« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Gingrich Calls Out Romney On His Bain Record

By: streiff (Diary)  |  December 12th, 2011 at 01:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA


(by way of TIME)

“If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, then I would be glad to then listen to him. And I will bet you $10, not $10,000, that he won’t take the offer.”

It is about time someone said this.

As I’ve noted before the whole “flip flopper” line of attack from the White House is kabuki directed a GOP primary voters. The real line of attack will be “Romney vs The 99%.” How Romney handles this particular line of attack will be a clue as to how badly he would get beaten as the GOP nominee. I suspect just as Romney and his lemmings have convinced themselves his multitude of sacred principles are irrelevant they will also convince themselves that Americans don’t care about friends and neighbors losing the jobs so Romney and his friends could pose with currency stuffed in their clothes.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sethellis

    Its this still a conservative site or did I miss something. This line of attack from Gingrich is right out of the liberal playbook. Redstate should be one of the first places to call this ot for what it is, but perhaps conservative principles don’t matter if it means bringing down Romney.

    Sometimes businesses fail, and aren’t worth saving. When this happens investors must extract the value from those failed enterprises so that the capital can be put to work elsewhere. This gives them the capital to create or save other businesses that can be successful. Are you really advocating that we should be propping up or bailing out every failed company that comes along?

    This attack is extremely telling. It shows that Newt is more than willing to stay from free market principles when it suits him. It also shows that he really doesn’t understand how jobs are created. He still thinks his time in congress is what created all those jobs.

    • streiff

      Romney is at best a Republican of convenience. Just because the DNC will use this attack if, heaven help us, Romney gets the nomination doesn’t make it untrue.

      I doubt seriously that Gingrich is advocating propping up failing companies, but, like a lot of us, he’s probably opposed to gutting companies and devastating families and communities for grins… and a multi million dollar bonus.

      • Common_Cents

        You’re right about this, it’s just them talking smack.

        Nearly every talking head. The immaturity level is about zero these days. Blowing these dumb zinger back and forth comments up as huge candidate platforms.

    • jrussell

      It’s an attack on Romney that would be killer in the general election, yes. But it is al ltrue. Newt didn’t make this attack up. Red State didn’t make it up. It is how Romney made his money.

      We should ignore flaws (or in the case of Romney many many flaws) of people in our party just because they happen to be Republican?

      Nonsense I say, If Romney was immoral in how he did his business he deserves to be called on it.

      • easyb

        Newt is attaching Wall Street to Romney. It’s timely, and you can be certain the dems will do the same thing.

        Besides, primary contestants always attack each other, and it never seems to stick in the general. See for reference: Obama vs. Hillary, 2008.

        Politics is a blood sport….

        P.S. I’m still for Perry & hope he can pull off a strong showing in Iowa

        • tomatin

          It helps legitimize left wing attacks. That’s a big difference than attacking Romney for Romneycare for example, which is consistent with conservative principles.

          • streiff

            nt

          • easyb

            I’m surprised that nobody has hit Romney with this yet. Good tactic for Newt…hit Romney while he’s down.

            Still for Perry, but credit where credit’s due.

          • ericksontales

            The reason this line of attack has not been used a lot is because it has little substance when put to the test.

            Firstly, there is a HUGE difference between private sector earnings and earnings made by being a lobbyist. Of course Gingrich likes to replace the word lobbyist with “consultant”. Further more even IF you want to put these on the same playing field then there is still a distinct difference. Romney making money off of strategic business ventures vs. Gingrich making money off of one of the largest scandals of our time (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) which caused a collapse of the entire housing industry. How many Americans were affected by the housing collapse? hmmmm… lets see how about anybody who has a mortgage or owns a house…

            Additionally, Romney’s ventures netted tens of thousands of jobs (much more than it lost). It also left us with companies that all of you have probably shopped at or paid patronage to.

          • gekster

            Romney did not create tens of thousands of jobs.

            from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney

            In Romneys own words:
            Romney ran as a fresh face, as a successful entrepreneur who stated he had created ten thousand jobs,
            Thats 10,000, not 10s (plural) of thousands.
            You have no credability anyway, so who cares.

          • center77

            and I think they will wish they never did it if they nominate either of them. It sad indeed, what happen to who we were in 2010.

          • JSobieski

            Perry comes the closest, but compared the bench we are currently building—-he would not be my first choice if this was 2016 or 2020.

            Newt and Romney are flawed candidates for sure, and there are plenty of 100% factually correct ways to attack Newt and Romney. Unfortunately, a lot of facts get in the way for the attackers as well as the supporters.

          • buddyp

            I concur with ericksontales.

            Although I am not highly familiar with Romney’s record at Bain (I do know that he helped Staples become a success), it is absurd to compare money made by lobbying (by whatever name) to rip off taxpayers (and harming everyone in this economy) with making money in venture capital (private equity) even in the cases of downsizing companies to make them more valuable or even stripping assets to reallocate resources to higher value applications. The latter are part of efficient capitalism, meaning getting an economy closer to optimal resource allocation for overall standard of living. And if there’s money to be made in doing so, it’s because value is added, on balance.

            I find it surprising, even amid a primary battle, that economic conservatives could equate these two quite disparate concepts.

          • gekster

            Just how did he do that.
            He got hired, he did work, he got paid.
            Where is the ‘ripping off’ part.

          • buddyp

            Let’s see where you disagree.

            I think it is only reasonable to assume that he was paid at least for advice on how Fannie & Freddie could advance their agenda, and probably also for Gingrich’s direct influence with Congress (even if not legally classified as “lobbying”).
            (1) Are you rejecting the premise above?

            (2) Or are you rejecting the premise that the advancement of Fannie & Freddie’s agenda resulted in a ripoff of taxpayers and was ultimately injurious to the economy?

            Or are you rejecting both premises?

          • gekster

            to do a job.
            He did that job.
            He got paid for doing that job.
            Your claim is he ripped off taxpayers.
            I asked you to show how he ripped them off.
            I know you like to go on tangents when you can’t answer a question directly,
            but this is a simple question.
            Can you show how he ripped off taxpayers, or is it just your opinion.

          • buddyp

            I’m trying to engage you in a logical discussion, but you tend to resist that type of discussion.

            As I said, I think Freddie & Fannie ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy, and I think Gingrich helped enable them to do it by at least political advice and probably also direct influence with Congress. Thus, I think Gingrich enabled them (or at least was paid to do his best to enable them) to do things that ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy.

            Was that not clear? Do you not understand the basic reasoning above?

            Or, again I ask you if you are rejecting one (or both) of my two premises, (1) that Gingrich provided advice and probably also influence with Congress to help Freddie & Fannie do things that ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy, and/or (2) that Freddie & Fannie ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy.

            I’ve been clear on what I’m asserting. Tell me where you are disagreeing with me. Which of my premises (my assumptions above) are you rejecting? Just answer and perhaps I can have some idea where you’re coming from.

            Or, if you accept both my premises, how can you disagree with my conclusion? Simply because there was an intermediary (Fannie & Freddie) who actually did the harm? Is THAT your point?? That it doesn’t count as Gingrich doing anything that ripped off taxpayers because all he did was sell political advice and probably peddle influence to enable them to get Congress to allow them to do that harm?

            If you have anything at all substantive to say, you should be able to give me a straight answer to my questions above. Otherwise you aren’t worth engaging with on this matter (not that I’ve found it worthwhile to engage with you on other topics, but whatever).

          • gekster

            That’a all I was asking.
            Just throwing crap against the wall.
            You do have a habit of doing that.

          • buddyp

            Geez. How ironic that you say that <I “just throw crap against the wall”. I’m trying to actually discuss something with you logically. You seem very resistant to doing that. I’ll try one more time. Let’s see whether or not you have any intention of making a good faith effort to discuss this logically.

            1. Do you agree that Gingrich helped Fannie & Freddie do things that ripped off taxpayers and harmed the economy?

            2. If you don’t agree with #1, is it because you don’t think Gingrich helped them do those things Fannie & Freddie did, or because you don’t think what Fannie & Freddie did ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy?

            3. If you DO agree with #1, is your whole point that Newt can’t be blamed at all for this taxpayer rip-off and harm to the economy simply because he merely helped another organization do those things rather than doing it directly himself?

            If you aren’t just wasting my time with a runaround, just answer the questions. If you don’t , I’m done with you on this, and I will probably refrain from wasting much time with you in the future.

          • gekster

            2. If you did reaserch, you would see that Gingrich advised them that giving loans to people who couldn’t pay them back would be harmfull.
            If Gingrich had helped them to secure the bailout from the feds, that would be inline with your premise.

            3. see 1.

            And I’ll add 4. You said Gingrich ripped off the taxpayers, to quote,
            “it is absurd to compare money made by lobbying (by whatever name) to rip off taxpayers” and by implication, that is what Gingrich did,
            as the discussion you replied to was a comparison of Romney and Gingrich.

            All I asked was for you to show proof, and you go off on diatribes,
            and asking inane questions of me.

            I replied:
            Just how did he do that.
            He got hired, he did work, he got paid.
            Where is the ?ripping off? part.

            Instead of just plain up answering, you ask questions because you have no proof, just your opinion.

            I’ll ask once more.
            Can you show, the key word here is ‘show’ Gingrich ripped off the taxpayers, as ‘you’ claim.

            No questins to me, just give the proof of the rip off.
            It is real simple. Nothing else is required.

          • buddyp

            Finally you stopped being evasive (or inexplicably obstructive) and gave me straight answers to my simple questions.

            As I explained from the start, my questions were intended merely to clarify where it was that you disagreed with me.

            Now I know. You don’t think Gingrich helped them do anything that ended up ripping off taxpayers.

            Here’s what I said at the onset:
            I think it is only reasonable to assume that he was paid at least for advice on how Fannie & Freddie could advance their agenda, and probably also for Gingrich?s direct influence with Congress (even if not legally classified as ?lobbying?).

            I think that’s pretty clear. I am saying that I think it only reasonable to assume that such was the nature of Gingrich’s services. Now I know that that is the premise you are rejecting. Obviously if I expressed it that way — as the only reasonable assumption — I was implying that I don’t have proof, but that I consider it safe to assume.

            As far as I know, no one (other than Gingrich and his firm and Fannie/Freddie, and anyone Gingrich may have contacted to lobby on their behalf, which I suspect he did in addition to offering political advice for gaining/maintaining Congressional support) has access to the information proving or disproving my assumption.

            But I think it’s laughable that you think that they paid that money to a “consultant” on K Street who is a former Speaker of the House simply to provide them actuarial advice (a ton of bad loans will cause trouble) or (as Gingrich first spun it) for his services as a “historian”, or for anything other than at least political strategy — how to get what they wanted from Congress, presumably in terms of regulation and perhaps also financial support or related measures — and probably also some degree of influence-peddling.

            So there you have it. Finally you quit the baloney and answered my question so I could see what you were challenging. And it turned out you were asking for proof of something I said from the start was something I thought it only reasonable to assume, meaning it was an assumption, not something for which I had proof.

            So we’re left with what I consider a common sense assumption on my part vs. your apparent blind acceptance of whatever Gingrich has offered as spin.

          • gekster

            I asked a straight out question, you got proof of what you said.

            A yes, here is the proof, or a no, I do not would have been the correct response.
            And I was not offering any spin, or acceptence of any.
            You were throwing crap against the wall, and I called you on it.

          • buddyp

            Again, I said from the start, very clearly and explicitly, that I thought it was the only reasonable “assumption”. I don’t know how fluent you are in English, but I was, by my choice of words, obviously distinguishing that premise from one for which I had proof. Yet you claim you “called me on” my lack of proof. That’s pretty funny.

            And yes, you parroted Gingrich’s description (well, his second take at it) of what he did for them, and that seems to be blind acceptance of his spin, given what I think is — at the very least — reason to question that description on a common sense level, given what one would think they would want Gingrich for, given his background, experience, connections, and K Street location.

            And you are the one who belabored this. I asked you questions merely to clarify what it was that you were rejecting in my argument (about his role vs. about the impact of Fannie/Freddie vs. about the matter of helping someone else do something harmful vs. doing it directly). It was like pulling teeth but eventually you gave an answer (it was about his role). You could have just answered the first time I asked instead of wasting our time.

            Anyway, again, it’s laughable that you assume they paid Gingrich for his “[advice] that giving loans to people who couldn?t pay them back would be harmful”. LOL. The Brooklyn Bridge isn’t too far from me. Wanna buy it? I’ll give ya’ a good price.

          • gekster

            I don’t know, must be a hang up with you.
            You keep taling simple thhings and try to make them complicated.

            to reiterate:
            To a post of yours I replied:
            You’re implying Gingrich ‘ripped off’ the taxpayers.
            gekster (Diary) Monday, December 12th at 5:19PM EST (link)
            Just how did he do that.
            He got hired, he did work, he got paid.
            Where is the ?ripping off? part.

            To which you replied:
            What do you think Gingrich got paid for?
            buddyp Monday, December 12th at 5:27PM EST (link)
            Let?s see where you disagree.

            I think it is only reasonable to assume that he was paid at least for advice on how Fannie & Freddie could advance their agenda, and probably also for Gingrich?s direct influence with Congress (even if not legally classified as ?lobbying?).
            (1) Are you rejecting the premise above?

            (2) Or are you rejecting the premise that the advancement of Fannie & Freddie?s agenda resulted in a ripoff of taxpayers and was ultimately injurious to the economy?

            Or are you rejecting both premises?
            __________________________________________
            Insted of just a simple answer, you have to show how smart you are and post a diatribe with no answer to my question.

            This need of yours to elongate answers with non-answers and questions, have you allways had this problem.
            Is it just you who have to make things complex so as to obuscate the fact you were just spouting off crap.

          • buddyp

            You are impervious to explanation.

            For the nth time, I wanted to see what it was that you were disputing so I’d know what to respond to. I merely asked you which of two things it could have been, and then added a third option. Eventually, after wasting some of our time needlessly, you finally answered so I would know what to respond to.

            But if you don’t get that by now, you probably won’t.

            I would only suggest that you consider the possibility that some questions and statements that seem to you to be making things unnecessary “complex” and “complicated” are really very sensible efforts to make or seek useful distinctions so a sensible discussion can proceed, as opposed to people talking past each other without ever sorting out why they disagree or understanding (let alone really responding to) each other’s arguments.

            I realize some people want to avoid rational, productive discussion like the plague because just continually responding with talking points and/or vague, non-responsive remarks (as you exhibited throughout our discussion of tax cuts) requires less effort and can feel better to some people, and actually engaging in real discussion also carries the risk that one may end up having to either concede something or appear unwilling to concede anything when others can see his arguments have been refuted, but I prefer real, responsive discussion so I can perhaps learn something from others and vice versa. I’m not interested in a verbal food fight, particularly under the pretense of substantive, responsive discussion.

            Anyway, next time someone asks you a simple question to find out what you are objecting to, you might want to just answer the question the first time rather than wasting so much time before finally answering as you did here.

          • gekster

            You just answer the question and don’t go off on tangents.

          • buddyp

            Yeesh. Just impervious to explanation. Funny at this point though.

            I guess you can’t understand that sometimes someone wants to get clarification on what the objection is so he’ll know what to respond to and how. I realize that’s way too abstract and “complex” for you.

          • gekster

            You said Gingrich stole taxpayer money.
            You said in your post.

            Although I am not highly familiar with Romney?s record at Bain (I do know that he helped Staples become a success), [[[[it is absurd to compare money made by lobbying (by whatever name) to rip off taxpayers ]]]](and harming everyone in this economy)

            This is a statement, not an assumption.
            So do you have proof that Gingrich ripped off taxpayer money.
            It is either “yes I do, and here is the proof”
            or it is,”no I don’t. I am just flinging bull.”
            What is it, plain and simple.

          • buddyp

            1. Yes, I made that assertion.

            2. You challenged me on it.

            3. I said “I think it is only reasonable to assume…” and I asked you to clarify what part of my reasoning you disagreed with.

            4. You wasted our time unnecessarily with mindless replies before finally answering my question so I could respond, and also wasting time before you answered my initial question to you (“What do you think Gingrich got paid for?”). And it turns out your question itself was unnecessary, since I had already said it was an assumption. Nevertheless, after you clarified what you were objecting to, and stated (absurdly, in my opinion) that he was paid for telling Freddie/Fannie that “giving loans to people who couldn?t pay them back would be harmful”, I offered why I think common sense should lead us to assume he was paid to help Fannie/Freddie get from Congress cooperation and support it used to do things that ripped off taxpayers and hurt the economy.

            5. You think harp on this thing about proof, (1) as if there’s no such thing as a safe assumption to make based on common sense and related facts (what of value Gingrich had to offer such a client, based on his experience and connections, not to mention his K Sreet location), and (2) as if I didn’t make clear in my first response to you that I was making an assumption.

            ok, now if you still don’t get this, I’m done. Really. Go ahead and say something asinine and I’ll give you the last word.

          • gekster

            It’s not me, it’s you.
            Just can’t give a simple answer, can you.

          • aesthete

            but Newt’s statement is untrue. Romney did not bankrupt any corporations. He was called in to help restructure an already bankrupt corp, and in the process laid some people off. People were already going to get laid off, and Bain was already going to be restructured — the question was how. As far as I can tell, Romney successfully did the job he was called in to do — fix a horribly flawed corp.

          • heraklios

            He has zero understanding of the lives of ordinary Americans. He cannot relate and is only out for himself

      • sethellis

        So since we know the Democrats will use these sorts of class warfare type of attack we should just abandon free markets. What ever happened to being bold? What ever happened to explaining the truth about how successful economies work? If this is how we behave when capitalism is attacked by members of our own party then the Democrats have already won.

        Gingrich never made the argument you are making. You are essentially claiming it is an electability argument. Gingrich is actually taking the liberal side of the argument by claiming there is something wrong with running a successful business. Yes, sometimes jobs are lost, and difficult decisions are made. Ultimately, this is in the best interest of everyone. The free market can then direct that ineffective capital to where it can make the most use. In the end Bain created more jobs than were lost. That is the free market working exactly the way it should.

        • tomatin

          but I have not seen anyone prove it yet.

        • streiff

          Gingrich’s comment has nothing to do with free markets, it is a response to Romney’s attack on Gingrich for doing work for Freddie/Fannie, also part of the free market system.

          There is nothing bold in dismantling companies for the sake of a few cents per share in value. Petty. Unwise. Cruel. Oblivious. Immoral. All these adjectives come to mind, but not Bold.

          Actually, I’m not making an electability argument. If you’ve read what I’ve written you know that and are being dishonest. If you haven’t then you are simply shooting your mouth off which is not a really strong evolutionary strategy. I believe Romney is a horribly flawed candidate who will do an infinite amount of damage to conservatism.. It his his lemmings who claim he his electable against all evidence.

          • sethellis

            That’s a sure fire winner in the general election. You should run with that.

          • streiff

            over the rejection of your man-god but try to be logical.

            Romney attacked Newt over making a rather small amount of money as a federal contractor — I know you guys have a lot of trouble with honesty but Gingrich was never a lobbyist for anyone– a completely legal if, as some think, unpleasant line of employment.

            Gingrich retorted by pointing out that Romney has put thousands of people out of a job for no greater reason than turning a fast buck.

            I’ll take that trade any day of the week especially since the Dems can’t attack Gingrich on that line as they are big Freddie/Fannie advocates.

          • concrusade

            So a $10,000 is a figure that puts Romney out-of-touch with the average American, but making $1.8 million taxpayer dollars is chump change now?

            Convenient how those numbers flip depending on the candidate you despise.

            I never thought I’d live to see the day when conservatives at RedState would support consulting for Freddie and Fannie. And by the state of Georgia’s standards, what he was doing is legally defined as lobbying.

            Quite a bizarre thing happening to this site.

          • tomatin

            Romney made his gaffe in the bright lights of a debate.

            Ask the Perry camp about that.

          • concrusade

            Just didn’t think I’d see the LSM narrative continuing on RedState.

            Have there been any front page posts on Newt’s $500,000 Tiffany’s line of credit? Or the things he learned while on his mid-election luxury cruise he took to the Mediterranean?

            Just wondering what in the world happened to this site? This anti-Mitt fixation is really getting scary.

          • tomatin

            from the right or the left. I don’t get it anymore either.

            It’s not just RS though. I see right leaning pundits attack from both sides too.

          • gekster

            Posting facts about a candidate is not an attack.
            I guess if it’s posting facts about ‘your’ candidats, then it’s an attack.

            And to the other homer above.
            So what if Gingrich has an account at Tiffanys.
            Sonds a little like jealousy to me.

          • concrusade

            Man, what I wouldn’t give to get $500,000 worth of Tiffany’s jewelry to pay off my third-wife.

            The pro-Newt fighters are nearing the desperation of the anti-Romneys now.

          • streiff

            not to him personally. There is a difference.

            I have no problem with Freddie/Fannie. They have demonstrably done a lot of good in promoting home ownership. More over, working for them is completely legal and didn’t result in putting Americans out of work.

            No, by the State of Georgia’s standards he wasn’t and even if it was 1) Newt is a Virginia resident and 2) under Federal law it isn’t. Why don’t you see what they say in Tonga-Tonga about it while you’re at it?

          • supergirl2911

            I thought Newt zinging him for the bet was dumb too, 500,000 at Tiffany’s and Greek Cruises tell me he could make a 10,000 bet.

          • renl57

            When Romney attacked Gingrich for working for Fannie/Freddie, that was an attack from the right: Unlike Barney Frank, we don’t have any love for Fannie/Freddie.

            But you’re siding with Gingrich for attacking Romney from the left–saying exactly what the Dems say, that Romney’s restructuring of failing organizations caused layoffs.

            And you feel so strongly that Romney should not be the GOP nominee that you support Gingrich playing the class warfare card against him.

            I’m appalled, frankly.

            Gingrich and you should find some other way to go after Romney. But don’t channel Dem class warfare attacks.

          • streiff

            Romney is a poseur whose qualification for office, other than losing a senate race, declining to run for reelection as governor, and losing to John McCain in 2008 is his inherited wealth.

            I don’t like him. I don’t like his dog.

            I’m not a huge Gingrich fan but given a choice between him and Romney it is no choice.

            And, of course, I’m heartsickened and gobsmacked that you are appalled.

          • texas214

            we are know supposed to ignore that to run Gingrich for president? Maybe you should read some of your past posting on this subject and get back to us with with what your stance is now.

            What bothers me about the whole Newt v. Romney issue is that Newt supporters are completely ignoring their stated reasons to not like Romney to support someone who has held almost everyone of those positions you fault Romney for.

          • streiff

            but I have never set that as a prerequisite. If I did the utter cock-up of Romney’s tenure in Massachusetts would disqualify him.. On the other hand, not only was Gingrich a successful politician, eventually rising to Speaker which is third in line for the presidency, but has started up and run several successful businesses.

            If you think I’ve posted something differently, please direct me to it. Otherwise I have to make the obvious assumption.

          • federalfarmer1

            What firms like bain do is find failing companies, restructure them so they are competitive using their expetise, and sell them. They earn their profit based on how well they turn around the company, and in the long run this saves jobs. This is a valuable service.

            Fannie was not a valuable service. It was pure cronyism. It performed a service no private business would do because it made no business sense. It never should have existed, and was a den of corruption and book cooking.

          • acat

            Umm… you may want to clarify that, fed’farmer.

            Neither OPM* nor Fannie/Freddie are loved outside the beltway, eh?

            Mew

            *Other Peoples’ Money. Look it up.

          • federalfarmer1

            I don’t think I’ve ever defended Gingrich for lobbying for f&f. It won’t stop me from voting for him, because all the candidates have crony connections, except maybe bachmann and Paul, but they are nuts.

            I can criticize my candidate from the right while also voting them because I understand I’m voting a human being, not a list of policies, a resume, or a party platform. Besides, newts desire to do big things has always trumped every other influence, so I don’t believe he feels any loyalty to f&f, or anybody else for that matter.

          • streiff

            what companies like Bain do is find vulnerable companies, buy them,, sell off profitable parts, extract maximum cash during an interim management period, and sell them or liquidate them. It is nothing more that a Mongol slave raid conducted by guys in suits.

            Freddie/Fannie were not “cronyism”, whatever the hell that is. Anyone who is even vagujely familiar with their operations knows they underwrote loans to just about anyone.

          • JSobieski

            Bain did not even engage in hostile takeovers–at least none that I can think of.

            There is nothing unethical about buying assets for the purposes of selling them. That is essentially what Walmart does. Both Bain and Walmart can be disruptive, but they create wealth which can be used in more efficient ways.

            I have spent a lot of time defending Newt against unfair mischaracterizations, but I won’t touch the Freddie/Fannie thing. If he gave them some type of unique advice, I would like to know what he said. Odds are, they were just greesing the skids of Congress and DC. Influence peddling at its worst.

            Fannie/Freddie were essentially government programs that allowed shareholders and executives to earn private sector compensation. Nobody bailed out Bain or was coerced by Bain to do anything.

            I usually agree with you (and I always respect what you write), but on this one I think you are wrong.

          • papabear

            Like you, I am torn asunder by the tragedy!

            BTW, you are doing a great job of articulating what I and many others have been thinking about Mitt vs Newt.

          • aesthete

            but I do. Romney absolutely made the right call in firing people, if that’s what it took for Bain to be solvent and successful in the future. How was Gingrich’s call similarly good? Fannie and Freddie certainly weren’t creatures of the free market anymore than the Federal Reserve is, and were quite involved in exacerbating the real estate bubbles in the cities where it became a problem.

          • buddyp

            Streiff,

            Just to add a bit to my comment upthread at http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/12/12/gingrich-calls-out-romney-on-his-bain-record/#comment-15283

            You write:
            …dismantling companies for the sake of a few cents per share in value. Petty. Unwise. Cruel. Oblivious. Immoral. All these adjectives come to mind…

            How surprising to see such comments from someone I presume is an economic conservative. Even leaving aside the business-building successes by Romney at Bain (I assume you’ve heard of Staples), and just focusing on money made via downsizings or even stripping assets/breakup, capitalism involves “creative destruction” in the positive sense http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CreativeDestruction.html, wherein efficiencies are sought, resources re-allocated to higher-value applications, and thus value created in aggregate. Yes, some suffer in the short-term, and even a lesser number are worse off over the long-term (e.g., someone who had developed some specialized skill limited to some product or technology that has become too low-value to survive due to subsequent product/technology advances), but ultimately that’s part of how a society increases overall productivity and standards of living.

            I expect to see the left use terms like “cruel”, and “immoral” for such dynamics that are fundamental to efficient capitalism. I’m am at a loss as to why I am seeing such labels being applied by (I assume) an economic conservative.

            What’s next, saying free trade or outsourcing is immoral? Or immoral for the minimum wage to be so low? Or immoral for the government not to prop up all domestic producers (in all industries) who can’t compete profitably?

            I would hope folks here wouldn’t trash capitalism and brand capitalists as “immoral” and “cruel”.

          • streiff

            and if you’ve read anything I’ve written (I’ve only been here 7 years, 5 months so you’d be excused for overlooking it) you’d know that I don’t subscribe to the unfettered “Austrian” style of free market in any way, shape or form. Like libertarianims it is utter moonshine. It is a philosophy that grad students talk about but it fails in any society that produces a single sociopath.

          • buddyp

            I’m not the type to insist anyone be ideologically pure or absolute in economics in any way, nor do I believe in pure laissez-faire capitalism (for practical and values reasons), so I don’t mean to disrespect a view that pure capitalism is ideal either on a practical level or a values/”moral” level.

            And I’d be interested in knowing a bit better what it is that you consider immoral. Is it necessarily or generally immoral to lay off a substantial portion of workers? Or to buy a bloated company, lay off a substantial portion of workers, perhaps shed some (other) insufficiently productive assets, and re-sell the company for a gain?

            Or immoral to break up a company and sell the assets because it isn’t generating sufficient financial returns to justify its continuance, or generating nearly as much economic value as would the resources if re-allocated in the economy?

            I’d appreciate if you would help me understand your view of what is immoral, and also what more moral scenario you envision (i.e., what you suggest people do and what results you would anticipate — and remember, not every company can or should survive, and not every job should be preserved). I’m not being facetious. I’m sincerely interested in your view.

          • buddyp

            I meant to say:
            …so I don?t mean to disrespect a view that pure capitalism is not ideal either on a practical level or a values/?moral? level.

          • streiff

            I’m assuming your question is in good faith but my views are quite immaterial to this discussion. The issue at hand is the GOP primary.

          • buddyp

            I’m perplexed. How in the world is my inquiry a threadjack.

            This is the thread of your diary, and in the diary and your subsequent comments you seem to be making the point that Romney did something “immoral” (and “cruel”, etc.), presumably implying what Romney did was at least as bad as whatever Gingrich did for Freddie & Fannie, and “immoral” in its own right.

            I (and others) have been challenging you on your premise that Romney did something immoral, and in my preceding comment I asked you to help me understand what you think Romney did that was immoral and why, and what you see as a preferable scenario of such “immoral” behavior didn’t occur.

            What could be more relevant to your diary and your follow-up comments throughout this thread (even before my first comment)?

          • buddyp

            From today’s WaPo:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-commits-a-capital-crime/2011/12/13/gIQAjvVhsO_story.html?sub=AR

            Writes will:

            Newt Gingrich…faulted Mitt Romney for committing acts of capitalism.

            Gingrich did so when goaded by Romney regarding his, Gingrich?s, self-described service as a ?historian? for Freddie Mac, which paid him more handsomely than anyone paid Herodotus.
            …
            Gingrich is reusing the attack honed by Ted Kennedy in 1994…

            The Kennedy-Gingrich doctrine is this: What the economist Joseph Schumpeter called capitalism?s ?creative destruction? is not really creative. Rather, it is lamentable and, when facilitated by capitalists, reprehensible.

          • buddyp

            Full disclosure on behalf of Will: His wife works for the Perry campaign.

            I should mention that for anyone to make of it what they wish.

    • craigbardo

      The conservative movement is in real trouble. I used to believe that only the left was a highly factionalized group held together by socialism and competing grievance groups. At least they’re held together by something!

      What holds us together when RedState supports an attack from the left – against one of the fundamental tenants of liberty, private property rights.

      Michelle Bachmann nailed it the other night in Iowa. Newt-Romney unbundled is a distinction without a difference. Though I don’t agree with Beck about the race thing, Newt, who supports illegal immigration, the healthcare mandate, bashed the Ryan budget, sat on the couch with Pelosi and worse yet, hasn’t denounced climate change myths as back door socialism, did lobby on K street for Freddy and supported TARP – IS NO CONSERVATIVE! Of Course, neither is Romney but unlike Newt, he makes no pretense of being such.

      Newt is enamored of his own intellect and it always supersedes principle. How is that different than the core-less Romney? It isn’t! So support Newt if you want but don’t kid yourself . I’ll speak for myself, neither one of them is fooling me.

    • jgfl

      Since when are conservatives against the free market and making money?

      • streiff

        but it has little to do with “free market” and “making money” and a lot to do with wringing cash out of companies, firing workers, dumping their pension plans onto the federal government, sucking out the cash and leaving.

        Hey, it’s legal but don’t expect the GOP primary electorate to think it is anything but the worst sort of activity that can occur under capitalism. It isn’t a big deal, only 20% of the GOP electorate think Romney is anything but a buffoon anyway.

    • jgge

      his Bain Capital CEO record in the general elections. The majority of voters do not like Wall Street and they are not going to vote for a Wall Street person, end of story.

  • bfelger

    I agree with the jab to some degree, but it also smacks of the sort of class warfare liberals love so much and I have decried on many occasions. It should not be wrong for a corporation to fulfill its (legally mandatory) fiduciary duty to maximize profits. I would prefer to hit Mitt on more substantive issues.

    Nevertheless, it’s a well-calculated comment, and will resonate with Tea Party voters.

    • streiff

      it is class warfare of a minor type as the comment isn’t directed at the wealthy, per se, but rather how some people got wealthy.

      It will resonate with the Tea Party people. Hell, it resonates with me.

      • easyb

        There’s a difference between making money with VC and making money by building businesses on main st. One is quite elitist, the other is much closer to the American Dream as most view it.

        Not complaining about Romney. Glad he’s been successful. Just that most people will resonate with this ad because of the difference

      • supergirl2911

        Either NEWT or ROMNEY will be painted, with some accuracy, as out of touch with the average Joe. No one will talk about Obama’s money from books, but will focus on his humble beginnings.
        Perry for President

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    With Newt’s tax plan already out (and overlooked by most) and the money he has made being a “historian” for Fannie/Freddie also set him up for the 99% line of attack as well? The two frontrunners for the nomination right now play perfectly to the D’s class warfare script for 2012.

    • streiff

      Newt is worth a lot less than either Obama.

      • jrussell

        This is something to be under-estimated. Newt is nowhere near as rich as Obama.

        Who is more of the 99% between the two in an election? Newt.

        Obama’s dream of running a Operate Wall Street campaign against Romney would be much much much harder to pull off against Gingrich.

      • jrussell

        This is something to be under-estimated. Newt is nowhere near as rich as Obama.

        Who is more of the 99% between the two in an election? Newt.

        Obama’s dream of running a Operate Wall Street campaign against Romney would be much much much harder to pull off against Gingrich.

      • tomatin

        when you look it up on Google. Estimates vary but there is not a huge difference. Both are in the several million dollars and I have no problem with that.

        • streiff

          Romney worth $190-$250 Million
          Newt Gingrich worth $7-$30 Million

          Romney annual income AT LEAST $9.3 Million
          Gingrich annual income: MAX of $2.5 Million

          • tomatin

            Not Romney and Newt.

      • supergirl2911

        Silly that we will be in a race to see who is the least successful. However, MSM will say Obama, humble beginnings… blah, blah, blah…Newt, 500,000 at Tiffany’s Greek Cruises Fannie Freddie.
        I won’t elaborate the same for Mitt.
        They are the same, ok, not the same, very close.

    • Common_Cents

      You want to talk percentages? ok…..

      What about the obama vs. 16% real unemployed, or the 40% unemployed in urban areas.

      What about obama responsible for our debt being 150% of past debt etc…..

      rule #1 Do not accept the premise of the loaded lame stream media questions. Make them look stupid and biased for asking it.

  • snowshooze

    He was a Pirate. Buying companies and stripping them out, laying off the hands.. selling off the pieces.
    Pirate business.. And it isn’t something that will be well received with the general public any more than grave robbing.
    Is it bad business? No. It is business.
    Just keep the facts in mind when he speaks of how much experience he has in creating jobs.
    No, he didn’t gut every business he dealt in…
    But I don’t think a Corporate Raider is the best pick for growing an economy.

  • Common_Cents

    They were financial buyers.

    I met w/ Bain when I sold my company and they put in a low bid as they were financial buyers. My investment banker found some great strategic buyers who offered much higher.

    Romney could spin this quite well. Saying, bailouts don’t work in private business, nor should governments get involved, and that markets work. Mismanaged companies should be punished so new capital and management can step in to turn things around.

    I’ll leave it up to Mitt to explain Bain’s record on how they accomplished this and created success out of troubled companies.

    Conceptually, we should all be fighting for free markets and allowing troubled companies to be pared back so they can grow again.

    • streiff

      is when it comes to the tactics used by many of the “financial buyers.” Where we can all agree that free markets are good and paring down troubled companies can be positive it is by no means clear that is Bain’s record.

      Personally, I think the tactics used by many of the “raiders”, like Bain, were simply immoral. I look forward to Romney’s defense of how some of the companies they “rescued” were driven into bankruptcy by the fees Bain paid itself from the companies’ earnings.

      • Common_Cents

        saying w/out intervention, many of those companies may have been totally out of business and all jobs lost. I’ll leave that up to him.

        If there is a bloated pig, ripe for pruning, it is federal government. We need Al “chainsaw” Dunlap as pruning czar.

      • clowngirl

        I don’t have any independent knowledge of Romney’s career at Bain but from what you’re describing he sounds like basically a parasite. Sounds like the easiest, most heartless and unimaginative way to make money.

        Maybe, in the big scheme of thing, there is some purpose served by driving companies into bankruptcy so they can be sold off for parts, just as a vulture – circling over a soon to be dead animal then feeding on its body – probably serves some purpose in nature. But it doesn’t mean that we should particularly admire the vulture – or nominate its human equivalent to be President.

        Thank you for posting this Streiff. I’ve always had a gut level dislike and distrust of Mitt Romney and have often tried to talk myself out of it, but reading this just confirms that my perception was on target.

        This is FAR worse baggage than anything Gingrich has done (and at least Gingrich has the decency to repent and regret his immorality – not brag about it and say it qualifies him to be President)

        Anyone who doubts what the Democrats would do to Mitt Romney in a general election need only look at their recent obsession with the Koch brothers. ( who seem to have run a fairly reputable business and probably have far fewer skeletons than Romney)

  • tomatin

    I’m pretty disgusted at everyone now. It’s all negative all the time. I hear very little about creating jobs which voters are worried about right now. Everyone is so busy taking their competition out that it’s become an mitigated feeding frenzy.

    Of course the Dumbocrats will attack Gingrich for being a crony capitalist and Romney for being against the 99%. These two campaigns attacking each other on that will just be fodder for an Obama ad that will go something like this. If Romney wins the nomination they will say ‘even Romney’s GOP opponents say he’s against workers’ and if Gingrich wins they will say ‘even Gingrich’s GOP opponents say he’s a crony capitalist’. The bottom line is GOP candidates attacking each other’s left flank just gives the left a more credible line of attack when they do it later.

    The Ronald Reagan 11th commandment does not mean all attacks are not fair game. It’s means you don’t attack fellow Republicans from the left flank.

  • andystone

    with this line of attack. Granted, Romney kind of asked for it by requesting Gingrich return his consulting money, but there would have been good ways of responding to that without devolving into class warfare, IMO.

    • Common_Cents

      But if Romney asked for it, he’ll get it.

      • tomatin

        This line of attack could work for Newt. It’s not like they love Wall Street capitalists.

        In a big foreclosure state like FL or NV the Fannie Freddie attacks would be more effective.

        Just looking a the cold hard politics of it.

    • supergirl2911

      to bring up Newt Fannie and Freddie money. People do not know and do not understand. It is up to someone to educate them.. If someone or some group does not start talking about Bain, Fannie and Freddie, Romney Care, Ethics violations, we all know the MSM will later.
      I imagine this is all ancient history, but it will be retreaded, made new and run on the front page for a week next Summer.
      I think the candidate can address their weaknesses and therefore focus to their strengths or other conservatives should dive right in.

  • usedtobelib

    ?If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he?s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, then I would be glad to then listen to him. And I will bet you $10, not $10,000, that he won?t take the offer.?

    This is what I was afraid Newt would do. So, the would-be next nominee of the Republican party is now anti-capitalist?

    It’s wrong to have a business to which other businesses come to seek advice about how to survive? It’s wrong to charge money for providing that service? Wrong to help people make money legally? Hey, man, that’s the capitalist system… or does Newt think that my best friend opened a small hamburger and breakfast joint in order to provide jobs for strangers?

    This is what tea partiers want? This is what small govermment people want?

    Geeeeez. He sounds exactly like Obama and that ilk. Attack those who are entrepeneurs, who have a product or a service that others want, need, and who charge for that product and service.

    Great going, Newt. You’ll do anything to get elected, like all of them, only what’s disgusting is your attack on the principles of capitalism and republicanism.

    Look, guys and gals, if you hate Romney, fine. Work against him to elect someone else, but if you actually revert to voting for a guy who attacks the tenets of capitalism, you had better watch out for what you are doing.

    • tomatin

      if you ask me.

      • qcompson

        When “Main Street” company causes a competitor to go out of business, people lose their jobs too. The invisible hand of the market is constantly slapping people upside the head. That is the way the system works. Bain comes in, tries to fix companies, usually succeeded but occasionally failed. Those companies decided to play ball, and sometimes they lost. That is capitalism.

        Freddie gave out government sponsored mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. Those mortgages went sour, and everyone paid the price. Markets tanked, people lost their homes, jobs, and savings. Gingrich greased the skids for Freddie to buy influence from Congressmen, resulting in even greater government theft to cover the losses of an enterprise paid for by all. Freddie wins no matter what. They were playing with our money, and when they screwed up, they took more of it. That is socialism with benefits. (Private benefit to Freddie (and Newt) thanks to public money).

        • tomatin

          But do people like to vote for the guy that’s slapping them in the head?

          The point is in this atmosphere where people are worried about their job. Romney is the worst possible candidate. He can’t break down the US economy and sell it off in little chunks like he did at Bain. I simply don’t see his area of business acumen as having much utility as President.

          Middle America is gonna look like the guy that fires people.

          Whereas you basic independent or low information voter probably think Fannie and Freddie is a sitcom. That plays well on the right but not with the public in general.

          • qcompson

            People don’t want to vote for the guy that’s slapping them in the head. However, the slap from the invisible hand is corrective. That is basically the notion underlying capitalism. Spare the rod, spoil the child. The flip-side of punishment for inefficiency is reward for efficiency. That is the main difference between private and public enterprise. That is also the principle underlying conservative economic thought. We should be terrified when Gingrich the conservative is attacking fundamentally capitalistic market activity and conflating that with government sponsored enterprises. We need a candidate who can distinguish between the capitalistic nature of VC firms and the sort of crony capitalism Gingrich engaged in.

            Gingrich’s attack is effective in distinguishing himself from Romney, but it runs afoul of conservative ideology. I am not a Rick Perry supporter, but his primary virtue is his anti-cronyism message. Gingrich embodies everything that is wrong with the permanent political class and insider politics.

            Also, I tend to disagree with your characterization of independent voters. Self-declared independents include a large number of people who know nothing about the candidates or the issues. Most of those independents won’t vote. I think that a large portion of the independents who actually vote are well informed. I also think that they are independent because they have no tolerance for the hypocrisy so many politicians display. Again, Gingrich is practically a caricature of political hypocrisy. Independents will be turned off by a social conservative who has lived life inconsistent with the conservative values he espouses.

          • tomatin

            of the invisible hand that slaps people. (sorry for overusing the metaphor)

            Sure independent voters are going to learn more about Gingrich but he’s one of the best at defense as well.

            I’m just saying it’s a much tougher case to make against him and in this political climate Romney is just the worst candidate.

          • supergirl2911

            and trust me this is not information that “every primary voter knows”. There needs to be a realistic look at each of their weaknesses. Silly to think otherwise. Newt is better because he is in the lead and is a little less rich than Romney? I do not support Romney, but I am not sure he is the worst possible candidate. As much as Romney could be painted as the guy that fires people, Newt could be painted as the guy who led the way for the housing crisis, and even after “we” fight the smears, he will be strongly tied to it because… he was.

        • supergirl2911

          and there are MANY others that do, keep going.

  • usedtobelib

    over again Milton Friedman reaming Phil Donohue an new you-know-what.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4

    Then, tell me just how Newt is really saying anything different than Donohue.

    He isn’t saying anything differently than Donohue–he’s just saying the same thing differently, that it’s wrong for people to be successful, to come with something others want to buy.

  • sethellis

    After all his high talk of staying positive, Gingrich has resorted to pretty liberal attacks on his opponents. In the process he’s throwing capitalism under the bus as well.

    It is exactly the type of attitude displayed in Newt’s comment that makes businesses so afraid to invest in America. Newt Gingrich has now shown that he’s just as clueless on the economy as Obama is.

    • tomatin

      Whether he hit below the belt is the real issue here.

  • renl57

    The Dems will use the exact same theme. Maybe with Gingrich it won’t be personal, but it will be ideological.

    If the Dems want to play class warfare against the GOP, they can play it against any Republican candidate–even against Huntsman.

    In fact, they used the class warfare theme against every single Republican candidate from Goldwater on.

    Last month, when I had suggested that if Romney is the GOP nominee, at least the Dems will have trouble painting him as an “extremist,” folks here on RS retorted that the Dems can paint any Republican as an extremist or any other way.

    Yet here are some other folks now saying that Gingrich is less vulnerable than Romney on the class warfare theme.

    Let’s be consistent. Either let’s evaluate each GOP candidate as to how well Dem attacks will play against them, or let’s not evaluate any GOP candidate that way.

    Because while the Dems can use Bain against Romney, they will have no trouble using the “extremist” and “untrustworthy” charges against Gingrich. None whatsoever, given his history.

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    what is Red State’s new mantra – “anti-capitalism in the primary as long as its anti-Mitt Romney, and Republican in the general”?

    What a joke – but ohh Streiff is a longtime poster, so who am I to defend capitalism on RedState of all places, I must be a troll. I guess capitalism is when you act as a “historical advisor” to Freddie Mac in their quest to keep their government sponsored duopoly with Fannie Mae for government mortgages. Or capitalism is when you have spent your entire career in government and have a taxpayer funded venture capital fund to invest in the fledgling startups of your friends and donors . . . but actually work 20+ years in the private sector, where you invested the money of private citizens, taking time out to rescue the Winter Olympic Games from scandal and debt – and you are a big, RINO liberal.

    No question, men like Mitt Romney make make a lot of money, and in some cases, yes, people get laid off or fired. But that is the creative destruction that is our economy. Anyone ever read “Jack” about Jack Welch and his tenure at General Electric? Whole chapters on “Neutron Jack” as he found GE to be a bloated entrepreise that wasn’t poised to grow and return shareholder value – and therefore, many people lost their jobs in order to make the whole enterprise be more efficient and be poised for long-term growth and survival. Jack Welch also had a belief that if you weren’t #1 or #2 in any particular market, then you either had to Fix it, Sell It, or have a Plan to get there. So entire product lines were eliminated or sold, and he had a believe that an organization should purge itself every year of its worst perfrormers. Every year!

    Is this what RedState is now? Siding with Newt Gingrich, because Mitt Romney made the tough choices to buy companies, lay off unproductive workers, shed baggage, and try and nurse these companies back to profitability – which if he did, he made a good chunk of money? Imagine if there had been a Bain led intervention at General Motors 25 – 30 years ago – probably would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money – and the Unions wouldn’t own the company, like they do now.

    If anything – what this should tell the readers of RedState – is that Romney actually won’t shed any tears when it comes to slashing government employment – as he has clearly had experience with stripping down organizations and making them leaner and more efficient. At one time, this background would have been valued at RedState – but now in the at all costs mentality to stop Mitt Romney, front page posters side with the guy who (Michelle Bachman says) has made much of his money on the Rodeo Drive of Washington influencing government, at the expense of the guy who actually made his money in the private sector.

    BTW – wouldn’t be surprised if the Huffington Post had a similiar post on their front page.

    • streiff

      knock yourself out. Mussolini made the trains run on time which was also laudable.

      Don’t count on getting a lot of support from anyone else.

      • texas214

        not a professional politician who has never had to work for a profit in his life.

        PS. At least the rest of the GOP feild has paid it’s bills (see Tiffany’s)

        • streiff

          is that no one will vote for him.

    • ericksontales

      This IS straight out of the lib playbook.I’ve found that Redstate is full of lib agenda in disguise. They are doing everything they can to take down the one and only Republican candidate that has a chance to beat Obama in the general.

      Look at the latest Rasmussen polling on Pres. Obama vs. GOP. Romney is the only one that edges out the president.

      • acat

        Guess what? Head to head polling is meaningless this far out!

        Mew

        • gekster

          one of those who stays out a few days and comes back thinking everone forgot about him.
          You’ve seen it more than once.
          goformitt was like that.

          • acat

            Hot Air, for example, with it’s non-threaded comments section, is prime real estate for hit-and-run trolls.

            Red State is a different terrain entirely.

            Sun Tzu would say that ericksontales has chosen to battle on the wrong ground.

            Mew

          • ericksontales

            Sun Tzu would likely support what you call my “hit-and-run” tactic. Redstate is full of EE minions that are eager to defend the status quo here no matter what. Sun Tzu would be supportive of exploiting your weakness without hanging around listening to all of your useless banter.

          • acat

            and that you find it useless banter is not what streiff would term a good evolutionary choice.

            Mew

          • papabear

            Is your username intended to have meaning about Erick Erickson?

          • ericksontales

            Gekster – You are so right.

            Wish I could see your face when Newt flubs Iowa. Priceless I’m certain…

          • gekster

            If he doesn’t win, then he doesn’t win.
            I have only said I would support the most conservative candidate in the primary,
            and the Republican nominee in the general.

            I have not said who I support one way or the other.
            But of course, if you had spent more time reading instead of spewing, you would have known that.

          • ericksontales

            I’ll concede to your last post. I’m man enough to admit if I get a littler over zealous in my remarks.

            Although it is good to know that you support Bachman and Santorum the most. Afterall they are indeed the two most conservative candidates historically and for the most part even today. Nothing wrong with either of them.

          • acat

            Of course, like any good comedy, it must contain both a grain of truth – Bachmann and Santorum are both conservatives .. of a sort – and have an ironical component – nothing wrong with either of them.

            Santorum’s senate record is so aligned on the social/values/religious front that he comes across as a phony reading a teleprompter on fiscal or defense issues. I could support him as a Senator where unbalanced stools are the norm, but not for the White House.

            Bachmann’s complete rejection of the science of vaccination says there’s something very wrong with her….prior to that I was hoping she’d tackle Klobuchar, but now .. not so much.

            Mew

          • ericksontales

            Just curious then… if its not Bachman or Santorum… who is the most conservative? I’m going to love to hear your rationalization on any of the rest being MORE conservative.

          • acat

            Bachmann – as mentioned, a darling of the Tea Party, is a conservative with both fiscal and social credentials… too bad she took the express train to crazytown. Lacks executive experience.

            Gingrich – has the best conservative record as far as national agenda items achieved, Contract with America. Messy personal life, though, so .. not a social conservative. Also lacks executive experience.

            Huntsman – has a great conservative record… in deep-red Utah. Ran as a moderate, for some unknown reason. Has executive experience, adequate on foreign policy, seems to be a great resume in search of a brain.

            Johnson – best fiscal record of the lot, cut the cost of government in blue New Mexico in real dollars, not just projections. Has executive experience, doomed to be in the shadow of Ron Paul.

            Ron Paul – official bat-{guano} crazy uncle of the GOP, nevertheless speaks in conservative terms regarding the constitution. Unfortunately, legislates and votes in opposition to his own words. A candidate in desperate need of a straitjacket.

            Perry – solid social conservative credentials, decent (but not perfect) fiscal conservative credentials, reasonably good defense credentials. Executive experience. Of all candidates, has done the most to end illegal immigration, and to get the illegals already here on a path to productive citizenship.

            Roemer – who?

            Romney – lots of executive experience, much of it getting his veto overturned or appointing liberals to the state court system; lots of business experience, most of it taking apart marginal companies just trying to hang on and selling the parts for scrap. Can reliably be found taking both sides of any issue, the true middle-of-the-road candidate.


            (cat, on Romney, in one photo)

            Mew

          • ericksontales

            You are so far off base its hard to know where to even begin.

            - Bachman – I agree.

            - Newt has a history of conservative ideals. He ALSO has a history of liberal ideas that he’s pushed. As you mentioned he can’t be a social conservative with his background. That in and of itself really disqualifies him from being the most conservative.

            - Huntsman – He does come from a conservative state but he is anything but conservative. The last poll done in this state to place Romney against Huntsman (both Mormons) found that 75% support Romney. Utah apparently doesn’t want him back.

            Johnson – Libertarian

            Ron Paul – Libertarian

            Perry – Definitely not the best history of being the most conservative

            Romney – Not the best history of being the most conservative

            Santorum – Definitely one of the most conservative in this race. Not sure why you left him out.

            Still its clear that the 2 most conservative candidates are Bachman and Santorum. If that is the test of who should get the nomination then by all means vote for them.

          • acat

            His repeated endorsements of turncoat Arlen Specter indicates to me that Santorum will sell out on fiscal or defense issues.

            Santorum is good on social issues, but .. social issues don’t win the general election. The bulk of his senate career was about social issues, after all – that was how he introduced himself to the rest of the country. Further, he lacks executive experience, and is from a non-border State so has no real cred on immigration.

            The only way to conclude that Bachmann and Santorum are the “most conservative” is to use only social-conservative litmus tests, an approach that ignores 2 of the 3 legs of Reagan’s metaphorical stool. This may explain why neither are getting traction.

            Mew

        • ericksontales

          Yeah, polling is still fluid but its very telling. Romney is the only one beating Obama. Newt is the only other candidate coming close. Newt has no chance winning a general with his former 2nd mistress (that we know of) which he now calls his wife. Newt will start to polll lower against Obama in coming weeks wants the Super Pacs are done destroying him.

          I hope that Newts ego got feed enough during his short stint at the top.

          I completely expect Perry to steal a ton of votes away from Newt before the Iowa caucuses. This happens and Romney walks away with an upset in Iowa. Once Newt loses in Iowa he never regains his footing.

          As I’ve said before this debate will come down between Romney and Perry.

    • acat

      OPM* has never been a Main Street Republican play, it’s always been a Wall Street insider play.

      Second, Romney has not had to directly confront – in the very real way that the libs and their house organ media will force him to – the results of his cuts. If his reactions to Perry in the debates are any indicator, this will not go well.

      Finally, I see nothing on Romney’s resume that indicates he can make cuts to government. He had that great tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, show me where he cut anything.

      Mew

      * Other Peoples’ Money – there’s a movie, it’s scathingly funny, go stream it.

      • Massachusetts_Transplant

        . . . the same line of attack you and Streiff are advancing. And when do we ever care what the liberal media is saying? If that’s the case, then Paul Ryan should never run for higher office, as he’ll have to defend against the media saying he is “ending Medicare”. Or that Chris Christie and Scott Walker “hate teachers”. When did fear of what the media may say in their advocacy for the Democrat ever stop us before?

        I just think its hilarious – that Romney is attacked for making lots of money in the private sector (and nothing to do with anything that ever tanked the US economy) while Gingrich is being lauded over Romney for making millions advising “Freddie Mac” and advancing crony capitalism and Big Government in Washington. That’s the conservatism RedState wants to defend?

        As for Romney’s resume.

        1) Very successful at Bain Consulting
        2) Chosen to co-found Bain Capital
        3) Asked to come back and rescue Bain in the early 90s
        4) Rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics which were mired in a bribery scandal, losing sponsors, and losing money when Romney took over – also weathed the additional security challenges of a post 9/11 world.

        Now – in government – not surprisingly you don’t know the entire Romney record when he was in Massachusetts. Romney really did want to reform the government in Massachusetts – for example merge and consolidate the three highway departments (Turkpike Authority, Mass Highway, Metropolitan District Commission) as well as the UMASS system and many others. The problem was the Dems are the party of the hacks and patronage in Massachusetts – so its nearly impossible to reform these agencies when the legislature is 85% Democratic. Romney also took a lot of heat for reducing aid to cities and towns, and he did get rid of Billy Bulger too, so he was able to accomplish some things, but obviously not everything he wanted to.

        in closing attacking Romneycare is one thing and fair game, but attacking his record in the private sector, while defending Newt on Freddie Mac simply isn’t credible.

        • acat

          When a blind ping finds an acorn, it’s still an acorn.

          When Fat Teddy Kennedy points out that Willard Romney laid people off, it remains true.

          In the current economy, where jobs are much harder to come by than in 2008 or 2006 – a short 4 or 6 years (give or take a couple weeks) ago – and more small business folk are hanging on by their teeth, Romney’s resume looks far too silver-spoon insider.

          It’s not fair, but .. life isn’t fair. Anyone who says different is selling something.

          Mew

          • sethellis

            Typical response from acat. Massachusetts_Transplant should take this as a badge of honor. Whenever he uses the “dizzying intellect” line it means that he doesn’t have any more substance to bring at you, and is basically admitting defeat.

            The idea that Romney hasn’t been pressed on his history at Bain capital is patently false. Not only was it throughly explored during his past campaigns, it’s been explored extensively this cycle as well. The Boston Globe did a very detailed story. In fact I’m betting that’s where you’re getting 90% of your material for this thread. Furthermore, Romney has been asked about it during the debates on multiple occasions.

          • acat

            just at the point where OPM is anathema to the voting public.

            Fortunately for me, it’s the only fact I need.

            Oh, and by the way, the line “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect” is lifted from The Princess Bride. The Peanuts equivalent would be “Seth, you blockhead!”

            Mew

        • streiff

          so that attack can’t possibly work.

        • retire05

          doesn’t get any better no matter how many times you spin it.

          Romney is not, read N-O-T, a conservative. And while you tout certain aspects of his tenure as governor, you seem to want to ignore that it is NOT his tenure as governor that Romney wants to run on. Even Romney knows that his record of governance is not so stellar that he wants to use it while campaigning as a conservative Republican.

          Romney won the gubernatorial election in Taxachusetts for two reasons: his last name (riding on his father’s coat tails) and the fact that as a Northeasterner, he is liberal, in spite of the (R) behind his name.

          Now, let’s be a bit honest, shall we? Mitt Romney governed from the left, going so far as nominating for the MA bench more that twice the number of Democrats as Republicans, including two gay lawyers who supported same-sex marriage. The number of registered Democrats increased by over 30,000 under Romney, while he lost 31,000 registered Republicans. He defended “a woman’s right to chose”, saw the dawn of same-sex marriage in his state, and increased the state debt by billions of $$.

          Romney didn’t win in MA because he was a core conservative. He won because the only thing Republican about him was his voter registration card. He is a spoiled brat who thinks the presidency is his simply because he should be next in line. And when it comes to the debates against Obama, he will be speechless. (Obama lines like “Well, Mitt, when we designed Obamacare, we used your model.”) Game, set, match.

          You tout Romney’s business acumen. So what? Do you think running a business is like running a government? It’s not. In business, you can fire those who do not support your agenda. News flash!!! Pelosi and Reid are not going anywhere and Romney would have to deal with people who are out to destroy him. He has shown he doesn’t have the cajones for that. He is simply too thin-skinned.

          So please, do not try to spin Mitt’s cred. He hasn’t got any. Those of us who take a good, hard look at the candidates, before we pull that lever in the voting booth, rejected him last time and will do so again.

          Hell, why would anyone choose Liberal Lite if they can choose a self-proclaimed liberal? That is why Romney could not even carry New Hampshire last time. And while you may be enamored by Romney, most of us are not.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    irrespective of who is using it.

    It is a divisive appeal and largely fallacious attack which, unintentional or not, impugns thousands of workers with its broad brush application.

    I must have missed where targeting a particular class of worker based on their chosen professional became a wise political sine qua non or some ingenuous maxim consistent with American capitalist values.

    Time was in this country that doing better financially was part of the American dream. Now it’s “hate thy neighbor if he is a Wall Street guy”.

    To be clear, Romney a spineless, shifty Jello-man for many reasons. But I don’t begrudge his time at Bain because he made big bucks. I also have yet to find proof he made widows, orphans and vast armies of unemployed with his magic Wall Street wand.

    But that’s just me.

    • tomatin

      I like you don’t trust Romney for the same reasons and this attack from Newt makes me cringe.

      I just don’t think his time at Bain is a plus because it does not necessarily give him the skills to be president. That being said it’s not much of a negative for me but for the electability argument.

    • miconservative

      It is how he made them which will make him less acceptable to the voters because those skills are not the same ones needed to make government work. Running government is not the same as buying a steel company, breaking it up and selling it off for a profit. I imagine we could sell off Yellowstone Park to the highest bidder and make a lot of money? Might make good business sense, but should not be done by government.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        I am not his lawyer or even a Romney-bot. But I would really like to see specific examples where Romney put on the corporate raider pirate-hat, personally pillaged companies, scared away their employees and left his bloody fingerprints all over the crime-scene.

        This whole notion that investment banks, PE firms, etc. do nothing but take over companies to “make a buck” truly intrigues me.

        • papabear

          Having lived in Boston, I’m not a huge fan of the Boston Globe. However, the facts in their summary of Bain’s acquisition of Ampad are accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below:

          “Bain Capital put $5 million into its [1992] purchase of American Pad & Paper and quickly began charging management and other fees. It also made payments to investors. In all, Bain and its investors reaped more than $100 million even though Ampad went into bankruptcy [2001], workers [385] lost jobs, and stockholders were left with worthless shares [$15 ->$0.15].”

          The pay walled story is at The Boston Globe. A short Timeline version is not pay walled.

          Ampad is just one of many Bain “issues”. It did not take much research to find the documentation. I’m a sure that a minimal level of effort would yield many additional examples.

          • sethellis

            Romney and Bain capital cannot be held responsible for the poor choices made by AmPad executives. They asked for advice, and it was given. Nobody forced AmPad into using Bain’s services.

          • acat

            Derp.

            Mew

          • papabear

            Here is a direct quote:

            “In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, from Mead Corp., embarking on a ”roll-up strategy” in which a firm buys up similar companies in the same industry in order to expand revenues and cut costs.

            Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad’s debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings.

            …

            The result: Ampad couldn’t pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares.”

            Invest in your personal education – look at the full article. If you truly believe than an acquired company was “asking for advice” from the owners of the company, there is no need for further discussion.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            but read up on what’s called “roll-up” strategies and in particular the case of Ampad. I think you will find their were labor disputes and other factors which negatively affected their business model (e.g. office product production in Asia which led to significant cost competition).

            I can’t remember the timeframe Romney was actively engaged, but during that period they had something akin to a 99% success rate with companies like Staples, Dominos, etc. They were really the gold-standard of their time.

            Just to be clear, I am not a Romney fanboy. But this stuff is pretty clear-cut.

          • papabear

            Obviously I AM familiar w/roll up strategies. This one was poorly executed. To make matters worse, Bain significantly over leveraged Ampad while pulling an average of 10+ million dollars out of the company per year. Remember that the initial investment was only $5 million.

            Just think about the financial model:
            1.) Acquire a company which has a Wall Street perception of management/market issues.

            2.) Engage in leverage buyouts to take out competition.

            3.) Sell off significant amounts of tangible assets like production facilities.

            4.) Use the perception of growth in market share to fuel additional leveraged buyouts.

            5.) Acquire more capital than required for the leveraged buyout and pay it as massive management fees to the original holding company.

            6.) Leave the shell of the company to file Chapter 7 and liquidate all assets.

            If you think anything else happened to Ampad, you did not live in Massachusetts at the time when they went under. Feel free to do the research. the information is publicly available.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            Well then you should understand why I noted the roll up strategy which you apparently didn’t fully follow. Also keep in mind that Bain purchased AMPAD with the holding company from Mead. So they were executing a strategy in part based on expert industry advice along with Bain’s investment guidance. Then remember industry trends at the time such as consolidation, cost cutting and downward price pressures.

            To survive in the industry, based on that combination of advice and the trends, AMPAD embarked on a consolidation strategy (to reduce costs) and select buying of adjacent businesses they (Bain and their partners) felt would help them survive. Key word is “survive”, because this was a risky purchase due to the aforementioned trends. So survive with fewer jobs or survive at all as a company? I’ll take survive as a company for $500, Monty.

            The bet is you can consolidate and make it work. Remember Bain and everyone else is happy when the company survives long-term or is in good fiscal health to be sold. Despite what you hear from the lightweights, pundits and self-taught experts nobody is happy and lighting cigars with $50.00 bills when these things don’t work.

            So the debt was accumulated in trying to execute this strategy with purchases of companies (doing this from memory but I think it was SCM, ATPC, WR and a few others). In an attempt to get growth…which they initially got. In fact, when AMPAD went public they had something akin to 50% growth in sales. Charles Hanson, who was Chairman at the time lauded the strategy in press release after press release. Right up until the stock was de-listed by the SEC.

            The rest is history. My opinion they may too many purchases too quickly, were not aggressive enough in their cost cutting and did not see some of the other industry trends which greatly affected their cash-flow…but you can go with the evil Romney-Bain-Corporate-Raider-which-does-not-hold-water-on closer-scrutiny emotional plea, if you like.

            Oh and trust me, I don’t need to do the research.

          • papabear

            In 1995, Bain took over $60 million out of Ampad. For the most part, this money came out of leveraging assets ($425 Million of debt) while acquiring another company. According to public documents (this was before I was in the Mass area), Bain’s initial 1992 investment was $5 million.

            When too much lifeblood (capital) is removed from the host, it will be severely weakened. Unfortunately, Ampad was now under capitalized and the debt to asset ratio was significantly worse. Not only did Bain continue to take large management fees every year, they also took a large portion of the IPO in 1996 ($45+ Million). That money should have gone to recapitalize Ampad. At that point, they did not have the reserves needed to weather difficult times.

            Ampad had to liquidate (Chapter 7 in 2001).

  • tomatin

    Newt should have attack Romney’s Bain history this way. He should have said Romney bringing out the CEO of Staples as a success story is like Obama bringing out the CEO of GM as a success story. Because all they did was bailout and sell off in both cases. Romney did not grow Staples into what it is today. Romney is not a an entrepreneur who built a company based on a good idea or product.

    That’s a much better attack from the right.

    • texas214

      the fact one was done with private capital and investment and one was with the government breaking the law and injecting itself into the private sector.

      • tomatin

        I just thought it was a better attack than the one Newt made.

  • 1bunny

    Hard hitting ad by Ron Paul. Can Newt really fend off accusations from Romney and Obama effectively? Maybe short term, but not sure on long term.

  • miconservative

    That has been the Obama plan all along. That is why Occupy Wall Street was started. In Wall Street Gordon Gekko was asked “why are you going to wreck this company?” His response…”because it is wreckable!”

    Romney always talks about the great work he did at Bain and offers no examples of success or jobs created. Ted Kennedy talked about Bain in 1994 and defeated Romney on it. Mitt Romney and Bain bought the company I worked at. They drove it into the ground and sold off the pieces and parts. Romney made millions and I got thrown out on my rear end. Combine that with the picture of Romney and his Bain buddies tossing cash in the air and we have a real problem.

    That is what we will hear throughout the campaign from Obama and in this climate it will be poison. Far from being our best candidate I believe Romney is our worst possible candidate.

    Do the Rombots really believe this should not be vetted in the primary? It has to be vetted because not only will Romney be defeated in the primary because of his business record, he would be destoyed in the General because of it.

    • acat

      Cheshire grin

    • tomatin

      I still think the only reason Romney is a bit higher in the national polls is because his brand is just more well known to the casual voter.

      If Romney does run against Obama in the general he’s milquetoast and offers no real contrast except for being viewed as the Wall Street guy that fires people.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        somehow the economy does a 180 degree turnaround. I am not a big Romney Supporter, but at least the guy has run things before and has real brains instead of false knowledge like Obama.

        And it is pretty evident to most people now just how incompetent and out right dangerous Barack is.

  • goodgovernance

    There’s no point in trying to defend Romney by saying Gingrich and RedState are making arguments that will help the Left.

    If Romney can effectively counter the charges, then these arguments will be neutralized in the general.

    Obama wasn’t hurt in the general when Bill and Hillary said he wasn’t ready, a fairy tale, remember?

    I personally don’t feel like supporting a candidate (Romney) who needs to be treated like a special hothouse flower. Romney needs to be able to roll with the punches or the Democrats and MSM will find a way to pound his campaign into the dust by October 2012.

    • Massachusetts_Transplant

      that this thread really has nothing to do with whether Romney is or isn’t ready ready for a general election or not, but rather demonstrates that some here at RedState will adopt any line of attack to try and bring down Mitt Romney – even if it is an attack from the Left. That’s the story here.

      The original writer of this thread admits in a post above his visceral dislike for Mitt Romney “I don’t like him and I don’t like his dog”, and also has no problem with Freddie Mac, saying they have done a “a lot of good”!!

      Defending Freddie Mac passes for conservatism worthy of RedState these days?

      • acat

        goodgovernance had it right. It’s about Romney not managing, given four stinking years to do so, effective outreach to the Conservatives who supported him against McCain in 2008.

        You can wish it weren’t, but .. as my elders used to say, wish in one paw, spit in another, see which gets full faster.

        Mew

        p.s. remember to wash your paws after you try this experiment.

        • Massachusetts_Transplant

          so now this thread is about Romney not doing effective outreach to conservatives? Okay – that is a fair point to debate . . . in another thread. This thread is about Newt’s attack on Romney’s tenure at Bain. So the question is what is your point about “outreach”, is that since you believe that Romney didn’t do that outreach, RedState should unfairly malign Romney’s career in the private sector and lower its standards when it comes to Newt’s work advising Freddie Mac?

          • acat

            The point is actually that Willard has a lousy record for the current economy. He should have been our nominee in 2008, he’s wrong for 2012.

            Wishing for Wafflin’ Willard to have a better record does not make it so.

            Mew

      • tomatin

        I take shots at RS for supporting Newt so it’s not all about taking down Romney.

        I think sometimes RS expects candidates to have a purity that just does not exist in politics.

        Romney’s problem is he’s a complete fraud as a conservative. So the response to him is understandable.

        Obviously you don’t read RS much if you think people have not attacked Newt’s F&F ties much.

        I would ask you can you defend Romney’s liberal record as MA gov and continual flip flops.

      • goodgovernance

        Is it possible that the Left would attack a nominee Gingrich for being an unstable egotistical philanderer who can’t manage effectively?

        Is it possible that the Left would attack a nominee Perry for being a dunce who loses his train of thought at the drop of a hat?

        Is it possible that the Left would attack a nominee Huntsman for being Obama’s ambassador before running against him?

        The answer to all the above questions is YES. Yet when those arguments get brought up on RedState, I don’t see a lot of Gingrich, Perry, or Huntsman supporters complaining that these attacks shouldn’t be made because they could help Obama.

        But there sure is a lot of “You shouldn’t say that about Romney because it could help the Left” from the Romney supporters around here. I find that argument very curious coming from people who claim that 1) Romney is inevitable and 2) Romney will beat Obama easily in the general, no contest!

        Help me out. I can’t understand how Romney can be so strong and yet need to be handled so delicately at the same time.

  • septembergurl

    If you can’t get enough of Newt Gingrich, Master Debater, there is a debate today in New Hampshire between gingrich and Huntsman. This is another Lincoln-Douglas debate, and will be focused on foreign policy and national security, a topic which has still not received enough attention in the debates in my opinion.

    Debate starts at 4 PM eastern, today, Monday 12/12. Livestreamed here:
    http://www.jon2012.com/livestream

    It will be rebroadcasted at 8 PM tonite on CSPAN.

    • septembergurl

      Huntsman’s website just crashed.
      I know…lame.

      But also, more traffic than he’s ever had before!

      • clintonformccain

        to edit out every work Huntsman has said in the first hundred debates. You couldn’t pay me enough to watch this one.

    • supergirl2911

      Was there sarcasm here? Not sure, but I think you asked if we wanted more of Newt, master debater.
      Uh, no.

  • texas214

    It appears many in the conservative opinion media are starting to take sides, and other than Limbaugh, the reviews are pretty negative for Gingrich. Beck, Savage and others who were closely aligned with the TEA Party movement are starting to come out against Newt.

    Despite Limbaughs audience size, it won’t take long for these type of attacks to take their toll.

    • tomatin

      Talk about a left wing attack line.

      Savage wants to pay Newt $1MM to get out.

      I call it what it is a circus.

  • Common_Cents

    FYI

  • texashistorian

    . . . how much, if any, damage the Newt sustains at this one. Huntsman isn’t a lightweight and Newt has nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose by wading into it.

    • septembergurl

      at 8 tonite Eastern.

      The first really comprehensive look at the post Bush-Obama foreign policy explained by two of the smartest we have in the current field.

      Worth a look!

      • dpmapper

        Wasn’t really a debate as they agreed with each other a lot, but it was good to listen to. Both drew some distinctions with Obama but Huntsman needs to figure out how to highlight them – they’re there but because of his low-key diplomatic style you have to pay attention to figure out where he’s criticizing O.

    • shyamg22

      http://www.c-span.org/Events/Gingrich-Huntsman-Debate-Natl-Security-Issues/10737426215-1/

      (not sure what the policy in posting links at redstate is so I apologize if this is against the community rules).

  • jgfl

    Down with that evil capitalist Romney… We need a future thinker like Newt to explore all the ways the government can help the common man!!!

  • kowalski

    .

  • shyamg22

    A caveat: I am not a Republican. So take this however you like. I rarely post on this site unless a topic interests me, but I do lurk everyday because a lot of the writing on this site is of good quality. I might not agree with a lot of it, but I can respect the analysis and opinion that is put forth.

    That said, I am still quite confused how Rick Perry is not running away with this, even with the debate gaffes. Gingrich? Romney? Really? The part of the debate when Ron Paul or Bachmann was hitting Gingrich for lobbying and he chuckled and quips “I was working in the private sector”…did not sit well with me at all.

    While I am not astute enough to fully project the political ramifications, Romney, in running a Private Equity shop is much more ‘of the private sector’ than lobbying, which is essentially selling access. The latter would be ok, except for the fact that lobbying on behalf of two GSE’s ( that are the antithesis to conservative thinking)should be unpalatable to any conservative.

    If you attack Romney on his record at Bain, it is class warfare. That said, I don’t have an issue with it (even if I was an R), because he’ll have to face it in the general if he gets that far. PE/LBO shops like Bain are unpalatable to main street, but they do assist in helping move capital more efficiently and if they weren’t successful, they wouldn’t be bailed out (not large enough to be systemic risk to be honest).

    I think people need to be educated on different types of ‘white shoe’ businesses instead of lumping everything as “wall street”. Bain was not a hedge fund (like LTCM for instance) that if unsuccessful, could take down an economy. They participated in the ‘creative destruction’ which is quite useful for an economy when done successfully and looking at the ‘big picture’.

    That said, how two men with so much baggage (politically, personally, etc) are leading the polls confuses me. Rick Perry, from what I can tell should be running away with this race. He is right, when he says he is not running for debater in cheif. It is obvious he loves the country, and I commend him for his service in the military. I really enjoy his life story. I do not agree with many of his policies (his tax policy or his UT tuition policy), but these shouldn’t be major sticking points for someone who is a realisitic conservative, I would imagine. He might not be the intellectual heavy weight of party, but it is obvious he cares the most would be true to his word and do the best job he possible could while surrounding himself with good people. From my analysis, I would’ve imagined the two front runners being Perry (with a healthy lead), and Huntsman (for those who are more liberal socially).

    Maybe I just don’t have the right finger on the pulse of the conservative electorate/line of thinking? I will admit, I do not have many friends/colleagues that vote Republican. My real exposure to the conservative movement is through Red State. Therefore, I do inherently have some bias in thinking every conservative out there is a Red State.com conservative. I also feel that since I try to be engaged politically that ‘gaffes’ and other superficial issues don’t affect me as much as someone who just watches cable news to form their opinion.

    Anyways, that’s just my two cents. From an open minded voter.

    • JSobieski

      Never could figure out how people could vote for Bush against Dukakis, Clinton against Bush, Bush against Gore, and then Obama against McCain, but yet tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands of people did just that.

      How did John McCain beat Fred Thompson in SC in 2008?

      How did Dole clean Phil Gramm’s clock in 1996?

      How did Reagan almost beat Ford in 1976 only to start off so badly in 1980?

      Voters . . . are mysterious.

      The primary is going to come down to Perry v. Newt in the end, and Perry is going to win.

      • acat

        A relative once bragged about “voting for all the Irish-sounding ones”, to give an idea of just how impure we – for everyone reading and certainly everyone posting to Red State had damn well better vote! – how capricious we the voters can be.

        What does this mean for Perry?

        First, polls are trailing indicators. If they find he jumped 2 points, that means he’d jumped 2 points yesterday .. could be more today, could be less. Remember how long the Cain Train defied gravity *in the polls* after he went off the cliff?

        Second, it means absolutely nothing unless Iowans who like Perry get off their couches and get to the caucuses…. and bring along their friends and neighbors. Same goes for the Newtons or the Bachmaniacs or even the Rombots – give Iowa one heck of a turnout.

        Mew

    • texashistorian

      . . . we just don’t know yet. Polls are an indicator, but we are still out 3 weeks from Iowa, and what the polls say is that a massive chunk of the GOPers in Iowa have not settled firmly on a candidate. I continue to believe Perry will do far better than many think in Iowa. He might even win, but I am thinking a second or strong third, which will propel him towards South Carolina and Florida in a big way.

    • supergirl2911

      and I am a conservative. I continue to hope that all the polls are wrong or Perry is on a rebound.

  • bzip

    This article says exactly what I thought when I saw Newt attack Romney – Newt was attacking as free markets.

    It addition to that I also thought Newt sounds very petty, and that both Newt and Romney are sounding like a bunch of bickering children with this betting nonsense – talk about turning voters off.

    Gingrich Hits Romney from the Left
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gingrich-hits-romney-left_611985.html
    ?Newt Gingrich has adopted an anti-free market argument?a favorite of the political left?to criticize Mitt Romney. Gingrich accused his rival of making money by ?bankrupting companies and laying off employees? in his years at Bain Capital.?

    • momac

      abandoning principles (not that i think newt shares mine) for some kind of points is going to get us exactly nowhere.

      i’d love to know what streiff or newt think should have been done with the companies, and in fact what newt did do to help them? how much taxpayer money was coerced to do what romney did?

      i don’t want romney. but i’ll take him over newt any day. newt is an authoritarian and egomaniac under a thin veneer. conservatism one day, populism here, individual mandate before, global warming with nancy, whatever he thinks advances him, himself, he’ll go with. no thank you.

      perry can mumble all day, he has a basic understanding of limited government.

      when’s lou dobbs going to start posting here anyway?

      • bzip

        Yep. That was my thinking. I don’t understand why anyone would defend Newt’s ad but so be it.

        I am starting to think too many conservatives are losing sight of principles these days.

        Why turn your back on principles just because the candidate with the best principles isn’t in the top 2 list (right now)? What is worse is abandoning the candidate and principles.

        I thought we had a better bunch of conservatives here. My mistake.

        • heraklios

          I think he is more conservative than you give him credit for. He may not be as conservative as Perry but his record in Congress and as Speaker was pretty cutting-edge conservative at the time. I think most RedStaters like your man, Rick Perry. They are just concerned he can’t be elected.

          • sunshinek67

            To be honest, I remember well his reform of the 90′s. And much reason why I had him as my second choice for some time, until that is, all of the negative press, professional and personal, resurfaced and reminded me of why I shouldn’t have him so high up in my own internal poll. I think a good consistent conservative who’s life has been intact and constant would be the best candidate for President to right this wrong track.

            I have not paid attention to Newt Gingrich for the past decade other than what I see in the msm, or rather, what the msm wants me to see. One of the issues that is problematic for him seems to be his time spent as a “historian”, or “unregistered lobbyist”, or “consultant” making millions from rogue companies. Seems like there is some other negative stories about his professional endeavors that are floating out there in the media world that don’t tell the tale that this is the GOP best to go up against Obama. I want to win. Does conservatism win with a candidate that has a checkered conservative past? Is Gingrich the torch carrier for the message of the right? Is he really an agent for change? I just do not know.

          • supergirl2911

            is Perry vs. Obama. Everyone talks about the general and how electable he or she is. However, if Bob Beckel is wrong and we still want the most conservative candidate, then I want to see that happen. I think Perry has the best combination of conservative record and executive experience to be the nominee and the president. I would rather “take my chances” on Perry then settle for Newt or Romney.

        • JSobieski

          If you were a bit less insulting and less aggressive in your advocacy.

          For example, given the way you have used a lot of out of context history, what would you do with the following data if it related to Newt instead of Perry?

          http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=56615334&category=views&id=20100610221358

          Let me guess, you say things like

          Newt supported HIllarycare
          Newt supports big government solutions
          Newt is no fan of cutting spending

          Those aren’t fair things to say about Perry on balance, so I don’t say them. Nor do I or others dispute that Perry is more consistently reliable than Newt.

          However, your zealous advocacy (i.e. spin) is over the top at times. Comparing Newt to Obama or HIllary on healthcare is laughable—and yet I have seen folks (including you) make it sound like there is NO difference between them.

          Well, some idiot out there could make similary stupid arguments about Perry based on his letter to HIllary, his support of SCHIP, his comment about certain people being “heartless”.

          Pledge not to be that idiot. Many of us have already taken that pledge. Join in.

          You will be far more effective for it.

          Or you can persist in trying to paint Newt as Obama 2.0 even though Newt has taken more blows on conserative health care reforms than any living politician—including Paul Ryan.

          • JSobieski

            I do however understand why people like me want to keep Newt around so long as Romney is around. You can disagree with that assessment, but calling people stupid isn’t persuasive.

          • sunshinek67

            nt

  • center77

    of them still gets the nomination. They are just now giving a good glimpse of why I think neither of them should be our party’s nominee. Newt did use his insider knowledge and connection to make million, which make sthe Tea Party message dead if he is the nominee, we cannot claim to be the party that will rid Washington of that kind of stuff. With Romney, he is the guy who took over business after business and in many cases ruined many peoples lives in order to make himself and his buddies rich.

    The reason we will win this comming election is because we will promise to do something about these things, and Perry is the only one who has been attacking the Wall Street and Washington connection (Obama & Romney are the Wall Street people), and we should run against the culture of getting from having a insider. Newt has been part of the cuture where a person gets elected and then leaves office and goes on to work for lobbyist type work, Newt says he did not lobby but that is not going to fly with anybody that has a nack for using logic.

    I understand that Newt supporters are willing to overlook his baggage, but I think it is more than that, one has to assume that most of the gen elction voters will do the same, and that Newt has changed. Thats a lot of if’s or maybies.

    I understand why GLen Beck so so upset that the Tea Party has decided to back Newt, because the man is a fraud, he is not the one we should go to for the anti-Romney, they have very closley related views when it comes to some of the most important issues to us. I am not goin gas far as to say I’ll go third party and vote for Paul, but there is a part of me that does not want to send a insider to Washington and then get the blame as a movement for the outcome of that vote.

    This is goin got always be more than just beating Obama, that is not enough. We need to beat the big government agenda. I care less who Obama is as a persosn, its him as a far left radical that worry’s me, and just going back to the days of Bush is not goin gto be enough to save this dear nation. I am worried about the movement as well as the country.

  • bubbachitchat12

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,1,4761345.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
    Bain Capital quickly evolved into a leveraged-buyout shop. Romney and his partners borrowed money to buy dozens of troubled companies, and then charged high fees to revamp management, consolidate operations and, in some cases, lay off workers. To cash out and pay the underlying debt, they resold the companies or took them public as quickly as possible.

  • omegamale

    Now Red State is against capitalism itself. Good to know.

    Does this site hope to still be a conservative forum after the primary, because you’ve lost an ENORMOUS amount of credibility, especially since RedState was completely in the tank for Romney in 2008, with Erick even endorsing him. Now we should suddenly hate Romney because he invested in profitable business ventures. Maybe this site should just merge with DailyKos?

    Rick Perry is toast, you better get over it and move on.

    • heraklios

      He is for big government in virtually every area. Government health care, TARP, stimulus…need I go on?

    • center77

      “Maybe that?s too picky. But making a candidate?s debating ability a major criterion for presidential status misses a point. Presidents are required to do many things, but debating is not one of them. Prime ministers debate, but we don?t have a parliamentary system.”

      “Yet in the Republican race, debates have marginalized every other aspect of the campaign. Rick Perry is the longest-serving governor in the history of Texas, but that proved to be worthless up against his poor performance in debates. Gingrich resigned from Congress in 1998 after a revolt by his Republican”

      and Erik explained why he was once for Romney but now is convinced he would be the worst thing, and capitalism does not mean allowing some to get super rich while harming others, no the is a way to do it, and that?s by making a product that everyone wants, and selling it, but buying up businesses and disregarding everything and everybody who built that business to make you rich is not the kind of thing that will get this country back on track, it?s the kind of thing that made our employment situation even worse.

      Now for your comment on RICK PERRY, this is what you do not get, many of the people at RED STATE do not support someone because others like them, so you may follow someone because you think they have a chance, but we follow someone because we believe in them and think they are the best, so there is nothing to get over, we will support Perry as long as he is in the race, I live in Iowa, and I can tell you this is not over. Romney is in trouble, he is falling at the right time, and Perry is doing much better and rising at the right time.

      In the end, if Perry does hot win, he still did more to take Romney out than any other person, he first hit him on his lies, and his fakeness, taking stuff out of his books in order to try and fake us into believing that he did not do it. Facts are stubborn things, and they do get in the way. No, do not feel sorry for us, we understand the challenge ahead of us, but we believe in what we are doing, Not because Fox or the establishment tells us too, because we know that we are right. Romney, fake, Newt Fake. It?s that simple.

      • supergirl2911

        nt

  • supergirl2911

    It created a false parallel. Newt took money for lobbying which is not equal to Romney earning money with Bain. Newt’s shows him to be cozy changing is view, spinning s—tuff, and taking money for it. Romney’s shows him to be, as we would say, in the 1%, or more accurately, out of touch with the average joe and unopposed to shutting down business.

  • omegamale
    • Common_Cents

      These back and forth zingers between Gingrich/Romney are just that. Zingers. Not substantive policy stances.

      Praising Romney for the extent of his job creation is great.

  • center77

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      ….had he not been trying to show himself as the smartest person in the room by tossing around about of International Relations jargon. Wilson didn’t believe in freedoms–he was probably one of the (if not the) most racist presidents America had, jailing thousands of people for their opposition to the First World War and lying through his teeth to get re-elected in 1916 on a bogus (and quickly broken) promise of “He kept us out of war.” And that’s not even touching his failures to get Versailles passed because of his rigidity in dealing with legitimate complaints about internationalism from Senator Cabot Lodge and others. If that’s what Newt wants to model himself after, I want none of it. To be realist and idealist simultaneously is my own view of foreign policy–the fight between realism and idealism is in general false dilemma, like so many others. But he could and should have said that simply and left it at that, rather than burying himself under a the mantle of Roosevelt and Wilson.