate life cycle – as a market matures, companies must become more efficient to continue to extract profit from a shrinking pie or, in your examples, a pie that’s vanished altogether.

    The problems are twofold. First, this model doesn’t match at all with building a business, so doesn’t resonate with Main Street republicans. Second, there’s a clear cost-shift going on – Bain doesn’t pay for the people thrown out of work, that comes out of the taxpayers in the form of unemployment insurance or welfare.

    Again, this is a necessary business function, it’s a part of the cycle, and I don’t have a problem with it.

    I do, however, have a problem with people who try to confuse terms – like media bobbleheads using the terms “migrant worker” or “undocumented worker” instead of the more accurate “illegal immigrant” – to make a weak case look stronger.

    Mew

  • Ann_W

    It’s all we’ve got.

  • acat

    I don’t see Willard as particularly strong… he’s more the devious backstabbing type.

    Mew

  • Ann_W

    That’s a significant question to me. The record for small, troubled co’s isn’t that good overall, Bain made it better. Creative destruction is not the only thing that happened.

  • Caleb Howe

    But I’m sure you’re right. In between being on CNN and hosting a major radio show and running a very influential conservative blog, I bet Erick is consumed with the question: “why am I not getting more links from RCP??”

  • maybenexttime

    He’s a political chameleon by nature. He’s claiming to be a life-long conservative right now so that uninformed GOP voters will latch on to the “most electable” argument his camp has been pushing. As you can see, the strategy is working better than any of his advisors could’ve imagined possible.

    Once he gets the nomination, he’ll start walking back most of his conservative positions in the general election and completely abandon some of them by Inauguration Day.

    He’s another George W Bush in the making, except even more liberal on social issues and just as liberal on fiscal policy.

  • acat

    It assumes the choice was Bain or total liquidation.

    Even if I assume you mean “Bain or one of their competitors”, it remains a false choice. Many marginal companies struggle along, it’s not fair to say that these couldn’t have done the same.

    Ironically, this is the same kind of flawed logic Romney supporters use to justify his judicial choices – “it was a choice among bad options” .. what’s so wrong with saying “None of the above?”

    Mew

  • maybenexttime

    Bain’s function was solely to squeeze whatever wealth could be extracted from those faltering companies. It had nothing to do with retaining or creating jobs for American workers. In some cases, it actually meant shipping jobs overseas. That’s how American companies remain competitive and make profits.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. It is a key part of a free market system, regardless of what Newt or Perry might think. However, Romney needs to stop pretending that the role of venture capitalist outfits like Bain are founded solely to create good-paying American jobs. They’re not.

    As long as Romney characterizes his tenure at Bain as one devoted to creating American jobs, he’s being intellectually dishonest. Most voters will see through that, and the DNC will make sure everybody pays attention.

  • maybenexttime

    There’s no doubt that Bain Capital had many successes. There’s also no doubt that sausage is tasty. Most people’s perceptions of sausage would change if they were exposed to the process of making it, however.

    Romney is over-playing his hand with regards to job creation. He is leaving out key details of the process and giving a rather disingenuous view of how those companies were turned around. Jobs went overseas. Hard-working folks lost their pensions. Again, there’s nothing illegal or criminal about that process. It is how a free market economy works.

    The problem for Romney is that by over-playing his hand on Bain’s job creation, he is inviting the sort of scrutiny that ultimately weakens his argument. In turn, Romney has to defend his actions by saying Obama did the same thing with GM.

    This is the porblem Romney will have going down the stretch in a general election. He blurs the lines so much, that his actions become virtually indistiguishable from those of the administration he seeks to replace.

  • izoneguy

    Soon enough that the Bain attack never really lit up…..

    Now that Romney has been in the rodeo before it will take
    some savage blows to knock him off his high horse.

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

    I read somewhere that Bain did in fact take money from government, and then did not have to pay it back for some reason or another. It fact, this makes it so they got a stimulus package of sorts. I find it hard to think why the Republican media thinks we should know that Romney on Bain, indeed this is an issue we should hash out now instead of when Romney is the nominee.

    I know many want to say that it is not over yet, but unless conservatives get behind Perry or Huntsman soon, it is indeed over. Newt cannot stop Romney; his past is too filled with baggage. Santorum cannot stop Romney, he is not liked by enough people, and his record is also filled with big government and baggage, these guys came from the corrupted era that both sides of the political spectrum want to be over, not enough people will support these two to beat Romney.

    I believe that if either Newt or Santorum is the anti-Romney, then we will see Romney dominate every state after S.C. with Paul soaking up 20% everywhere. I’ve come to the conclusion I’d chose Romney over those two, and I would consider myself informed, I suspect the more less informed, who get there news from Fox will also make that same conclusion. People will see the ads, and learn all about these two.

    With Perry, the only negative ad Romney will run has to do with immigration, which will be less affective in the southern states than it had been in Iowa. There is not a whole lot that Romney can hit Perry with, but there is a lot Perry will hit Romney with. In the debates we will see a Perry that has found his footing, and will hit Romney where it hurts him. We could see what we did in 2008, where Hillary charged back in the later states but this time Perry could win it.

    I suspect this is the only rout to beat Romney, and I am not sure Huntsman can do this, because outside the media and independents, he is not well liked by the party. Even though his plan is conservative, and his record is the same, the media loves him. Why is that? Left wing leaning media hates all things conservative, so why do they love him, in fact I believe they think he is not a conservative, they think he is moderate. I am thinking the same thing; he will govern as a moderate. Is that any different than we think Romney will do.

    Anyways, this is how I see things playing out, either South Carolina breathes life into Perry and we fight Romney after the state, or Romney is the nominee in a quick take out of Newt or Santorum, and a meaningless second wave of the contest.

  • RichmondG30

    as long as its Perry.

  • explodinghead

    It no longer matters what Bain did or did not do. We have been distracted from campaigning for jobs and growing the economy to defend ourselves against what will eventually be Obama’s attack: The narrative is one of greedy Wall St financiers and jobs lost from it. The GOP as the party of the rich guy and crony capitalism. It is not true, but we will have to spend the next 10 months explaining that .
    Mitt Romney needed to soundly defend venture capitalism and explain the risk/reward strategy. As yet he has not done so convincingly, but waited for the Republican establishment and Conservative commentators to bail him out. Romney as a candidate has added an avenue of attack for the Democrats that other candidates would not have offered.
    We can defend venture capitalism. It will be another thing entirely to defend the gauche picture of Romney with cash stuffed in every pocket. I won’t even start into Perry and Gingrich on this, that takes a diary (which I am actually working on right now).

  • mccoypauley

    The government is not private enterprise. There is no competition, there is no price system.

    What you’re asking in your last paragraph is

    “What is the difference between communism and capitalism?”

    As someone who runs a pretty big time “conservative” website, that’s an embarrassing question to ask.

    It’s sort of like arguing that private charity is the same as the welfare state. Get it?

    I am amazed at the ethical and intellectual contorting you are doing to make a case for Perry.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Which you well know.

    Seriously, people, you cannot yell, insult, or contempt people into liking your candidate. This is fairly well known.

  • cathyb

    I love Mitt Romeny and apparently so do some other people- just look at the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. I love his family values and his stable marrage. I love the way he is always calm and professional with no emotional outbursts. He seems honest and trustworthy to me. He is more moderate and will get the moderate vote which Republicans have to get to win. I also love that he is successful in business and knows how to create jobs. I don’t care one bit about Bain Capital. So what if they bought companies and kept some and sold some? I have worked for several fortune 100 companies and thats what they do.They keep the companies that are profitable and sell off the parts that are not.That is Capitalism!
    I am a Republican and a conservative and a female. Almost all the other candidates are too far to the right and would never win in a general election. Romney can win if you get behind him and remember the ultimate goal: to get Obama out of the White House before he ruins this country!!! We cannot afford 4 more years of his Socialist Agenda.

  • Bill S

    I appreciate your sincere and mostly non-insulting comment. But I have one question: can you please expand on what you find “too far to the right” about the other candidates? Cite an example or two as to why you believe Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are “too far right”. Don’t bother with Ron Paul, because he’s so far off the ranch that you’d need a telescope.

  • bardamu

    He doesn’t know anything about creating jobs (unless you mean hiring other HBS graduates to help him put people on the street). The fact that some of the companies Bain processed still have employees doesn’t mean he created the jobs, which exist in spite of, not because of, him.

    He has a demonstrated apathy about working people. I know: that’s what Bain does. That’s how capitalism works. Fine. But you can’t tell me it’s contributing to the greater good.

    You have no idea how he will behave in office. He has no idea what he believes. This is the most dangerous kind of executive: he is susceptible to the most aggressive underlings.

    I am assuming neither you nor any woman in your family or social circle has ever had or will ever need an abortion.

    Please stop calling Obama a Socialist. It’s just silly. I wish he were. I would like him more.

    I visit this site because it almost always has thoughtful conservative perspectives. I can’t believe any self-respecting conservative likes Mitt. He reminds me of Kerry, or Dukakis: just phony, depressing, and a black hole of charisma.

  • jaykali

    Irony. Using OWS style arguments to attack the moderate in the race. Makes sense.

  • sunshinek67

    “he is always calm and professional with no emotional outbursts.” perhaps you and I saw something completely different in the Vegas debate. The problem cathyb, is that there has been two states that have cast their votes for the primaries, and both times, the Anybody-But-Romney electorate won. That’s a problem for Mitt Romney. When you have pro-Romney journalists, such as Jonah Goldberg, at NRO questioning electability beginning to see the prospects of a brokered convention, this doesn’t sound like “getting in[sic] board” and convincing enough to me, anyway, that supports the case that Mr Inevitable Electable is going to do anything other than get blasted in an avalanche of epic proportions in the the general. Apparently many folks feel the same way, or they wouldn’t be winning these early contests.

    I have no problem with venture capitalism and a free market system. Yes I am having issues and coming to terms with Romney-Bain taking Government taxpayer funded bail out money, while thousands of workers lost their pensions and homes upended. That is just wrong. Legal, yes, but morally and ethically wrong.

    My state is Texas, worth 155. I do not see Mitt Romney carrying my home state against Obama, diverse ethnic and socioeconomic, faith-based evangelical, huge Latino population, many of whom are independents. His anti-illegal rhetoric and elitist attitudes will hurt his numbers with this crucial voting bloc. You cite the moderates as needed to win, yes, and the very conservative evangelical right as well. He cannot win without the support of a solidified base. Telling me to get behind a very flawed candidate, one who has a record as a serial political loser and who’s name is synonymous with “jobs killer” or else is fruitless. God bless you for trying hon’. Much love~

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

    in some instances. I am convinced that Bain put themselves and their profit above trying to keep the employees and the families that rely on that income from being without it. There is nothing wrong with buying a company, fixing it, and then making a profit for the work that was done, but at a certain point those who do this should take it upon themselves to make sure those who do the dirty work are taken care of. This is not mandatory, but it shows a lot about the character of the person who would rather walk away with millions extra than see a series of families taken care of.

    I have no problem with what Bain does, but I am not sure about how they do it. I know one thing for sure though, it is not going to be an easy thing to defend against, and this is why Romney is a bad candidate, the only thing worse I feel is those who went to the lobbyist after they left elected office and made millions off of selling influence, that to me is something that has to go, it only serves to invite corruption.

  • lizzie

    and until you understand the difference, just go fishing.

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Kansas_City_Steel.pdf
    is so far the best deep analysis of Bain’s Private Equity Leveraged BuyOut phase.

    “Free Market Capitalism” has several sub-sets. Bain engaged in at leas two of the subsets that only exist in the Financial Services sector of the broader economy.

    America is doomed.

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

    I do not think you are taking what Erik is asking correctly and from what I gather, it is Romney who made the comparison of what he did to what Obama did when he had the government take over GE in a sense. Communism is much different than socialism, and what Obama did was very close to socialism. The only real difference being that the profits did not go equally between the people, and in a communistic nation rune purely there would be no such thing as profit, it would be more of a I scratch your back, you scratch my back.

    What really gets me is the thing you try to point out here.

    “As someone who runs a pretty big time ?conservative? website, that?s an embarrassing question to ask.”

    In no way is asking a question ever “ethically and intellectually” distortion. This argument does not even mention Perry’s name, and to tell you the truth I think Erik has been very hard and fair with Perry, but there are serious questions that conservatives should raise about how companies like Bain do function, the whole goal should not always be profit margins. I for one do not ever want to see the government (state or federal) come in and tell a company how they can do business, but it is very fair to say the voters can judge a man on what did that business and how he made money. This idea that Bain is not fair game is just wrong, we has voters have the right to know what made Romney over 200 million dollars, and if the voters deem it to be a character flaw, then there is nothing anti-capitalist about that.

    So in the end it is a fair for voters to judge what Romney did at Bain, but no one should be arguing the government steps in to stop it. The free Market is called free for a reason, but the people can make their own decisions on those who do what Bain did.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    “Deep analysis of Bain’s Private Equity Leveraged BuyOut phase” gives me a migraine.

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

    what the question now is, is Romney a man of character, would a man of character do what he did at Bain. I would argue nothing could be more free market than allowing those who would purchase a product (in this case vote) know what exactly that product is, and how that person made their fortune. This is a fair way to attack Romney, and it is fair for voters to reject or embrace Romney on his record at Bain.

    I for one do not care for what he did, but do not want to see government step in, but would love to see voters reject it.

    I feel that what is worse than this is when former elected officials go from Washington to being lobbyist, both these things are illegal, one I think is the cause of a lot of corruption.

  • mccoypauley

    Cognitive dissonance.

    Relativism isn’t conservative amigo.

  • mccoypauley

    Why should conservative voters reject Romney for performing the role of a capitalist hero?

    Sure, reject him for Romneycare, reject him for flip flopping, but to reject Bain in the Perry argument, you’re essentially arguing against capitalism.

    And it’s a bit of a trip that you’re saying voters don’t need to apply conservative values when they reject Romney.

    This stuff is almost as surreal as the notion that Perry or Romney created jobs as Governor. The market creates jobs. The individual, the small businessman creates jobs. Politicians just get in the way more or less. The notion that government can create jobs is socialism.

  • z06gal

    “too far to the right.” They cannot even spell right with the exception of Bachmann and she’s out. Rick Santorum is a big gov’t conservative which always leaves me scratching my head. Too far to the right? Lol…wow do I miss Jesse Helms

  • greyeagle

    You make some excellent points about Perry. Romney lied when he said that the illegal immigrants instate tuition was S100,000 each to the taxpayers. The students had to pay for their own, no state subsidy. The all pretty much go to community colleges. The funding to run the colleges is from the state sales tax, which everyone pays. The students had to go three years to HS there and graduate, then apply for citizenship. Out of state students can also get instate tuition if they live in the state for one year. (not referring to children that are illegal). Perry can beat both Romney and Obama, that is why the liberal media has and continues to trash Perry. The same for the media connected to the GOP establishment. Frankly, Romney has flip flopped so much, that no one knows what he stands for, but he is no conservative.

  • red_refugee

    He was the compassionate capitalist the left loved because he payed his employees while they weren’t working after his factory burned down. His company, Malden Mills, went bankrupt and all those jobs are gone.

    If Malden Mills had been run by Bain instead of Aaron Feuerstein, those jobs might still exist.

    http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2002/09/invisible-hand-vs-visible-handout.html

  • red_refugee

    How does Perry plan to eliminate two government departments without handing out any pink slips?

  • unclefred

    or when I am hired to consult to a company the rules are very clear. Obey the law. Behave in a professional manner. Unrelenting honesty. Do your utmost to maximize the benefit to the client and exceed their goals.

    Some squishy notion of morality is not on the table. There are consequences to when people lose their jobs. As a professional you advise the client as to the downside of those consequences, further you ensure that the decisions you recommend, to the best of your ability, are squeaky clean. You also try to mitigate the downside when thing must go bad.

    I’ve read that somewhere between 70%-80% of the companies that Bain restructured ultimately succeeded. That is a pretty fine record. No one bats 1000.

    I am not a Romney guy, but folks we all have to understand that life is hard and business has very hard edges.

    To those of you who have never risked your personal resources to start or build a business, or fought week to week to make a payroll, or given 100 hours a week for years to grow a business, I suggest you spend several months with everything you own on the line before you start talking about “morality”. Honesty, integrity, and obedience to the law are more than enough burdens to saddle on any business.

  • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

    TARP was created after Hank Paulson called his buddies at Goldman Sachs some 20 odd times. Those buddies at Goldman informed Paulson that AIG needed to be bailed out. Why, because if AIG was unable to honor the swaps they had sold to Goldman, Goldman suddenly had a much larger sub-prime exposure that would bankrupt them.

    You are right to point out that access to capital was severely limited. But it was limited because no one knew who had exposure to subprime debt. You’re much less likely to participate in forward contracts if you fear the other party is about to fail as an institution overnight. That is why commercial paper dried up and money market accounts almost broke the buck.

    The Lehman bankruptcy was orderly. The AIG and Goldman bankruptcies would have also been orderly. All customer funds were segregated properly. AIG’s insurance contracts with homeowners would have been untouched.

    Flushing out the investment bankers who invested in pure crap would have done nothing but add certainty, finality, and therefore confidence in the markets.

  • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

    Goldman Sachs has heavily contributed to his campaign. One of my top priorities was finding a candidate who would not bow to so-called financial wizards, in the event of another 2008.

    I still cannot believe that happened in this country. It’s hard to accept that taxpayers footed the bill for bankers stupidity. It’s hard to believe Republicans accept that banks provide any sort of economies of scale, or that they should be revered as actual standalone business. At best, banks do a little bit of facilitation without adding much value.

    But hey, Mitt is beholden to GS and doesn’t want to talk about what caused 2008. The other candidates are too clueless or stupid to make a serious statement on it.

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

    and no arguing that what Bain did is not arguing against capitalism, it is only if we are arguing that Government come in a do something.

    When the people do not like something, they have every right to reject it, and if people decide that what Romney did at Bain is not good, then they will reject him. Romney is third one my list, but I cannot stand the thought he is the nominee, but he is better than Santorum or Newt.

    My argument is that it is not against capitalism to ask if what Romney did to get his money shows a man of character, is making profits all capitalism is about, I do not think so. I argue the free market can wean the bad guys out by not buying stuff from anything they touch, if the guy who own Wal-Mart is something the people hate, they can then stop going there, and cause a change or the company to fail. Now if people feel that Romney did things they think is not becoming of a president, they will reject him for Obama. I suspect that is exactly what is going to happen, Romney made a lot of money and many people lost in the process, it is perfectly legal, but I am not so sure it is moral and shows good character. This is the question that is being asked, but to say that asking it means someone is against capitalism, well that simply is not true, in fact it is the opposite. We the people get to make this choice, and I for one will not let anyone pigeonhole me into excepting their argument because they claim it is not conservative.

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

    I believe the people of this country have every right to judge a man by what he has done in the past, and I assume you did not read what I just wrote, relativism has nothing to do with it, I am not saying you have to judge Romney in the context of his nations norms, I am saying that the people can judge if they think getting super rich off of dismantling businesses is a thing of character, but in no way is the question not something that should be asked. If any advocated that the federal government steps in regulates the practice, then I will argue that is not conservative, but if you argue that the voters have every right to judge Romney?s character on his willingness to make money while sending people home with no job, I say this is the very right of every voter. I think there is a thing called the right way to make money and a wrong way, all profits are not the same. Do you believe that businesses should just be able to poison people because it is there right to make money, or do you think we need some set of rules? Would you elect a man to be president if he ran a prostitution ring in Las Vegas, or would you want the right to judge that man? In turn, you are saying it is not conservative or free market to bring Bain up, I say bologna, as long as we do not advocate the free market hand this over to the Government, I see no issue with it.

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

    to talk about it means that you are not for the free market is just not true. We can be capitalist and want to know and judge how our presidents got wealthy. If we deem what Romney did to be moral, then we may say hey he would be a good president, unless the character of the man is not important, but I suspect it will be to most people.

    All I am saying is those who make the argument that Newt and Perry are attacking capitalism is just wrong; they are attacking a business practice. This is no different than if Romney had owned a string of brothels in Las Vegas, would people who brought up how he made his money be considered anti-capitalist, I would say no, there is a inherent need to use peoples records, Romney invites this by saying it is his time at Bain that makes him the best person for the job, I say the opposite, I think it will make him unelectable. I think it will not look good, but that is what I think.

  • JSobieski

    The universe of variables that voters use to make decisions is near infinite.

  • JSobieski

    Or does your pension, 401k, account, etc just show increases in financial value?

    People are free to base their vote on anything they want, or nothing at all if they choose.

    When people invest their money, they want to maximize their return. Very few people track the number of jobs created or destroyed with their investment dollars. So in this sense, people who judge Bain harshly are being hypocritical—–which of course is their right.

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

    even before the government started to make companies do it. But Malden Mills and what Romney may have done at Bain is not the same thing. I am not sure exactly what Romney’s record is at Bain, but I do know it is fair game to ask.

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

    and they should have never been there in the first place. It is not like Perry is going to walk away with Millions of dollars after he does it, and that is the issue with Bain, doe sit show character what Romney did, I am not sure, I have not gotten all the fact yet, but I do know this, it is free market for those who are supposed to trust him to be the leader of the free world to find out.

  • mhorner

    I like Rick Perry a lot, but don’t think he is viable any more. The “Stupid” label is going to stick because of his debate performances even though it is obvious the man is not stupid. Why Conservatives have a problem with Romney is not understood. He would make an outstanding President and, yes, would fire thousands of worthless, make work federal employees and useless federal programs. He is great in debates and could wipe the floor with Obama. Add Rubio as his VP and you then have two men who could wipe the floor with Obama. A lot of Republicans want looney Ron Paul. Can you imagine this whiny, wizened old man with absolutely no charm or charisma at all sharing the stage with a young, handsome and eloquent Obama? Get real!!

  • don12345

    Conservatives don’t have a problem with Romney now that it looks like he’s the most conservative candidate now that Huntsman, Perry and Gringrich have decided to betray us and attack free enterprise as Democrats. Perry, Gingrich and Huntsman need to leave the party unless they can apologize for defending Obama’s crazy positions that attack free enterprise. We have an economic mess and gloomy future because of Obama’s handling of the economy because he just doesn’t get it. Obama attacked free enterprise on day one and look where that has gotten us. Now Huntsman, Gingrich, and Perry want to do the same. I say go join Obama you Benedict Arnolds.

  • don12345

    Romney wasn’t saying what Obama was doing was right. Romney was saying what Obama was doing was wrong. Obama has been attacking Romney for laying off people during his Bain tenure. Romney’s attack was saying Obama was a hypocrit.

  • jaykali

    When Al Sharpton plays a clip of Perry and says ‘I couldn’t have said it better myself’ you know that the candidate is using a liberal attack.

    There is nothing that I have heard ab Bain capital that is so-called ‘evil’ capitalism. If he made his money running cash checking places or selling cigarettes or had a bad reputation for not being honest in business deals then that can be scrutinized. But the fact that they took over failing businesses and had to fire some people, that is what you do in the free market.

  • acat

    I quote myself:


    What part of “The Bain business model is at odds with the Main Street business model” is so hard to get?

    Filling the ecological niche of scavenger or herd-cull isn’t a negative, cheetahs are pretty darn cool, but .. it’s not the same as growing a business from a mom-and-pop to a chain or from a garage to an office building.

    The argument is not that Bain is “evil”. The arguments are that his association with Bain will make it more difficult for Romney to differentiate himself from Obama on jobs, just as his position on Romneycare will make it difficult to differentiate himself from Obama on health care.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    And America loves the ‘business guy’. If Obama can turn him into the evil greedy wallstreet guy then ya that’s a problem. I personally think Romney is better off touting Bain than his time in Massachusetts. If ppl see him as a guy who knows business and thus, knows how companies are successful and therein can be a business-friendly president then people are going to vote for him. That is certainly the angle he is going for.

    The wall-street greed OWS angle is WAY overplayed by the media. I do not think middle-class America hates wall street as much as the media thinks they do. I think the class warfare deal is not going to work for Obama.

    My whole point to begin this thread was that it’s ironic that Perry & Gingrich are jockeying for the ‘conservative’ vote in this primary by using David Axelrod arguments against Romney’s Bain experience. Perry sounds like an absolute idiot when he is using this ‘vulture’ capitalism stuff. He was supposed to be the most free market guy of ALL the candidates.

  • acat

    And the Main Street entrepreneurial growth model, the model used by the small businesses that are historical source of most of the jobs and growth in our economy is significantly different from the Bain model, even though both are “business”.

    Have you forgotten the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” kerfluffle? This is classic Perry .. and it’s effective. I don’t see recognizing and exploiting the animus between the two business models as a negative.

    I think it’ll bring some of the more populist-leaning voters to take another look at Perry .. as well as the Main Street conservatives who understand that while vultures and other scavengers are needed, they’re not something you’d want in your house.

    Mew

  • unitedwestood

    no text

  • mccoypauley

    Wouldn’t it be reasonable to be sure before you cast moral judgment?

    Making profits is what capitalism is all about. If you don’t lie or steal, then someone is giving you the money voluntarily. Nothing is immoral about voluntary transactions.

    The point here is that the market gave Romney a lot of money, in other words, the market approved of what Romney was doing. That is what matters.

    To take your stance of we the people (which is such empty rhetoric anyway), if we the people decide we can take away everything from the rich via government, then that is ok. No, it is not ok. Conservatives are supposed to know that the government protects property, it doesn’t redistribute it.

    I am still waiting for someone, anyone to make a specific claim showing Romney committed fraud or stole. If they can, I will relentlessly pound him for being a jerk.

    But until then, “conservatives” seem to be making leftist, unspecific, generalized, touchy feely arguments against free enterprise, based mostly on ignorance about how free enterprise actually works.

  • mccoypauley

    “his willingness to make money while sending people home with no job”

    Do you believe people are entitled to jobs until the company and all of its shareholders are bankrupt? In other words, do you believe that employment is a death pact between management and the worker?

    Get real.

    And yes, people are entitled to their opinions. That doesn’t make the opinions correct, or fact based. Lots of people have the opinion Obama is great and the GOP sucks. Does that opinion mean the claim is true?

    Learn to think.

  • acat

    (null)

  • unitedwestood

    it’s gong to be really hard for Romney to go up against Obama when they share so much of the same. I don’t feel that Romney can beat obama… kinda hard to win an argument/debate with a mirror.

    From what I’ve gathered on Bain this morning in my short little research Bain isn’t much different then the Obama model. Rip some companies apart to build others up… but take what you can.. no matter who it hurts or for what reason. Solyndra being given millions ( to obama bundlers) Coal and oil being regulated to death. Another poster has been making the case that Romney was no longer at the company so he can’t be held accountable. Well, Obama didn’t personally write the check to solyndra. Perhaps I see things differently then some.

    I think if Romney gets the vote – we lose, in more then one way. IMO

  • jaykali

    Perry and Newt are not making the argument you are trying to make for them, they are arguing that what Romney did is immoral bc he basically raided companies for ill-gotten gain.

    Perry is not saying that Romney’s experience is irrelevant to presidential stewardship of the economy, he is saying Romney is a vulture capitalist!

  • jaykali

    Overstate arguments much?

  • lineholder

    mindset, and priorities of Romney as a candidate, jaykali. Newt and Perry could have done much better at illustrating that point rather than leaving it wide open for people to assume that they were attacking capitalism as a whole.

    acat’s point, i.e. that there are stark differences between the type of approach that Wall Street takes pertaining to capitalistic endeavors and the type of approach that Main Street takes, is very much so a valid point.

    What’s more, if we hadn’t had some people (particularly a few pundits who are gung-ho about protecting and defending Romney) go off the deep end in making erroneous assumptions about what was intended, it is possible that either Perry or Newt or both may have been able to stress those differences in a manner that resonates with Main Street voters.

  • acat

    *ANY* of our other candidates, including Ron Paul, can.

    Think about that.

    Mew

  • unitedwestood

    No, this argument is being voiced loud and clear. If you think that Obama won’t draw that same conclusion, you are mistaken, he has and will continue to do so.

    Obama is slobbering at the thought of us putting Romney up for election. Romney would be a gift for Obama, in my opinion.

  • jaykali

    It’s called politics. Obama has been president of a failed economy, Romney is a business guy. He needs to convince ppl that Obama’s Keynesian policies have failed and that he knows business, therefore he knows how to fix the economy. He can tout tax reform, pro-growth policies etc.

    On healthcare I am sure he’ll mention Healthcare as failed as well which obviously leaves open the argument for Obama to say ‘I just expanded what you did in Mass’ but we’ll see how that plays out. I don’t think Romneycare takes Obamacare ‘off the table’ as many have surmised. He has a punch list of things he says are different and he’s repeated them many time and I think ppl will buy that. There are a million things to attack Obama on and hopefully he can make the argument.

  • jaykali

    Are you saying Obama and Romney are mirrors of each other or that the Bain policies and Obama’s Solyndra management are the same? I would disagree with both. I think it’s pretty easy to draw a contrast btwn spending public money on failed projects vs Bain investing in private companies and having a terrific record.

    I hear all this candidate ‘X’ will be a dream for Obama, fill in the blank. I am not convinced any candidate in this field has proven to be more formidable than Romney who’s run a competent campaign, is polling well and has money to go the distance. And I think the last week has been a complete meltdown for Gingrich and Perry. I lost all respect for both of them when they started with the vulture capitalism bull crap.

  • izoneguy

    Are you sure you want to elect Obama Light?

    Romney’s Former Firm Bain Advised Obama on Auto Bailout

    …it is somewhat ironic that Romney?s former firm, Bain & Company, was among the private consulting firms that advised the Obama auto bailout team.

    And what did Bain recommend? Cutting dealerships.

    In an interview on CNBC?s Squawk Box Wednesday, Romney, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, said: ?I’m looking forward to having the debate with president Obama. Because as you know, he became a private equity owner. He took over General Motors and Chrysler. And he cut, shut down factories, shut down dealerships, laid off thousands of people as a result of that. And the reason he did that was to try to save the business.?

    ?An expert from Bain Consulting also stated many dealerships have too much inventory relative to their market area, particularly in smaller markets or markets where there are more dealers than necessary, because they have to have sufficient diversity in their inventory to cover the manufacturer?s entire portfolio and to meet varied customer needs,? the inspector general?s report said.

    ?This leads to higher floor plan financing costs per vehicle. In addition, because it is difficult for a smaller dealership to match its mix of inventory with actual customer demand, they end up with higher quantities of slow moving inventory that can lead to a need for increased customer and dealer incentives to sell their vehicles.?

    All that may explain why on Thursday one of the most high profile people riding to the rhetorical rescue of Mitt Romney was Steven Rattner, the former Obama Car Czar himself. Rattner wrote in an op-ed in Politico that Bain Capital?s reputation record was ?extraordinary.?

    ?Almost by definition, a private equity investment is made with the hope of improving the profitability of the ?portfolio company,? as it is known in the parlance,? Rattner wrote. ?Often, this means replacing management or reducing unnecessary head count ? firing people.?

    Yeah, yeah I know, I know – Romney was not at Bain when this happened.
    Romney did start Bain and has the same mindset. Can’t wait for the Vulture
    Capitalist to get his hands on the Government and start firing people!!!

  • unitedwestood

    Bain managers said their mission was clear. ?I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,? said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. ?The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.?

    ____________________________________________
    Kansas City?s Worldwide Grinding Systems went belly-up less than a decade after Bain became its majority stakeholder, the company, which had been in operation since 1888, had to turn to a federal insurance agency to bailout its pension program in large part because Bain had ?saddled? it with ?such a heavy debt load?:

    Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they?d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 (258 pounds) a month.

    What?s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company?s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.
    ________________________________________________________________IN TWO SENTENCES: Mitt Romney has an economic agenda of, by, and for the wealthiest 1 Percent of Americans at the expense of the other 99 Percent. He may claim to be a job creator,——- > but Romney?s record at Bain Capital shows that he personally made hundreds of millions of dollars by bankrupting companies and laying off thousands of Americans<——

    Once this becomes front and center… Romney loses!
    Now, where is that terrific job creator you were touting?

    http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/romney-record-at-bain-bankruptcies-bailouts-mass-layoffs/

  • romansdaughter

    thoughts all along. That is why Obama has been wanting Mitt all along. He approved of the OWS as a set up for Willard who is one of the 1% fair or not? Then anti Wallstreet which is Willard’s backyard. Then this whole Bain Capital thing, you can bet Obama would be exploiting and no wonder the LSM was pushing for Mitt. I think the same thing, if Mitt runs Obama is going to get another 4 years. We are stupid to pick him.

  • jaykali

    He can trot out his success record and talk about all of the jobs that this ‘free market’ company created not bc it was their job to create jobs but bc thats what happens when successful companies thrive. Romney can attack Obama for all of the people laid off from his bad economic decisions so its really up to their ability to make the argument. It’s stupid to say we are ‘fools’ for running Romney out there. We only have a handful of candidates, we have to select one. Who is going to be better than Romney? Romney is not in a vacuum, there are other candidates that ALSO have problems. And the Bain experience to me is a problem that /isn’t/ if he defends it well.

    I dont think the 99% BS is going to work for the president. To say that a bunch of hippies speak for 99% of the country is ridiculous and that is basically their claim. I think aligning with OWS is going to seriously backfire.

  • civildebate

    And conservatives loved Bush until the Dem’s found success running against his record.

  • unitedwestood

    How many jobs has he created…. and how many jobs has he lost. Let’s get serious about this. He’s touting his some sort of “great Job creator” he ” knows” how to do it and you seem to “think” you know something.. so please, share with the rest of us… what exactly are the ” provable” numbers!

  • unitedwestood

    They don’t follow as close as I do on politics… but as soon as I was through, not one person in that room would vote Romney now. I’m confident none of their friends will be either. Didn’t take much to convince them. Romney is a lot like Obama ( he hopes) nothing sticks to him. The media has been real kind to him up to this point. IF we are foolish enough to run him…. they will be greatful enough to ruin him. …Hope your doing well !

  • jaykali

    If its foolish to run Romney then that means you have a better choice – who is it?

  • jaykali

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html

    I think Bain’s success record is pretty good, obviously all of the data hasn’t come out but I think people are going to see at least as a CEO of an investment firm Romney was pretty darn competent. Now does that mean he can run the country? Well who knows but I think as a political argument him touting his knowledge as a business guy is going to help him when the dust settles. I think his Bain experience is actually much better than his record of governor in Massachusetts.

    I know the last week we’ve seen a lot of OWS arguments from Gingrich that have moved the polls in recent days but I still think he’ll win SC and Florida.

    Back to your argument that Obama wants Romney, who doesn’t he want? Who is your pick? This is a multiple choice primary, you can’t write in ‘Ronald Reagan’ on the ballot so you’ve got to pick one of the other flawed candidates and convince me they have a better shot.

  • david1313

    they both fear Newt, because he is the type of politician that can win this thing. I would suggest that listen a little closer to what Newt is actually saying about Bain and Romney, they are not OWS arguments. I appreciate the WSJ very much because they own their bias. I don’t listen to anyone who tells me they are fair and balanced. No one is, we all have our bias. I do believe that Romney is and easy target for the Obama administration, they have been working on their campaign against him for months. I think it will work. I can’t even see myself voting for Romney. Having said that, I do support all the other candidates save Ron Paul. I even like him better than Romney, if he was not so naivee about Iran.

  • earlgrey

    I also wonder who they will be placing a vote for in November if Romney is the nominee: Obama? Johnson?

    i didn’t want Romney, so I am thrilled to hear we have a viable alternative candidate for the R nomination.

  • david1313

    If you really do not want Romney, and I don’t, then Newt is the man. The reason I am so opposed to Romney is I truly believe he is more dangerous than our current president for a whole host of reasons, none more so than Supreme Court Justices.

  • WillWong

    Even Rush who went nuclear on Newt toned down a little and grudgingly acknowledged that what Newt did might be a good idea…and Newt has masterfully turned this around with his ability to correct his so called mistakes and by comparison…Romney is so timid and would not own up to his negative ads!

  • renny

    and struck at him first and hardest.

  • david1313

    He could have cut into his base severely. Newt is the next one he fears, Romney is most likely the last. Even Obama’s advisors are letting it slip that Romney is the weakest candidate.

  • tngal

    Plus, I think O was a little jealous as well. Cain was a great orator and motivator. Better than O by a longshot. Cain explained why now was the time to change the structure, rather than shuffling a few billion around here and there and call it saving money. And Cain was a successful businessman as opposed to O who was a professional activist.

  • Tbone

    That ignorant idiot was only slightly smarter than the suckers who he fooled.

  • unitedwestood

    I live in his state, I know how good it is. I’ve lived in other states and have something to compare it by. Why would people like Hannity, Luntz, Morris, and Coulter back someone like Romeny when cleraly the man is nothing more then a right leaning ( when it ftst his need) Elitest! The people I just named have suddenly become painfully obvious that while the spew the tea party talking points, they aren’t tea party principles.

    Hubby likes Newt.. I won’t agrue for him or against him at this point. But I will put up the argument that when you feel a need to bash somone for something so silly as forgetting an agency and you take it to a two day’s talk fest… your scared. Ever notice when someone is jealous of you they will A). Ignore you B) find fault with everything you say or do.. right or wrong.

    When Hannity can’t get Sarah P backed into a corner to say something bad about Rick Perry, you know something is up. The only way he loses this is to quit. He IS the conservative in the room, he IS the one that can turn this country around, He IS the best choice right now. You believe he can’t win because he flubbed a little. Have you ever listened to Obama without his teleprompter? No too good! It’s hard to run on his record as well, but when Romney’s actions and talking points are the mirror imagae it’s hard to take him seriously and not take him out.

    If Romney has nothing to hide…. where are his tax returns? If he’s so ‘good’ at ‘creating jobs’ where are they. He might be a brilliant business man.. doesn’t mean he’s a job creator likie he touted. He’s too surrounded with misteps and in many cases… out and out lies ( flip-flops)

  • unitedwestood

    You speak as though you KNOW what his record is in job creation, yet, you are unwilling to answer. The next thing you say is he will trot it out. Before, you were so sure that it’s great/terrific.

    There is the problem– Everyone wants to say ” well, it’s a good record” point me in the direction of it then. If it’s great, then it must be somewhere on the net so the world can find it. Honestly, I really do not care if Bain created jobs or not. That’s not the business they were in… they are in the business to make investors money, that’s what they’ve done. But when Mitt stands in front of God and everybody stating that he’s some great job creator because of bain, it’s false. He’s doing the exact same thing that Obama does each time he states the the republicans are blocking this or that — misdirection.

    Romney has never created an atmosphere for creators to create… he only knows, buy it and flip it. I have no problem with the free markets.. I have no problem with capitalism… I do however have a problem with this grandious ego that states he can do/done something he never did.

    He’s not, that I’ve heard about opened up a business from scratch and made it successful hiring people to run it. He’s only taken what someone else has done and either made it more profitable, or loaded it down with debt to the point of collapse. Which is what Obama is doing to America right now… I’m not so sure I want someone in the white house that’s so practiced at the art.

    He was for gloabal warming – all that say’s to me is – I’ll allow the EPA to continue to run amuck in the name of the climate change religion. I can’t quote it verbatum, but there is a video where Romney with his own mouth, in his own words say’s something to the effect that You have people that influence you and you have to vote according to what they want so they will campaign for you……..in a nut shell what he was saying was ‘ Sure, I’m for sale’. So, do we really need another red light district President who runs blue light specials?

    If your a capitalist, you are an opportunist, plane and simple. Nothing wrong with that, in the business world… but there is pleanty wrong with that in government, as we’re seeing daily.

    I’ve owned several businesses, some were very successful, some not so much. I do understand the business world… So, if you think that I’m jumping to the conclusion that Romney is a bad business person, you are so mistaken.

    Frankly, I’m to the point that the REPUBLICANS need to start vetting candidtaes to see if that (R) really does belong behind their name. Ron Paul being a good example of this. Romeny being another … They are tarnishing the brand.

    The Democratic party looks nothing like it did when my grandfather was a democrate… and The republican party is starting to take on a new face as well. I find it rather telling when I have to back my self proclaimed sister-in-law up and say ” No, I’m a conservative” because she’s point out very well, there’s not too much difference between an ( R) and a (D) these day’s.

    Rick Perry 2012 accept no imitaion;)

  • unitedwestood

    I apologize for all the mistakes…. That should have read……My self proclaimed ” SOCIALIST” sisiter-in-law. Sorry bout that!

  • jaykali

    But I dont think we can know for sure who Obama fears if ANYBODY. I do know they have spent more time attacking Romney than any of the other candidates.

  • jaykali

    But we are 2 weeks from him dropping out, then who is your next guy?

  • jaykali

    Which wasn’t his job, but I imagine more were created than shed. His argument should be that he has an in-depth knowledge of how the economy works and therefore can help create a business friendly environment which will eventually leads to jobs. His job as CEO wasn’t to create jobs. Many liberals think that businesses exist to create jobs, no they exist to create profit.

    So ya if he gets backed into a corner on how many net jobs he created I don’t think that is a good argument for his candidacy. His argument to the masses should be that he’s a business guy and Obama is a liberal professor who’s first executive job in his LIFETIME was when he was swarn in as president.

    Who is your candidate by the way since you have all of the answers? It’s easy to tear down a candidate but you have to make the case FOR someone to replace him.

  • acat

    and the best candidates on that front have been routinely ignored and attacked, frequently by Willard’s proxies.

    I’m having flashbacks to how Senator Obama was elected…

    Mew

  • jaykali

    Bain experience as a CEO is applicable though not as apples to apples as gubernatorial experience. If he argues it right it should still be a homerun bc he can say I know how businesses succeed and fail, I know first hand how Chinese cheap imports affect businesses, I know ab burdensome regulation bc he has intimate knowledge. It’s like why many players in sports like coaches that have actually been in trenches. It’s one thing to be a Michelle Bachmann who is 1 vote out of 500+ and works 3/4 days a week and another to be a big time executive making decisions that affect a lot of people and involve millions of dollars. So to me I would tend to agree with his emphasis on his Bain experience.

  • jaykali

    When Newt was surging but as usual he is a ticking timebomb and I think he torpedoed his campaign (again) the last couple weeks with a) complaining ab superpac ads all the time and b) his heresy of attacking Bain which is a perfectly legitimate investment firm in my view.

  • Common_Cents

    He had to go negative himself. Now he has a bit of pac money and possibly some surrogate support he can go positive and maintain his attacks on obama.

    Why can’t people see this?

    We fall for the media regurgitation w/out thought to it.

  • jaykali

    Strategically it is good to stay positive and let surrogates or superpacs do the dirty work bc you can have it both ways. If your argument is that our current political system makes it extremely difficult for grassroots candidates to compete, you’re right.

  • jaykali

    On to Newt ‘open marriage’ Gingrich to carry the family values torch?