Obama’s attack on Romney’s Bain record isn’t going so well
During the Republican primaries, Romney was attacked mightily for his tenure at Bain. Gingrich was the main—although hardly the only—source of the criticism. His supporters said that, far from harming Romney if Mitt ended up being the nominee, this would help him, since Obama would inevitably mount the same attacks, and by then the public would be sick of the whole subject, and Romney would have had a chance to polish and rehearse his responses.
So here we are in late May, and now comes the completely inevitable depiction of Romney as vulture capitalist and vampire, feeding on the blood of the American worker. But the approach doesn’t seem to be working as planned.
Quit a few Democrats, from Newark mayor Cory Booker to former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and even Obama’s campaign manager Ben LaBolt, have criticized the approach and defended venture capital firms such as Bain. Jamelle Bouie, a liberal blogger, writes that the Obama campaign should take a leaf out of Newt Gingrich’s book and do the Bain attack right. And Gingrich, now of course a warm and fuzzy Romney supporter, argues that although his own critique of Romney’s Bain record was correct, it was politically ineffective and particularly inappropriate for Obama, who’s got “the worst unemployment record in modern times,” and should therefore refrain from attacking “a businessman over job creation [that] gets him exactly into a fight that Obama doesn’t want to be in the middle of.”
Well, Obama does seem to be having a run of bad luck in seeking to strike at Romney’s soft underbelly. Dog abuser. Woman oppressor. Haircutting homophobe. Weird rich guy. “Mad Men” character from the 60s. And now, venture vampire/vulture.
But my question is this: did Gingrich’s attacks on Romney’s Bain record in fact immunize Romney somewhat, as many claimed? I think there may be something to that. It’s partly that a lot of people are sick of the subject, and it’s partly that it’s been aired so much that a number of people have actually learned a fair amount about how venture capital and Bain worked. If all this is true, Romney can say a bit of a “thank you” to his old nemesis Gingrich.
And, the benefits to Romney are not strictly limited to Bain. Romney NEEDED to be attacked in the primary, and to learn to counter the attacks. And, on any particular issue, Romney did not need to be attacked briefly: such would only have meant that most voters would never have heard of the attacks, and thus that Axelrod could renew the attacks, with effectiveness, in Sept/Oct. Rather, in all areas of vulnerability, Romney needed to be attacked in the primary, and on a sustained basis, ensuring that Romney mastered methods of countering the attack, and ensuring that most voters heard of the attacks during Dec/Jan/Feb (thus getting the impression that Romney has already been vetted re that area of attack). And, finally, the sustained attacks of Dec/Jan/Feb provided Romney opportunity to reveal his core beliefs to voters. Romney STILL needs help in this area, but he is better off than before.
What good would it have done for Romney to have skated through the primary, w/o being heavily attacked, only to be a general election candidate who was not sharp, not tested, and whose core was unknown to voters (and who, thus, had not created any voter empathy)? Don’t get me wrong: the sustained primary attacks might have killed off Romney’s candidacy. But, if they had killed off his candidacy, then thank goodness, b/c Romney would not have been a worthy candidate who was capable of coming through the test of the general election, and we needed to know that in Jan, not September.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Separately, Jonathon Martin, of Politico, writes that big shot D.C. Repubs are just now coming to the realization that Romney can win. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76653.html
There are a handful of us commenters who have known, all along, that Barack stood a very good chance of losing. I think it is appropriate for us to take an early victory lap, and to accept accolades.
Through the last 24 months, I have, COUNTLESS TIMES (so many times as to become completely boring), admonished the group thinkers to buck up, b/c Barack was eminently beatable, and would likely lose by a decisive margin. A handful of commenters joined me, and the rest joined the groupthink which was wringing hands over the virtually impossible prospect of beating a black jesus who had the Pharisees ON HIS SIDE and doing propoganda FOR him. A handful of us understood that voters would notice that Barack was simply a terrible POTUS. A handful of us noticed that Repub candidates, though there was not a Churchill or Reagan amongst them, were nevertheless consistently more capable than BARACK OBAMA, for goodness sakes.
I think Romney is growing, at least a tiny bit, as a candidate and as a conservative philosopher. I am at least a tiny bit pleased with that. But, the race really was never a specific case of: “We must have Romney!!” Pawlenty would defeated Obama. Perry would have defeated Obama. I won’t go on, other than to say that every single Repub candidate would have been a superior POTUS to Obama, and it wouldn’t even have been close, and I expect that voters, in most every case, would have noticed.
As for the Repub bigwig D.C. insiders, whom I believe truly did not believe Barack could be defeated: just b/c they know a lot of inside info about a lot of stuff, DOES NOT MEAN they know either the pulse of the nation, or how to win elections. They do not. They are still convinced they must pander to moderate voters. Every one of us are expert in some areas, and ignorant in many other areas. Repub big shot D.C. insiders are plenty ignorant, yet believe they are God’s gift to political consulting. Fools. With money. Who continue to dominate the Repub Party. Makes me sick. I need more money. I want to dominate!
Also, re GOP insiders, Sarah Palin again demonstrates her communications GENIUS:
Genius. The woman is a frickin genius communicator. Love her or hate her (and I love her), it cannot be denied that she is a genius communicator. She can sum up the guts of an issue, and do it concisely, pithily, memorably. She doesn’t waste breath on the details or the reasoning. She does something better: what she does amounts to genius poetry. Wordsworth. Will Rogers.
LUVing it!!
Democrat ‘Biggies’ defending Bain–Can you say Ed Rendell??–are aiding The Boy King’s current implosion nicely.
AND…How about those Arkansas+Kentucky primary “tells” yesterday? 40-some % Democrat voters “Uncommitted”..?!
Could it possibly be that even alot of Dems don’t hate capitalism, individual initiative, profit and ‘bidness?? Ya know, American stuff?
I do not think that Rendell, and the handful of other Dems who have spoken out, hate capitalism. I also think those Dems receive sizable political contributions from Bain, which is a nice prod to speak out about what they know to be right about capital.
There’s no question that the attack Gingrich leveled at Romney helped because it blunted the same Obama attack almost like an immunization, but more importantly, it allowed Romney a “mock trial” run through. I’ve worked on two trial “de novos,” one from a small claims appeal and the other from a Labor Commissioner appeal. Both cases were initially lost and appealed; the appeal process is really a new trial. Of course they turned out to be the easiest trials I’ve been involved in. The difference between the first and second trials was incredible. First off, you know what not to use. Second, the confidence level (no small thing) is high. Third, you’re already prepared and have polished up your arguments considerably. And sometimes, new insights present the second time which really break the opponent’s back.
No doubt Romney profited by Gingrich’es assault. I surely was disgusted at it at the time, but the law of unintended consequences worked here beneficially. I am very much enjoying the current situation. I always thought it would be a certain scandal that would bring the Obama administration down and did not foresee this far better event: a lot of people, in general, are becoming increasingly aware, even if dimly, that Obama can’t be trusted.
Using Justin Bieber song to spoof Barack http://stupidisafiveletterword.blogspot.com/2012/05/snacky.html
Barack won’t survive this type of mockery. His collapse will be cascading and widespread: the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Of course, for me, this represents missing the point on a grand scale. Any interpretation of BainCap and Romney without consideration of debt and leverage helps the Bi-factional Bankster Party stay in charge.
foxmarks,
There is a difference between those who lead a company/bank into a nosedive and those who come along and sacrifice the rot and lead a company/bank out of a nosedive. I understand over leverage very well. I bet, with my own money, against over leveraged entities. (BTW, on paper I’m worth more than 4 mil, a light weight, but a player.) IMO, the vultures who swoop in and take over failed enterprises and cast away the rot and resurrect the sound tissue are to be applauded for performing a public service; unlike the likes of Bush, Obama, congress, and Bernanke who propped up JP Morgan, BofA, Goldman, GM, and so forth and so on.
Dog eat dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drr7_DEfdF8
Neo – Version A of this post (including notes to yourself) ended up on Google Reader. Check it out.
I’m mightily encouraged that Obama’s tactics seem to be failing thus far. I always believed the R candidate would have a chance if he/she played his/her cards well. Romney seems to be making the right moves. I love it! But, as Instapundit always says, “Don’t get cocky!” Much water to flow under the bridge between now and November.
Oh, Parker, you’re making the wrong counter-argument. There’s a blindness among righties over the cronyism and corruption in our “free market” capitalism.
I don’t need to be persuaded that creative destruction is essential to a healthy economy. I don’t have to be persuaded that financing is an essential component of modern economies. You hear me attacking the ideal of capitalism. I am not.
I attack the perverted form of capitalism in which Rmoney is entrenched. Without corrupt banks like Goldman, there would be no BainCap and no Rmoney.
I remind you that Mitt liked TARP, was at times in favor of bailing out GM, and that his purported saving of the 2002 Olympics depended on legislative favoritism and shifting costs to other jurisdictions.
Platonic capitalism would be awesome. Too bad Mitt doesn’t know what that is.
I’m a fairly early Romney supporter (pretty much decided on him when it became apparent Perry couldn’t win). I’ve always felt he was a smart campaigner as he ground out his nomination win. Nowadays, he’s showing that he’s a fighter and smart about how he fights.
He’s attacking Obama on the large, important issues, especially the economy. He’s letting people like Hannity do his dirty work for him, a la Rev. Wright. Talk show hosts WILL pull votes from Obama and push them towards Romney and every little percentage point counts.
Romney’s business experience is helpful in his campaign because lots of people now realize that Obama and his close advisers don’t know you-know-what from Shinola about business and economics. None of them can think quantitatively.
Even if you don’t like him, you have to admit that Rahm Emanuel was one of the few in the White House who had some sense. His leaving early was an early tell.
I can’t want to watch Romney mop the floor with Mr. Teleprompter in the debates.
Platonic capitalism, a construct for those who want to keep economic freedom while eschewing (eschewing!) religion is not necessary for the worldview of Romney. He has no need to consult Struas, Wolfowitz, Bennett, Bloom, Kristol, or Perle. You misdiagnose, my dear, weird friend, foxsticks.
You fillet the fish and present the bones as the meal. Romney’s form of capitalism is far from being perverted; it is the original and purified form and it springs from a simple proposition which he performed: Let my labor, captured in property, produce wealth.
Plus, us tea party people hold with Palin and don’t suppress but expose crony capitalism, which is fascism.
How ugly, how egregiouis, how overwhelmingly wrong is GE’s and all the rest who have sold America “down the river” into slavery and socialism for not money, but power and security. Captialism demands risk and the bastards who crony, like the Mafia thugs who rule Russia, seek to establish a rigged game which removes risk, therefore, merit, therefore, hardwork, therefore, talent, therefore, intelligence, therefore, all that really goes into creating wealth. Our affirmative action President knows well crony capitalism.
foxmarks,
I read/hear what you are saying/typing but think you are missing the point. (However, I could be completely wrong. Its happened a few times.) Yes, Romney is a flawed human being. A part of the club that encompasses the real 99%. That said, I find nothing to chastise about the dealings of Bain. Dog eat dog and may the smartest dog prevail.
How ugly, how egregiouis, how overwhelmingly wrong is GE’s and all the rest who have sold America “down the river” into slavery and socialism for not money, but power and security. Captialism demands risk and the bastards who crony, like the Mafia thugs who rule Russia, seek to establish a rigged game which removes risk, therefore, merit, therefore, hardwork, therefore, talent, therefore, intelligence, therefore, all that really goes into creating wealth. Our affirmative action President knows well crony capitalism.
Hear, HEAR! Preach it, Brother Curtis! 🙂
I’m not sure we’re connecting, Parker. At this juncture, I’m not trying to make it a bigger issue over Mitt’s character or human shortcomings.
I wish I had the connections and the drive to be on the Bain team. I would love to be rich like that. And I would have no personal moral or ethical problem looking at a cash flow statement and deciding some assets must be liquidated. Nor would I have a problem seeking funding for complementary acquisitions.
I might have some hesitation over loading a company with debt so my firm could get paid, but we’ll take that on a case-by-case basis.
All of these operations are within the law. One of the problems is that the law is written to benefit certain classes and interests. That’s the crony problem that Mitt doesn’t seem to recognize, or has justified over the course of his career.
The other problem is that those who use leverage think they’re creating wealth, but they’re just capturing the new debt-money issued by the FedRes through its agents. Mitt’s tenure at BainCap coincided with a monetary inflation of debt-money through equity markets. Today’s version of Rmoney would be writing college loans, collecting the underwriting fees, and thinking he was a business genius.
Mitt can’t see the problem I am pointing to, probably because he’s a business consultant and a finance guy. He’s not an economist. I find his claims of knowing how to create jobs just as ludicrous as Obama claiming the oceans would fall.
Swapping a charismatic Keynesian for a technocratic Keynesian is a fool’s trade.
Curtis, you’re adorable. Not always perceptive, but you’re no quitter.
I have a Gadsden Flag and Palin’s Facebook feed. I missed the most recent TEA Party meeting because I was doing something for my local GOP.
Now that I’ve out-credentialed you, please explain how TARP was the pure form of capitalism. Tell us all how Bain’s capturing of loan guarantees and local subsidies was anything other than crony capitalism? Tell me how we can give Mitt capitalist props for an Olympics that has its own section of protections in the United States Code.
This is the guy you want to “hire” as POTUS? Why not dig up Albert Speer and get somebody who has experience running an entire national economy.
Well, for starters, Speer as an analogy to Romney is hyperbolic. Speer was a subject, not a free businessman investing his own labor and capital.
TARP, of course, was less than capitalism, but then, we all accept basic regulation which prevents monopoly. So, government involvement is not ruled out as a rule.
TARP was the only bipartisan event of the 2007 “recession” and the only fairly successful one. Of course, I don’t agree with “too big to fail” or bailing out failure and think the whole thing was wrong. But the top managers, including Romney, need our involvement because they cannot withstand the urgency of the situation. It is inconceivable to them that the financial markets should fail. I don’t think so. Let them fail. There will be an available alternative. That they cannot envision such is due to their close involvement.
And we are still receiving the effect of their decision. If the consequences had been allowed to rip through the market, lessons would have been learned and corrections made. Instead, we have what we have: Ongoing battle that prevents correction and continued recession.
I blame Romney for this, but less than most, and he will be faced with fixing inflation, easy money, unemployment, and foreign markets. That should be enough to ensure his education because the continuing economic malaise is ensured and will, eventually, if he is elected, be his to explain. His is no position to be envied. If he is elected President, his next term is not assured.
I do apologize for calling you weird. However, it was meant as a compliment. We need weird.
That’s ok..
his attack on bain may not work out, but the larger image paints a dismal heads i win tails you lose picture… where if the republicans sweep, the outcome economically and such is so bad, the dems will bury them socially. if the dems win they will keep turning this into a new hybrid evolutionary thing in which the reich, and soviet were mated to yield what this is.
attack on bain is just soviet/nazi class warfare of the Marxists. don’t even bother trying to label them exactly, realize that the action is not excused by the justification (especially premeditated).
they borrow a bit here, a bit there, take the best of both… amplify what works.. use what didn’t work as a weapon rather than an attempt to a better outcome.
i would take some time and see how many laws and items from that period have been created and implemented to the SAME END by a different road (so people wont recognize the way to the slaughter house).
years ago i pointed this stuff out, and while i could not detail methods that would come, i did detail that since its parallel in many ways (filtered by what is possible without reprisal and negation of the whole), everything that could be done WAS being done.
Examining leaves, we could not identify the pattern of trees in the forest…
we have a redistribution law of the sea going in… dumbing down in school to redistribute wealth to competing countries whose political systems do not allow full competition. nationalization by other names, licensing as control with permits too.
but more telling is to understand the laws that are now taking shape are copies of laws that took shape when the SAME CONDITIONS were created (whether accidentally or not is of no consequence. Sir Alexander Fleming first dish was an accident, Eli Lilli penicillin is not. does it matter?)
prior to these events, you can look back on neos blog and see people arguing that they would not happen, then when they did, they ignored it, and argued distractions. (something that a reader of CS Lewis would understand its subtlety)
i pointed out that the way it started was not the way it ended, and the icons that people identify with it all, are what came LATER, not what came first. that the murder of Jews came LATER, but the genocide started earlier in the same kinds of policies we have here (Lemkin the inventor points it out clearly that redistributing wealth, abortion, unequal access to school, unequal access to capital, school loans, and more… are all TOGETHER a form of genocide if a selected scapegoat group is not permitted access. ergo 283 million people had fewer children than 83-100 million. makes sense of you realize this inequity of access results in that one group denuding itself of a future)
Affirmative action was what Volk got and Jews and others disaffected didn’t. Disparate impact gave the state access to the businesses of Jews and others, and so could tell them how to do business and who could. the SBA gives so many perks from taxes everyone pays, that one group who is not allowed to get it back, cant start businesses or compete (And so banks ignore them).
well… now lets go after those who “get it” when others wont.. like in Germany they are leaving… from college students attempting to go to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan rather than stay here… the best are leaving – a BRAIN DRAIN…. whats taking their place are illegal aliens and those who cant read but get enough social services to have 15 kids.
[edited for length by n-n]
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Foxmarks says, “I wish I had the connections and the drive to be on the Bain team. I would love to be rich like that. And I would have no personal moral or ethical problem looking at a cash flow statement and deciding some assets must be liquidated. Nor would I have a problem seeking funding for complementary acquisitions.”
Thanks for admitting you too would like to be a capitalist pig.
From humble beginnings, I (and spouse/partner) have reached a place where I have about 1.5 mil in hard assets (real estate, farm land, precious metals); and another 2.5 mil in paper (bonds, currency futures, equities). We are small time players in the grand scheme yet we are debt free. I have no problem with the vultures who pick the bones of failed companies and produce a leaner, profitable enterprise. Can you provide evidence that Bain/Romney have committed a crime?
In my opinion this really is among the such a great deal considerable information for me personally. That i’m fulfilled reading your current article. Although want to comment about many basic concerns, The internet site fashion is right, the particular reports was in reality outstanding : D. Great process, cheers