« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Hero or Villain? Romney Under The Microscope At Bain Capital

Not Black, Not White But The Typical, Sodden Gray Mush

Wall Street Vampire? Or Just Another False Caricature?

Mitt Romney has been depicted as a blood-sucking, Wall Street Vampire. If only that were the simple truth. Having an iniquitous personality would be better than the public persona he exudes right now. It would add a certain cache to his otherwise soporific blandwagon of a campaign.

Newt Gingrich represents the anti-Romney persecution with a 28 minute political ad entitled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” The ad could be a Michael Moore “documentary” about E-VIL, Greeeee-dy, Rethuglicans snorting fine, Columbian Cocaine off the succulent rear-end of a hooker through rolled up $100 bills. Cicero was more fair and balanced in his indictments during The Cataline Conspiracy.

Candidate Romney has predictably fired back with an ad that portrays Bain Capital as pretty much the good guys from The Lord of The Rings. His ad “Bright Future” paints Romney as a creator of wealth and jobs. It shows the names of hugely successful businesses that presumably would still be vending their wares out of pushcarts or bucket shops without the Benevolent Mittman. Like much we see in the heated skirmishes of a Presidential Primary, neither view of Bain Capital seems exactly steeped in the light of justice and truth.

I’m not sold by either Mitt Romney or his opposition. I’ve tried to blog about this issue from the standpoint of a guy who just wants the fulsome, soiled laundry out of the gym bag so that it can be aired. Let’s settle this puppy in house, before David Axelrod tells America what to believe about this during next Fall’s Presidential Election. It would help to get some perspective on this not driven by Romney’s minions or detractors. Perhaps Fortune Magazine offers exactly that in a feature blog entitles “Fact or Fiction? Romney’s Private Equity Past.”

Dan Primack, author of the Fortune Blog issues a statement outlining his purpose. “Mitt Romney is running for president as a “job creator,” based on his time as a venture capitalist and private equity investor at Bain Capital. Some of his rivals are beginning to accuse Romney of being more of a job destroyer, citing some of Bain’s more troubled investments.”

”So we’ve decided to keep track of who is saying what about Romney’s tenure at Bain, and about private equity in the context of presidential politics. More importantly, we’re going to tell you if the statements are true, sort of true or false.”

He speaks out on several recent depictions of Romney’s role at Bain Capital. He begins with “When Mitt Romney Came To Town”. “Winning Our Future, a political action committee supporting Newt Gingrich, today released a 28-minute video titled ‘When Mitt Romney Came to Town.’ It focuses on the failures of four companies formerly owned by Bain Capital, and is so chock full of errors that it deserves its own post.”

His post goes on to say:
A) Unimac’s Florida plant was not closed until after Bain had sold Unimac to a different entity. He goes on to point out that Romney had stopped being a decision-making principal at Bain Capital five years prior to Bain’s sale of the asset and six years prior to Unimac’s plant closing.
B) KB Toys was purchased one year after Romney left Bin in 1999.
C) DDI Corporation was acquired under Romney’s watch. Romney and Bain acquired DDI in 1996, left the company in 1999. DDI Corp ran into trouble in 2000. However, contra-Primack, Romney isn’t completely in the clear because a 13D form suggests Romney was still involved in DDI as late as 2000. (Although not as a member of the Bain Board). So I’m not as willing as Mr. Primack to completely absolve Mitt on DDI as Primack does later in the post.

Primack does not, however, paint a completely rosy picture of Romney’s activities at Bain. Primack takes issue with National Review Online for stating “Bain is involved in, among other things, leveraged buyouts, meaning that the firm and its investors borrow money from banks to acquire companies, usually firms that are in trouble but believed to be salvageable.”

Primack notes factual discrepancies and omissions in the National Review Online Article. Primack points out the PE firms often arrange the finance so that they aren’t 100% on the hook if the deal goes Ka-Bloom! I take no great moral umbrage to them managing risk to avoid blowing themselves up. However, it is somewhat self-serving to claim Bain took on more actual risk than it really did. It sort of reminds me of a soldier that embellishes his old war stories a bit to look more heroic in front of the ladies.

Primack further delves into this risk management issue and indicts National Review for not properly describing how Bain Capital took dividends out of money that they sometimes forced firms to borrow. This is a major and significant failure on the part of National Review Online.

It also is worth noting that National Review completely ignored the issue of dividend recaps, which is the real issue that keeps getting glossed over because it doesn’t fit into a 30-second soundbite. Dividend recaps are when a private equity firm raises even more debt for an existing portfolio company, and then takes a dividend out of the debt proceeds (rather than from profits). That is how a private equity firm can profit on an investment whether the company later thrives or fails (although, typically, dividend recaps alone do not generate the type of returns that PE firms promise their investors).

This issue needs to get aired out. If I were cursed by the gods with being Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for a fun-filled evening of barking at the moon and chasing parked cars, that’s the one I’d demagogue to the hilt. I’d talk about Romney eating these companies’ seed-corn like it was a box full of Cracker Jacks.

Primack astutely and correctly points out: “Sometimes, however, such companies later fail and cite their heavy leverage load as a contributing factor. That is why Romney and Bain Capital are sometimes accused of profiting from bankrupting companies, even though that’s really some sloppy shorthand for what actually happens.” Believe you me, the Democrats running ads this Fall would cite heavy leverage load as a reason for these companies going under and tell you the personal life history of every line worker who was ever fired.

Primack’s entire blog is long, detailed and well-researched. If you actually care about what happened when Mitt Romney came to town, Primack gives us about as good and as fair-minded a view of it as anyone else I’ve seen out there. No, Mitt’s still not charismatic enough to be Dracula. However, he’s not clear of Bain Capital by a long shot. The GOP voting public can and should demand of him more answers.

COMMENTS

  • rams40

    For all the Perry zealots who think Gingrich and/or Santorum just aren’t conservative enough, hope they can tell us how much better Romney is after Perry takes everyone else down with him.

    • BrendanW

      how Mitt fans felt in 2008 re: McCain versus the rest of the field.

      There are a couple things going on IMO:

      1. Personally the candidates care more about maximizing their own chances than stopping Mitt. Not surprising given they are probably not the personal enemies they appear politically. (McCain and Romney seemed to hate each other plenty in 2008, but Romney helped McCain in 2010, and McCain is helping Romney now.)

      2. Candidates may have a second motive, book deals, administration positions, raising profile for future races, etc.

      3. Some may also stay in to fundraise and pay off debt, even after they stop really campaigning.

      The whole “your candidate should get out” is kind of silly. It’s not like anyone is likely to have a bat phone to Perry, Gingrich, etc and if they did, it’s unlikely the candidate would listen.

      • rams40

        it’s his delusional supporters that I blame. Perry is my first choice as well, but I don’t understand the people who are blindly sticking around until lights out.
        The Perry kamikazes tell us Gingrich and Santorum aren’t conservative enough, but do they honestly think Romney is better?
        The Romney campaign loves the fact that Perry supporters are hanging with him. That says it all.

        • BrendanW

          even strong support from RedState as keeping Perry in – he isn’t polling very high in SC after going full tilt on it. I’d guess he’s staying in for his own reasons, not for the tepid support in the polls and the strong support on RS. Just my $.02.

          (Which may have something to do with paid consultants saying stay in, so they can keep getting paid. Who knows.)

        • porkandcheese

          But I have logical reasons for supporting my candidates. They are both longshots, but they are legitimate. Perry might not have a crease in his pants that would make David Brooks swoon, and he doesn’t read Niehbur, but he was the successful governor of TX for over a decade and the chief executive of the 15th largest economy in the world. I admire his conservative record and his honesty.

          My second choice is Huntsman. Both have proven track records.

          Romney’s record says it all. He governed to the left of Obama, while his private sector record is everything that is wrong with America today. Every day I read a new stsory about Bain that turns my stomach, whether it’s how he abused a tax loophole to bleed his acquistions dry — somehow defending corporate welfare is the new pro-capitalist Republican argument — to how his word didn’t mean spit once he bid high on a company and then lowballed them right before he pumped and dumped them. Republican voters who place more stock in so-called electability than principle will reap the whirlwind when they get Romney as their nominee.

          Right now we are seeing headlines that repealing Obamacare isn’t such a priority after all. That the House is folding on its promises. That a second Obama term looks likely. Yet Romney, Santorum or Newt are going to carry the day? Newt with multiple wives and ethics violations and who has to go back to the Clinton administration to point to his meager accomplishments. Santorum who was a lobbyist like Newt and had a similarly long hiatus from public office at his party’s behest. They are the reason the party was driven into the wilderness in 2006. Then Romney, who couldn’t even make it back when the public still had faith in the GOP.

          This is a very weak field. Perry and Huntsman would have been normal, respectable candidates at a time when voters weren’t so dazzled by the media circus of early voting states and debates. The rules have actually changed to change the way the race is won. It’s not winner takes all, and people seem to be in an awful hurry for Perry to drop out and leave it to Romney’s patsies.

      • sulmak

        seemed very friendly to each other in the first few Perry debates despite attacking each other’s policies.

        • porkandcheese

          He made some bold arguments, but he couldn’t pin someone who had been running for president for five years, especially fresh from back surgery. The media played up his gaffes and overlooked his more salient points. That’s how they roll, so I’m not complaining. But nobody was friendlier to Romney than Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul.

    • BrendanW

      Many people don’t agree that Santorum or Gingrich are better choices for executive for a variety of reasons. For example as a future president, I’d go:

      Perry
      Romney
      Gingrich
      Santorum

      As a R campaigning, as much as Mitt’s baggage is baggage, I see Perry’s awful campaign to date and wonder if he’s qualities are enough to overcome that in a general election? I’d still prefer him over Mitt, but the reason Perry is losing this fight is Mitt knows how to run a national campaign and Perry doesn’t. So maybe Perry will be ready in 2016.

      • romansdaughter

        and also buy support since he has been running for President for years. Perry has been running 5 months and had recent back surgery. So personally I look at the state of Texas and how he ran that for 11 years and in comparison to Mitt in Mass. There is no comparison….47th in job creation and Texas is no.# 1. Besides I think that is why Obama and the Dems want Mitt to win, they are going to nail him cause he has nothing to show that is different from Obama.

        • BrendanW

          basically experience matters and the reasons mitt is ahead will matter in the fall.

          basically your excuses for Perry’s campaign amount to “if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butts when they jumped” sadly they don’t have wings.

          there is a pretty good argument that a good campaign won’t matter with an inferior candidate against obama’s juggernaut campaign: perhaps, unfortunately for Perry and the rest of us, voters haven’t felt that way – and it hasn’t been close.

          • lineholder

            is that he won’t be effective in running against the left where socialized health care and Obamacare are concerned. One of the KEY issues facing us right now, both economically and societally, is the impact that Obamacare has had, continues to have, and will have in the future.

            And because of Romney’s stated defense of the health care system he was instrumental in implementing in Massachusetts, the man doesn’t have a leg to stand on in combatting any narrative that the left try to throw into this electoral race! This element of his “experience” will focused on far more than any of us who oppose Obamacare could ever wish to see!!

        • porkandcheese

          I won’t be bitter, if he can’t. But I won’t apologize for hoping he does.

    • tercel

      the company succeeded or failed. Bain ALWAYS made money. Which was the point of Bain. Not to create jobs for people YET that is how Romney uses Bain to claim that he “created” 100,000 jobs.

      It is Romney’s swift boat moment. It works because Mitt’s job creation through Bain is the basis that he himself has made for his election.

      • pdawk

        He was asked to build Bain Capital from the ground up. He was in charge of decision making and strategy there for several years and turned it from a start-up venture of Bain & Co. to one of the worlds leading private investment firms. Some of the companies they helped start with an initial investment or that they turned around by restructuring are only in existence because the company Romney founded got involved. If you want to bury him for the bad, you have to give him credit for the good.

        • snowshooze

          The way one judges the candidates is by value alone.
          Is the company undervalued? If so, by how much.
          What is the total value of their equipment, their real estate, their pension fund, and haw marketable are the assets.
          Failing is irrelevant to the consideration entirely.
          Then you decide… shall I play long or short?
          Bain has done both.
          But without an in-depth study into every deal they made, we would never be able to say for certain where that would end up.
          I do know, a bird in hand is worth a lot more than a whole flock in the bush.
          And I’d take that 2 million today over that flock in the next 20 years…
          So, sell the cars, the desks, the light fixtures. Raid the pension.
          Borrow to the ceiling. Re-negotiate with the Union to minimize exposure. sell off the machinery and lease some new stuff…
          Sell off the real estate and rent it.
          Put in for Government assistance at every possible turn.
          Plan a nice vacation.
          But don’t break any laws.
          No…I’m not the least bit suspicious.

        • greyeagle

          He has not provided any proof that he created 100,000. If he is going to claim that, he needs to put up or shut up.

          • gekster

            He seams to have gotten generous over the years.
            When he ran for Senator, he touted how he, {from wiki}”[ran as a fresh face, as a successful entrepreneur who stated he had created ten thousand jobs, ]”

            It seams as time goes by, the numbers increase.

      • jl9999

        The promise of making money is the only way to get people to invest. It is stupid and uninformed to suggest Bain did anything wrong. Remember – they are investing people’s retirement and savings money. Your pension and mutual fund contributions are 100% dependant on businesses like Bain and others making a profit.

        As far as job creation goes, Staples alone has over 90,000 employees. Sports Authority has 450 stores nationwide. These are just two examples of Romney’s claim to have created jobs. So please, drop the garbage and lies.

      • porkandcheese

        +5

    • rickperryreport

      Perry is rising in the SC polls. Not by much. As of right now (Jan 13) the race there appears to be between Gingrich and Romney. One thing I learned in Iowa is that these polls are generally correct, so I am assuming their impact in that light.

      Whatever good you can pronounce about Bain, as I said in The Rick Perry Report yesterday:

      There are some career fields that do not translate well into presidential campaigns. Among them are undertakers, tax collectors, Casey Anthony’s defense attorneys, bill collectors, and CEOs of leveraged buyout firms.

      Today, we led with the amazing editorial of Dr. Jack Wheeler. “If Romney’s the Nominee, It’s Dewey in 1948 All Over Again.”

      The editorial is a masterpiece, using history to show how Obama will defeat Romney in the fall.

      I have a business. I cannot afford anymore Obama. I am watching closely. If Newt or Perry can close the deal, I am all in either way!

      Romney’s Bain baggage won’t play well in Peoria, no matter how much lipstick we put on it.

      Joe @ The Rick Perry Report

      • sunshinek67

        right before Iowa caucus, single digits. I have been praying for a credible endorsement for Perry, feel like it will come after the debate next week, thought maybe it would be today for weekend traffic. We’ll see.

        • rickperryreport

          into an endorsement from somewhere good. I have never seen a candidate work so hard in my life. I am confident Perry’s path of diligent work will cross the path of opportunity before the SC primaries.

          I don’t believe in luck, and neither does Perry.

          Joe @ Rick Perry Report

        • maybenexttime

          His brief surge in Iowa did him no real favors in New Hampshire. Perry’s boat capsized in the debate where he defended letting illegal immigrants get government-subsidized college tuition. His boat then sank to the bottom of the ocean when he couldn’t remember the Department of Energy.

          The guy is done. He serves no purpose other than to help Mitt Romney secure a win in SC against the splintered conservative field. The only group more happy than Romney to see Perry stick around is the DNC. Perry has given them some great ideas for ad campaigns this fall.

          • greyeagle

            I am from TX and I am really tired of seeing that he let illegal immigrants get government subsidized college tuition. It was NOT subsidized. The students have to pay their OWN tuition. They do NOT get any assistance. They go mostly to community colleges. The colleges are funded by sales tax. Illegals pay sales tax just like everyone else. You support Romney, well good for you, but a lot of use do not.

          • avagreen

            The ignorant hold on to these lies because that’s the only way they can rationalize their Perry Derangement Syndrome.
            If they used the real “facts”……..they’d look pretty stupid for being against him.
            Hence: the lies.

          • avagreen

            Since these parents and possibly the children themselves paid in taxes for the three-year waiting period required prior to applying for in-state tuition, it would open Texas up to both federal and civil suits to DENY them “in-state tuition” ……since they were “in-state” people just like the other “in-state” students that were ONLY required to live SIX months to qualify.

            That one LEGAL fact seems to fly over the head of the anti-Perry crowd slicker’n snot.

    • freedom555

      Perry is the best of our current choices.
      Even his perceived softness on immigration issues is a net positive for the future growth of our voting base.

      Romney does not and will not connect with the American people. He has lived in another universe for so long that few can relate to him..

      • jakeofalltrades

        Texas. Good point.

      • greyeagle

        He simply can not stop it. The border is 1200 miles long. He has asked Obama for drones, other air assets and boots on the ground. Obama has refused over and over. TX catches criminals and Ice turns them loose. Perry has put teams made up of national guard, TX Rangers and other law enforcement, on the border in an attempt to stop the drug cartels. Spent about $500,000 million dollars to date because Obama is not doing his job.

    • jl9999

      Newt has this remarkable ability to make everythng he says sound as though he actually knows something about the subject. It is known as a being a good BS-er. But when you look at how he conducts business and his life you soon discover the man is a fraud.

      I know a couple of guys who spent decades in prison who can stay nose to nose with Newt when it ocmes to being believable. It comes form being a bit sociopathic mixed with delusions of grandeur. That fits Newt exactly. No0w I am somewhat reticent to call Newt a slimy little worm but I have heard others say he is. After his most recent (one of many) sudden reversals from previous claims and statements, I am beginning to see why he is held in such low esteem by those who know him best.

  • acat

    (I read RMJ’s piece while listening to this …)

    The trouble with Bain et al is not that Romney is a Villain,

    The trouble instead is that Romney is set up to be a failed Hero… this is another lump of kryptonite in Axelrod’s hands… Bain can and will be played so as to weaken Willard in the general, unless he has an antidote … and if he does, now’s the time.

    Mew

    • cbartlett

      on this site. I know we must vote for the Republican in the general against Obama, but after reading this, it is really going to make me sick to have to vote for Romney.

      http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/mitt/

  • miconservative

    Romney says he adhere’s to the free market and creative destruction and that is why he had to dismantle companies and fire workers. But when it came to the creative destruction of AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc, Romney abandonded those same free market principles in favor of a taxpayer funded bailout because that creative destruction would have meant the pain would be felt in the gilded halls of Bain Capital and other such places.

    That is the crux of the matter. I am not saying Bain did anything illegal, but in some cases immoral? Perhaps.

    We in Michigan saw this campaign in 2006. We had a failed Governor in Jennifer Granholm who was the female version of Barack Obama…green jobs and all. The GOP nominated the son of a great Michigan business leader named Dick DeVos. His father founded Amway and Dick had served as Amway CEO.

    DeVos ran a great technical campaign and spent over $50 million highlighting Granholm’s failed record and DeVos’s great record of job creation. He hovered around a small lead or trailing closely until Granholm began to hit him on outsourcing jobs to China among other business sins. DeVos never answered the questions well, got the crap kicked out of him in the first debate and never recovered. He went on to get crushed by 16 points and we got stuck with 4 more years of Granholm’s failed lack of leadership.

    Granholm beat DeVos with the same campaign Ted Kennedy ran against Romney in 1994 and the same campaign Obama will run against him in 2012. And guess what??? It will work again.

    Mitt Romney has no divine right to this campaign and our nominee should not be the issue in 2012. I can tell you Romney’s business practices will be the issue in fall. Watch the “When Mitt Romney came to town” video and just imagine what Axelrod will do. If we nominate Romney forget about Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, etc., etc. And probably Florida and other places.

    I don’t know what the answer is or who the candidate should be, but I will tell you it cannot be Romney or just get prepared to spend the fall defending the dismantling of every company Bain ever dismantled.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Make Mitt either explode or get good at defeating this garbage.

      • miconservative

        of attacking the attacker for the attack ain’t gonna get the job done. And having his supporters in the establishment and media supporting him because the attacks are on free enterprise ain’t gonna get the job done in the general.

        It is an opportunity for Romney to put it behind him, but I don’t think he can pull it off to help with the fall electorate.

        He also is going to have to address how he can support wrecking small companies who made bad business decisions, but supported taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street after their mistakes. I believe he is fatally flawed to appeal to a broad electorate.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Richard_A__Viguerie_89C3B689-54F3-4B86-850C-2835BB5F330B.html

          He questions the Romney stance as follows.

          “Or are the real anti-capitalists Mitt Romney, and his establishment friends in the Washington ? Wall Street Axis, who hypocritically like having the option of firing the little guy and stripping the factory on Main Street on the way up, but then use their inside power and influence to demand those same little taxpayers bail them out on the way down?”

          • miconservative

            and we in the grassroots get asked to defend it. I ain’t doing it.

          • jakeofalltrades

          • burke

            n/t

          • Samsara

            Mr. Viguerie hit the nail on the head.

    • renl57

      …no matter who it is.

      I’m surprised that Perry supporters think that Perry is actually less vulnerable to Dem attacks than Romney is. The man can’t even speak extemporaneously (so much for the GOP argument that Obama can’t speak extemporaneously without a teleprompter); he can’t even remember his own talking points; and you want to send him up against the billion dollar Obama re-election machine. Good luck with that.

      And I’m truly amazed that Gingrich supporters think that Gingrich is less vulnerable to Dem attacks than Romney is.

      • texastaxpayer

        That’s what Perry supporters like myself see. What I can’t see is why a bunch of shills like you keep running from one candidate to the next.
        Romney has no success to run on and hasn’t managed.to hold a position longer than a week. LOSER…
        Newt has more baggage than American Airlines and can’t defend his lobbying or flips in the general. LOSER…
        Santorum has no credible experience leading so much as a lemonade stand and his senate record is a roadmap of what’s wrong with Washington spending. LOSER…

        Perry is the three term governor of Texas.
        Beside the little things like #1 economy in the US and #1 job creation record in the US.
        Rick Perry can also add:
        Successful CEO of the worlds 12th largest economy
        Voter ID law
        Defending Planned Parenthood
        Tax cuts
        Balanced Budgets
        Sturdy Housing Market
        1.6 Billion surplus in current budget and (drum roll please)
        The best HAIR in the race to his resume. WINNER…

        PERRY 2012…. Experience Results Integrity.

    • Kyle-MI

      TARP was not just about bailing out a few companies. It was about propping up the entire industry. And we are not talking buggy whips here. A general collapse of the financial industry would have been a major blow to our economy. In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.

      • miconservative

        doesn’t apply to big banks and big insurance companies?? They can operate with impunity knowing there is a taxpayer funded backstop? No moral hazard there huh? And is a propped up financial services industry really free markets? Seems like Romney believes in privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Great economic philosophy where he can’t lose

        • snowshooze

          nt

        • Kyle-MI

          Why can’t you get that through your muddled head?

          I am fine with letting one company go, but it just wasn’t one.

      • snowshooze

        So, the banks were forced to loan.
        So they did. Then they bundled up all the bad paper and sold it.
        They had to. If they had held the junk paper, it would have sunk them.
        So they covered their bases.
        Those overseas banks then had a pile of garbage.

        Out here in the world we know, you make a bad buy… it is yours.
        Eat it.
        But then there was TARP.
        It should never have been.
        Our Government created this mess from the outset.
        Then, when we were out of it through some pretty good efforts by domestic banks…
        Our Government dove in yet again… and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
        Plus… TARP never did anything other than bail them.
        The inflated values of the junk portfolios have never been corrected.
        —relief for who?—
        US Taxpayers were forced to buy a pig in a poke.

  • quill67

    ?Sometimes, however, such companies later fail and cite their heavy leverage load as a contributing factor. That is why Romney and Bain Capital are sometimes accused of profiting from bankrupting companies, even though that?s really some sloppy shorthand for what actually happens.?

    This quote cited in the post IS the issue. Did Romney’s company choose to take on took much debt making companies more likely to fail?

    This is not an attack on capitalism. It is an attack on poor management. If your financial advisor were to brag about how much money his company made, wouldn’t you want to know how his CLIENTS did? Bain’s success means nothing. Would more companies have survived if a different company was involved.

    • texashistorian

      to little apparent effect, and was the basic gist of my diary yesterday [ not that I expect anyone ought to care what I think outside of those students in my classroom ;) ]

      Romney has made his Bain experience one of the centerpieces of his argument for the job of President. The decisions made at Bain are at issue, not for illegality or morality, but as decisions themselves. They should provide insight into how he approaches issues. My feeling on this is that Mitt in Bain, just as in MA politics, does whatever is most expedient. Admirable perhaps, in a purely bottom-line business sense, but not so admirable in a politician that wants our votes.

    • OregonConservative

      Did Bain Capital make some poor management decisions during Romney’s tenure? Yes, it’s hard to be right 100% of the time–just ask Rush :^). Romney has admitted that things didn’t always work out the way they had hoped. However, if people want to use it as an attack on poor management, the easy response is that out of the 100 or so companies that Bain invested in during Romney’s tenure, those making attacks can only cite three or four examples where things didn’t work out. Not too bad of a track record.

      Was the goal of Bain Capital to create jobs or to make money for themselves and their clients (i.e., the outside investors)? It was absolutely to make money. The goal of almost all business enterprises is to make money. Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs do what they did to create jobs or to make money (by creating products that people wanted)? Romney’s goal at Bain Capital was to get a return on investment for themselves and the outside (i.e., leveraged) investors, and by all accounts he was wildly successful at doing just that–which again points to very good decision making and management practices.

      Did Bain Capital act as a “Corporate Raider” or “Vulture Capitalist”? Absolutely not. First, these terms invoke a sense of hostile takeovers. That was never the case. The acquisition (or leveraged buyout) of struggling companies and investments in start-ups was always agreed upon by both sides–in some cases the companies came to Bain looking for help (e.g., Staples). Further, even in the cited examples of failures, the goal was not to buy the company just to dismantle it and sell of the individual assets. Bain wanted the companies to survive. Why? Because they could make more money by buying troubled companies (or investing is start-ups), making them competitive and successful, and then either staying with the companies to reap profits or selling them off, often years later, for a profit. Even in the oft-cited failures, if the goal was to swoop in and buy up a company only to dismantle it for parts, why didn’t they do that immediately? Why did Bain usually stick with the companies and try to make them work for many years?

      Did Bain choose to take on too much debt making companies more likely to fail? Perhaps, but there were usually several factors that contributed to a company’s failure. Keep in mind that these companies were already often struggling. Again, Bain was in the business of managing the risk for their investors (and themselves). They didn’t want to companies to fail since they wouldn’t realize as good a return on investment. Also, the failures usually occurred years after the debt loading.

      Finally, you ask “Would more companies have survived if a different company was involved?” I doubt it. Bain’s overall track record is extremely good. Here’s a snippet from Romney’s Wikipedia page:

      Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee. By that time, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation, having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, having 115 employees overall, and having $4 billion under its management. It had made between 100 and 150 deals where it acquired and then sold a company. Bain Capital’s approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry. University of Chicago Booth School of Business economist Steven Kaplan would later say, “[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses.”

      • maybenexttime

        If Romney’s innovative model is busting up struggling companies, selling it in pieces, and shipping jobs overseas…how does he parlay that model into a winning plan for America?

        We’re already shipping enough jobs to foreign shores, so we don’t need Mitt’s help in that department. Perhaps he thinks selling Alaska back to the Russians might work if we promise to throw in Hawaii?

        • OregonConservative

          I suggest you go back and read the third paragraph again.

          Romney’s model was NOT “busting up struggling companies, selling it in pieces, and shipping jobs overseas.” That was not the goal. If it was, why didn’t they do that immediately after acquiring companies?

          In most of the 100 or so instances where Bain acquired a company, their innovative “approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in” made the struggling company more efficient and profitable; and they were then able to resell the company, still intact and now better, for a profit.

          Just because there were a few cases were it didn’t always work out and some companies had to close their doors, that doesn’t mean that was their goal.

          What evidence do you have that Bain’s purpose in acquiring struggling companies was to act as a chop shop?

      • goodolboy

        I wish more people understood Bain Capital’s activities and actions as well as you explained. So many people are going on the half truths being put out. It is my understanding that Bain saved 66% of the companies it invested in. not a bad track record. By the way….I am not a Romney supporter at this time. However, if he is the nominee I will fight tooth and nail for him to be elected president.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Did Romney’s compnay intentionally use these company’s debts as an ATM card to pay Bain Capital? That’s the real potentially malevolent practice I see that Romney could have engaged in here. Did he suck them dry? That line of inquiry led me to my Vampire analogy.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      That was a reply to quill.

    • miconservative

      That happened and will be impossible to refute. Bain bought company, company takes on huge debt to pay Bain back, company goes bankrupt, Bain makes hundreds of millions, workers thrown out on rear ends. Sell that politically.

      • lizzie

        the company.

        miconservative has more succinct descriptor.

        i just watched the whole 27 minute KingofBain.
        Yeah, easy to isolate the technical points for the WaPo to award four pinnochios. Politifact is working through it same way.

        But, I worked for RJRNabisco 1986-1996. One year before the KKR PE LBO – they paid too much. No way we could EVER pay off the debt, and the sole reason why KKR “bought” RJRNabisco was because the NYSE undervalued the stock due to the future concern over tobacco liabilities.

        My point? I was white-collar in operations, and still had my life destroyed when my boss included me in the annual Christmas 10% “head-count reduction” in order to make 4Q “earnings” look good. He had to hire four people to replace me the next year.

        If Romney’s entire sales pitch is that HE knows how the REAL economy works, then America is doomed. The REAL economy was built by people with ideas and skills to create products and make things.

        The rise of the spreadsheet MBAs after 1975 was supposed to trun America into a post-industrial service economy.

        An experiment that has failed. At least the late 19th century Robber Barons built railroads and figured out how to drill for oil, and those efficiencies created entire new industries based on electricity and the internal combustion engine.

        Back to King of Bain. So what if KB Toys was gutted after Romney stopped being the active CEO of Bain?

        Has he once ever critiqued the model he put in place? No.

        creative destruction is when the one technology replaces a less efficient one.
        Water powered mechanized textile looms replaced human foot pedaled home loom.
        The automoblie replaced the horse in transport.
        The steam engine replaced wind powered sailing ships.
        The ATM replaced some (not all) bank clerks. But, someone still has to design and manufacture and service those ATMs.

        Inthe 1880′s a man named Westervelt invented a machine that formed kraft paper into the flat-bottom grocery sack – considered a technological innovation that revolutionized retail.

        In 1913, Nabisco decided to take the crackers out of the cracker barrels, and the glass-fronted display cases, and put those crackers into a new technology that we still use: the folding carton. Revolutionary for retail distribution, lowering consumer costs, creating an entirely new industry, and losing a lot of jobs of deliverymen with horse drawn wagons.

        Just too bad it is not Henry Kravis who is running for President – KKR is why Bain looks “good” in comparison.

        America is the loser in what has been a bi-partisan financial re-engineering since 1978.

        The post-industrual service economy is as much a myth as Obama’s (borrowed 100% from Bill Clinton) Green Economy.

        I refused to vote for Obama in 2008. I will NEVER vote for Romney (or any Dr. Paul)

        From my perspective, only Perry or Gingrich or Huntsman can beat Obama.

        I watched Perry at the Aug 2010 Freedom Concert agin last night. If that Rick Perry had shown up in August 2011, we would not be having this discussion.

        Do not let Romney buy the presidency.

        • quill67

          Your account of the changing philosophy and how it is much worse than the Robber Barrons is very interesting.

          On personal note, my grandfather worked for Nabisco (before your time). Started as a young man doing physical labor, then sales, then went to night school for business degree and then into management.

          • lizzie

            place to work. My first boss had started on the factory floor at 17 and retired 49 years later as a senior manager.

            I was “downsized” Christmas 1995. I was the only person in my department not at retirement age. Two months later, everyone 62+ was offered a buyout. They all took it. Then someone noticed there was no one left who had enough experience to keep the supply chain operational. Allof them were rehired back as “consultants”.

            One gentleman who took the retirement buyout had been a direct report. He was so upset at what was being done to me that he had volunteered to be downsized in my place.

            When they offered him the “consulting” gig, he told them to “go f***” themselves. He actually said that to them.

            Six years later, in 2001, I was meeting a non-Nabisco friend at the nearby Houlihan’s restaurant. There was a private party in the room to my left as I entered. A retirement party for a former colleague in a sister department. I braved it and went inside to say hello. He told me people were still talking about how much they had learned from me.

            For four years after I was out of nabisco, I did technical consulting in packaging, and kept speaking at and attending industry conferences. Every time, someone would ask me about the young man who had replaced me – as if I could answer why such a horrid person was put in my job. They hated him.

            My favorite quote was from someone who refused to even try to sell to Nabisco because all they heard about that young man who replaced me was other suppliers saying “If he died, it would not be painful enough”.

            I heard that young man finally departed for a better job at Coors.

            There is no such thing as a meritocracy in corporate America when the PE LBO locusts descend on any company.

          • quill67

            When companies go further into debt it does increase shareholder returns at least in the short term, but it also increases risk and as your post indicates it can also cause firms to make stupid decisions. Firms that might have had extra money to invest in new ideas or new areas of business are fighting just to make payments on debt. They lose the flexibility of their finances. If they face a downturn, they have to make drastic adjustments just to survive. How many companies have you hear of that had to cut R&D just to stay afloat because of too much debt? I have had many people tell me this over the years.

        • quill67

          Your account of the changing philosophy and how it is much worse than the Robber Barrons is very interesting.

          On personal note, my grandfather worked for Nabisco (before your time). Started as a young man doing physical labor, then sales, then went to night school for business degree and then into management.

    • quill67

      My long time liberal friend told me one truth about politics:

      Perception is Reality.

      Doubt this???

      HW Bush seen to be out of touch because he seemed to be amazed by checkout scanner (never mind that this was a new 3D scanner that did not require the bar code to face any particular direction)

      Dan Quayle was seen as being stupid because of spelling of Potato with a ‘e’ at the end (never mind the teacher gave him a flashcard with that spelling on it)

      If a conservative website has to ask the question: Was Bain a vampire that sucked good companies dry OR just a company that encouraged companies to become over-leveraged? Then this will not turn out well.

      And if I don’t miss my guess, this will soon blow up on Romney in SC.

  • WillWong

    Rush, Huckabee, Demint, Giuliani, Rove, Coulter, NRO, Townhall, Human Events, and the rest of the GOP Establishment should be thanking Newt…..Yup! That will be the day!

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Diss him for raising the question the way it would be in an OWS Propaganda piece written for Adbuster.com. Praise him for being astute enough to put the question in play now.

      • clowngirl

        And he needs to start giving some straight answers.

        Newt has called on his Super PAC to take down their video or edit out the inaccurate portions and upon Mitt Romney to give an exhaustive press conference explaining how things worked at Bain Capital.

        He’s right on both counts.

        It’s not anti-capitalist to acknowledge that some people in business try to cheat or rip off other people.

        If you disagree, let me ask you – when was the last time you purchased anything you saw advertised in an informercial?

        That’s what I thought.

        Free market ideals are based on the notion of companies pursuing *enlightened* self interest.

        That sentiment seems to express an implicit expectation that successful capitalists- (who wield significant power over the lives of others) will behave with a certain amount of basic decency – and that self interest would be tempered with a certain amount of concern for others.

        It’s not communist to want to know whether or not Romney, during his time at Bain, genuinely tried to save every struggling business he purchased or if he was focused exclusively on profit and didn’t care if he ran companies into the ground.

        It’s not socialist to want to know what kind of severance packages he gave when firing long term employees.

        Sirius, in the 4th Harry Potter book says something along the lines of “If you want to know the measure of a man, look at how he treats his servants- not his equals”

        Romney spent much of his adult life as CEO of Bain Capital — looking closely at the decisions he made could tell us a lot about how he handles power.

        The regard and concern he showed for employees that Romney fired at Bain Capital (or the lack thereof) should tell us something about how he would regard us (as mere citizens) if he were President.

  • WillWong

    Mitt should explain how Bain created those jobs! Better still, he should release his tax returns now….Obama will skewer him for not doing so!

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      from that brainiac Obama.

      Not sure Obama has any right to talk about anyone else’s lack of documentation.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        :) NT.

      • WillWong

        Obama will not have to do it personally….His surrogates in the MSM will gladly do it on his behalf!

    • tngal

      Bain bought up companies on the verge of bankruptcy. If Obama comes at him with Bain, Mitt would attack back with bailouts of GM,AIG,TARP etc.

      The difference between the two is one was a private business using private funds the other was a government using taxpayer dollars.

      Now both buyouts/bailouts may be wrong in the eyes of many but at least Bain didn’t use your tax dollars to keep those companies afloat.

      And remember the cries from all these companies that went to the government to begin with were “please send money as we will be forced to fire people and go bankrupt.”

      (Not a mitt supporter, still on Cain train. Will wait to see who the shiny one is when TN votes.)

      • maybenexttime

        …Except that Romney supported TARP. If Mitt is stupid enough to attack Obama for supporting TARP, this is going to be a 50-state electoral sweep for the Dems in November.

        Why do the Republicans insist on handing Obama another four years by running such a weak candidate as Willard? Did they learn nothing from the McCain fiasco just three years ago?

        • goodolboy

          give a class to the American people as to what Bain was/is and how companies such it operates and why. What would happen if companies like Bain did not exists. Then he should go into detail of the history of Bain, its track record in detail as to the companies it was involved in and what happened with each one and why. He should do this with charts, graphs, and whatever other visual aids he needs. Then he should release his tax records and college grades if necessary. That should be done as soon as possible and do everything he can to take the wind out of the Democratics sails for the election in Nov. If I were him I would do it during the Florida primary and do it by buying time on TV like an infomercial is done. Clear the air as soon as possible because the longer a skunk lays dead in the sun the more he rots and stinks.

    • thosjefferson

      Palin’s never given any indication she understands capitalism, or economics generally, beyond a few stock phrases.

      It’s no wonder she wants Romney to explain how jobs are created. He’s having to educate the entire American public about economics and business, and he’s not getting any help from the rest of the GOP candidates, who instead are confusing people like Palin.

      I hope all conservatives join Romney in explaining how jobs are created, how capitalism raises living standards, and how free market capitalism contrasts with the Obama/Perry/Gingrich approach of using government to allocate capital, forcing companies to cooperate with the government to stay in business, and making money by selling access to government officials.

      • Tbone

        that you think it will give you some credibility and then you criticize a person who pulled herself up from nothing to be elected a governor and selected to run on a national ticket and end up rich.

        You are a brainless little twit and you prove it with every post you make.

      • WillWong

        That was what Palin asked for! That is what I want to know! That is what South Carolinians wants to know before Jan 21!

  • OCBill

    In a leveraged buyout, the acquiring firm borrows money from banks, sure. But what’s the collateral? The very definition of a leveraged buyout is that the firm being acquired is the collateral for the loan. The term leveraged buyout is generally only used when the borrowed amount is by far the most significant amount to be used in the acquisition (frequently 90% or more). This is the whole notion of “other peopes’ money”. In these scenarios, firms like Bain are risking very little of their own capital. That’s the whole point of a doing an LBO. The party at greatest risk is the firm being acquired.

    The problem here is the optics, anyway, not the model itself. In an election that should be about the economy and jobs, we’re about to nominate someone who likes to fire people. And yes, I know the qutoe’s out of context (like that will stop them).

    Do you wonder why CNN (via their publication Fortune) is defending Romney? It’s because Romney is in the wheelhouse for the planned Democratic populist re-election campaign. Obama, hero of the people (the 99%), versus Romney the cold-hearted Republican who made millions by putting hard-working, middle class people out of work.

    As I’ve said other places, I get that this is part of captialism. I totally get that it’s an essential element of how the economy needs to work. I also get that vultures and maggots are necessary players in the “circle of life” or else we’d be up to our necks in dead squirrels, etc. But something else I get is that you don’t see many high school, college, or pro sports teams called “the Mighty Maggots.”

    • bob08034

      “The very definition of a leveraged buyout is that the firm being acquired is the collateral for the loan.”

      True, but what hasn’t been said is that generally the buyout is not voluntary.

      Example: Private Equity Firm PEF has $100 million. PEF goes out and finds an under-performing company ACME. According to PEF’s calculations, ACME would be worth, say, $1.5b, if they got their act together. Their current market capitalization (value of their stock) is $1b.

      So PEF raises $900 million in the form of junk bonds, to which they add the $100 million, and buy up the stock of ACME. As the new owners, they take over management.

      If ACME goes bankrupt, then the company will be liquidated or re-organized and the bondholders will get pennies on the dollar, but either way PEF has already paid itself an upfront fee.

      If PEF is successful, then they will make ACME the great company they thought it could be, and sell it for $1.5b, netting $500m.

      This last bit is a good incentive to really try to make the company profitable, but it’s that up front fee that is the problem. Any time you can manage to create risk-free investments it’s a problem. That’s the part Gingrich is on about .

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Since Newt made a big deal over Romney’s ads getting 4 Pinnochios from WashPost, this is notable:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/13/wapo-gives-king-of-bain-four-pinocchios/
    “The 29-minute video ?King of Bain? is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin. …. Only one of the four case studies directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.”

    So the movie implies businesses closed up when they moved, attack Romney for business decisions made after he left Bain, and in many other ways over-state or mis-characterize what happened.

    The vulture capitalism charge at its root is phony and wrong. The whole idea that an investment firm can carve a profitable business model out of driving companies into bankruptcy is absurd, and its sad to say I had to hear that point on … NPR. They successfully restructured most firms and most of their turnarounds and investments were win/win, in that businesses grew and jobs were retained or grew. The fact that they closed down factories or laid people off … well guess IBM, AT&T, Sprint, Dell, US Steel, GM, etc. have ALL laid people off at various times – more than half the Fortune 500 has done layoffs in the past 20 years. So why is that somehow verboten?

    Bain has done both the difficult “turnaround by cutting job” and the more easy-to-sell-as-job-creation “build a growing business”. It’s why Romney likes to point to Staples, a poster child for the ‘job creation’ aspect of equity business investment. Neither is vulture capitalism

    This kinds of leading questions … “Did Romney?s company choose to take on took much debt making companies more likely to fail? ” … the answer is, for the most part, NO.

    or this “It is an attack on poor management. ” Even good management makes mistakes, and Bain had overall good track record. They were not a sleazy or mis-managed shop, and if the 4 pinnochio film is any guide, the attacks are over-the-top.

    • miconservative

      are going to be given when it is Axelrod making the charge?? And how many people are going to see that compared to the number of voters who see the $200 million ad campaign? Better have a better response than some pinnochio’s from the Washington Post.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        and get away with it, …
        but its useful to point out that the film about Bain was/is misleading and slanted.

    • texastaxpayer

      The difference with IBM,DELL and the rest of your list is they didn’t load the organization down with debt. Then use that debt to pay management fees and dividends to themselves, repeating this cycle until the organization could no longer pay its bills and payroll. In the case of CGI Bain even shorter the pension fund leaving the taxpayers on the hook for $44,000,000.00 bailout plus unemployment, food stamps and Medicaid benefits for the work force. That’s the difference.

    • clowngirl

      or to stop showing it altogether.

      A side note about the 4 Pinnochios. That was in Washington Post who employees a Romney blogger who bashes Newt on a daily basis.

      Can’t help but wonder if they’re biased and if that bias runs over to the fact checker portion.

      Though (in fairness) they did give one of Romney’s attacks * on Newt 4 Pinnochios as well — but I can’t help wondering if that add had to actually be more untruthful to earn the same score.

      Perhaps unfair on my part — but that’s what they get for hiring a Romney blogger whose blatantly in the tank.

      * the ad was run by Romney’s Super PAC

  • goodgovernance

    I am amazed, absolutely amazed it took this long before anyone really started to examine what Romney did at Bain capital. So whatever you might think of Gingrich and Perry “attacking capitalism,” we owe them a thank you for forcing us to question Mitt’s oh-so-superficial claims that he’s a jobs creator.

    Here’s the thing: the sole rationale for Mitt’s candidacy, the reason why he’s supposedly the most electable, is that as a businessman, he knows how to create jobs. In a political climate where the economy is expected to be the number one concern, this one “authentic” feature of Romney is supposed to propel him to the top.

    All the Chicago boys have to do is turn Romney’s one positive feature into a question mark – they don’t have to turn it into a negative, they just have to turn it into a question mark in people’s minds – and Obama wins. Because Mitt has nothing else to fall back. He doesn’t have a compelling life story. He’s not charismatic. He doesn’t have a set of firm principles that will galvanize people to his cause.

    He’s got nothing.

    • WillWong

      The republican establishment cannot be that stupid not to see what grassroot people like us see! Could it be that they are perfectly comfortable giving Obama another 4 years? Sort of like live and let live! Or you scratch my back and I scratch yours! I am not a Ron Paul fan but it is blatant stupidity like this that draws a reliable 20% to him!

  • tercel

    Romney’s response of “Obama is rich too” and “Obama invested in GM” are the equivalent of the schoolyard taunt “I’m rubber, your glue. What bounces off me sticks to you”.

    Creative destruction can be defended until the cows come home but this argument will never SELL to the average American voter.

    If Romney is our nominee, we lose!

    • WillWong

      And that is why the Republican Establishment had started circling his wagon….Big Mistake…..Someone said Newt exposed Mitt’s glass chin….Couldn’t have said it better!

  • sunshinek67

    Kind of like those recurring fleas on that dog in the backyard left untreated by Advantix. Not my dog, though, my precious chocolate lab Sticker is part of the family, rides in the car with the kids and gets left over steak scraps.

    Speaking of dogs riding in or on top of cars…..

  • Samsara

    staring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Back when a Crucifix and the Holy Water still worked in the movies. Those were the days. Or rather nights, WIIC Channel 11 out of Pittsburgh, Bill Cardille and “Chiller Theater”.

    http://www.chillertheatermemories.com/index.html

    Wait…. what were we talking about?

    • Lucas Black

      I just watched Frankenstein Created Woman the other day. Too bad Frankenstein couldn’t create a good candidate for us this election.

  • hls87

    When it acquired a company it couldn’t save, dividend recaps and grossly inflated management fees paid with borrowed funds would make good the loss. Banks could afford to provide the cash to make this possible because the federal government was backstopping them.

    That’s what made Bain’s business so profitable. When it acquired a company it could save, the gains were all gravy. Heads I win, tails you lose. Whether or not Romney ever actually lined his pockets by loading a salvageable company with debt to the point that it died, he was certainly part of a rigged game that benefits a very few to the detriment of everyone else. This observation has nothing to do with free markets. Bain didn’t operate in a free market, far from it. Conservatives who have decided to defend Bain as a matter of abstract principle are as wrong as wrong can be.

    For the last 25 years the financial sector of our economy has been one long, rolling government bailout which is what enabled Mitt Romney to amass his fortune. He’s a rich man because being part of the financial/political elite is a good gig. He is, in other words, part of the problem that is consuming us and extremely unlikely ever to be part of the solution. Government dominated financial markets have been very good to Mitt. He’s not likely to help us move toward anything else in any area. Healthcare is, of course, the most obvious example, but there are others.

    In a sane world, Mitt Romney would be a laughable Republican candidate. Let’s hope we find a trace of sanity soon.

    • Scope

      I agree with every word in your post, especially this not being the kind of capitalism I or many could support. How many of us were so against TARP, the auto-bailouts, Euro bailouts and etc. Yet we can’t examine a presidential candidates record, especially one he has made his major selling point.

  • tailfins1959

    As a recent Massachusetts resident, I can tell you this is a REALLY nice place to live. Maybe it’s the seeds planted by 18 years of GOP Governors, Proposition 2 1/2, an electorate that punishes elected officials that screw up, money brought into the state by gay marriage, or being an epicenter of scientific talent.

    Jobs are plentiful and pay well, crime is low, schools are great. Obviously liberalism isn’t the reason or California and Illinois wouldn’t be in the toilet. I can’t put my finger on why, but somebody has done something right around here.

    • streiff

      is the name you’re searching for

      • tailfins1959

        You might recall that Patrick demanded give-backs by public unions and essentially threatened a Scott Walker solution. He saw the fiscal train coming off the rails and did what he had to.

        • streiff

          that politicians should not be responsive to voters?

          Full disclosure here. I’d like nothing better than to drop kick you from the site. Keep that in mind when responding to me in the future.

          • tailfins1959

            I’m sorry if that bothers you. Life circumstances has challenged a lifelong conservatism. I am here to clear up the confusion thinking some here might want to bolster someone who is starting to have doubts. Perhaps the conservatism will be strengthened by being challenged. I haven’t registered to vote here yet. Being “drop kicked” from this site would cause me to register as a Democrat for the first time in my life.

    • lizzie

      I do not know where you are living, but all of us in small towns still have direct democracy with unpiad citizen select-persons.
      That is how Scott Brown started his political service.

      The Massachusetts economy was gutted by de-industrialization in the 1960′s and 1970′s, when I came north for college. Ghost towns all over in the early 1970′s.

      But, thanks to the HUGE infrastructure of colleges and universities, Massachusetts was able to re-invent itself in the 1980′s and 1990′s, in high tech offshoots, but also, since the late 1990′s, a big influx of retirees wanting to be near their alma maters.

      NOTHING to do with Romney. I came back in 2006, part-time – to be near my alma mater, and my perspective is that Gov. Deval Patrick has been a more effective leader than his pre-decessor Romney.
      based on what everyone else says.

      Everything is still against the law in Massachusetts :)
      My favorite quote from 2010 “Edge of Darkness”, wherein Mel Gibson’s character somehow made the road trip from Boston to Northampton in ten minutes. Heck, it takes two hours to make that trip!

      Took me a week to recover from driving back from that movie past Sugarloaf Mountain, used as the site for the assembly of nukes for Iran in the film.

      • tailfins1959

        I’m in the Wellesley-Newton-Needham-Wayland area. I also do work in Cambridge. I love technology. In other places where they want you to be almost overqualified, you do stuff you’ve done 100 times before. Here, there is a culture to stretch and become more knowledgeable, work with bleeding edge applications and build your know-how. It’s like a miracle, ESPECIALLY after a career failure elsewhere.

        Thanks for your informed analysis: still trying to figure stuff out.

    • thosjefferson

      We anti-Romney Redstaters aren’t basing our animosity on rational thinking, facts, or analysis. Don’t confuse us with facts about how Mass. unemployment rate under Romney went down while it went up in Texas under Perry and up in Utah under Huntsman. Don’t confuse us with the Mass high standard of living, the good health and prosperity Romney fostered.

  • renl57

    In nine days, the Perry campaign is over, after they lose big in South Carolina. That’s it. Game over.

    As long as many folks here on RS are still dreaming of a Perry comeback, they will continue to do anything they can to knock down Romney.

    Once Perry is no longer in the race, how many folks here are going to continue this Bain-bashing just to help Gingrich with his personal revenge against Romney?

    • miconservative

      Seen this campaign already in Michigan Gov’s race in 2006 as I mentioned above. Romney can’t win. As soon as Perry is out I am for any not-Romney except for Ron Paul, although I believe Ron Paul would have a better chance at beating Obama.

    • tonotisto

      If Perry would leave (don’t count him out yet), I’ll choose Newt,

      If both Rick’s leave, Newt has a real chance (actually the same can be said if any combo of the 2 out of the 3 leaving), Romney could no longer “win” by minority.

      Personally, I do not want ot go thru a year of defending MiitvsMitt and other You Tube hits.

      Plus, I do not trust that Romney has changed (all his flips seem designed to win campaigns). So, that would even make it tougher for me to defend Romney.

      Newt may have some negatives, but nothing like Romney.

    • tercel

      I want to beat Obama.

      Willard Mitt Gordon Gekko Romney is a sure loser.

      Fair or not the American voter is never going to buy what he is selling. He is just unable to connect with the average American and they still get to vote.

      Stick to Romney…lose the battle.

    • maybenexttime

      If Romney is the nominee, most Republicans will probably vote for him just to make Obama a one-termer. Their vote will be far from enthusiastic, and their personal interest in seeing Romney succeed is quite low. Nevertheless, a vote is a vote, right?

      The only pitfall — and it’s a big one — is how reliable those non-enthusiastic voters will be come November. If the weather is bad, they might stay home. If they forgot to register, they may just say screw it. If a long lost friend calls on Election Day to catch up on old times, they may just decide voting isn’t a big priority this time around.

      If the GOP had a candidate which fired up the base, none of those above scenarios would matter. Those voters would find a way to crawl on their belly to the local precinct and cast a ballot. With Romney as the nominee, very few folks on the Republican side are taking such an active interest in the process.

      That kind of apathy can kill a presidential run. I suspect Romney’s campaign has already started pushing some voters down that path.

  • drsheilahere

    Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

    We have stuck together many years for the sake of the kids but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize I want a Divorce. I know we tolerated each other for decades for the sake of future generations but, sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all. So, let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

    Here is a model Separation Agreement:

    –Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

    –We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

    –You are welcome to the liberal Judges and the ACLU.

    –Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

    –We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

    –You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

    –We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

    –You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
    We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs and rednecks.

    –We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

    –You can “make nice” with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

    –You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

    –We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley MacLaine. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

    –We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

    –You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

    –We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem”. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.

    –We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up-poverty your best shot.

    –Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

    Sincerely,
    John J. Wall
    Law Student and an American

    P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand & (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.

    P.P.S. You won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country!

    • goodgovernance

      It wasn’t.

      • quill67

        26 states are suing the Federal Government for trying to grab too much power.

        • goodgovernance

          Secession talk. Mainstream voters will love it and absolutely will not think we’re a bunch of fringe nuts. Absolutely not. Why would they?

    • Lucas Black

      No, I want to keep Charlie Sheen. He makes me laugh. And Jon Cryer is a Republican, so we can get the real Two and a Half Men back.

    • maybenexttime

      Our current political process tends to create middle-of-the-road candidates from both parties. Look at Romney’s ascendancy and tell me this country is simply Hard Left and Hard Right, with no middle ground at all.

      Romney is slightly to the right of Obama. If you think Obama is as far left as the Democrats can go, ask yourself why Dennis Kucinich still has a congressional seat? Bernie Sanders won’t even identify himself as a Democrat because the party doesn’t go far enough to the left in his estimation.

      America is center-center country. Sometimes they go center-right. Sometimes they go center-left, but at the end of the day…things always seem to be pretty close to the center.

      If you have a problem with the obvious political moderation in our system, then perhaps you’re best served by leaving America and forming your own country. America’s history is based on political moderation and compromise, not some strict adherence to one rigid ideology.

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

    At the end of the day, beating Obama is the thing that matters the most, we must not allow the Democrats to place the next few Supreme Court Justices, I suspect we would then have a activist court that leans left heavily. The Congress is sitting at a dismal 11% approval rating, and much of this can be attributed to the close shutdown over the summer. Right or wrong, I think this is the harsh reality of the situation. Being that Newt was involved in a shutdown himself that some credit with stopping the Reagan revolution, I am not sure he can beat Obama.

    I think anything short of a new plan, something along the lines of what Perry is advocating will beat Obama. It probably depends on how people view the economy this coming November. What if the unemployment rate keeps dropping, then it will even be harder to beat Obama. This is why I think Perry is such a better choice when it comes to taking the Democrats to task for their agenda in this country. Perry’s record will contrast with Obama in ways that I think others cannot.

    I hope there is still time for Perry to stop Romney, but if others do not feel that way, then I’m afraid we have little choice but to hope Huntsman gains steam, which seems about as likely as seeing Perry win S.C. I will never give up on Perry, and if I had my way, he would stay in the race all the way. I am not sure if that is possible, but I love his last ad. I hope it is something those in S.C. warm up to.

  • actuarius

    is that current management failed to deliver sufficient value to the shareholders. (Of course there are other requirements like low interest rates, access to capital, low stock price, etc. ). The typical target has one or two divisions which deliver more than the total value (the rest destroy value). Current management, for whatever reason, will not or cannot stop throwing good money after bad into the divisions which are destroying value.

    The typical LBO projects that the future profits can be about twice the debt payment with the combination of cutting the losing divisions and feeding the thriving divisions. The debt must be paid by the acquirer. The dividend can only be extracted if the profits are there to do so. If the fees come out of the operations (as opposed to the dividend), the source of the funds/lender for the buy-out should fire those managing the transaction. That would be paying the borrower first and even if there is not sufficient profit: a dumb way to lend money.

    Also typical, the current management was provided with employment contracts with lucrative buy-out clauses by the current board. So, often, the only way to rid the shareholders of current incompetent management is to pay them off. Unfair, but contractual. Nothing the LBO firm can do much about.

    The real workers typically do not have such contracts, so they are at-will employees. So, when whole divisions which are destroying shareholder value are cut, perfectly competent employees get pink slips. This is one of the main actions that give the LBO firm the vulture/maggot image: doing the work that should have been done years ago by the incompetent management.

    These vultures sweep down on almost dead companies, because of years of neglect by management of the shareholders. It provides the potential for another set of shareholders to reap the reward for doing that work. Beware to companies who take their eyes off their only priority: return of shareholder value.

    All perfectly moral, ethical, and legal.

    And hard to explain, especially to an electorate that equates these actions with the mass layoffs of big business; the most demonized of business decisions. Even harder to explain when the most likely favorable audience (conservatives) is split about whether to support or criticize these actions.

    The typical LBO has nothing to do with creating jobs. It is about delivering shareholder value, which for these situations, is about reducing expenses (and potentially to provide capital to capital-starved thriving divisions).

    I have absolutely no problem with what Bain Capital did, and I still don’t support Romney, although all the demonizing of his role at Bain perversely has made him a more sympathetic character to me. Main reason: I don’t see him being able to be aggressive about ObamaCare.

    • maybenexttime

      Once Romney secures the nomination (and he will) their campaign will push forward talking about how his success at Bain Capital will be a template for his presidency. Big mistake. Then, he’ll attempt to hit back at Obama for doing the same thing with that GM bailout. Even bigger mistake. Obama’s campaign already has Romney painted into a corner on that issue:

      “Saving an industry, as the president did, is different than strip mining companies in order to ? in order to profit off of them, which is, in many cases, what Mr. Romney did,”David Axelrod told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. “The question is, is that the philosophy that you want in the White House?”

      How does Romney answer that question without sounding like a jerk? If he says “yes” to the question, he’s playing right into Obama’s populist trap. If he says no, then he’s admitting his tenure at Bain Capital was not focused on creating jobs…which undercuts the very foundation of his candidacy. Of course, Romney won’t give a yes or no response to that question. Instead, he’ll blather on in some corporate-speak which will be lost on most American voters, many of whom have been down-sized by firms like Bain Capital.

      Romney is a losing candidate for the GOP. He stands for nothing and he can’t handle being under fire very well. Just look at how awkward that interview with Brett Baier on FOX News turned out. Just look at how he slapped Rick Perry on the back and offered a $10,000 bet on national TV. Romney is trapped by his multiple-choice policy positions and tone-deaf when it comes to understanding the middle class of America.

      For those two reasons, he is a bad choice for the GOP’s presidential hopes in 2012.

      • actuarius

        It is not the job of the White House to bail out specific companies and industries. The companies’ failures are a result of years of poor decisions or failure to respond to changing environment. Pouring more money into them will not change that; it will just waste more money. Bailing out GM and Chrysler did not save them, it deferred the inevitable. The basic problem is still there: over priced labor.

        Investors like those of Bain Capital find what is working in a failing company and help that grow. Bain makes money for investors by, among other actions, forcing the companies to face the inevitable by closing non-performing divisions and supporting the performing divisions.

        Obama’s actions concerning GM are crony capitalism, which is more akin to socialism than capitalism. GM got bailed out because important stakeholders at GM (union bosses) were owed favors by Obama.

        I still don’t support Romney for the reason I gave earlier, but I don’t think this issue traps him in a corner.

  • furiouschads

    Wooden
    Inevitable
    Electable (I don’t like him but normal people will vote for him.)
    Privileged
    Well funded
    Moderate (in his party?s view)
    From Mass.
    Francophone
    Francophile
    Flipflopper

    • actuarius

      too many similarities

    • maybenexttime

      This does have shades of 2004 all over again, except with the two parties switching roles. Howard Dean was the Herman Cain/Michelle Bachman of the Left. He got the extremists of the party all fired up, but the Liberal center was very concerned about his electability in a general campaign.

      The Democrats wanted to win so badly, so they began looking for the “safe bet” to beat George W Bush…whose popularity was around the 50% mark in the months leading up to the election. They settled for John Kerry, an uninspiring middle-of-the-road establishment guy who paid his dues to the party machinery.

      Romney is almost a mirror image of that scenario. He’s the “safe bet” who polls well against an incumbent president struggling to reach 50% in public approval. The only problem is a “safe bet” isn’t always the “smart bet” when trying to convince the public that real change is needed.

  • buddyp

    …er, wait, it’s actually from campaign surrogates of a guy claiming to be a conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States of America.

    I think I can be forgiven for the confusion.

  • thosjefferson

    Rick Perry insists the residents of Gaffney, SC, are victims of Bain, but the NYTimes visited there and people don’t remember or even care about it. In fact, the “photo album” plant Bain closed (now there’s a high-tech, high-growth industry for you) was soon filled with another manufacturer. This is exactly how capitalism creates wealth: allocating resources to their highest value.

    Do you think Rick Perry cares about this reality?

    One quotation from the NYTimes offers a better explanation for Perry’s ridiculous use of Gaffney as his case against Romney:

    ?It?s the Mormon thing.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/cast-as-romneys-victim-gaffney-sc-says-huh.html?_r=1&hpw

    That about sums up the only remaining argument against Romney.

  • thosjefferson

    Now Gingrich’s stupid PAC is asking Romney to help them fix their stupid video.

    They know a turnaround expert when they see him!

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GINGRICH_SUPER_PAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-14-07-33-07

    • progressivelibertarian

      the text of their letter to Romney. Their response seems OK to me.

      OPEN LETTER TO W. MITT ROMNEY
      Friday, January 13, 2012

      January 13, 2012

      Dear Governor Romney,

      Today, the Washington Post reviewed the video ?King of Bain.? The review seems to rest its case on the ?fact? that you left Bain to run the Winter Olympic Games in 1999. This date now looms important since the media has questioned facts stated in the video asserting that you could not have done much if any of the terrible things portrayed because you were not at Bain past 1999.

      I personally reviewed all documentation, video, transcripts, government documents, media reports and other research that went into the making of this video prior to agreeing to purchase the distribution rights. I found the documentation to be in order and comprehensive.

      We want the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have seen this video in the past two days to be aware of any discrepancies that may exist between the video and your version of the facts.

      Therefore, we will agree to revise our ads and/or the video to reflect any errors that may be present in the current version of the video. To do this, however, we respectfully request you answer a few questions that might help guide our review.

      1. When did you leave Bain for good ? full time or part time?
      2. When did you relinquish controlling interest in Bain, any Bain projects or Bain funds?
      3. When did you resign as the CEO?
      4. When was the last Bain document submitted to the government denoting you as an executive at Bain?
      5. When did you receive the final check from Bain for any investment in which you had and interest?

      We are certain you would like to clear up this matter quickly. We will await your response and stand committed to address any discrepancies. Hearing no response, we will assume you can offer no evidence of errors and we will continue to stand by the film as presented.

      Kind regards and best of luck,

      Gregg Phillips

      Managing Director
      Winning Our Future PAC