« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How Romney and Bain Capital Remind Me of An Old Rugby Story

Legal and Ethical Can Be In Two Different Subsets

Did Bain Capital Ever Do This To Factory Workers?

I can think of one excellent side-effect of the argument over Mitt Romney‘s work at Bain Capital. It reminds me of the fun and foolish days when I could still set foot on a rugby pitch and expect to walk off in one piece. A broken, old prop’s reminiscence begins below.

It was a wet, cold, drizzly Saturday. However, the day was awesome. It was Rugby Day, I was young and better yet, I was stupid enough to suit up and hit the pitch. I was playing tight-head prop and over in the bad guys’ scrum was a loose forward who would make himself a total blight on my joy of competition.

The game quickly degenerated into a wallow in the mud. The park that rented us the field would no doubt regret their decision as our cleats plowed grooves in the muddy ground. The backs were handling the ball about as well as I would handle having a red hot hunk of metal tossed into my lap. Another knock-on led to yet another (expletive-deleted) scrum down. And ten minutes into play things started getting chippy.

I drew first blood, yet unfortunately made myself a marked number for the other side’s cheap-shot artiste cum hockey enforcer. The other side attempted to form a maul. Their ball carrier turned his back to me and his support took its sweet, relaxing time in arriving at the breakdown point.

My eyes lit up like a lucky slot player on the Vegas Strip. I laid that dude out like he was next up for the autopsy table. It was one of the hardest and most aggressive tackles I ever remember getting off during a match. From then on, the rest of the first half of that match got a lot less gentlemanly and pleasant.

The next time I hit a ruck, I ended up prone and near the bottom. My head got stomped and then raked. I looked up at the ref with my best WTF expression. Neither I nor the culprit who stomped my head and raked cleats got carded. The scene repeated itself when I carried the ball on a couple of phases of possession. Once I got my hand over my left ear just in time. I had a bloody, red welt on my wrist as a reward.

The ref seemed to be enjoying his pleasant time in the park despite what Mel Gibson’s character in Braveheart once described as “Good Old Scottish Weather.” He didn’t seem to want to interrupt his pleasant reverie to blow his (expletive) whistle and prevent this guy from stomping on my head during rucks and breakdowns.

Now a guy who deliberately stomps hands, heads and other appendages during rucks and mauls is a form of classless rugby scum. Whether he gets sin-binned or not is irrelevant to the question of his status among peers. I would have been well within my rights under the unwritten rules of rugby ethics to have hauled off and cold-cocked the son of a female canine any time during the first half.

Finally, at half-time I had exhausted my patience with the head-stomping. I took my Gatorade bottle, slammed it like a post-match libation and threw it against a nearby chain-link fence. I stomped around a bit throwing an expletive-laden tantrum about getting my head stomped. At this point our 8-man, ARN (short for Argentinean Rugby Ninja) took me aside for some performance counseling and attitude adjustment. “What the (expletive), Dude?” He inquired. “We’ve gotta’ huddle!”

“17’s been stomping me all (expletive) match!” I responded.

“We’ve got him.” He explained. “You worry about your (expletive) job. You pay his sorry (expletive, expletive) back by winning!”

We actually did manage to win the match. The weather was miserable; neither side could handle the ball. Our scrum was 150 lbs heavier than theirs and our fly-half could pick off a penalty kick even when his boot had five extra pounds of mud and water attached. (It seemed the ref did get around to calling things that weren’t at least somewhat carefully hidden.)

Oh, and ARN totally had #17. He tackled him so that his opposing shoulder went down wrong and popped out of its joint. The enjoyable manliness ritual where two guys on the other team’s sideline pop the dislocated shoulder back into socket ensued on the other sideline. The only thing missing from a worthy Hollywood Movie Scene was the drunk, old country doctor telling #17 to have a shot “Wuskey” and bite down hard on a stick.

But that old experience reminds me of Romney’s Bain Capital work because it raises a vexing issue of what is legal and what constitutes ethics. Romney, as far as we know, broke no laws. But did his actions lead to people getting fired who otherwise would have been able to earn an honest living?

Is Bain Capital engaged in “Vulture Capitalism?” I tend to find that rhetorical turn of phrase distasteful, intemperate and an indirect contribution-in-kind to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. However, (maybe once or twice a decade) I’ve been known to be wrong.

If this is one of those times, then I can totally understand Newt Gingrich going into ARN-mode here and doing everything in his mortal power to slam Mitt Romney’s shoulder hard into the sodden pitch. If this is one of those times, then Mitt Romney is absolutely legal but still morally wrong.

In that case, the 2012 Presidential Election is over the second Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination. The MSM is already down in SC interviewing people who got fired from manufacturing jobs as a result of Bain Capital’s acquisitions. They are actively searching out bloody, gushing head-wounds from Mitt Romney’s behavior on Private Equity’s savage rugby pitch.

There is a valid argument that all sound-bytes aside, “Greed, is good.” Romney began to hit that rhetorical stride in his Primary Victory Speech last night.

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique — We are One Nation, Under God.

Candidate Romney went on to frame this election in terms of being a values election; not just “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”

Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

If what Governor Perry said about Bain Capital is truth; Mitt Romney has no business attempting to win a values-based election. If what Governor Perry said was inaccurate, but still serves as resonant propaganda, Mitt Romney’s job just got much harder. America will not elect a President who manipulates the rules to get away with stomping people’s heads on life’s rugby pitch out of spite. Candidate Romney will have to labor hard to vigorously refute this characterization of his tenure at Bain Capital.

COMMENTS

  • nepanyrush

    The National Review did a synopsis on the New Hampshire election with a lot of people that I admire and overall, the view is of Gingrich and Perry morphing into Michael Moore in their attacks on Bain.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287795/what-new-hampshire-means-nro-symposium?pg=1

    As Hugh Hewitt observes: “Whatever chance at a comeback Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry had went up on the pyre they lit with their attacks, on Bain specifically and free-market venture capital generally. The recognition that one cannot defend capitalism while attacking capital is spreading. Blaming Bain for layoffs is like blaming the lifeboats for being late to the Titanic. No matter how you judge their performances, we are a whole lot better for having venture capitalists at hand, even when they don?t bat anywhere near 1.000. Most will inevitably agree that Romney?s tenure at Bain was wildly successful, as was his leadership of the Olympics. ”

    It seems that Redstate has gone off the tracks. Because most of the writers of lead articles want Perry, they have attacked any non-Perry candidate (even Santorum, a true conservative) and have defended such policies as in-state tuition for illegal aliens, guarasil, and now attacks on free enterprise and making profits.

    Even Rush Lilmbaugh and Senator DeMint have had enough with the Gingrich and Perry attacks. I listened to Senator DeMint today and I see no way he would ever endorse Perry now after his shameless attacks from the left. It is as if Gingrich and Perry have decided to be attack dogs for Michael Moore (another conservative gave that analogy) and Obama.

    • macbookben

      …but I played loose/tight prop and 2nd row for HRC back in the 80s. RMC memorial park was our home pitch.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Good times. I remember it so vividly (and forget how my lower back felt when some SOB got the drop on me from time to time.)

        • macbookben

          n/t

    • ethos

      Too bad they are now batting 0 for 2. Perry and Thompson are solid choices, both now and then, but ultimately failed Redstate’s faith. It is good to have this information network in place to provide continued voice to the social wing of the Republican party.

  • Ann_W

    www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-11/anti-romney-film-stretches-truth-while-taking-his-comments-out-of-context.html

    If Newt’s being dishonest about this how can we trust anything he’s saying? But I do totally believe that he was just being a “historian” for Freddie Mac for $1.6million.

    I would like to see the Bain stuff be fully vetted during the primary, but dishonesty helps no one. These were troubled, failing companies. Bain had a good track record of turning them around. Of course there were some failures, but they were going to fail anyway without Bain. A company failing is sad and destructive for workers, so you’ll find the heartbreaking stories. But I think that this is all like blaming a high-risk cardiologist for some of his patients dying.

    • clowngirl

      most of the stuff the article “corrected” was pretty weak: minor, beside-the-point type stuff (like a quote being taken out of context — when, IMO, the context really wasn’t relevant and leaving it out didn’t make the quote at all misleading) and the overall claim was not that “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” was fundamentally anyway — just that it didn’t tell the whole story.

      By political standards, that’s honest.

      And I don’t even think I’d agree with that assessment.

      The only point they raised that seemed at all relevant was a claim that Romney wasn’t involved with Bain anymore at the time of the KB deal — but the movie answered another claim of Romney saying he wasn’t involved with the DDi deal (Which apparently drew controversy at the time) by saying there was documentation that proved he was.

      The main think that struck me about that article was how little of the movie

      The main criticism I have about the video is that it needs to go farther in backing up its claims — perhaps this would make it unwatchably long – in that case, another video explaining exactly how, for example, they “loaded companies with debt” or if they bought a company promising to do one thing and then did something very different.

      Anyway returning to the point of your comment. 2 things:

      1. I don’t agree — at least not on the “strength” of the Bloomberg article, that the video is dishonest.

      And

      2. Where do you get off accusing Newt Gingrich of dishonesty? He didn’t make this video and has no say in it.

      If ” When Mitt Romney Came to Town” was extraordinarily false, he could be expected to disown it — but it sounds like its a lot more honest than the ads Romney’s PAC ran against him.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • jakeofalltrades

    And a clever one, from the looks of it. Waiting 24 hours after registering is a neat trick.

  • languedoctor

    This is a neat rhetorical trick, leaving aside the obvious third possibility?

    Presumably the author believes that either scenario #1 or #2 is true, and it’s up to Romney to explain that #1 is wrong, and that we shouldn’t be overly-concerned about the second possibility.

    And how will we know if Romney is right? Shall we throw him in the water and see if he sinks, Salem-style?

    I hope Gingrich or Perry can win S.C., but I also hope it doesn’t require tactics like this.

    $.02

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Lfe is brutal sometimes. Remind people that it is just; not fair. If Romney played by the tactics typically used in the industry, than Gov. Perry’s attack is baloney. (Unless, of course, Gov. Perry wants to argue that all of Wall Street is E-VIL).

      At that point the Gov. of Texas has two options. Go back to Texas or start playing bongos over in OWS encampment. I think I made myself abundantly clear what I thought of the “Vulture Capitalist” rhetoric.

      • languedoctor

        I’ve got to run, but I’ll sum up with a couple thoughts.

        First, I don’t think this line of attack reflects well on us. I think we’re better than this.

        Second, every dollar and every minute spent making some convoluted argument about the proper ethical boundaries of private capital firms under a capitalist free enterprise system is a dollar / minute NOT spent reminding voters that they risk taking health care off the table if they vote for Romney. That’s the real danger here, IMO. It’s not just which candidate voters prefer in the general election, it’s how strong those preferences are (will they actually vote). Again, in my opinion, the best way for Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is to take health care off the table in the general v Obama.

        So why are we talking about Bain? Probably because of Newt’s past support for individual mandates. Which creates a major opening for Perry. And what does he do with that? He riffs on vultures. Look, Rick, I’ll make it simple. Right opponent, wrong message.

      • texastaxpayer

        If its typical for an industry to purchase companies with the sole intent of harvesting their equipment, pensions and anything else of value despite the ultimate damage to the community and workers then its OK. Well no aruguments there, life is what it is. You are either a predator or a menu item. No problem with that. However where I have a problem is when you then paint yourself as a job creator and try to rewrite your history to demonstrate your deep love and devotion to the very communities you have just fleeced for every penny you could get. You cant have it both ways. You are either a hardcore white knuckled bare brawling capitalist out to maximize your profits no matter the price others pay or your a patriot dedicated to creating an american economy were everyone has a chance to follow their dream to success. Seems a little disenginous to spend half your life giving your middle finger to country for a buck and then come back and run as president good jobs…..

        • Stan

          with your analysis. You said that you are either a “…capitalist out to maximize your profits no matter the price others pay or your (sic) a patriot…”. I don’t think it’s an either/or choice. The country was built on free-market capitalism. To paraphrase one of the talking-heads from the other night, better to have fewer good jobs with employees kicking in more of their insurance costs than to have to close the company and fire everyone. Life is hard. Sometimes, companies fail. Or, they get downsized. As conservatives, I don’t think this is something we should be pounding Willard over – there’s more than enough stuff , like the fact that he changes positions on issues faster than the wind in Texas changes directions. His Clinton-esque style of flip-flopping on every important issue of the day, plus Romneycare, is more than enough for me to look for another candidate.

          • texastaxpayer

            I am a BI (business intelligence) consultant. I work with companies to maximize effeciency. So yeah I know a little bit about making a company more competitive and improving it’s surviability. What we are talking about here with Willard is neither. Willard purchased these companies with the sole intent of fleecing them. Proof you ask? Well how about the fact that the minute they gained control they put these companies in debt using their credit to pay their huge “management fees” to Bain. Once the credit was expired, the equipment sold for every penny and the pension funds raided they dumped the companies and employees in bankruptcy. Now if you want to goto the american people and defend those policies in an election be my guest. I personally dont think you can indulge in this type of business and then run for president. Just my opinion but there it is. This is not a Capitalist or Patriot conversation. Lets be honest our founding fathers managed to be both. Romney isnt one of our founding fathers though and frankly I am sick of all these people trying to make out like he was somehow trying to save these companies. He destoryed them for profit, nothing more romantic than that. Attacking Perry doesnt change the fact that a hole the size of Texas has just been blown in this man’s electability argument.

          • languedoctor

            surely you could provide names. Or is the claim that this is what Bain did to every comoany? Or is the claim that this is what companies like Bain do, and Bain being a member of that class of companies resembling Bain, this must be what they did?

            I’m not even trying to convince anyone to vote for Romney. I’m just tired of rhetoric. Specifics, please. Surely some enterprising conservative journalist has done the legwork — I want to see the goods. If there are any.

          • texashistorian

            My mother-in-law worked at an electronics factory in Maine. Bain bought the company, stripped it, shut it down, and what was left was sold to a Chinese firm who re-opened it in their country.

          • texastaxpayer

            www.whenmittromneycametotown.com
            You will of course notice that I never said “every company” or “this is what companies like Bain do”. Nice try though I appreciate it when people try and require you to defend statements you never made. Really shows their Integrity.

          • Stan

            My point was that it’s not either/or, capitalist or patriot, as I understood you to say in your initial post. On that, it looks like we not agree – since you said “This is not a Capitalist or Patriot conversation.” I’ll also agree with languedoctor – if there are specifics, then please – at least give us a pointer to go read. Like I said earlier, I’m not a Romney fan – between the flip-flops, and Romneycare, I’m sure we can do better. But if it comes down to Willard vs. “Dear Leader”, I’ll take the flip-flopper.

          • Stan

            Meant to say – On that, it looks like we NOW agree… instead of NOT agree. Can’t type this evening…

  • znjs

    is how exactly does this work for them. Let’s just say it works – they convince GOP voters there is good capitalism and bad. Perry comes out of no where and wins the nomination. Now fast forward a couple months to the presidential debate

    Obama: I completely agree with you Perry. There are companies, like Bain, out there that are bad for capitalism. They focus only on one thing – profit for themselves- and leave people in the lurch. They cause people to lose their jobs while making tons of money for themselves. We need a system that is fair and allows everyone to share in the profits. That’s why we need the govt to ……

    What exactly does Perry say in response to this? “Ugh, well yeah, I said that, but just to get the nomination” isn’t going to cut it.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      The manner in which those attacks were couched. If we adopt the rhetoric of the left. Vulture Capitalist, etc, etc, we get the politicians of the Left in charge. Why would anyone vote for Rick Perry’s version of leftism when they have the Obamas handy and available in the WH?

    • flgal208

      sticking to the Pretty Woman principle—I’m not against capitalism, I”m all for it. I just have a hard time endorsing a PERSON (ie Romney) who makes the choice to destroy, rather than build up a company. I’m all for that person having the choice, but shouldn’t we aim higher? We don’t need government to tell us how to aim higher, we need our moral code to do that….(boo-yah)

      • znjs

        Perry making a big deal of how what romney/bain did was wrong and then saying “Well, yeah but I don’t think we should do anything about it” just doesn’t seem like a general election winner. Particularly this year. Unemployment is unacceptably high, you say these business practices lead to unfair unemployment for many, and you’re not going to fix it? I just see Obama saying “We can and must do better. We must help make sure all Americans have a chance at the American dream and fair wages and not look the other way when we see unfair business practices that even you say create job loss.” and mopping the floor with Perry if he goes that route.

      • renl57

        is no solution to corporate raiding or any other pathology of society.

        Because there are always going to be immoral people who do immoral things. And a society has to decide what to do about them.

        Obama could come right back at Perry and say that “And I am all for a woman having the right to choose without government managing her, but let’s hope we aim for a higher moral code where women will voluntarily seek alternatives to abortion.”

    • clowngirl

      They’re saying something more along the lines of “Mitt Romney is a jerk, and his record at Bain doesn’ t back up his claim that’s he’s the man who best understands how to create jobs.” Then both Gingrich or Perry could highlight their own impressive record spurring jobs and economic growth.

      In any free society there will be people who will try to take advantage — but that risk is far outweighed by the benefits and the moral rectitude of freedom.

      • texastaxpayer

        Should change your name to “BrightGirl” or “SmarterThanYouGirl”….

        • clowngirl

          :)

      • znjs

        From
        “There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business and I happen to think that?s indefensible” (Perry)

        you managed to pull “Romney doesn’t know how to create jobs”. I happen to believe what Perry is saying is that any business that acts like Bain’s did is inherently wrong and indefensible – which is a very short jump to “It should be illegal.” A jump Obama will only be to happy to make.

        • clowngirl

          Let’s just say for the sake of argument that it becomes blatantly obvious that Romney and Bain acting in bad faith in not really having any intention of saving companies they bought with the understanding that that’s what they would do.

          There would be HUGE problems with passing a law making such actions illegal because those convicted of “acting in bad faith” would be imprisoned based on their motives.

          In most cases, motives are very hard to accurately determine — often even for the person themself.

          And even if there were cases where it is blatantly obvious that a company acted in bad faith- there would probably be many, many more where the motives are hard to determine conclusively and justice starts to be administered increasingly arbitrarily.

          Even well meaning venture capitalists would be afraid to get involved with struggling companies for fear of imprisonment if things don’t work out.

          There are millions (billions?) of immoral actions that take place everyday that nobody (at least not any large, organized group of people) is calling for laws to prohibit. Adultery, disrespect for parents and elders, heck – rudeness, callously ignoring the good that we might do… On any given Sunday, preachers across the country speak out against their wrongs (though, except in the most egregious cases, normally they don’t name names)

          The proper response to people who behave immorallly but within the bounds of the law is to publicly expose the scumbag behavior and express moral outrage. If Bain Capital is dishonest or particularly ruthless – companies should be warned not to do business with them.

          Buyer Beware

          The proper expression of disgust should not be suppressed on the grounds that it could be twisted to be used to support wrongful political ends.

          • znjs

            There are a lot of dangers in turning this into a political issue. Sure, buyer beware with Bain is an absolutely fair thing to say IF YOU’RE NOT A POLITICIAN. But once you criticize it as part of a political campaign you’ve made behavior like this into a political issue. Once you say that this behavior is “inherently wrong” and “indefensible” it is absolutely fair for people to say “What are you going to do about it if elected?” And when you don’t have an answer for that other then nothing, well then quite frankly people are going to look towards leaders who do have answers.

          • clowngirl

            Just as he and other candidates have made an issue of Newt’s past cheating.

            Nobody is clamoring to pass a law against adultery because of them bringing it up.

            Big difference between Newt’s cheating and Romney’s alleged wrongdoing.

            Newt has repented and acknowledges he was wrong.

          • znjs

            I guess I’d have to say that it’s more obvious talking about Newt’s adultery it’s clear it’s a character issue because no one is arguing to make affairs illegal. People will argue to put restrictions on businesses like Bain.

  • flgal208

    just about every woman I’ve ever met has seen, not once or twice, but about 10 times. Why am I bringing this up? Because Gere (before Julia) is Romney. He bought companies, broke them up and sold off the pieces to make more money. He didn’t make more jobs, didn’t build anything, except money. Thus, the word Vulture Capitalist seems like a good term and women who remember the movie, can connect with that.

    Enter Julia, who gives him a heart and instead of destroying the next company, he invests it with capital, saving the company, its workers and it builds ships (thus making things AND money for all). Everyone wins.

    Moral of this? IF Newt and anyone else portrays Willard as pre-JUlia, they can score direct hits. Even the most hard-hearted of women want a happy ending–they want the prince to save the day, and Romney isn’t it—not by a long shot.

    • flgal208

      being anti-capitalist or wanting government intervention…it’s about personal choices. No one forced Gere into investing rather than destroying another company, rather he grew a heart :) and found a way to turn a bad situation into a win-win for all. I know it’s a movie, but it cuts to the heart :) of this whole discussion…making money is good, making money AND contributing to job creation is even better…

      • renl57

        When a company–particularly a large company that is unable to change radically due to its size–gets blindsided by new competitors, there may be no alternative to radical restructuring in which all those used to the old ways are gone.

        In Romney’s state of MA, there used to be a whole bunch of high-tech companies making computers for the industrial marketplace: Digital Equipment Corporation (minicomputers), Wang Laboratories (IBM mainframe clones), Data General, etc.

        Then along came the personal computers, which over time became even more powerful than any of these companies’ own larger offerings. And all these companies went out of business, unable to compete with all those smaller companies selling PCs.

        Digital Equipment Corporation used to be MA’s second biggest employer, employing over 100,000 people. Now it’s gone.

    • clowngirl

      Only difference that comes to mind is that it seemed like he specialized in hostile takeovers…

      • flgal208

        same side of the coin—making money at the misfortune of others. Now, I think if you mess up you should pay, no lessons are learned by not making mistakes….however, it’s not so much about Bain as it is about a person that CHOOSES Bain as their lively-hood, knowing full well, that sometimes they would destroy companies.

        Willard is a vulture, and they serve a purpose, but they sure do leave a bad taste in your mouth and I for one, don’t want another vulture for President.

  • satchman3

    I like your writing but writing a post about what would happen if Bain did some bad things is in bad form.. There’s a lot of baseless accusations flying around and they aren’t doing the accusers any good.

    • texastaxpayer

      with credible sources to confirm the baseless nature of these accusations.

  • baracksolyndraobama

    This post is just the latest of many here that could as easily be found at Daily Kos. One more throwing fuel on a vicious anti-Romney fire.

    Is REDstate taking on a new meaning? Much more of this and I will cease visiting.

    • jakeofalltrades

      NOW will you stop visiting?

    • unclegreg

      I also do not understand where half these anti-Bain arguments are coming from…. normally everyone here advocates restructuring, eliminating and / or privatizing government entities (EPA, DOE, USPS, Amtrak, Fannie/Freddie…. the list goes on) or at least advocates “shaking them up.” Does anyone realize what they are then advocating is exactly what Bain does with every company it acquires???

      Don’t RedStaters normally advocate things like “cutting waste” in government budgets???? Again, exactly what Bain does to
      corporate budgets.

      Isn’t a healthy company that employs 900 people and will continue to earn profits for years to come better than a company being driven into bankruptcy that (again, until it dissolves into bankruptcy) employs 1,000???

      Didn’t RedStaters get more than a little upset when our fearless leader told us that “at some point you’ve made enough money?” Which is something that Mitt is being assailed for here?

      -Another former rugger who spends a substantial amount of time on a daily basis (normally) enjoying all articles / posts on this site

  • sbm1

    to not have to read at least 40 expressions used in the first 10 paragraphs?

    ;-)

    and now to the point you make….firing people is not executing them, or putting them in jail. It takes them out of one job, and they can go find another.

    were there people fired who oculd have otherwise earned a living….most likely…at least one…because when you take a company through bankruptcy you will always downsize a little more than necessary if you hope to make it viable coming out the other end….It is a lot easier to hire 10 or 20 new people a year on, than to have to go through a second wave of firings. But if the company became viable, then that secured more long term jobs, and freed up talent for other companies to hire.

    Romney left Bain in the early 90′s, and if there are people who were fired 20 years ago and have had no job in the meantime, then those people most likely should have never had that first job at all…there were enough years with unemployment rates south of 4% in that time that anyone who wanted a job, had one.

  • antisesquipedalion

    get up on the stage, Gov, and explain in simple terms that “Joe the plumber” can understand, why what you and Bain did was correct.
    he lost his job and house—- you got 200 million. whether it’s legally ok, is irrelevant. if you can’t do it now, be a man and QUIT!!!
    B wacko will mop the floor with you on this issue

    • texastaxpayer

      This post is it in a nutshell……
      He can either defend it and ease the tired minds of the huddled masses or not. PERIOD

    • sbm1

      obama hasn’t done well with the class warfare angle…and given his performance as a jobs president, I don’t think anyone out there is giving him high marks in understanding how business works.

      If Romney would just double down on his business record, and properly communicate hwo he knows how to cut out the bad, keep the good and make jobs that will flourish, I don’t see how he wouldn’t mop the floor with a keynsian job killer….obama doesn’t have the propoganda machine that FDR had, and people aren’t as economically illiterate as they were in the FDR days.

      Capitalism works, keynesianism doesn’t, crony capitalism tha benefits GE doesn’t…small and medium size ocmpanies with an agile workforce, and a good market position in their niche, who compete on a fair and open playing field….that is what he shoudl say Bain identified, and fostered….and all that obama can promise is to extend welfare benefits!

      • antisesquipedalion

        I am a retired ER doctor, but I come from a poor background, and still have friends from my old neighborhood. The Dems can’t wait to use this stuff, and are probably p–sed at Newt for bringing it up now, while there’s time for damage control.
        Actually i meant to say that B-wacko will have the floor mopped up with Romney. Working class people could care less about business records. They see it as Romney walking away with a cool 200 million, while the worker once again is the B O H I C A (bend over, here I come again)

        • texabama

          Romney already has a perception problem—rich guy trying to buy the Presidency. Then you add the way in which he got rich. He was already a privileged character by being the child of a rich man/politician. Does he build a business that makes a needed product for the masses? Does he establish something along the lines of a research hospital or global charity? No, he becomes richer by dismantling businesses and oftentimes sending labor overseas. We haven’t even heard the other avenues still open for the opposition—off-shore banking for tax purposes and the hypocrisy of complaining about China when he readily helped companies move their operations there in the first place.

          No matter how we feel about business and the free market, Romney is a poor candidate for the general population. He conveys the impression that he really doesn’t give a rip about the common man.

  • clowngirl

    Is that Romney hasn’t done anything (that I have seen) in terms of positively defending or explaining his record at Bain. He hasn’t talked about it hardly at all except in vague terms.

    His reaction has been to attack those who question him .

    That, to me, makes him look like a man with a lot to hide.

    Besides this — Romney isn’t running on the strength of having held elected office for 4 years, creating the daddy of Obamacare, leaving office as a very unpopular governor, and then spending 6 years running for President.

    He’s running on the basis that he understands how to fix the economy BECAUSE of his time as CEO of Bain.

    He should WANT to talk, in depth, about what he did there.

    The fact he seems to only talk about Staples is also feeling like a red flag. Is that the only savory thing he did at Bain? Why hasn’t he mentioned numerous other examples?

    The other thing that bothers me — and nobody is saying this — is that he and his company came in and took over companies and seemed to be heavy handed about making changes when they had no reason to think they had particularly industry insight.

    At Unimac — they said Bain forced them to rush and cut quality and one employee voiced the opinion that if Bain hadn’t have interfered so much they would’ve come out fine.

    That leads me to picture Romney as the type of guy who thinks he knows what’s best for everybody and would favor increasingly overbearing government control…

  • lizzie

    Private Equity Leveraged BuyOuts, which is a different business than Venture Capitalism (Staples):

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Kansas_City_Steel.pdf

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287707/battle-bain-capital-michael-walsh
    “The Battle of Bain Capital” is another thought-provoking read.

    Further to the point that an activity can be LEGAL, yet also immoral and unethical. I have a top floor Bronx apartment that suddenly had new structural damage appear January 2009. I asked for proof that the roof was NOT leaking. The Managing Agent (MA) refused to respond. NYC filed two Class B housing violations because the inspector noticed north facade damage. The MA LIED to NYC and claimed all damage had been repaired. The MA also coerced a respected engineering firm to falsify a report that had a photo showing the roof ok. I tried to sell. The MA blocked my sale in Oct, 2009. I still thought that photo of the roof was the roof OVER my apt, until Nov. 2, 2009. Lots of pounding, men working on the roof. They left the door ajar while they went to lunch. I took a look, then got my camera because my roof, over 2/3 of my apt, was a mess of leaks. I hired a licensed engineer who concured. I retained a lawyer solely to invoke the Escape Clause in my contract so I could legally walk away from ownership (not a condo – a NYC problem)
    BECAUSE I thought it was IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to sell to anyone.
    However, in New York State, a Seller is ONLY LEGALLY required to disclose structural damage if it is a 1-4 family home.
    TThat lawyer took my money and then refused to let me walk away from a bad investment. He refused to consider MORALITY or ETHICS.
    He also refused to understand that Stress Kills.

    I tried to sell in 2010 and 2011. Finally got a new roof (by accident – everyone else started having leaks) in Sept, 2011.

    But, due to new regulations from Dodd-Frank, and additional barriers imposed by the MA, I lost four buyers in 2011.

    btw, I paid $65,000 cash in Feb 2003. I could have spent that much easily in rent over the past 7-9 years.

    And because I worked for RJR Nabisco – the stupidest Private Equity Leveraged Buyout EVER, I have never recovered my health from being “downsized” by a bad boss who finally got his chance to get rid of me (understaffing me for four years did not drive me away because I loved my job and was a top performer) in year 9.

    It does not matter that Romney’s Bain might have been a smaller Vulture than Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, the vultures/leeches/locusts who bled RJR Nabisco dry.

    Nothing creative about Private Equity Leveraged Buyouts 1978-2000.
    There are TEN+ million of us whose lives were destroyed by these Vultures, who give Free Market Capitalism and Venture Capitalists a bad name.

    and, yes, all LEGAL. but NOT moral or eithical.

    Give Blood. Play Rugby :)

    I am going to die, hopefully because my heart will shatter into a million pieces because America is stupid enough to have elected Obama, who knows NOTHING about the economy, and the GOP is about to anoint Rimney, who knows nothing about the REAL economy.

    and because America is not a place where the Rule of Law is actually based on what is moral and ethical.

    Might get lucky and have a heart attack if we get eight inches of snow here in Massachustetts, which is where I hide because I can not live in an apartment where everyone lies and breaks the law, because they can. and I just am giving up.

    sorry, been a rough few days.

    I spent years trying to forget what happened at RJRNabisco. Every time I see the words Kohlberg Kravis Roberts or Private Equity Leveraged BuyOuts, I want to kill someone. It was diagnosed as PTSD in 1995.

    I was raised on the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments.

    Legal is not the same as moral or ethical.

    Just try reading Enron’s last SEC filing…fiction at it’s finest – booking estimated future profits inthe current quarter.

  • Pingback: Information