Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2012

A bigger problem than Bain?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 1:40 pm

[Posted by Karl]

The New York Times picks up where I left off, reporting on Team Romney’s reaction to the attacks from Mitt’s rivals on his tenure at Bain Capital.  The news is not particularly reassuring:

Although the advisers had always expected that Democrats would malign Mr. Romney’s work of buying and selling companies, they were largely unprepared for an assault that came so early in the campaign and from within the ranks of their own party, those involved in the campaign discussions said.

Even as Mr. Romney coasted to victory in New Hampshire, they worry that the critique could prove more potent as the race shifts to South Carolina, where shuttered mills dot the landscape, unemployment is higher and suspicion of financial elites is not limited to left-leaning voters.

They should be concerned, given that New Hampshire and Iowa have among the lowest unemployment rates in the country.  But many more people should be concerned that behind a facade of denial of the Bain issue, Team Romney was surprised it already came up.  During the last presidential nomnination campaign, John McCain raised the Bain issue.  Duncan Hunter raised a Bain issue.  And Mike Huckabee raised the Bain issue, recycling a lefty conspiracy theory, but most famously in his pre-Iowa quip on the Tonight Show: “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off.”  There is no way these attacks (regardless of their ultimate merit) should have surprised Mitt Romney or his campaign.

Back to the NYT:

The attacks on Mr. Romney are especially unsettling to his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, who worries that a narrative depicting Romney as a heartless corporate raider will drag down his favorability rating and be sustained by the Obama campaign, said two people told of the internal discussions. (Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, played down such concerns. “I wouldn’t read too much into the rumors,” he said.)

While his campaign advisers generally agree that Mr. Romney must explain his work at Bain, they are wary of engaging in an exhaustive public examination of the nearly 100 deals he was involved in, anxious that it could bog him down in the inevitably messy details of fixing troubled companies, whether they are job cuts or big financial payouts.

Does Team Romney not realize that the candidate’s image is not fully within their control?  Do they not know that the left — from Team Obama to the establishment media — will have some (perhaps more than some) say in the matter?  People who have $19 million in the bank might have spent a few thousand assigning someone to work on the Bain issue, both in terms of general message and having rapid responses to specific cases ready to email to the media, instead of leaving it to Rich Lowry to explain them after taking the hit.

Mitt Romney is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination primarily because he is the one with experience running for president.  He is the one who has worn a suit to the job interview, while his rivals, to put it mildly, have not.  If GOP voters begin to think Romney is not running a campaign that competently responds to attacks, he will have a bigger problem than Bain.

–Karl

302 Responses to “A bigger problem than Bain?”

  1. If GOP voters begin to think Romney is not running a campaign that competently responds to attacks, he will have a bigger problem than Bain.

    Possibly.
    But it seems to me GOP voters are on to GOP candidates who are incompetently attacking Romney.

    MayBee (081489)

  2. The scorched earth strategy Romney used in 2008 and in this election have proven just how effective it is to attack harshly and on populist terms.

    This is why Romney is far from inevitable. As this primary drags on, and drag on it will, it is only going to get uglier.

    You will look back to January as the time when the GOP primary was relatively civil and the party relatively united.

    “Tires on early automobiles were made of thin rubber and were sometimes of poor quality, hence a prospective buyer might kick them to see how thick they were or if they would deflate.”

    That doesn’t mean I welcome what’s happening. It sucks.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  3. May Bee,

    Exactly so… but if people start thinking Romney is also incompetent, why wouldn’t they prefer some other incompetent?

    Karl (f07e38)

  4. It was actually Pawlenty who first made a snarky remark about Romney’s wealth this time around in his very unimpressive debate performance. Which didn’t seem to do him any good although his withdrawal was wildly premature. If he was still in he would probably be the not-Romney at this point.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  5. Why are some Republicans advancing anti-capitalist views? They are beginning to sound like Obama or even Fidel Castro.

    What is a corporate raider? Would you people explain how a company can be bought and money is made by destroying it? It doesn’t happen.

    What happens is that a company that was once viable now is on the verge of collapse. It needs to get back to what it once did well. This involves cutting out “dead wood.” Yes, people lose their jobs but the alternative is that the entire company goes under and many more jobs are lost.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  6. Why does Romney agree with the OWS he sounds like Castro.

    Fixed so the projection isn’t obvious there AZ Bob.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  7. Why are some Republicans advancing anti-capitalist views?

    I’m not sure I understand this. They are criticizing a particular capitalist for particular actions.

    Are you saying that a capitalist can do no wrong?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  8. Newt’s in Retreat says Drudge…

    From Hugh Hewitt:

    “Nearly 200 Captured Castles

    I asked a former associate of Romney’s from the Bain Capital days how many companies Bain Capital had purchased in the years of Romney’s leadership there. Off the top of his head came the answer of between 160 and 200.

    That’s a lot of companies, a lot of stories, a lot of potential disgruntled ax-grinders waiting to be asked for their view of the Bain way.

    This happened to Romney in the course of the 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy. “US Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts hired detectives to scrutinize Romney’s past during the 1994 Senate race, in which Romney, a former venture capitalist, gave Kennedy his most vigorous challenge in his long career in Washington,” the Boston Globe reported on December 30, 2005. “The effort unearthed information that badly damaged Romney during the campaign: namely, that his venture capital firm had acquired an Indiana paper goods factory called Ampad Corp., fired more then 250 workers, and then rehired them at lower wages, leading to charges from the Kennedy camp that Romney was anti-labor.”

    Why was the Globe writing about the 1994 Senate campaign more than a decade later, and even after Romney had declared he would not be running for re-election? Because earlier that month, the Globe reported, “virtually every agency in state government received public records requests” for “any and all records of communication involving William [Mitt] Romney dated to 1947, the year of his birth.” “The letters, each dated Dec. 7,” the Globe added, are signed by Shauna Daly, who only provided a post office box in Washington, D.C., as her address.” Daly was the deputy research director for the Democratic National Committee. The opposition research version of the “Big Dig” had begun.

    It will eventually get to every company bought, sold, or invested in by Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure there, and perhaps afterwards as well. Americans have a vague idea about corporate turnarounds, and after the famed Barbarians at the Gate years as well as financial corporate scandals from BCCI to Enron to Conrad Black and far beyond, the voting public will be interested in tales told out of school by long-ago pushed aside CEOs and COOs, laid off workers and disappointed investors.

    It is a target-rich environment, and one which does not seem to have received much attention from Team Romney. One confident of the governor seemed to dismiss the idea that anything new would be found if it hadn’t turned up, like AmPad, in either the 1994 or 2002 campaigns.

    There was nothing—in 1994 or 2002—like the decentralized intelligence collection and distribution network that exists today. If Romney is the nominee, expect the bloggers of the Left, assisted by the DNC and of course Romney’s Democratic opponent and some 527s, to dig up the name of every company with which Romney has ever been associated and to throw the names into the political waters like so much chum. Whatever is there to be learned will be, and quite a lot of fiction will be thrown up as well as fact.

    Justice Clarence Thomas had undergone at least two full field FBI background investigations and Senate confirmations before his nomination to the United States Supreme Court without a hint of controversy. When the stakes got that high, the Left “discovered” Anita Hill.

    Once the big show gets under way, literally tens of thousands of amateur and not-so-amateur sleuths will begin the search and destroy mission aimed at Mitt Romney’s reputation.

    Each one of the 160 to 200 companies that Bain Capital took over is the modern equivalent of a captured castle. Some in each of the castles might have welcomed the arrival of the new baron and his team. Some might have pretended to. And some no doubt got thrown over the walls.

    Everyone is still out there, and there’s nothing more certain to draw attention to an old grievance than the new status of a participant in the brawl.

    The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I pointed out to Romney’s friend, had never stirred through all of John Kerry’s previous campaigns. But once he got close to the presidency, not only did they find new ambition to tell their story, the resources arrives to allow them to do so.

    It seems likely that Romney’s Bain-imprinted emphasis on data and analysis will result in some pre-emptive work here. I fully expect that Team Romney will be the first to hunt for the dossiers of every company touched or even passed by during Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. I also expect that a feature of the Romney web site will chart this list, and provide a case history for each company before or since, as well as a Romney commentary on each transaction that that no members of the media will be able to escape a charge of bias if Romney’s view of the company’s fortunes is not at least recounted if not credited in the course of reporting generated by opposition research. “Hang a lantern on your problem,” is an old saying in politics, and it is practiced by Romney at the 2002 Games as with the seating sight lines in the Delta Center. Expect no less with each and every potential political vulnerability. “We tried to stay ahead of potentially damaging stories by disclosing problems up front,” Romney wrote in his Olympics memoir. If he follows his own past practice, the media will know a lot more about the companies Bain Capital invested in before the Democrats (or Romney’s primary opponents) do.

    Still makes sense to me, but the challenge of explaining Bain’s record arrived much earlier in the cycle than anyone expected, and from very surprising sources.”

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/413c05f7-3fab-43d0-8a2d-d79ae532304e

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  9. Exactly so… but if people start thinking Romney is also incompetent, why wouldn’t they prefer some other incompetent?

    There’s two kinds of competence for a politician, organizational competence, and message competence. So far he’s only proven the first of the two. Of course the second is the less important of the two with respect to governing.

    I think the nub of the Bain problem for Romney is this: An effective response cannot be purely defensive. For a response to be more than purely defensive, he has to incorporate a defense of capitalism in general, not just talking about specifically what he did at Bain, while simultaneously accusing his attackers of being anti-capitalism. He has to counter attack.

    This is an absolute must against Obama. Done in the right way it could be fairly devastating against Obama if he uses the “S” word.

    Romney’s problem is he is staking his campaign on an image of competence while studiously avoiding calling Obama a socialist etc. He just doesn’t want to get into the arena of ideology. He may be forced to change that strategy. He cannot win by continually explaining and defending his Bain record. He has to turn these attacks back on his opponents.

    He should probably start counter attacking now rather than wait for the general election, even if it’s true that he has the nomination locked up. He has to make it clear that Obama will pay a price for these kinds of attacks.

    It’s sort of like in football where a team watches film of their opponent and doesn’t think they want to throw down field much. Their defense will stack everyone “in the box” and attack the line of scrimmage. If you oblige them by running into that, you’ll get crushed. If he shows a strong counter attack now, Obama and Co. might even be hesitant to play the Bain card aggressively in the general.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  10. Yes, Gerald, and think of the Obama record – specifically lack of success – with bailouts, “green energy” jobs, unemployment, inability to even understand how the free enterprise system and capitalism work.

    He’s the guy who should be back on his heels and on the defensive. That’s where the focus must be, along with making the strong case for pro-growth policies, intelligent spending cuts, etc.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  11. Exactly so… but if people start thinking Romney is also incompetent, why wouldn’t they prefer some other incompetent?

    Because they know those particular incompetents don’t actually believe what they are attacking Romney about. And if they do, they can’t keep campaigning on downsizing government.
    There isn’t a single candidate in this race who hasn’t laid people off in an effort to save something larger. That includes Obama.

    MayBee (081489)

  12. and I always go to the NYT for truth and an unbiased take… NOT! The only positives they provide is to help Republicans, and other sane people, understand how the enemy thinks.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  13. Funny, MayBee, that as Newt Gingrich today admits that he “crossed the line” and attempts to walk back the miscalculation of a strategy, he uses a plant out in the audience to provide cover for his escape.

    Very amusing.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  14. FWIW, I don’t think Newt and Perry are incompetents. But they are clearly desperate. They have better stuff than this.

    MayBee (081489)

  15. #10

    Exactly Col.

    Another thing that occurs to me is his discussion of Obama’s record, his crony capitalism, Solyndra, using the “S” word and so on would have to be separated from the Bain issue. He would have to bring it up outside the context of defending himself on Bain. It couldn’t be where he waits for someone to ask him about it and then say “Oh well what about Solyndra?” or whatever. The entire campaign would have to be more ideological than he probably wants it to be.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  16. Mr. Romney doesn’t have a good campaign. His staffs and management does have a poor performance. It remains me of Sen. John McCain’s campaign when he was running for President two years ago. I believe Romney’s staffs are coming from Tim Pawlenty, Sen. John McCain, and former Pres. Goerge W. Bush old campaign headquarter.

    m (0f62c3)

  17. Roger Simon says Newt’s an “angry warthog [that] emerged, snorting across the public stage, unable to control his emotions.”

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  18. “m”… do you live in America? Is English your first language?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  19. And seriously? The NYTs, which has no interest in combing through the Obama stimulus spending, the approval process for Fast and Furious, or the completely non-transparent CFPB, is nudging Mitt to open up about Bain for his own good?

    MayBee (081489)

  20. Another thing that occurs to me is his discussion of Obama’s record, his crony capitalism, Solyndra, using the “S” word and so on would have to be separated from the Bain issue. He would have to bring it up outside the context of defending himself on Bain. It couldn’t be where he waits for someone to ask him about it and then say “Oh well what about Solyndra?” or whatever. The entire campaign would have to be more ideological than he probably wants it to be.

    I agree, but I suspect he would rather wait until (if) he’s in the general and people are paying more attention to what he has to say about Obama.

    MayBee (081489)

  21. The real concern is the Romney campaign didn’t think this would be a big deal. they ahd best understand that for the MSM and the Obama campaign everything will be a big deal. if they want to not fire with fire and imitate Mccain worrying about being called a racist and being “honorable” he will lose.Obama will cling to pwoer like cold death, like Michelle Obama on a bag of Five Guys fries.

    Bugg (ea1809)

  22. Why are some Republicans advancing anti-capitalist views?

    I’m not sure I understand this. They are criticizing a particular capitalist for particular actions.

    Are you saying that a capitalist can do no wrong?

    Comment by Kevin M — 1/11/2012 @ 12:27 pm

    What he’s supposed to have done wrong is made too much money. You don’t see where that’s anti-capitalist? What national issue does his business decisions at Bain relate to? It’s just getting people mad at him for being too rich.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  23. What he’s supposed to have done wrong is made too much money.

    That’s not what the argument about Bain is. No one is saying he made ‘too much’.

    What national issue does his business decisions at Bain relate to?

    Good question, as Romney is not exactly chomping at the bit to fundamentally bite down on the wasteful entitlement spending.

    But it’s Romney who told us to analyze his Bain record and it’s critical that we see how well he withstands attacks on this issue before nominating him.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  24. Why assume that just because the Romney camp didn’t respond when and how you think they should have that they aren’t prepared for the issue?

    You all seem a bit inconsistent. You point out that he’s spent millions preparing for the campaign… and yet he simply failed to think about how to respond to an issue that has come up before?

    For all we know about the inner workings of the Romney campaign (which is close to zero) Romney did spend a few thousand dollars preparing to defend the Bain issue… and has concluded that there is not yet the need to do so?

    steve (369bc6)

  25. And seriously? The NYTs, which has no interest in combing through the Obama stimulus spending, the approval process for Fast and Furious, or the completely non-transparent CFPB, is nudging Mitt to open up about Bain for his own good?

    Comment by MayBee

    Yeah, it speaks volumes that the left thinks it would be a good thing to learn more about it.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  26. Karl, you’re taking the New York Times’ reporting way too seriously, almost as if they were credible and neutral reporters.

    Unsourced rumors from unnamed “insiders”?

    I don’t know if the Romney camp was surprised, or if they were culpably unprepared, but I doubt that they were anywhere near as surprised or unprepared as the New York Times desperately wants us to think.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  27. Why assume that just because the Romney camp didn’t respond when and how you think they should have that they aren’t prepared for the issue?

    I think the ‘it’s all envy’ response was straight out of a lefty’s central casting. It’s a weak response.

    There is, however, a very good response. All Mitt needs to do is read over Perry’s stump speeches for all the outrageous Obama fools Mitt should explain he would love to fire. There is a great retort.

    And frankly, I suspect Mitt will work that out eventually, so it’s yet another example of how healthy it is to vet these guys as early as possible.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  28. Yesteday’s excoriator of the Gingrich/Perry Bain counterattack, Rushbo, is all over the AP/Hill interview with Romney defending axing workers to save companies by noting the practice in Ogabe’s rescue of GM/Chrysler.

    Romney’s strength is his weakness, at Harvard he drilled his study circle teammates to share the fruit of targetted focus.

    He gave a great October 2012 answer but provided Obama with fodder.

    Being ready with an answer is one thing, being able to assess its adequacy given a different context is quite another.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  29. 18. While we’re on the subject of insufficient preparation for the forum:

    8. TLDR

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  30. Mitt is his own worst enemy, just consider his approval of the auto bailout on GMA, he’s focusing
    on S. Carolina, which happens to be a direct competitor with GovMo, in Detroit.

    narciso (87e966)

  31. 8. TLDR

    Comment by gary gulrud

    Let me guess, copypasta?

    Dustin (cb3719)

  32. 31. No, when one’s comment is longer than the blogger’s post, go to the next.

    Brevity is soul of wit. Too long and you demand we risk wasting our time.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  33. Brevity is soul of wit. Too long and you demand we risk wasting our time.

    Comment by gary gulrud

    That’s one of those things I can’t criticize because I am bad about it myself.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  34. Did no one tell him, what the Auto task force, it closed thriving dealerships and kept struggling one’s open, if they had the right party affiliation;

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

    narciso (87e966)

  35. 33. There you go, study circles. I have a slight, utterly understandable issue with suffering fools, but fellows like narciso and yourself do better.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  36. Did no one tell him, what the Auto task force, it closed thriving dealerships and kept struggling one’s open, if they had the right party affiliation;

    But taking advantage of the way government works, even if ruthless, is a great way to make a profit.

    What are you, anti-capitalist?!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

    Dustin (cb3719)

  37. Or this little exercise of ‘Luigi Vercotti’ treatment;

    http://therightrant.blogspot.com/2011/02/toyota-is-vindicated-despite-efforts-of.html

    narciso (87e966)

  38. Bain you’re always running here and there

    you feel you’re not wanted anywhere

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  39. Bain has done some good, and had some less than stellar incidents, the fact that seventeen years
    later, Romney has not formulated an explanation that passes muster, because what you saw this week
    is a light breeze, compared to the Category 5, the Dems will rain down on him,

    narciso (87e966)

  40. Didn’t Bain donate heavily to Obama?

    I guess attacking that is basically attacking that they were allowed to spend their money that way. Obviously I am Karl Marx.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  41. I also seem to recall in 1992 Romney was donating to liberal democrats and explained this was because he wasn’t really a Republican, but rather an independent.

    Obviously my criticizing Romney’s ‘to each according to his need from each according to his ability’ Romneycare scheme is proof positive I am a Soviet sleeper agent.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  42. Я также, кажется, вспоминаем в 1992, что Ромни жертвовал либеральным демократам и объяснил, что это было то, потому что он не был действительно Республиканцем, а скорее независимым политиком.

    Очевидно мой критикующий Ромни ‘к каждому согласно его потребности от каждого согласно его способности’ схема Romneycare – доказательство, уверенное, что я – советский агент спящего.

    Dustiи (cb3719)

  43. By the way, one good way for Romney to deflect ANY attack would be examining what happened to the pensions of the white-collar workers in the GM bankruptcy, while the union workers were kept whole. Many of the the white collar workers were wiped out. So much for the great defender of the middle class. As the artlce says, the “Democrats are the Party of Special Interests Who Grease Our Palms.”

    Kevin M (563f77)

  44. You know there is simple ignorance, and then there is ghoulish indifference and malice;

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/dnc-chair-blames-tea-party-tucson-shooting/307106

    narciso (87e966)

  45. Didn’t Bain donate heavily to Obama?

    Well, Bain’s employees did.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  46. Beldar & steve (24, 26),

    I happen to believe the NYT in this instance because the outward behavior of the Romney campaign tends to confirm it. Rapid response has been standard campaign practice since 1992. Instead, we get Mitt saying that in the general, he would compare it to the GM bailout, which likely detracts on several levels from the conservative sympathy he’s getting at the moment.

    Karl (f07e38)

  47. I dunno, I’m still trying to figure out what the problem with Bain is. I mean they did a great job and only 22% of the companies they were involved in were out-of-business 8 years later. Private equity firms are not the sort of firms a company in good financial shape gets involved with. Bain seems to have been much better at retaining jobs than their competitors, so what is the problem? Bain didn’t have a perfect record, so does that mean Shaq was a lousy basketball player because he missed over 40% of his FG attempts? Why is Bain a problem and what exactly is the attack being made?

    max (131bc0)

  48. Yes. Let’s all dump Romney and, instead, nominate one of the many perfect candidates. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?

    vince52 (d22525)

  49. Did no one tell him, what the Auto task force, it closed thriving dealerships and kept struggling one’s open, if they had the right party affiliation;

    Yes, that’s exactly what Romney is talking about there.
    He does not have to hit every single detail every single time.

    MayBee (081489)

  50. You might have wondered why Romney has received little critcism from the press. Limbaugh has spotted and the conventional wisdom is they think he is the easist to beat.

    But it likely goes deepoer than that. And Bain is at the center of it. Just a guess, but they have probably done far more research on Bain than Romney could ever guess. Bain and the anti-Wal Street movement will likely make Romney an easy target for reporters who have been fed the oppo research.

    I have never felt Romney could win the election. He couldn’t outpoll McCain in 2008. And he is now running a kumbya campaign just like McCain.

    Establishment Republicans have forgotten the magic that caused the tectonic shift of 63 seats in Congress hust over a year ago. That magic wasn’t “lets all get along.” It was a tea party inspired effort. And that means standing up to those who use their office and our tax money to perpetuate themselves in office.

    Corky Boyd (96df15)

  51. Yes. Let’s all dump Romney and, instead, nominate one of the many perfect candidates. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?

    Comment by vince52

    As funny as this is, it is not as though people are dumping Romney because he is merely imperfect. They are dumping him because there are more conservative candidates who can win (at least in their good faith opinion).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  52. Yes by all means lets turn our pitchforks on the conservatives even though they vote for Romney…………..gosh you romneyphiles act like thugs when cornered.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  53. A kumbaya campaign? Did you see his NH speech last night?

    MayBee (081489)

  54. They are dumping him because there are more conservative candidates who can win (at least in their good faith opinion).

    Then for heaven’s sake, let’s start hearing about their goodnesses again. Their positives.

    MayBee (081489)

  55. Then for heaven’s sake, let’s start hearing about their goodnesses again. Their positives.

    Which is what they were doing when Romney let loose the bats of Hell in Iowa. Any complaint about campaign nastiness has to start with the Romney SuperPAC’s decision to go relentlessly negative against Gingrich and others.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  56. 50. And the magic had nought to do with the GOP. The GOP was placed on probation and partisans like Armey tolerated, and Boehner given a chance to show what the GOP could do.

    They opted to sweep all the chips in their lap and wait for a pat hand.

    Total epic fail.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  57. Romney has not formulated an explanation that passes muster, because what you saw this week
    is a light breeze, compared to the Category 5, the Dems will rain down on him

    “Passes muster” to whom, and by what standard? I agree with this:

    Why assume that just because the Romney camp didn’t respond when and how you think they should have that they aren’t prepared for the issue? [...] For all we know about the inner workings of the Romney campaign (which is close to zero) Romney did spend a few thousand dollars preparing to defend the Bain issue… and has concluded that there is not yet the need to do so?

    Romney has made pithy statements defending himself (very effective in the debate). And he’s being defended by many high-profile & eloquent conservative quarters. Just because Newt & Perry & others are going hysterical on the Bain attack, why does Romney need to get hysterical in defense?

    His “defense” satisfies me, and many other conservatives. If Newt & Perry aren’t getting any traction, in what sense has Romney’s defense not “passed muster”? Why not stay out of the fray? The ones being hurt most are Newt & Perry.

    And if the real hurricane is coming in the general, why not wait until the general to launch his offensive & defensive strategy specifically crafted against Obama? Why reveal his weapons and defenses now? If the Bain attacks aren’t significantly hurting him with Republicans right now, in the primaries, why does he need to offer any kind of long-winded defense? Because Newt is shouting about it, and Newt is not to be ignored?

    On the contrary, I think Romney’s dismissive reference to those “few” and “misguided” Republicans in his speech– and then moving on to Obama, which is what’s really important in this campaign– is a much smarter way to go. Why spend time punching down? Better for Romney to attack Obama than spend time defending himself against Newt & Perry.

    The non-Republican general electorate isn’t paying too much attention to what’s going on the primaries. When the time comes for the general, Romney will defend (and attack) as those circumstances call for.

    rachel (b8a924)

  58. Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/11/2012 @ 12:55 pm

    Since the NYT is the touchstone of “truth” for the Left, using it for a source to attack Romney,
    as Newt did, took away from the Left their usual counter-attack about corrupted sources;
    though it might have been better for Newt to mount the attack, and when questioned about the provenance of his facts,
    pull out a sheaf of clippings from the NYT saying:
    It’s all right here in the Grey Lady!

    AD-RtR/OS! (09194a)

  59. the fact that seventeen years
    later, Romney has not formulated an explanation that passes muster

    Which means that it will be another dozen years before he begins to formulate a reasonalbe defense of MittCare.

    AD-RtR/OS! (09194a)

  60. My last word on this debate:

    If Mitt is the nominee, I shall cast a ballot in his favor.
    If he goes down to defeat, mimicking John McCain, the GOP is going to play Hell, and I’m going to be one of the fire-controllers!

    AD-RtR/OS! (09194a)

  61. As for charges of inflexibility on the part of the ‘purists’ who now leave you to the gnashing of teeth in the outer darkeness we have given your party every chance.

    My candidate opted not to run, but I gave Pawlenty, Daniels, Cain and Santorum a listen, against reservations accepted Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich.

    Claims that my rejection of Romney and Paul are ad hoc are dishonest, they have both been vetted and found wanting along with Huckabee in 2008.

    See you around wads.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  62. Any complaint about campaign nastiness has to start with the Romney SuperPAC’s decision to go relentlessly negative against Gingrich and others.

    Fair enough.
    I missed most of the Iowa stuff during the holidays.
    FWIW, I don’t mind criticisms of any of our candidates. I do not like attacks.

    MayBee (081489)

  63. AD, re: posts 58, 59 and 60… Romney will have to defend and extoll the virtues of Bain Capital and the role that companies like Bain have in our free enterprise system. He will also need to make the strong case for pro-growth policies, (also, apparently will need to be a beacon for capitalism in the race) and identify intelligent spending cuts that can be made to begin the protracted process of reinvigorating our nation.

    In addition – and since this race is far from over – I’m interested in what folks like you think the candidate you support must do to mount a more effective campaign.

    I have no interest in reading post after post of amateur analysis and/or prognostication from self-anointed illuminati who have a propensity for speaking some sort of North Minnesotan gibberish or drone on and on in a near maniacal passive/aggressive mode.

    Having said that, not one more cross word from me.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  64. Promise?

    By the way you can call in to Hugh Hewett and cry into your beer about how poor widdle Romney is being brought down by the man.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  65. By the way even when Newt who is far from perfect panders to the left they still accuse him of being a paid shill for the rich which is sadly ironic.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  66. I’m a happy man, doh biden. May you regain your health and a more positive outlook in 2012.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  67. Bain Capital is Mitt Romney’s “Unique Selling Point” an idea from advertising

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition

    It’s false, it’s phony but he hasn’t come up with any idea for anything else to say for himself for himself since he got started in politics in 1994. The only difference is that while originally it was maybe Bain now it is more vague.

    Sepot 7 debate:

    WILLIAMS: Would Ben Bernanke have a job in your administration?

    ROMNEY: No, I’d be looking for somebody new. I’m — I think Ben Bernanke has — has over-inflated the amount of currency that he’s created. QE2
    did not work. It did not get Americans back to work. It did not get the economy going again. We’re still seeing declining numbers in prior
    quarter estimates as to what the — the growth would be. We’re growing now at 1 percent to 1.5 percent.

    The plan I put forward just two days ago in Nevada will grow our economy at 4 percent per year for four years and add — add — 11.5 million
    jobs. That’s a very different approach than Ben Bernanke’s taken, and it’s a demonstrably different approach than Barack Obama has taken, and that’s in part because we have very different life experiences.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  68. these types of challenges for Romney will either turn him & his campaign into a nimble, forward-looking, quick-witted, sure-footed machine on their way to the oval office, or a witless Clown Show handing re-election to the weakest incumbent potus since Carter.

    The sooner this process plays out and We the People know one way or the other, the better for Romney and imo the country.

    mike d (04e8ba)

  69. _____________________________________________

    The attacks on Mr. Romney are especially unsettling to his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, who worries that a narrative depicting Romney as a heartless corporate raider will drag down his favorability rating

    What the hell is wrong with these people? It’s almost like they fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

    In the case of folks like Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain, it’s probably more a case of an inflated ego, which makes them shrug off their personal foibles and dismiss the dirt that will be raised on them in the media, than a matter of simple naivete.

    In the case of Romney, it’s probably more the latter than the former. That’s even likelier if he’s so ideologically squishy or chameleon-like that he can’t figure out the dynamics of what makes people tick, including who or what will be used to slam him.

    I have a hunch that Romney is too much the type that cringes at the nitty gritty of mixed, open society and therefore will proclaim: “When friends and family get together, in order to be hugged and seen as lovingly fair, it’s best to avoid talking about religion and politics. Therefore, don’t judge the political slant of people you’re dealing with, and please say ‘progressive’ instead of ‘liberal,’ or ‘lefty’ instead of ‘leftist! And in order to make conservatism as appealing as possible, try to be compassionate instead of sensible!”

    Mark (411533)

  70. 63. “I have no interest in reading post after post of amateur analysis and/or prognostication”

    Point taken, but what is it that you provide, exactly?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  71. these types of challenges for Romney will either turn him & his campaign into a nimble, forward-looking, quick-witted, sure-footed machine on their way to the oval office, or a witless Clown Show handing re-election to the weakest incumbent potus since Carter.

    Very good point.

    If Romney really is electable, then Newt has done Romney a huge favor. This would come up and if Romney plays it right, it’s a plus. If he doesn’t, well…

    Dustin (cb3719)

  72. He just better win.

    AD-RtR/OS! (09194a)

  73. Karl, grats on the reposting of this at Hot Air.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/11/a-bigger-problem-than-bain/

    Mitch (a61168)

  74. My health is perfect.

    But after 2012 it won’t be.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  75. Let me see if I understand.

    The guy who WINS a caucus and then goes on to get 40% of the vote in a very crowded primary is unelectable.

    But some dude, in that same crowded primary field, couldn’t get 25% or 18% or 10% of the votes cast WOULD be electable?

    How does THAT logic work? “Gov. Romney, I have received fewer votes than you have. That PROVES that I am more electable then you are. Please drop out of the race.”

    Perhaps Mittens isn’t the INEVITABLE nominee. But someone, in the same primaries he runs in, with the same number of candidates cannot logically claim to be ‘more electable’ if they receive fewer votes.

    Or do some of the posters here believe that the candidate who has the FEWEST votes should be declared the victor? “Don’t vote for me, I am the most electable!”

    —-

    “The difference between Genius and Stupidity is
    that Genius has limits” – A. Einstein

    anon (8437b6)

  76. I have no interest in reading post after post of amateur analysis and/or prognostication

    This from a guy whose most reasonable posts are amateur haiku. Whoever thought I’d miss those.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  77. YOU MISS THOSE? WHY COME, KEV?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  78. YOU MUST ASK YOURSELF
    BAD HAIKU OR NO HAIKU?
    OH, FOR KEVIN’S SAKE

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  79. Kevin, why even engage him? He is a troll.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  80. Senator Jim Demint defends Paul and Romney:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287897/demint-defends-paul-romney-brian-bolduc

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  81. Karl,

    The current crop of GOP presidential competitors is a sorry lot. Only one candidate among them had the sense and decency to adhere to Reagan’s 11th Commandment. As it happens, he is also the one that is best at playing political hardball. When Newt Gingrich prized open the Pandora’s Box of Romney’s Bain tenure, in response to Romney unrelenting media assault in Iowa, most conservative pundits seemed dumbfounded, almost all were outraged by what was deemed a “liberal” attack. Just yesterday, Beck, no stranger to outrage or dumbfounding, made yet another vapid criticism about Newt’s use of liberal rhetoric. And now, thanks to Newt, Romney is going to have to pay the fiddler for his violation of Reagan’s Commandment. It serves him right, as it serves the Republican Party right for countenancing such behavior on Romney’s part and the part of all the other dim bulbs in this race.

    This brings us to you, Karl. How can you argue that Romney’s surprise at the Bain attacks shows a lack of campaign competency? First, because your earlier posts on Newt’s initial Bain attacks belie a comparable lack of political savvy. But also, by your own admission in this post, because Romney is the least politically experienced of all of this year’s crop of contenders. Of course he’s going to make this kind of amateur mistake and he will continue to make this kind of mistake through the rest of his campaign and into his now doubtful presidency. He is, after all, an amateur when it comes to politics. And somehow, you twist his political incompetence into Romney’s highest and best qualification for the presidency. Unbelievable!

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    ThOR (94646f)

  82. The real concern is the Romney campaign didn’t think this would be a big deal.

    This is a phony spin by the NY Times. The issue has been thoroughly discussed since the 1994 Senate campaign. Although, as Hugh Hewitt has written, the scrutiny trying to find an issue against him will be at the maximum. That’s why Newt accidentally did Romney a favor. Perry, on the other hand, is too dumb to know that and will keep digging. When his hole gets six feet deep he should jump in.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  83. “That’s why Newt accidentally did Romney a favor.”

    Mike K – The “we need to ask stupid questions now because the Democrats will ask stupid questions later” spin is just a distraction from the backlash against Gingrich and Perry for their “burn the lifeboats” tactics.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  84. “When Newt Gingrich prized open the Pandora’s Box of Romney’s Bain tenure, in response to Romney unrelenting media assault in Iowa, most conservative pundits seemed dumbfounded”

    Another blatantly false narrative. Ron Paul was running negative ads and Perry was taking shots at the other candidates in his ads. No clean hands here folks.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. Is that a surprise he did vote for Obamas food bill or whatever it’s called.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  86. The reason why the manufacturers are removing to china because they know America will go under.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  87. tea party is dead.

    romney is in

    [note: fished from spam filters. --Stashiu]

    Robert (c03711)

  88. Meghan Mccain is pretty but a ditzy blonde who gives arizonas a bad name.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  89. What happens is that a company that was once viable now is on the verge of collapse. It needs to get back to what it once did well. This involves cutting out “dead wood.” Yes, people lose their jobs but the alternative is that the entire company goes under and many more jobs are lost.

    Not enough people understand economics.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  90. I don’t think Mittens, or Willard of Utah, or of Michigan or Massachusetts did want to go to Vietnam, nor walked with MLK down Detroit streets or was a life long hunter.poor Mitt. Stiffer then Nixon, but without the killer instincts, or experience or even love of the game. This the best the GOP elite can do. Well, he has great hair, and Goldman Sachs loves him long time.

    Paul (d0de6d)

  91. Not enough people understand economics.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito

    That is a huge problem.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  92. In the video above, Romney actually defines Republican policy as “let’s give corporations more money”.

    He is apparently talking about tax cuts.

    That’s what the typical Republican policy actually is, right? Lower taxes and businesses will invest more, and America will prosper more.

    And he summarizes that as “let’s give corporations more money” (And then explains he rejects the entire view).

    So either Romney is one of two things.

    A) a harsh demagogue offering extremely negative propaganda against the GOP, making a dishonest attack on the party by coming up with some idea where the GOP wants to take money and just give it to corporations. I reject that view. I think he is sincere in this video.

    B) a liberal who sees all money as, by default, the government’s to control, so if they don’t tax it they are actually ‘giving it’ to who or whatever earned it.

    Newt’s sin against the purity patrol seems a lot more minor.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  93. Comment by MayBee — 1/11/2012 @ 1:01 pm

    FWIW, I don’t think Newt and Perry are incompetents. But they are clearly desperate. They have better stuff than this.

    They were just taking stuff off the shelf. It helps (for this to happen) that they actually were not responsible for these attacks, but the Super Pacs wwhom they are legally allowed to co-ordinate with (a rather blurry boundary apparently) were. Somebody applied money and just took what was available which were Democratic-originated attacks and too strong.

    Now Gingrich had beena ttacked as a lobbyist . What he needed to do was get a response out there, mixing it with positive things (not stupid saccarine things though) about himself, in an most a 2-3 ratio.

    Gingrich commented in Iowa that all that Romney’s attack ads were doing was driving votes to Santorum. Of course now Romney, or his Super Pacs rather, and especially (or maybe only) his surrogate and hatchet man Ron Paul are going after Santorum.

    The only value attacking Romney on Bain would be to undermine his claims to special expertise, which can be done without being too tough.

    Romney’s claims actually don’t resonate so much, tthough. It’s only Romney who thinks a lot of it. His business experience (which supposedly would help him fix the economy – it doesn’t follow at all, because it is different problems – and Romney when he gets a little more serious only claims that he has some experience in seeking out information, which a little different than the impression he tries to give the general public.)

    His business experience is Romney Unique Selling Point, an advertising concept and sales concept from the 1950s and 1940s. The idea here is that when you have a lot of brands in competition with each other, all with not too big a difference in market share, you should try to come up with something which you can argue only your brand has, even if doesn’t make much of a difference, and even if it isn’t important – and even if it isn’t true, of course, but some sort of plausible case can be made for it. The box is yellow or strped and make that the whole focus of the ad.

    This probably doesn’t actually work so well, but
    the quantity of the ads which means people can see it’s a big company and not a fly by night manufacturer, and the effect all this has on whether people stock the brand, or remember the brand, does have an effect.

    Because this is really only important to Romney,
    the attacks don’t go anywhere, besides which the tone is wrong and they are not very fair.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  94. The only value attacking Romney on Bain would be to undermine his claims to special expertise, which can be done without being too tough.

    To be honest, I wonder if there is any way to get a significant number of Romney’s voters to support a conservative. This isn’t just about electability. There is a clear difference of opinion on what direction to head in.

    Especially in Perry’s case, he went in the complete wrong direction a long time ago by deviating from limited government, back when the going got tough for his platform. He should have stayed the course. He was never going to get Mitt’s fans, but he could have regained his own back.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  95. * but the Super Pacs whom they are NOT legally allowed to co-ordinate with (are responsible for the ads)

    Gingrich is quite right that Romney was really behind the anti-Gingrich ads, but this still makes posisble wrong ads.

    I read there were actually much fewer ads this year in New Hampshire and also less campaigning and fewer campaign headquarters. Iowa had lots ff ads – so does South Carolina.

    But the content is getting across the entire country through news organizations, so the polls re following the same trend.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  96. I think Rick Perry never really had any fans, outside of Texas maybe. What he had was fundraisers. Nobody knew him, and nobody was going to know him, and he was dull, if he was anything.

    I never expected him to go anywhere. And he didn’t. There was no case for him whatsoever.

    I was surprised at — who is this Herman Cain? Hrman Cain evidentally was very well known as a speaker among a small critical mass of people. But he collapsed, as he had to anyway, because he didn’t know anything. It catches up with candidates after they get some exposure.

    The first thing out, Rick Perry he accuses Ben Bernanke of treason. The problem isn’t the word treason, it’s the whole idea that Ben Bernanke’s basic policy was completely wrong. It’s the opposite – doing nothing, letting everybody big go bankrupt – that’s completely wrong.

    Rick Perry clearly didn’t understand a thing, or rather he understood something that wasn’t so.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  97. Wasn’t that video shot when Romney was first running for office in Massachusetts?

    Republicans were not very popular in Massacchusetts.

    So Romney says, yes Republicans are bad, and here’s why, (which is helpful for people who have absorbed the vague idea that Republicans are bad) but that’s not true about me.

    Makes perfect sense.

    He ran as a Republican because his father and his mother were famous Republicans (Lenore Romney ran for he Senate in Michigan in 1970) and he could be pretty sure of making it into the finals (the November election) if he ran as a Republican, because there was no competition.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  98. I never expected him to go anywhere. And he didn’t. There was no case for him whatsoever.

    I disagree. I think he had a powerful case and he blew it/let others defeat him.

    He has a very good record even if you ignore his time as governor, and even NRO (a Romney supporter) notes he was an exemplary governor.

    He had tremendous experience with running a government and tort reform / balanced budgets.

    And he blew it.

    Rick Perry clearly didn’t understand a thing, or rather he understood something that wasn’t so.

    Perry understood that by printing so much money, the government was robbing its citizens of their wealth in order to prop up a failed way of doing things. This is, to Perry, betrayal.

    Disagree if you like, or just plain note calling this treason is unpresidential (that’s fair). But yes, it’s critical we stop printing all that money, which amounts to a massive tax hike… just a somewhat hidden one. It has a similar economy draining impact.

    Remember, Perry was drafted into this. Faith in his ability to win was misplaced.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  99. He ran as a Republican

    minor correction: Romney sometimes would reject that, saying he was “an independent”.

    So Romney says, yes Republicans are bad, and here’s why, (which is helpful for people who have absorbed the vague idea that Republicans are bad) but that’s not true about me.

    And he reinforces some pretty awful demagoguery, particularly about the relationship between the GOP and corporations, and also particularly about how entitled corporations are to their own profits (if I am interpreting his ‘give them money’ comment as a criticism of Reagan’s trickle down economics).

    This is not an effective attack on Romney as no one really thinks he’s a champion of corporations or the Republican party. It changes nothing.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  100. 40, 45.

    When they say some company donated it’s always their employees. More money went to Obama related
    places than to Romney from Bain employees this campaign so far, but I would think that’s because some of the Obama contributions, or maybe all, are to places like the Democratic National Committee but nobody would contribute to something parallel on the Republican side if they wanted to help Romney. And also none of the money going into the Super Pacs is probably being counted or and much is not public. The Bain Obama contributions come from only 3 people while there are something like 16 Bain Romney contributors.

    Bain donate heavily to Obama?

    Well, Bain’s employees did.

    Comment by Kevin M — 1/11/2012 @ 2:32 pm
    #

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  101. When they say some company donated it’s always their employees

    Which is dishonest. If that’s what they mean (and as you say it is), they should say so. And then explain why it’s significant. I think the insinuation is that employees donate where the company tells them to, which is ridiculous.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  102. 94. “There is a clear difference of opinion on what direction to head in.”

    Let’s just let that sink in..

    Hey, have you seen full length profiles of Kimmy? She has one fat ass.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  103. As one commenter stated, what is needed is a good offense by Romney. But true to RINO GOP form, he is too timid to lauch it against Obama. As long as MRs rules of engagement involve not laying a glove on BHO, he is a sure loser. He can say how much he believes in America a million times, unless he decimates the BHO myth, he will lose. Romney is a personal coward. I wont vote for him. I want someone who will show that the emporer has no clothes.

    SDHarms (a6a378)

  104. I am not sure I understand what exactly it is you want Romney to do? Is he supposed to give America a rudimentary lesson in economics? Or is he supposed to start acting like Perry and Gingrich by mimicking the rhetoric of the left? The interesting thing to me is that people on the right seem to think that being a businessman is more a problem for Romney, than say being a publicity hound lifetime politician is for some of the rest of these candidates.

    Terrye (7d99e4)

  105. Why are some Republicans advancing anti-capitalist views?

    The bigger questions is ..

    Why are some Republicans advancing anti-Republican views that other Republicans advancing anti-capitalist views?

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Neo (d1c681)

  106. No, Sammy, QE 2, has inflated the price of milk and bread, in the Middle East it precipitated the Arab Spring, as the average denizen there had to pay up to 40% of their income on basic staples, but ‘hang
    Bernanke,’ was the wrong tack.

    narciso (87e966)

  107. ‘hang Bernanke,’ was the wrong tack.

    I agree. There should have been a better way to explain the problem, but instead the colorful aspect actually overwhelmed the message.

    Or is he supposed to start acting like Perry and Gingrich by mimicking the rhetoric of the left?

    Romney’s no saint on that account. And his lapses go far beyond rhetoric.

    Is he supposed to give America a rudimentary lesson in economics?

    That sounds like leadership to me. Why not?

    There is some good faith disagreement about the meaning of Romney’s education he offered in the video I linked in comment 91.

    My interpretation is that Romney is saying Republicans think what makes the country great is to give money to corporations, and that Romney doesn’t subscribe to this traditional republican view.

    I’m interested in other interpretations of what Romney is saying about the Reagen/Bush era GOP.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  108. “A month ago, Newt Gingrich pleased Jewish conservatives when, during his address to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s presidential forum, he promised to make former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton his secretary of state. But the offer of the State Department wasn’t enough to entice Bolton to return the favor and endorse Gingrich’s presidential ambitions. Last night, Bolton told FOX News he was backing Mitt Romney.

    Bolton said he was “following the William F. Buckley test” in backing the most conservative candidate who can get elected, which he believes is Romney. Since, in his view, the re-election of Barack Obama would be a disaster for U.S. foreign as well as domestic policy, Romney presents the best chance for Republicans to avert that possibility.”

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/12/bolton-gingrich-romney/

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  109. Bolton backed Romney?

    Not because of his conservatism but because he thinks Romney is a winner.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  110. _____________________________________________

    But true to RINO GOP form, he is too timid to lauch it against Obama.

    There’s the phrase regarding a person having the “courage of his convictions.” But if one is full of squish — with lots of left-leaning sentiment floating around his or her mind — then you end up with ideological schizophrenia. I observed plenty of that with George Bush Sr, who I recall on one occasion saying some person was guilty of being the “L” word. IOW, Bush didn’t want to come out and say the person in question was a liberal, much less a leftist. Later on, his son deemed that conservatism needed to be made more palatable, by making it more “compassionate.”

    However, Richard Nixon was rather up-front when talking about leftism or liberalism, even railing against it on occasion, yet he was the epitome of squish.

    Ronald Reagan, no less, went against his own publicly stated position, did an impersonation of his predecessor, super-liberal Jimmy Carter, and secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran.

    The owner of this blog, Patterico, has said he doesn’t mind the idea of same-sex marriage. I’ve noticed that left-leaning sentiment creeping in over larger portions of the populace.

    Liberal bias has screwed up Western society for decades, and if we want to see who’s guilty for causing that, then we all need to look in the mirror. I certainly include myself in that equation, because I do recall a time (pre-Internet era, before I could easily find information about what makes humans tick) when I didn’t realize just how corrosive, foolish and two-faced left-leaning bias truly was.

    Mark (411533)

  111. What he’s supposed to have done wrong is made too much money.

    That’s not what the argument about Bain is. No one is saying he made ‘too much’.

    Comment by Dustin — 1/11/2012 @ 1:13 pm

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gingrich-perverse-product-political-system/307581

    Gingrich, both himself and through a superPAC technically separate from his campaign, has attacked Romney’s lucrative career at Bain Capital…But the Gingrich video doesn’t hit Romney for chasing bailouts or subsidies, for using eminent domain, or any sort of cronyism. Gingrich is attacking Romney for trying “to reap massive rewards for himself and for his investors.”

    I’m sure that Romney’s Bain record contains some unseemly activity. Did he bet on bailouts and then use political connections to secure them? Did he use government to crowd out competitors or pressure owners to sell? This sort of thing goes in the world of private equity. But Gingrich doesn’t tar Romney as a crony capitalist. He tars Romney as a capitalist.

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  112. Gerald, “Gingrich says it’s OK for Romney to make money, but that he made too much money.”

    that’s also from your link.

    Is that accurate? If so, then shame on Newt.

    I just want to be sure that is a fair call, because your source also concedes, as you quoted, that it is “sure” that Romney’s record contains unseemly activity.

    I think Newt was attempting to criticize the unseemly aspects and took for granted that folks would understand he wasn’t criticizing the concept of ‘at some point you’ve made enough’.

    But a lot of people disagree, and hey, it’s Newt and sometimes he really does say things that can’t really be defended.

    In quotes like “to reap massive rewards for himself and for his investors.” it seems to me that the quotes are truncated like that for a reason. That quote seems to suggest Newt is criticizing something else that Romney did in order to make these massive rewards.

    In my opinion, that editorial does not back up its assertion about Newt’s case with a sufficient quote. I’m not saying you’re wrong… a lot of people I know to be honest agree with that source.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  113. Gerald, that’s really a mischaracterization of the attack or accusation. Without taking a position of the truth of the shenanigans suggested, the accusation or implication is not that making a buck tyring to revamp or revitalize a sinking ship is bad, but that taking advantage of government subsidy to loot a sinking ship (in bad faith) is the accusation.

    Newt is undisciplined (a problem) and a rings-his-own-bell-too-hard type. I wouldn’t say he’s a narcissist, but he overestimates himself. I really don’t like him that much.

    It’s just that his weaknesses might be harnessed for good. He’s a bandwagoner. I don’t mind him, unlike Bachmann w, getting on a bandwagon to support retrenchment to a contstitutional republic with some respect for American exceptionalism. He has more understanding and respect for these ideas and that history.

    His puffery about his place in history shows that matters to him; I thought it might help him rise to the occasion. I think he’s flawed and weak, but he’s better than a Romney success. I don’t want ORomnacare stamped with GOP cooperation, and his openess (and I believe support for) a VAT is dangerous.

    sarahW (b0e533)

  114. Actually Gerald, I found the full quote.

    Capitalism made America great. Free markets, innovation, hard work. The building blocks of the American dream. But in the wrong hands, some of those dreams can turn into nightmares. Wall Street’s corporate raiders made billions of dollars.

    Their greed was only matched by their willingness to do anything to make millions in profits. Nothing was spared. Nothing mattered but greed. This film is about one such raider and his firm. Mitt Romney became CEO of Bain Capital the day the company was formed. His mission? To reap massive rewards for himself and his investors.

    This is pretty over the top of Newt, but to rip out that Newt praises capitalism in an ad saying Newt took the opposite position makes that link seem like a hit piece rather than a fair piece.

    What’s wrong with a mission to reap massive rewards for investors? Nothing. What’s wrong with an attitude of “nothing matters but greed”? I think a lot. Even though such an attitude is part of freedom, that would be wrong, in my opinion.

    It seems to me that Newt is actually criticizing this ruthlessness rather than the general mission of making profits, but the way he phrased that has deservedly brought Newt criticism.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  115. And I’m sorry my comments are so unreadable.

    Sarah W’s comment is balanced and I pretty much agree. Newt made a mistake that reveals some problems he has (which most already were aware of). He should take licks over this. Yet he remains one of the most conservative guys who can win, in my opinion.

    Anyway, Gerald, thanks for responding directly to my comment, which I found informative. I haven’t been able to keep up as much as others have lately.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  116. We said the other day Greece is expecting 80 Billion in handouts at the end of March. Ooopsie.

    http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_11/01/2012_422188

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  117. I have immense respect for local, small business capitalists, e.g., the lady who started my daughter’s day care, jumping thru State bureau hoops and malfeasance, and is already expanding hours away.

    OTOH, I’ve been downsized from a place I loved following a hostile takeover as Chinese green card engineers were cheaper. Small comfort the stock price plummeted following sale of my options.

    Capitalism in socialist Amerikkka is a bastard changeling.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  118. Squishes are untrustworthy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  119. _________________________________________________

    This one column pretty much sums up and reflects my own response to issues regarding crony capitalism, interfaced with limousine liberalism (hey, Obama!), combined with the naivete of various politicians (Gingrich in one way, Romney in the other), all sprinkled with a healthy bit of demagoguery and new-age greed.

    weeklystandard.com, William Kristol, February 2010:

    [Liberal New York Times columnist] Paul Krugman is, I think, right to be amazed by Obama’s embrace of the $17 million bonus given to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

    If Obama’s idea of moving to the middle politically is to embrace Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks, he’s crazy. Usually Republicans are the party of Big Business and Democrats of Big Government, and the public’s hostility to both more or less evens the politics out. But if Obama now becomes the spokesman for Big Government intrusiveness and the apologist for Big Business irresponsibility all at once–good luck with that.

    And look at the tone-deafness of Obama’s comments about the bonuses:

    “President Barack Obama said he doesn’t ‘begrudge’ the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay. The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is ‘an extraordinary amount of money’ for Main Street, ‘there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.’

    First of all, as Krugman points out, “irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse.” Nor has the federal government spent billions (trillions?) bailing out baseball owners after they signed foolish contracts. Nor does it guarantee baseball owners’–or players’–future solvency.

    This confirms the suspicion that we now live in a world of crony capitalism, where if Obama knows and thinks well of you, then you don’t get criticized–but if you’re some guy who hasn’t spent a lot of time cozying up to government leaders, then you could easily be the object of demagogic assault by politicians.

    Mark (411533)

  120. DHS is gonna prevent Jews from being victims of muslim hate crimes?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  121. Marines desecrated the body of a Taliban?

    So what muslims desecrate others via suicide bombings.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  122. Layoffs are a cost cutting measure. There is nothing wrong with cutting costs as long as all debt obligations are met and profits increase.

    I often read from environmentalists and conservationists that we need to conserve resources. Why should labor be any more exempt than electricity or gasoline?

    If businesses cut back on electricity use, that reduces the amount of revenue that electric companies receive. If enough businesses conserve more electricity, the electric company loses money. And if the electric company loses too much money, it goes bankrupt, with the predictable layoff of employees.

    So if we want to keep as many people employed as possible, should not businesses and consumers use as much electricity as they can afford?

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  123. “123.Layoffs are a cost cutting measure.”

    Superficially true. But laying off workers with decades of experience in violation of the law because one can get away with it, to save money on workers with no experience, who don’t speak the language and have no interest in learning it, is retarded unless a cynical ploy to resell a unit at a profit.

    Standard Harvard MBA practice.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  124. Waaaah. Romney should have thought about this before setting loose his PAC dogs on Gingrich. Payback’s a bitch, Mitt; what goes around comes around.

    Finrod (275e9f)

  125. Karl:

    There is no way these attacks … should have surprised Mitt Romney … People who have $19 million in the bank might have spent a few thousand assigning someone to work on the Bain issue

    The issue is not that Mitt was surprised, or that he chose to not prepare. You need to look more deeply to understand the reason for Mitt’s poor response.

    In 2007, Hugh Hewitt predicted how Mitt would handle the Bain issue:

    … I fully expect that Team Romney will be the first to hunt for the dossiers of every company touched or even passed by during Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. I also expect that a feature of the Romney web site will chart this list, and provide a case history for each company before or since, as well as a Romney commentary on each transaction …

    It’s important to notice how wrong this prediction turned out to be. Romney is pointedly refusing to provide that kind of complete disclosure. Various people (like you) are noticing that this failure to disclose is a problem (James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute):

    Why is Romney doing such a lousy job defending his record at Bain Capital? … Romney should try harder. … without a strong and factual counter-argument, the campaign is vulnerable … Romney likes to say, “I love data.” It’s time he does a better job showing it.

    But the failure to disclose is for a good reason:

    Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital days: A black box … The private equity business model is based on taking companies out of the public markets, where reporting requirements are strict and investors punishing, making changes that will hopefully make them more profitable and then selling them or taking them public through an IPO. The part that happens behind the curtain is not always pretty, and private equity firms have learned over the years that it’s hard to tell a complicated story in the media. The goal of private equity is to keep things private.

    That is, the kind of full disclosure expected by Hewitt would involve exposing lots of facts that are quite ugly. The odds are high that at least in some deals (and possibly many deals), Mitt followed a model of capitalism that is immoral (yes my son, capitalism comes in many flavors, and it is indeed possible to practice capitalism immorally). This is why Mitt refuses to provide a comprehensive, factual response, and why that refusal will continue.

    Mitt started to run years ago, before there was a financial crisis. That’s why he figured he could get away with keeping his baggage hidden. Ironically, today’s bad economy turns his baggage into a much bigger problem.

    Mitt is in a very serious bind, because the more he works to avoid full disclosure, the more it creates the impression that he really has something to hide.

    Conservatives who want to stop Mitt now are also in a serious bind. They realize this is their last chance at stopping him, so they are motivated to press this attack (hence, for example, Palin joining in the attack). But they also realize they might only weaken him, without stopping him, and of course that’s a big favor to Obama.

    More popcorn, please.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  126. We’re also waiting for a former MA IT pro to report details of the purchase of servers and their consequent destruction.

    Were proper recycling practices followed?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  127. Remember, Perry was drafted into this. Faith in his ability to win was misplaced

    – Faith in his ability to string two sentences together was misplaced.

    Icy (d8098c)

  128. #125

    I don’t see where Romney would have access to all the details of what went on or the legal right to disclose it. That belongs to Bain.

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  129. Romneys best tactic is to become an unabashed fefender of free marker capitalism. Essencial for him since he actualy is a capitalist. To counter the only helping the rich thing, he should also forcefully attack crony capitalism where Obama is quite vulnerable.

    richard40 (19a56d)

  130. Medicaid Medicare and SS need to undergo a sweeping reformation.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  131. Romney should but he won’t.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  132. the ”clean” CNGs won’t approve L.A.’s air.

    Sorry for the O/T.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  133. It would seem that capitalism is little more than a laissez faire approach of government to natural human self-interest in economic activity.

    Provided human kind outlasts socialism, what really is the cause of all the histrionics, as though capitalism has some other guarantee against stupidity and immorality than they don’t pay?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  134. Well said gary.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  135. B-but the teachers unions are just doing it for teh children when they force us to hand over our taxpayers moneh.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  136. 135. Much obliged, one amateur to another.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  137. Thanks I love the left saying you’d get money if you teach at Public School.

    That is extortion.

    By the way Romneys supporters are desperate.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  138. Romney supporters are not conservative.
    Onward through the fog.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  139. allahpundit Andy McCarthy: The Mitt-Bain Movie Is a Disgrace http://t.co/j3Kz47kU

    philipaklein RT @jonward11: Sheldon Adelson, Gingrich Funder, Distances Himself From Attacks On Romney http://t.co/uFGAFPlh

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  140. 140. Well they should know.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  141. Gerald A:

    I don’t see where Romney would have access to all the details of what went on or the legal right to disclose it. That belongs to Bain.

    This is an exceptionally lame argument.

    - If what you’re saying is true, why did Hewitt say what he said in 2007? Because he’s a dope?

    - If what you’re saying is true, why is someone like Pethokoukis calling for more “data” from Mitt? Because Pethokoukis is also a dope?

    - Even though he’s no longer in charge, Mitt obviously still has quite a bit of influence at Bain. If he wants certain facts to be released, he can make that happen, even if it technically “belongs to Bain.”

    - Even if it’s not legal or feasible for him to tell us “all the details,” he can certainly tell us more than he has told us. Your argument is a straw-man argument because you used the word “all.”

    - Politically, it doesn’t really matter if the decision to not disclose is Mitt’s or Bain’s. The underlying reality is that he’s closely associated with Bain. Both in the past and still now. So a decision by Bain to hide data makes it look like Bain has something to hide. Which is tantamount to saying that Mitt has something to hide.

    - Here’s the key issue: “the part that happens behind the curtain is not always pretty.” Mitt has bragged about his work behind the curtain, so he is no longer free to say that the curtain must remain closed.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  142. richard40:

    Romneys best tactic is to become an unabashed fefender of free marker capitalism.

    Not all forms of “free marker capitalism” are moral. By claiming that all capitalism is inherently, inevitably moral, you are digging yourself a deep hole. What you’re doing is like saying that any attack on a malpracticing doctor is an attack on the concept of medicine itself.

    The hysteria against Newt on this point has to do with this inconvenient fact: the GOP doesn’t particularly care that certain forms of capitalism are immoral. It turns out some of the best ways to get extremely wealthy today are to practice certain immoral forms of capitalism. The GOP is owned by people who would like to continue to make lots of money practicing those forms of capitalism.

    By the way, here’s the main method that private-equity firms use to get rich immorally. Consider these simple steps:

    - Buy a company.

    - Make decisions intended specifically to lead to short-term gains in earnings, even though they are obviously bad for the long-term health of the company. Example: fire too many people.

    - The subsequent spike in earnings allows me to go to the bond market and borrow lots of money.

    - Use that money to quickly pay massive dividends to myself. (The jargon for this technique is “dividend recaps.” It’s a way to make sure I make lots of money even if the company fails.)

    - Take the money and run. While the earnings still look good, sell the company to other investors, or to the public.

    - After I’m gone, the company blows up, because it has a huge debt burden, and I’ve destroyed the work force. But I’m OK, because I made a lot of money through financial engineering. And it’s easy for me to get away with this, because the key deals and decisions are private, and therefore free from various kinds of oversight and disclosure rules.

    Notice that I screwed lots of people besides the people I fired. I also screwed customers and other investors. In a case like GST, I also screwed taxpayers who ended up paying for pension obligations I neglected.

    Did Mitt ever do these sorts of things? Did he do these things a lot? The available facts indicate that these questions are relevant and fair, and Mitt hasn’t given us a substantive answer.

    In our economy, there are lots of shenanigans like this. That’s why it’s dangerous heresy to introduce the idea that not all forms of capitalism are inherently, inevitably moral. To introduce this idea is to open a quite serious can of worms. Now the public is being encouraged to think about lots of issues the GOP would like them to not think about.

    If you are really pro-capitalism, you should be quite offended by people who practice capitalism immorally. Just like honorable soldiers are offended by soldiers who fight dishonorably.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  143. Haiku:

    Andy McCarthy: The Mitt-Bain Movie Is a Disgrace

    Notice one of McCarthy’s main complaints:

    two of the four companies were not under Romney’s direction when the job losses occurred

    Gee, has anyone noticed Mitt repeatedly bragging that he created 100,000 jobs? Has anyone noticed that this claim relies mostly on the fact that Staples now has about 90,000 employees? Has anyone noticed that the vast majority of those jobs were created long after Staples was “under Romney’s direction?” (Not to mention that Staples was never “under Romney’s direction.”)

    So Mitt gets to take credit for job gains that took place long after he was no longer involved, but he is not to blame for job losses that took place after he was (allegedly) no longer involved. Heads I win, tails you lose.

    Is it that McCarthy is an idiot, or that he thinks his readers are idiots?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  144. Some really excellent comments jukeboxgrad.

    Who knew jukeboxes were such great schools?

    Dustin (cb3719)

  145. Juiceboxgrad has trolled here before.

    JD (318f81)

  146. In other words if your a capitalist you should be like Michael Moore?

    Juiceboxgrad is trash.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  147. And know I don’t support eco-vigilantism AKA eco-terrorism so eff off jucieboxloser.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  148. In other words if your a capitalist you should be like Michael Moore?

    I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

    “Troll” is a good word for people who think that name-calling works as a counterargument.

    Facts don’t go away just because you decide to ignore them. Hopefully someone will point out which of my facts are wrong. I’ll be waiting patiently.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  149. no*

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  150. Your facts are since Romney isn’t a democrap he is an evil money grubbing capitalist.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  151. Your facts are since Romney isn’t a democrap he is an evil money grubbing capitalist.

    Where did I say that? I realize you find it easier to make things up, but it would be better if you responded to what I actually said.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  152. SF: When they say some company donated it’s always their employees

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/12/2012 @ 12:00 am

    Which is dishonest.

    Of course.

    If that’s what they mean (and as you say it is), they should say so.

    It’s not legal (has not been since 1907) for a corpration to donate to a federal election campaign (President, Senate or House of Representatives)

    I think it’s probably the dishonest desire to make claim about corporate donations that started this. Corporations do have PACs – but even there the money comes from employees and cannot legally be coerced)

    Once started, this shorthand spread. It could be researched (who uses phrases like this) and might be interesting.

    In this case we get an absurdly untrue result.

    (it’s not true that Obama has more support from people at Bain than Romney. Probably even measured by money. It’s easy to see what would throw off a statistic about that. Large contributions are not legal except maybe to parties. Anything like that to the Democrats would be counted as Obama, and it has to include things like that or the number would be low, while at this stage you would only count as pro-Romney contributions to Romney’s presidential primary campaign. Now Romney people may be contributing to a Super Pac, that is I think, first, probably not revealed when the money came indirectly,and if it is, it would not be counted anyway here. And what proves this is the fact the NUMBER of Bain employees who contributed to “Obama” is 3, while the number who contributed to Romney is something like 16. The dollar amount is higher probably because for Romney it probably counts only his presidential campaign itself)

    And then explain why it’s significant.

    Oh, that would require thinking.

    I think the insinuation is that employees donate where the company tells them to, which is ridiculous.

    That’s probably sometimes true, more or less, and sometimes not true. Nobody can be reimbursed – George Steinbrenner was convicted of doing that – and nobody can be forced, but it obviously can be encouraged by somebody in a key position. And at other times it doesn’t mean a thing, except maybe the candidate has friends there.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  153. Comment by Mark — 1/12/2012 @ 7:25 am

    Ronald Reagan, no less, went against his own publicly stated position, did an impersonation of his predecessor, super-liberal Jimmy Carter, and secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran.

    This is wrong in so many different ways. Reagan did go against a stated position of his own, but that was the position of strict neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war, not a position against negotiating with terrorists, which he did not (intentionally) do. Neither did Carter, really.

    Reagan did not negotiate with Iran. That is not how it was sold to him. He later on sort of conceded that that is what he had in fact done.

    But it was sold to him as getting in contact with moderates in Iran, and sending some arms would raise their influence, and they would use heir influence to get the hostages held in Lebanon freed. And the real, and main, goal was to change the nature of the government of Iran. Being able to procure arms would supposedly help them. Reagan gave orders that it shouldn’t affect the war. In fact it was enough to turn the course of events in the war maybe, but Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, acting on his own, helped Iraq with intelligence information, so the Iranian offensive of 1986 failed. Poison gas also helped.

    Weinberger, at the instigation of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan planted false “contemporary” memoes in the Library of Congress, for one of which he was indicted right before the 1992 election. They contradicted his testimony.

    But the catch was, the memo was a lie, not so much he testimony. The memo had Reagan approving the sale of arms to Iran on January 6, 1986, when in fact he did not, and Admiral Poindexter had to tear up the authorization paper he had prepared and even signed.. (or tricked Reagan into signing by slipping it into papers to sign?)

    Weinberger’s memo quite falsely attributed the whole idea to Israel. Also, Reagan only approved the sale of arms to Iran on January 17, 1986, after the plan was changed to bypass the Defense Department. This created the possibility of private profits, which did NOT go to the contras.

    Some money raised from the Brunei and other places, during the time the Boland Amendment was in effect, was supposed to go to the contras but didn’t. They said it was deposited in the wrong account. Donald Regan later apparently suspected that it was North or Poindexters’s or somebody’s plan to abscond with the money which nobody knew existed.

    because I do recall a time (pre-Internet era, before I could easily find information about what makes humans tick) when I didn’t realize just how corrosive, foolish and two-faced left-leaning bias truly was.

    That’s why you think Reagan negotiated with Iran. That wasn’t what he thought he was doing.,

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  154. I don’t know what article in the New York Times Newt Gingrich used. There was a column by Paul Krugman on the Friday before the debates.

    The Wall Street Journal really had an story that attempted to get the whole record, but on Monday, January 9.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  155. Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/12/2012 @ 9:47 pm

    Gee, has anyone noticed Mitt repeatedly bragging that he created 100,000 jobs? Has anyone noticed that this claim relies mostly on the fact that Staples now has about 90,000 employees? Has anyone noticed that the vast majority of those jobs were created long after Staples was “under Romney’s direction?” (Not to mention that Staples was never “under Romney’s direction.”)

    Paul Krugman went into all of that in his column of Friday January 6, 2012.

    Of course he has to throw in some bias. He first defends Obama’s jobs record saying you should start counting six months in and that Bush started counting from August 2003. Then he cycles back to Romney, and tears his whole calculations apart, apparently without any subsequent dispute:

    Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?

    Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.

    Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.

    On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?

    Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!

    In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.

    Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.

    Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?

    The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.

    The Paul Krugman has to put in some political bias.

    At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.

    When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

    This is the worst kind of speculation. What Krugman is saying is that net productivity in the U.S. economy went down. If, let’s say people were being overpaid, it hurts people to suddenly spring this on people because they passed up other opportunities in years past, but what should featherbedding be encouraged?

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  156. jukeboxzero skipped this beat:
    the kind of full disclosure expected by Hewitt would involve exposing lots of facts that are quite ugly.
    – Oh. Well, since you seem to know all of these facts, why don’t YOU disclose them?

    The odds are high that at least in some deals (and possibly many deals), Mitt followed a model of capitalism that is immoral
    – Wait, now you don’t know, you’re just guessing? Perhaps it isn’t “the odds” that are high.

    (yes my son, capitalism comes in many flavors, and it is indeed possible to practice capitalism immorally).
    – “No better way to show that you are the adult in the room than to patronize your peers.” – Barack Obama

    This is why Mitt refuses to provide a comprehensive, factual response, and why that refusal will continue.
    – Oh, have you returned from ‘probability’ to ‘certainty’? Okay, you and what you know stay right there . . . don’t move!

    Mitt started to run years ago, before there was a financial crisis.
    – He started to run what? The Boston Marathon? A craps game out behind the tabernacle? A white shirt laundry?

    That’s why he figured he could get away with keeping his baggage hidden.
    – He stepped into the national spotlight in order to hide his baggage? Clever . . . oh so clever . . . hiding in plain sight like that.

    Ironically, today’s bad economy turns his baggage into a much bigger problem.
    – Ironic ’cause why? Is Bain Capital now responsible for the economic downturn?

    Mitt is in a very serious bind, because the more he works to avoid full disclosure, the more it creates the impression that he really has something to hide.
    – He’s ‘working’ to avoid that, is he?

    Conservatives who want to stop Mitt now are also in a serious bind. They realize this is their last chance at stopping him, so they are motivated to press this attack (hence, for example, Palin joining in the attack).
    – And Governor Palin has attacked Romney over Bain HOW?

    But they also realize they might only weaken him, without stopping him, and of course that’s a big favor to Obama.
    – Well, it sure as hell isn’t doing any big favors for the GOP. Thanks, favor doers!

    Even though he’s no longer in charge, Mitt obviously still has quite a bit of influence at Bain.
    – Obviously. I mean, gosh, they let him use them as a job reference and everything!

    If he wants certain facts to be released, he can make that happen, even if it technically “belongs to Bain.”
    – Right. He’ll just step into his boots, brandish his shootin’ iron, and tell them “Non-disclosure agreement? Shmon-disclosure agreement!”

    Politically, it doesn’t really matter if the decision to not disclose is Mitt’s or Bain’s. The underlying reality is that he’s closely associated with Bain. Both in the past and still now. So a decision by Bain to hide data makes it look like Bain has something to hide. Which is tantamount to saying that Mitt has something to hide.
    – Guilt by past association. Ahh, sub-tle … nu-anced.

    Here’s the key issue: “the part that happens behind the curtain is not always pretty.” Mitt has bragged about his work behind the curtain, so he is no longer free to say that the curtain must remain closed.
    – You might be confusing Mitt’s work with your hospital gown.

    The hysteria against Newt on this point has to do with this inconvenient fact: the GOP doesn’t particularly care that certain forms of capitalism are immoral
    – Thus sayeth The Gospel of Michael Moore.

    It turns out some of the best ways to get extremely wealthy today are to practice certain immoral forms of capitalism.
    – We know, you’re saving all the details for your book. When’s it coming out?

    The GOP is owned by people who would like to continue to make lots of money practicing those forms of capitalism.
    – Bernie Madoff owns the GOP?! Who knew?

    If you are really pro-capitalism, you should be quite offended by people who practice capitalism immorally. Just like honorable soldiers are offended by soldiers who fight dishonorably.
    – Should honorable bloggers be offended by bloggers that post dishonorably?

    Icy (d8098c)

  157. Sammy:

    Paul Krugman went into all of that in his column of Friday January 6, 2012.

    Correct. And this is the article that Newt was talking about, as you said.

    Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.

    Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?

    I just want to highlight these points, because they are rarely mentioned, and key to understanding why Mitt’s claim about ‘creating’ 100,000 jobs is nonsense.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  158. Icy:

    since you seem to know all of these facts, why don’t YOU disclose them?

    I didn’t say or imply that I “know all of these facts.” Why are you making shit up?

    Wait, now you don’t know, you’re just guessing?

    No, I’m not “just guessing.” I’m referencing the known facts about companies such as DDi, as described by (among others) those commies at WSJ.

    The one who is speculating is you. If you happen to know that Mitt never engaged in an immoral deal, you should tell us how you know. Or maybe you’re telling us that there’s no such thing? Or that we have no right to know?

    Or maybe you just think that having those facts appear in October is better than having them appear now.

    No better way to show that you are the adult in the room than to patronize your peers.

    Romney and his defenders seem to think that’s there’s simply no such thing as practicing capitalism immorally. It’s what you seem to think. If I’m wrong, just let me know.

    Oh, have you returned from ‘probability’ to ‘certainty’?

    If you have a more plausible explanation for why Mitt’s response is so different from what Hewitt predicted, I hope you’ll let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.

    He started to run what?

    For president. Duh. Stop being obtuse.

    He stepped into the national spotlight in order to hide his baggage?

    “He stepped into the national spotlight” in order to run for president, thinking that no one would look too closely at his Bain baggage. In normal times, this might have been a reasonable calculation on his part. Trouble is, he didn’t predict that he would be running during the worst financial crisis since the Depression. He also didn’t predict that he would be dealing with both a right-wing populist movement (the tea party) and a left-wing populist movement (OWS). These are all reasons why his Bain baggage is going to get much more scrutiny than he counted on years ago when he started running for president.

    If you have a better explanation for why he seems unprepared, I hope you’ll let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.

    Is Bain Capital now responsible for the economic downturn?

    The kind of capitalism practiced at Bain Capital has a lot to do with the extreme growth in income inequality over the last thirty years. It doesn’t matter whether or not you personally accept this connection. What matters is that the connection has powerful political implications.

    He’s ‘working’ to avoid that, is he?

    Yes, he’s working to avoid the kind of full disclosure that Hewitt expected. Instead of giving us that, Mitt is giving us evasive platitudes about the glories of capitalism. He’s implying that all we have to know is that he practiced capitalism, as if this is enough to prove that everything he did was moral. Like I said, what he’s doing is like saying that any attack on a malpracticing doctor is an attack on the concept of medicine itself.

    Palin has attacked Romney over Bain HOW?

    I guess you don’t know what Palin said a couple of days ago:

    … Palin said criticism of Mitt Romney‘s record at Bain Capital by some Republican rivals is fair game and that voters should get “proof” of the 100,000 jobs Mr. Romney said he helped create while he headed the private equity firm. … “I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and you know, now people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim.” … Palin … has not publicly endorsed a candidate but her husband, Todd Palin, earlier this week endorsed candidate Newt Gingrich … Palin said it is fair for candidates to ask Mr. Romney to “own up to the claim being made” about jobs “because so many of us are concerned with what is going on Main Street as well as Wall Street … That is fair. That is not negative campaigning.”

    If you want to try to spin that as something other than an attack, please go ahead. I’m sure it will be quite entertaining.

    it sure as hell isn’t doing any big favors for the GOP

    Some people think that it is doing “favors for the GOP” to find out now, rather than in October, if Mitt has a good answer to these attacks.

    Obviously. I mean, gosh, they let him use them as a job reference and everything!

    Good luck convincing anyone that the person who founded and ran Bain Capital no longer has influence there.

    Right. He’ll just step into his boots, brandish his shootin’ iron, and tell them “Non-disclosure agreement? Shmon-disclosure agreement!”

    If your theory is correct, then Mitt should say so. ‘There are things I want to tell you, but Bain won’t let me.’ Wake me up when he says that. He is reluctant to say that, because he knows it’s a weak argument. It just creates the appearance that he and Bain have something to hide, and that he’s using them as a cowardly excuse.

    Guilt by past association. Ahh, sub-tle … nu-anced.

    How lame. “Guilt by past association” means making me responsible for the fact that someone I once knew once did something bad, long before I knew him. That’s the Obama-Ayers argument. In this instance, Romney didn’t just have some vague association with Bain. He ran it. And we’re talking about what he did while he was there, not something they did long before he knew them.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  159. Well said, Icy. Is caricature of a troll will scurry away.

    JD (318f81)

  160. Well said, Icy. This caricature of a troll will scurry away.

    JD (318f81)

  161. Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive.

    I guess this is your way of letting us know that you have no substantive rebuttal. Thanks for the inadvertent endorsement.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  162. Icy quite nicely pants-ed you above. Adding to that would be superfluous.

    JD (318f81)

  163. Icy quite nicely pants-ed you above.

    Hopefully you can point out where he did that. Please be specific. Maybe you mean the part where he revealed that he didn’t know that Palin attacked Mitt?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  164. My favorite part was where you try to claim, along with the evil dwarf Enron advisor Krugman, that successful companies can be a net drain on jobs because they hurt their competitors.

    JD (318f81)

  165. successful companies can be a net drain on jobs because they hurt their competitors.

    Indeed. If I put my competition out of business while also employing fewer people than he did, please explain how this is not a net drain on jobs. Is arithmetic hard for you?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  166. Now you care about jobs? If someone is so superior that they put their competition out of business, that is not a bad thing. Only in collectivistmleftist world is success bad.

    JD (318f81)

  167. If someone is so superior that they put their competition out of business, that is not a bad thing.

    I didn’t say it was a bad thing. I said it was a net job loss if I employ fewer people than my competitor. Next time, try not moving the goalposts. And try to do a better job of understanding arithmetic.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  168. If I put my competition out of business while also employing fewer people than he did, please explain how this is not a net drain on jobs

    Perhaps in the short term it’s a net drain, but not in the long term. If the same amount of work is accomplished using fewer employees, that means worker productivity increases, which has typically led to job increases elsewhere. Essentially, labor that was allocated inefficiently is now free to be allocated better.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  169. that means worker productivity increases, which has typically led to job increases elsewhere.

    Says who? Where is it written that “worker productivity increases” automatically or typically lead “to job increases elsewhere?”

    labor that was allocated inefficiently is now free to be allocated better.

    “Allocated better” means fewer people doing the same work. This is the opposite of “job increases.”

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  170. Chuck – trying to talk to this serial troll is pointless. It is imdw-esque.

    JD (392f2d)

  171. Where is it written that “worker productivity increases” automatically or typically lead “to job increases elsewhere?

    I never said “automatically”, stop putting words into my mouth. But if you look at the history of the US economy, after a series of layoffs total productivity begins to increase and jobs are created, resulting in more jobs than ever before.

    “Allocated better” means fewer people doing the same work. This is the opposite of “job increases.”

    No, “allocated better” means “doing other things”. That’s not the opposite of “job increases”. Automobiles put buggy whip makers out of work, and yet those employees were able to find work doing other things. Electronic calculators put slide rule makers out of work, and yet those employees found work doing other things.

    Stop engaging in sophistry.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  172. Let me put a finer point on it:

    Spacely Sprockets and Cogswell Cogs aggretately employ 100,000 people. One day, Cogswell realizes that they are serving the same market, so it buys Spacely Sprockets. But Cogswell discovers they can produce the same total output with only 90,000 employees so 10,000 employees are laid off.

    But then what happens?

    The capital which had been spent on the labor of 10,000 people is then freed up to invest elsewhere, creating growth in a completely different industry and spurring aggregate demand across the economy. And as a result 15,000 more people are working. So the net change is +5,000 jobs, even though the cog/sprocket workforce is smaller.

    That’s what I mean by better allocation of labor.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  173. ATMs pushed bank tellers out of jobs because they increased the productivity of bank locations according to Obama. This is a bad thing for America.

    Except Obama was so smart he did understand his statement about bank tellers was false.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  174. Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 1/13/2012 @ 9:16 am

    Where is it written that “worker productivity increases” automatically or typically lead “to job increases elsewhere?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/bain-barack-and-jobs.html

    Bain, Barack and Jobs By PAUL KRUGMAN

    At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.

    When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

    Now you may ask:

    Why does partisan Democrat Paul Krugman concede that there is no net loss of jobs from firing people?

    A. That is probably because of what he has written elsewhere, although I don’ty know exactly what.

    To say jobs are permanently lost would come close to subscribing to the “lump of labor” fallacy.

    In actuality, jobs are roughly proportional to the number of people looking for them. That is why immigration, migration and automation does not cause long term unemployment, and why there never is or can be a surplus of jobs..but if more people look for work, in normal conditions they find them.

    Having denied himself the argument that downsizing companies reduces the number of jobe in the economy, Krugman falls back on the idea that the new jobs won’t be as good.

    But in that case, there is a net loss of worker productivity, because all that the worker productivity is, is the economic value produced by a job. (Company income divided by number of employees)

    You coudl say situations in which the upper echelon colects a higher percentage of the institution’s income become more common, but that’s really a different issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  175. Paul Krugman has helped the New York Times destroy good jobs and I applaud him for his efforts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. SF: Paul Krugman went into all of that in his column of Friday January 6, 2012.

    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/13/2012 @ 5:21 am

    Correct. And this is the article that Newt was talking about, as you said.

    I didn’t say that for certain. I was unsure.

    What bothered me about that was that was not a New York Times news article – it was an op-ed column by one of their regular columnists.

    I guess the most logical explanation of this wording, is NOT that Newt Gingrich does not know the difference between a news article and an opinion piece, but that he got it off the Internet – or more likely, somebody else got it off the Internet and printed it out for him, and he didn’t notice this was not a news article.

    This shows a certain amount of carelessness. Now, other candidates maybe wouldn’t even go so far.

    But if this is what he was talking about, Newt Gingrich there was a column by Paul Krugman. And never mind taht Krugman is a partisan Democrat. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have trouble citing things by partisan Democrats when he believes it is right and it supports a point he wants to make.

    From Paul Krugman

    Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.

    Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?

    I assume Paul Krugman is right that that’s what Staples did. I’m not so familiar with the history of Staples.

    I just want to highlight these points, because they are rarely mentioned, and key to understanding why Mitt’s claim about ‘creating’ 100,000 jobs is nonsense.

    It’s nonsense a couple of ways, and even if as all true, it would still mostly be nonsense to cite it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  177. * even if it was all true, it would still mostly be nonsense to cite it. (because it is not relevant to the way the government affects things and because individual jobs don’t count.)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  178. I guess I should have waited a few more comments before noting I liked jukebox’s.

    One thing Chuck is trying to explain is that ‘allocated better’ is actually why our lives are better than they used to be.

    One worker today is more productive than one worker 100 years ago. Capitalism should work that way.

    And to be clear: that is not what Newt and Perry were criticizing, and it’s rather annoying seeing them explain that and then their comments torn from context to suggest they opposite.

    If that is all Bain was doing… competition and productivity, then Newt was way out of line and Bain deserves a lot of credit.

    I think it’s more of a mixed bag, where they did a lot of that but they also did other things which actually have a negative effect. It’s certainly possible to make a profit by tearing a company apart and selling it before that’s clear to the purchasers. One can note ‘well, that’s just a consequence of freedom’ and that’s true.

    Outsourcing is also a mixed bag. In some ways it’s helpful. In some ways it’s very bad, in my opinion.

    Anyway, Chuck’s making a basic and good point and I don’t think it’s actually going over jukebox’s head… he’s just ignoring it.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  179. Juiceboxhero, got chocolate starfish in his eyes

    JD (392f2d)

  180. Yestertday, Rush Limbaugh quoted New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft as saying union pension funds invest in Bain (although that’s not a contradiction to teh idea that they hurt unioniuzed and otehr higher paaid workers)

    Bob Kraft also said he had mknown about bain siunce the 1980s and that they had tried (apparently unssucessfully) to get him to invest in Bain and that his son worked for them.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/12/robert_kraft_on_bain_and_tim_tebow

    KRAFT: We have the current president of the United States. There’s no other country where a man like that could get elected under the age of 50 — and single mother — and follow his passion to become president of the United States. We have the leading Republican candidate who was a great entrepreneur. I know he called on me to invest in Bain Capital in the eighties. It was such a good environment. My elder son Jonathan went and worked there, and it’s been a great return on investment. When I see people banging on Bain and I think the largest investors are really state and union pension funds — which are working-class people — and the jobs they’ve created and what a great job they’ve done, and I see the vitriol going on, it’s really horrible; and we have to put America first.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  181. * But if this is what he was talking about, Newt Gingrich [SHOULD HAVE SAID] “There was a column by Paul Krugman..”

    Not a “New York Times article, and I think it was on Thursday” or a “New York Times story” or “New York Times coverage”

    Now Gingrich mentioned that it said “that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people.”

    I think what he is talking about was not in the New York Times Thursday January 5, 2012 or friday January 6, 2012. Maybe Newt Gingrich personally saw it on Thursday, printed out, and didn’t notice the date. Because he’s somewhat careless, or pressed for time, and needs a really, really good staff.

    It might be this article that appeared in November:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/politics/after-mitt-romney-deal-company-showed-profits-and-then-layoffs.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=bain%201,700&st=cse

    After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs

    By MICHAEL BARBARO

    Published: November 12, 2011 (= Sun Nov 13 paper)

    By the green-hued yardsticks of Wall Street, the 1990s buyout of an Illinois medical company by Mitt Romney’s private equity firm was a spectacular success.

    Mr. Romney’s company, Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets.

    By the time the Harvard M.B.A.’s from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Mr. Romney’s firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment.

    But an examination of the Dade deal, which Mr. Romney approved and presided over, shows the unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that he practiced for 15 years.

    At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass. Staggered, Mr. Shoemaker wondered, “How can the bean counters just come in here and say, Hey, it’s over?”

    The operation to increase the growth of the company was a success, but the company went bankrupt, because it owed too much money – it owed so much, in part, to pay back Bain for the cost of buying it, or something. the artcle says like this:

    Bain and a small group of investors bought Dade in 1994 with mostly borrowed money, limiting their risk. They extracted cash from the company at almost every turn — paying themselves nearly $100 million in fees, first for buying the company and then for helping to run it. Later, just after Mr. Romney stepped down from his role, Bain took $242 million out of the business in a transaction that, according to bankruptcy documents and several former Dade officials, weakened the company.

    Even some people who benefited from that payday and found it reasonable at the time now question it. “You would have to say, looking back, that it was too large, because it pushed us into bankruptcy,” said Robert W. Brightfelt, a former Dade president who collected more than $1 million.

    Dade, says the New York Times, was Bain’s biggest transaction at the time.

    I assume a new set of owners were the ones who went bankrupt.

    . It’s not a news articlem and it’s not an op-ed piece, it’s part of their online content – it’s from their Caucus blog.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  182. Thank you, Dustin.

    This issue over total productivity and allocation of labor isn’t a new one. Blaise Pascal invented the first mechanical adding machine in 1642, and even then people were afraid it would put accounting clerks (whose job it was to total columns of numbers for the counting houses) out of work.

    I’m also reminded of a former colleague of mine who at one time taught math at a university. He related how he would attend faculty planning meetings, and listen to other teachers complain that there weren’t nearly as many people taking remedial courses as there had been. He was dumbfounded at that, and once remarked that it was a sign that teachers were doing their jobs right. That went over like a fart in church, and he learned to keep his mouth shut in the future.

    To be sure, it sucks to be laid off from a job. Or to have to move to find another job, both of which I have gone through more than once. This is what I call “life”: bad things sometimes happen, and it’s up to the individual to work around them. But, in general, when part of the economy is made more efficient, the nation as a whole is better off.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  183. Error: The caucus blog thing was something quoting Gingrich wh besides the debate was speaking about this on the campaign trail.

    There’s another New York Times piece that mentions Dade International. This is a DealBook Column from December. It explains that. I’m not sure if that is only online or not.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/romneys-run-puts-spotlight-on-past-job-and-peers/?scp=4&sq=%22dade%20international%22&st=cse

    Romney’s Run Puts a Spotlight on Private Equity

    By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

    It says, starting 15 poaragraohs doiwn

    Dade was on the verge of bankruptcy when Bain originally bought the company. While Mr. Romney made cuts at the company, he also invested heavily, turning it into the industry leader. At one point, he pushed back against colleagues who wanted to flip the business for a quick profit and instead directed them to make an acquisition to bolster it.

    It was only after Dade had been turned around that Bain and the company’s other investors leveraged the company up even more and paid themselves a huge dividend, saddling the company with too much debt.

    The article had said, at paragraph 15:

    Mr. Romney’s opponents, of course, have combed through his former deals at Bain looking for tales of excesses and failure. Perhaps the worst deal he worked on — which has been highlighted by several news organizations — was the buyout of Dade International, a medical company, which filed for bankruptcy after Bain had cashed out with $242 million.

    But criticism about the Dade deal has not stuck as a true talking point, in part because the details painted a complicated story.

    And then it explains they paid themselves a huge dividend and left the company without enough assets to avoid bankruptcy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  184. The last paragraph is mine and should not be in italics.

    SF: And then it explains they paid themselves a huge dividend and left the company without enough assets to avoid bankruptcy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  185. Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 1/13/2012 @ 10:36 am

    But, in general, when part of the economy is made more efficient, the nation as a whole is better off.

    When this happens across the board, you get a rise in the standard of living.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  186. Comment by daleyrocks — 1/13/2012 @ 9:50 am

    ATMs pushed bank tellers out of jobs because they increased the productivity of bank locations according to Obama. This is a bad thing for America.

    Except Obama was so smart he did understand his statement about bank tellers was false.

    I think you meant to write: Except Obama was so smart he did NOT understand his statement about bank tellers was false.

    Meaning actually he is not so smart or well informed or in reality, just looking for arguments.

    The thing is, the number of bank tellers had gone up (because the number of bank branches had gone up, because of competition among banks)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  187. Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/13/2012 @ 7:37 am

    If I put my competition out of business while also employing fewer people than he did, please explain how this is not a net drain on jobs.

    Either you will have extra profits, or less money will be spent by customers of the business. This means that people have extra money to spend. (Or donate to charity which spends it, or put in a bank and loaned out etc)

    The money spent on other things will supply income to other people, all other things being equal.

    Is arithmetic hard for you?

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  188. Hopefully you can point out where he did that. Please be specific. Maybe you mean the part where he revealed that he didn’t know that Palin attacked Mitt?
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/13/2012 @ 7:26 am

    – Still waiting for that citation, BTW.

    Icy (c9a8df)

  189. Indeed. If I put my competition out of business while also employing fewer people than he did, please explain how this is not a net drain on jobs. Is arithmetic hard for you?
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/13/2012 @ 7:37 am

    – Da! Is why is better when workers control means of production. Then EVERYBODY have job.

    Icy (c9a8df)

  190. Is there proof Palin smeared Romney?

    And on Daleyrocks saying so doesn’t make it so.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  191. no.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  192. Sammy @185 – Correct. Thanks.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  193. Sammy – I had the pleasure of watching Andrew Ross Sorkin getting ripped apart for his anti-capitalist views by a couple of established leveraged buyout players on a private equity and venture capital panel at Northwestern a couple of years ago. He shares jukeboxgrad’s point of view.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  194. His ‘murder of innocent trees’ Too Big to Fail’ shares the same problem that Nocera, and a whole host of other critics missed, that Morgenstern got.

    narciso (87e966)

  195. Is there proof Palin smeared Romney?

    – Here is juiceboxundergrad’s “proof”:
    “I don’t agree with attacks on free-market capitalism at all but I don’t believe this is really what is at the heart of Gov. Perry’s criticism of Romney and his time at Bain,” the former Alaska governor replied.  “This isn’t about a politician making huge profits in the private sector. I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and you know, now people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim.”
    – Yep. That’s her “joining the attack”. She said no one should attack free-market capitalism, and Romney should back up his claims about job creation. That BYTCH!!!

    Icy (c9a8df)

  196. 195. Morgenstern is another dense Norwegian from my alma mater. Obviously she developed study habits rather than a drinking arm.

    Good for toting a toddler tho.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  197. Highly critical National review piece by Andrew C. McCarthy about that anti-Romney Bain movie

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288022/mitt-bain-movie-disgrace-andrew-c-mccarthy

    It is disgusting — something you’d expect from Michael Moore or Occupy Wall Street. It plays on every juvenile prejudice in the book (Romney heckled, hands counting wads of cash, Romney speaking French, Romney statements out of context repeated again and again) It is wildly inaccurate even in what little it tells us about Bain (two of the four companies were not under Romney’s direction when the job losses occurred). Moreover, we learn very little even about the four companies profiled (like whether they would have survived had Bain not intervened) — all we hear is that, because of Mitt Romney personally, parents had to raid the college funds and skip meals so their children could eat. I’m surprised there wasn’t a Romney look-alike pushing a wheelchaired granny off the cliff — maybe she could even have landed on the Paul Ryan wheelchaired granny.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  198. 197. People read NRO? Might as well the NYT.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  199. I got that NRO thing through a link – from Morning Jolt though.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  200. Wall Street Journal Bain article of Monday January 9:

    tinyurl.com/7owtauw

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  201. Juicebox probably lives in a apartment where the rent is paid in juice boxes.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  202. JD:

    Chuck – trying to talk to this serial troll is pointless.

    For some strange reason you nevertheless posted several comments addressing me. I guess you like doing things that are pointless.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  203. Dustin:

    One worker today is more productive than one worker 100 years ago. Capitalism should work that way.

    The way US capitalism used to work is that worker productivity gains raised incomes for everyone. The way US capitalism now works is that worker productivity gains are taking place, but they are leading to higher incomes mostly just at the top. This movie doesn’t have a happy ending.

    I think it’s more of a mixed bag, where they did a lot of that but they also did other things which actually have a negative effect. It’s certainly possible to make a profit by tearing a company apart and selling it before that’s clear to the purchasers.

    It’s not just that it’s possible to make a profit that way. It’s that what you described might be the best and easiest way to make a big profit, in the world of private equity.

    The key problem with the Bain model is that they make lots of money even when the company fails. They might make even more money by causing a company to fail. The system is set up in such a way that they have the ability to pay themselves big dividends even when those payments are toxic to the company. This is known as an agency problem. The incentives are perverted. And when the system works this way, it’s not capitalism. It’s theft, and it’s a huge drag on the economy, and it’s harmful to real capitalism.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  204. Chuck:

    if you look at the history of the US economy, after a series of layoffs total productivity begins to increase and jobs are created, resulting in more jobs than ever before.

    You seem to think that simply repeating a bald assertion is just as good as proving it. This is what you said before:

    that means worker productivity increases, which has typically led to job increases elsewhere.

    I can’t find the part of your comment where you prove that worker productivity increases typically lead to job increases.

    Electronic calculators put slide rule makers out of work, and yet those employees found work doing other things.

    Whether or not that actually happens will differ on a case-by-case basis. How long it takes will also differ. Also, job replacement is not “job increases.” I still can’t find the part of your comment where you prove that worker productivity increases typically lead to job increases.

    The capital which had been spent on the labor of 10,000 people is then freed up to invest elsewhere, creating growth in a completely different industry and spurring aggregate demand across the economy. And as a result 15,000 more people are working.

    This scenario is one possible result. Here’s another possible result: that capital that’s “freed up” is used to automate a different factory or industry, leading to even more job losses. You need to explain how you know that the scenario you referenced is the sort of thing that happens “typically.”

    Stop engaging in sophistry.

    “Sophistry” is a good word for pulling claims out of your butt and then refusing to show proof.

    in general, when part of the economy is made more efficient, the nation as a whole is better off.

    The way those gains are distributed is a choice. What our society has done lately is choose to distribute those gains in a highly skewed manner. This movie doesn’t have a happy ending.

    And there would be no problem if Bain was just about making companies more efficient. But that’s not what they were about. What they were about, at least in part, was making big bucks by doing things that were harmful to the companies they were allegedly trying to save.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  205. Sammy:

    You coudl say situations in which the upper echelon colects a higher percentage of the institution’s income become more common, but that’s really a different issue.

    I understand why you’re calling it a different issue, but it’s nevertheless quite relevant. Our economy has been restructured to direct income away from the middle and towards the top. A few people care about this. And this is why it’s relevant to know if Staples (for example) ‘created’ new jobs by replacing good jobs with bad jobs.

    I assume Paul Krugman is right that that’s what Staples did ['gain market share at the expense of rivals'].

    I don’t think Krugman is saying that he knows for a fact that this is what Staples did. I think he’s saying it’s possible or likely, and that the burden is on Mitt to show that this did not happen, if Mitt wants to make claims about ‘job creation’ by Staples.

    When this happens across the board, you get a rise in the standard of living.

    What has actually happened is a very large rise in the standard of living for a relatively small group. This movie doesn’t have a happy ending.

    Either you will have extra profits, or less money will be spent by customers of the business. This means that people have extra money to spend. (Or donate to charity which spends it, or put in a bank and loaned out etc) The money spent on other things will supply income to other people, all other things being equal.

    There is nothing here to necessarily indicate that any new jobs will be created. Corporations are now sitting on huge sums of cash, which they are not using to create new jobs. The existence of a pile of money somewhere does not inevitably lead to the creation of new jobs.

    Highly critical National review piece by Andrew C. McCarthy

    That was already cited (139) and responded to (143).

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  206. Icy:

    Still waiting for that citation

    I already cited the text of Palin attacking Romney. Still waiting for you to explain how her attack was something other than an attack.

    She said no one should attack free-market capitalism

    Yes, and I agree. No one should attack free-market capitalism, and no one is attacking free-market capitalism. An attack on an immoral act by an immoral capitalist is not an attack on free-market capitalism. Unless you think that any attack on a malpracticing doctor is an attack on the concept of medicine itself.

    and Romney should back up his claims about job creation.

    According to Mitt, “his claims about job creation” are self-evident and don’t need to be backed up. Palin contradicting him on this point is an attack.

    Da! Is why is better when workers control means of production. Then EVERYBODY have job.

    The only thing worse than a straw-man argument is a straw-man argument that someone is too cowardly to express in a clear, direct manner.

    ===========
    Dohbiden:

    Is there proof Palin smeared Romney?

    Who said “smeared?” Not me. I said “attacked.”

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  207. “What they were about, at least in part, was making big bucks by doing things that were harmful to the companies they were allegedly trying to save.”

    jukeboxgrad – That is your assertion, but you have offered no proof. To prove that whatever Bain did to a company was harmful you will need to show that absent Bain’s actions, that company would have been better off, a hypothetical exercise.

    Go.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  208. To prove that whatever Bain did to a company was harmful you will need to show that absent Bain’s actions, that company would have been better off, a hypothetical exercise.

    Are you familiar with what happened at KB Toys? The following is from Forbes magazine, not exactly a commie rag. And it’s from 3/13/06, long before Bain was an issue of presidential politics. Link:

    In one get-rich-quick scheme, a dividend recap let Bain Capital turn an $18 million stake in faltering kb Toys into $85 million in cash–but left kb itself in much weaker shape.

    Bain put up $18 million and took on $237 million in debt to buy the company in December 2000. In April 2002 kb raised $66 million more in bank debt and used cash on hand to pay out $121 million in special dividends–$85 million for Bain and $36 million for senior executives who signed off on the recap. But kb went on to lose $109 million in less than two years, creditors say, filing for Chapter 11 protection in January 2004.

    Since then it has shut half of its 1,200 stores and laid off more than half of its 16,000 employees. Big Lots, the discount retailer that had sold kb Toys to Bain, was owed $45 million but lost most of it in the bankruptcy filing. It has sued Bain for fraud in Delaware state court. Bain, anticipating further opposition from creditors, preemptively sued Big Lots to get a Delaware state court to explicitly endorse the recap; that case is pending. kb Toys was bought out of bankruptcy for $20 million by another buyout firm, Prentice Capital. Unsecured creditors, who were owed $218 million, got only 8 cents on the dollar. In January they also sued Bain, in state court in Massachusetts, charging it ginned up bogus fairness opinions in imposing the recap. Bain blames kb Toys’ troubles on competition from Wal-Mart.

    There is no doubt that what “Bain did to [this] company was harmful.” That’s why Forbes described this as a “get-rich-quick scheme” that “left kb itself in much weaker shape.” The key concept here is “dividend recap.” Bain gave itself a huge payday that was obviously in the best interests of Bain but not in the best interests of KB Toys.

    Feel free to argue that Bain saddling the company with debt in order to pay itself $85 million was really in the best interest of KB Toys. This is a classic case of getting rich via financial engineering, rather than creating anything of real value. It’s also a case of focusing on a quick payoff, rather than investing in the long-term health of the company.

    If this is the kind of capitalism that Mitt believes in, he should welcome the questions, and proudly explain how Bain did the right thing here, and how he would do it again the same way, if he had the chance. Why isn’t he doing that? If he’s not willing to offer a detailed defense of this style of capitalism, maybe that’s because it’s indefensible.

    And yes, I know this was after Mitt left, but there’s no reason to think that Bain’s practices were any different when he was there.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  209. “There is no doubt that what “Bain did to [this] company was harmful.” ”

    JBG – Your definition of harm is what?

    Feel free to argue that Bain is stealing from itself as owner of the company so it is harming itself.

    Since Mitt left Bain in 1999, apart from perhaps sitting on some advisory boards, how is KB Toys illustrative of Romney transactions?

    Again, thank you for playing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  210. Your definition of harm is what?

    Saddling a company with so much debt that it’s forced into bankruptcy fits the definition of “harm.”

    Feel free to argue that Bain is stealing from itself as owner of the company so it is harming itself.

    No, it wasn’t “stealing from itself as owner of the company.” It was directing the company to write Bain a big check, a payment that KB couldn’t really afford. This was bad for KB and good for Bain. Let me know if I need to use thicker crayons.

    Since Mitt left Bain in 1999, apart from perhaps sitting on some advisory boards, how is KB Toys illustrative of Romney transactions?

    KB Toys is “illustrative of Romney transactions” because there’s no reason to think they adopted a new style of capitalism the day he left. Especially because there are plenty of similar stories in earlier years.

    You choosing to run away from these facts is your problem, not mine. They will catch up with you, and Mitt, no later than October.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  211. The NY Post is also not generally known as a commie rag. Link:

    Bain Capital … bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts.

    Romney in 2007 told the New York Times he had nothing to do with taking dividends from two companies that later went bankrupt, and that one should not take a distribution from a business that put the company at risk.

    Yet Geoffrey Rehnert, who helped start Bain Capital and is now co-CEO of the private equity firm The Audax Group, told me … that Romney owned a controlling stake in Bain Capital between approximately 1992 and 2001. The firm under his watch took such risks, time and time again.

    Bain and Goldman Sachs, for example, put $85 million down in a $415 million 1994 leveraged buyout of Baxter International’s medical testing division (renamed Dade Behring), which sold machines and reagents to labs.

    Former Dade CEO Scott Garrett, who managed the business for the first few years after the takeover, said Romney “was far more in tune with what was going on throughout his firm, and even the portfolio companies, than you might expect.”

    Bain reduced Dade’s research and development spending to 6 to 7 percent of sales, while its peers allocated between 10 and 15 percent. Dade in June 1999 used the savings as part of the basis to borrow $421 million. Dade then turned around and used $365 million from the loan to buy shares from its owners, giving them a 4.3 times return on their investment.

    A Dade executive, who requested anonymity, said he confronted new CEO Steven Barnes after a boardroom meeting within a week of the distribution.

    “You really think it’s a good idea to borrow, you know, one times sales?” he asked.

    “Oh. Yeah. Yeah. You know, that’s fine,” Barnes responded. “You know companies do that all the time.”

    The executive then told Barnes, “Well, that’d be like me going out and borrowing the amount of money I make in a year and then trying to pay it off and pay for my house and feed myself and everything else. That doesn’t make sense.” The executive said he let it drop after that.

    In August 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy.

    This was not an isolated case. … there’s little question [Romney] made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  212. Gosh, he sure does carry on, doesn’t he? And I think JD is right: this is an old friend with a new name.

    But that’s okay. Stashiu3 will find out, and if so, eject him, pom poms and all.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  213. this is an old friend with a new name.

    No, I’m an old friend with an old name. I first posted here roughly seven years ago.

    Why would I ever bother with a different name? It always intrigues me when people come up with that delusion.

    And I appreciate you letting everyone know that you have no substantive response to anything I said.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  214. Jukeboxgrad exemplifies those who think that somewhere there is a pile of money that everyone gets to share.

    He doesn’t understand how wealth is created or destroyed. All he knows is that somebody sometime looked at a corporation and said, rightly or wrongly, this isn’t working.

    Businesses succeed or fail on decisions right or wrong. There is no pot of gold waiting for you or anyone else, regardless.

    Worth doesn’t come from being clever. Worth comes from providing goods and services to people who have wealth, no matter how large or small, to make decisions about how to spend such.

    jukeboxgrad, you are a silly person who may have wealth, but your worth, based on your posting, is limited.

    Ag80 (ccff59)

  215. I have a a question, Ag80: does astroturf need to be mowed? Just curious.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  216. “No, it wasn’t “stealing from itself as owner of the company.” It was directing the company to write Bain a big check, a payment that KB couldn’t really afford.”

    JBG – How much debt had been paid down between the acquisition and the payout to shareholders in the KB Toys situation? What was the overall debt level after the dividend relative to the original acquisition. These are important figures to know in connection to allegations of harm because lenders normally include covenants in loans to highly leveraged companies restricting both additional debt and payments to shareholders, usually restricting both unless original debt is paid down somewhat or leverage ratios are reduced. Clearly you are unfamiliar with these concepts.

    KB Toys is “illustrative of Romney transactions” because there’s no reason to think they adopted a new style of capitalism the day he left. Especially because there are plenty of similar stories in earlier years.

    JBG – What is preventing you from describing those more relevant transactions from earlier years? By all means describe something relevant.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  217. I already cited the text of Palin attacking Romney. Still waiting for you to explain how her attack was something other than an attack.
    – Back here in reality land, you said: “Conservatives who want to stop Mitt now are also in a serious bind. They realize this is their last chance at stopping him, so they are motivated to press this attack (hence, for example, Palin joining in the attack).” If Palin joined in pressing “this attack” — i.e. the “Mitt is an immoral vulture capitalist” attack — then WHERE is even a scintilla of evidence of her actually saying ANYTHING that you are alleging she said?

    According to Mitt, “his claims about job creation” are self-evident and don’t need to be backed up. Palin contradicting him on this point is an attack.
    – Really. Calling for an explanation is “an attack”. Is that how it works in politics now? Anything critical one politician says about a fellow politician is automatically labeled an attack? Or perhaps this is just your latest goal post move, acknowledging that she did NOT attack him on “immoral capitalist” grounds but insisting that she attacked him anyway. As for the “according to Mitt” part, I’m sure you will come back with a link to that sound bite in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

    The only thing worse than a straw-man argument is a straw-man argument that someone is too cowardly to express in a clear, direct manner.
    – Feel free to not be an a-hole just because you can.

    Icy (a0e63a)

  218. Simon:

    Astroturf doesn’t need to be mowed, it needs to be moved. To a dump.

    It’s useless and irritating.

    Ag80 (ccff59)

  219. “In August 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy.”

    JBG – Are you saying it is a fact that the Bain dividend was the cause of the Dade bankruptcy? That is your claim, seriously?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  220. The part that amazes me, Ag, is how snippy and angry astroturf can be. It’s like the astroturf can’t help it.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  221. Simon:

    That’s because it has no roots. It only knows what the contractor decided.

    Laying in the hot sun and fading is hard.

    Ag80 (ccff59)

  222. Ag80:

    All he knows is that somebody sometime looked at a corporation and said, rightly or wrongly, this isn’t working.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is when someone figures out a way to get rich by looting and destroying companies.

    I can’t find the part of your comment where you indicate whether you think Bain behaved properly in the cases I mentioned. Or the part of your comment where you explain why Mitt’s campaign has not stepped up to the plate to either explain, justify or disown those cases.

    The longer these questions are ignored, the louder they’re going to get. By October, it’s going to be pretty loud.

    =============
    daleyrocks:

    These are important figures to know

    Which is why Hewitt predicted that Mitt would give us detailed information about these deals. Mitt’s failure to do so just makes it seem that he has something to hide.

    Clearly you are unfamiliar with these concepts.

    Clearly you are making shit up, because you have no idea what kind of background and education I have.

    What is preventing you from describing those more relevant transactions from earlier years?

    You have an adorable habit of asking for things that have already been presented. Did you miss #211?

    Are you saying it is a fact that the Bain dividend was the cause of the Dade bankruptcy? That is your claim, seriously?

    Are you saying that taking on a huge debt burden was not a major cause of their bankruptcy? That is your claim, seriously?

    =============
    Icy:

    WHERE is even a scintilla of evidence of her actually saying ANYTHING that you are alleging she said?

    In 158 I cited Palin’s exact words, along with a link to WSJ where her words appear. Try to keep up.

    Calling for an explanation is “an attack”. Is that how it works in politics now?

    Telling Mitt that the answer he’s given so far isn’t good enough isn’t exactly a friendly move. Would you feel better if I called it a ‘jab’ or a ‘poke’ rather than an “attack?”

    =============
    Simon:

    The part that amazes me, Ag, is how snippy and angry astroturf can be. It’s like the astroturf can’t help it.

    The part that amazes me is the amount of energy that goes into gratuitous, puerile snark utterly devoid of substance. It’s as if you’re eager to announce that this is the best you can do.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  223. “Former Dade CEO Scott Garrett, who managed the business for the first few years after the takeover, said Romney “was far more in tune with what was going on throughout his firm, and even the portfolio companies, than you might expect.””

    JBG – He also left Bain three months prior to the recapitalization of Dade, so the quote is irrelevant.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  224. Don’t worry, daley. Astroturf will just roll out some more sod.

    It’s all narrative, and what appears to be quite a chip on a artificial and grassy shoulder.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  225. “It’s all narrative, and what appears to be quite a chip on a artificial and grassy shoulder.”

    Simon – It believes it has a knowledge of the subject matter when all it is doing is regurgitating something written someplace else almost verbatim. True astroturf!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  226. I want the guy who is most likely to fire James Hansen of NASA outright.
    How did that become Romney all of a sudden?

    papertiger (e55ba0)

  227. I want the guy who is most likely to fire James Hansen of NASA outright.
    How did that become Romney all of a sudden?

    papertiger (e55ba0)

  228. excuse my stuttering

    papertiger (e55ba0)

  229. And angry, daley. Don’t forget angry. Wonder why?

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  230. He also left Bain three months prior to the recapitalization of Dade, so the quote is irrelevant.

    It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t working there. “Romney owned a controlling stake in Bain Capital between approximately 1992 and 2001.”

    Let me know if I need to explain what “controlling stake” means. I love this alibi: ‘I was in control of Bain, but I’m not responsible for what they did.’

    It believes it has a knowledge of the subject matter when all it is doing is regurgitating something written someplace else almost verbatim.

    I’m sorry I have offended you by citing sources to support my claims. I realize that in your world this is considered a strange custom.

    And I’ll be waiting patiently while you collect some evidence that I don’t have “knowledge of the subject matter.” You must have some, so why are you hiding it?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  231. And there is the angry and snide astroturf. Twoof and Justice! Keep in mind, this is how this joker came out of the box.

    Again: why so angry? I think we all know the answer.

    But no worries: eventually he will go away, ooops, I mean pick another name. Not that he will admit it. Sod lies pretty flat, after all.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  232. I mean pick another name.

    Why would I do that? Seriously. I’m curious.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  233. Or simply use glyphosate.

    Really, dude. Your slip is showing. Also your silly silly anger and fake superiority.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  234. I guess that means you’re going to duck my question?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  235. “It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t working there. “Romney owned a controlling stake in Bain Capital between approximately 1992 and 2001.””

    “And I’ll be waiting patiently while you collect some evidence that I don’t have “knowledge of the subject matter.” You must have some, so why are you hiding it?”

    JBG – Any idea what Rehnert meant by controlling interest? I’m sure you don’t.

    No need to wait for evidence you lack knowledge of the subject matter, you demonstrate it with every comment. Bain raised multiple funds to serve as investment vehicles in its companies over time. Any idea if Romney was the General Partner of each fund?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  236. #232: on a day when Patterico posts this level of irony:

    http://patterico.com/2012/01/13/liberal-columnist-denounces-incivility-brands-tea-partiers-literal-terrorists/

    You are seriously going to ask a question like that? Good lord. The self-aware life has much to recommend.

    To be serious, you are just trolling and trying to argue with people (which is an odd goal, but hey, to each their own). Good night and have a pleasant life.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  237. daleyrocks:

    Any idea what Rehnert meant by controlling interest?

    I think he probably meant this: “controlling interest.” Like I said, let me know if you need help understanding what that means. And if you happen to know that he meant something other than that, please tell us how you know.

    No need to wait for evidence you lack knowledge of the subject matter, you demonstrate it with every comment.

    Which means you should be able to show a long list of examples. Why keep us waiting?

    Any idea if Romney was the General Partner of each fund?

    Bain Capital was the general partner.

    ===============
    simon:

    You are seriously going to ask a question like that?

    Do you always answer a question with a question?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  238. You are just about as amusing as that silly woman in the video Patterico linked. Well, amusing may not be the word. But again, your goal is to try and irritate and argue and try to act smugly superior.

    I have been following your posts, and this is what I am reminded of:

    http://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0

    And I don’t mean the guy in the mask.

    But no worries: you will bounce right back instead of moving along to greener pastures. There is that sod/astroturf business again.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  239. you will bounce right back instead of moving along to greener pastures.

    That’s quite a bizarre claim, since I post here rarely, even though I first posted here about seven years ago. So I guess by “bounce right back” you apparently mean ‘ignore this joint for years at a time.’

    Still waiting for you to explain why I would ever have any reason to post under a different name.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)


  240. “…‘ignore this joint for years at a time.’…”

    That would be nice.

    Because you are just here to be all snotty and rude and argumentative. And of course you will reply to this with more of the same. That’s how you roll.

    Or maybe more of a Weeble thing.

    Simon Jester (5f956b)

  241. That would be nice.

    Is someone holding a gun to your head and compelling you to read my comments? Want me to dial 911 for you?

    snotty and rude

    English translation: ‘how dare you mention facts I would prefer to not hear.’

    argumentative

    Surely you don’t mean that people are arguing on the internets. Isn’t that forbidden? Hurry, alert the proper authorities.

    Still hoping you might change your mind and stop ducking that question.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  242. This scenario is one possible result. Here’s another possible result: that capital that’s “freed up” is used to automate a different factory or industry, leading to even more job losses. You need to explain how you know that the scenario you referenced is the sort of thing that happens “typically.”

    Are you really this stupid? Do you have no knowledge of American economic history?

    Back in 1780, a huge percentage of Americans worked in agriculture (like 70-80%). Over the next 150 years, many agricultural processes were automated. There was the cotton gin, for example. So, a lot of agricultural jobs went away as a result. But they found other jobs. That’s been the history of the US economy: efficiency in one industry leads to advances all over.

    You saying it hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean you’re right, it just means you are willfully ignorant of American history.

    Chuck Bartowski (490c6f)

  243. I still can’t find the part of your comment where you prove that worker productivity increases typically lead to job increases.

    Then you can’t read. Here it is [emphasis added]:

    But if you look at the history of the US economy, after a series of layoffs total productivity begins to increase and jobs are created, resulting in more jobs than ever before.

    “More jobs than ever before” = “job increases”

    Stop engaging in sophistry.

    Chuck Bartowski (490c6f)

  244. Here it is

    I didn’t ask you to repeat your assertion. I asked you to show proof that it’s true. You’re making it really clear that you don’t understand the difference between those two things.

    So, a lot of agricultural jobs went away as a result. But they found other jobs. That’s been the history of the US economy: efficiency in one industry leads to advances all over.

    One more time, here’s your original assertion:

    that means worker productivity increases, which has typically led to job increases elsewhere.

    Yes, it’s normal for industries to die, and it’s normal for new industries to appear. This doesn’t mean that worker productivity increases typically lead to job increases elsewhere. Sometimes worker productivity increases just lead to increased profits for owners. That’s the story of the last 30 years. So you still haven’t demonstrated a basis for your claim about “typically.”

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  245. Why are so many leftists masochistic? They return time after time for more pummeling.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  246. Why are so many leftists such hypocrites when it comes to profit?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  247. You’re confused about who’s pummeling who.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  248. Some are too gloriously stupid to insult, Colonel.

    JD (392f2d)

  249. And profit is not a problem. Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between profit and theft.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  250. Daley jammed his foot so far up your bunghole he left a boot print on your kidney.

    JD (392f2d)

  251. Are you guys still messing with this “long time reader” of this blog? Whack a troll might be fun, but you know the story about wrtestling with a pig: it wastes your time, gets you all muddy…and the pig likes it.

    How does oe combine “AstroTurf,” “troll,” and “Weeble” into one term?

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  252. Who cares to guess that this troll du jour has never made a payroll in his life? Oh, he’ll claim to be a Captain of Industry, but I smell spray cheese and triscuits all over him.

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  253. And why are leftys hypocrites when it comes to giving their money to schools?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  254. I bet Harvard Law.

    JD (392f2d)

  255. You know, JD, I have all these friends who are all excited about how much money person A makes and how that is too much money…when people “need” things.

    Hence the foolish “profit versus theft” nonsense.

    Yet all the people I know how carry on about this are pretty satisfied with expensive things of their own that they will not give up. Sailboats. Trip to Europe, Hawaii, etc. Fancy tech equipment. Heck, I have a friend who has a 40 foot sailboat, owns a house and a cabin, new car, lots of tech toys…and carries on about the 99%. Hypocrite.

    I say: lead by example. Commit to give 20% of their gross salary back. And then I would listen to them. But I want proof that they are, well, actually opening their wallets rather than trying to pry open other people’s wallets.

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  256. It is envy and greed and projection, Simon. Pure and simple.

    JD (392f2d)

  257. Fold some “it’s different when I do it” style hypocrisy into the mix, JD.

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  258. :roll: What hypocrisy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  259. I tell my children – and anybody who raises the issue – that all Americans are in this magical 1% just by virtue of being an American.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  260. JD… I would tend to think this masochistic inclination of the left is genetic, but then recognize that their rock-headed faith in the disinformation they’ve been spoon-fed all their lives that they bitterly cling to even when confronted with incontestable facts trumps all.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  261. Well we’ve seen with Warren Buffett and John Kerry to use two examples, they aren’t really anxious to pay more tax.

    narciso (87e966)

  262. How many times must you froma yourself, jukeboxzero?

    Seriously… what’s your limit?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  263. Dude he screwed the chicken.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  264. Keep on insulting Tebow because of his beliefs leftys.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  265. Daley jammed his foot so far up your bunghole he left a boot print on your kidney.

    I especially liked the part where he asked me stupid questions and then disappeared as soon as I told him the answers.

    JD, have you managed to reach Kerr yet? I’m sure he’s eager to hear that you think his statement is “a fable.”

    Are you guys still messing with this “long time reader” of this blog?

    I didn’t say I’m a “long time reader” of this blog. I said I first posted here a long time ago. Are you clever enough to understand the difference in meaning? Maybe not.

    Do you understand that quote marks are normally used to indicate what someone actually said? I never said what you are indicating I said. One more in a long series of examples proving how dishonest you are.

    And it’s hysterically funny to hear you ask why people are responding to me while you are posting comments responding to me. I guess self-awareness is not your thing.

    I say: lead by example. Commit to give 20% of their gross salary back.

    This argument is both common and stupid. Link.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  266. Um. You really are silly, you know. Are you trying to convince anyone, or just insulting others? The answer, of course, is you want to feel like Da Man in a safely anonymous way.

    Which is why you troll. You want to fight, but safely.

    By the way, there are several left of center types who post here, and debate and discuss honorably. No one treats them like, well, a troll.

    Personally, I think you are silly. But then, I don’t seem to have the hate in my heart that you do. Gosh, I wonder why you feel that way?

    Go play somewhere else, why don’t you? Or be polite.

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  267. Oh….

    “…I guess self-awareness is not your thing…”

    That was my favorite part.

    Simon Jester (68a1c1)

  268. I guess self-awareness is not your thing.

    Juiceboxhero insists on froma-ing himself.

    JD (318f81)

  269. you want to feel like Da Man in a safely anonymous way.

    More of that self-awareness. Simon Jester is your real name? I had no idea. What’s your mailing address? Surely you don’t mind telling us unless you feel a need to be “safely anonymous.”

    there are several left of center types who post here, and debate and discuss honorably. No one treats them like, well, a troll.

    I’m interested in seeing examples of where such a person is treated respectfully. You must have a bunch of examples. When are you going to let me see them?

    Or be polite.

    I have been far more polite than the people who have been addressing me, including and especially you.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  270. No, he was conned like many people like Alice Palmer who was one of his mentors in Chicago,
    who he had thrown off the ballot, like McCain who
    thought he had a genuine deal with Obama, et al.

    narciso (87e966)

  271. This coming from the same idiot who believes capitalism is evil…………move to North Korea jukebox.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  272. Leftists always wail about incivility after acting like a complete douchenozzle. Let the Froma-ing continue …

    JD (318f81)

  273. Leftys also whine about union-busting…………while looking at teachers like a bunch of far-right terrorists.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  274. When did you graduate HLS?

    JD (318f81)

  275. who believes capitalism is evil

    When did I say capitalism is evil? I didn’t. Capitalism isn’t evil. Theft is evil. Not being able to tell the difference is your problem, not mine.

    acting like a complete douchenozzle

    Aside from presenting facts you’d prefer to ignore, where did I do any such thing? Please be specific.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  276. Google jukeboxgrad. That is a good starting point.

    JD (318f81)

  277. Or is that too difficult for you. Maybe you need some help? Stick figure drawings?

    JD (318f81)

  278. JBG – How much debt had been paid down between the acquisition and the payout to shareholders in the KB Toys situation? What was the overall debt level after the dividend relative to the original acquisition. These are important figures to know in connection to allegations of harm because lenders normally include covenants in loans to highly leveraged companies restricting both additional debt and payments to shareholders, usually restricting both unless original debt is paid down somewhat or leverage ratios are reduced. Clearly you are unfamiliar with these concepts.

    Crickets

    JD (318f81)

  279. And profit is not a problem. Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between profit and theft.
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 1/14/2012 @ 4:40 pm

    – So now Romney has gone from “immoral capitalist” to thief?

    Icy (49cd2a)

  280. It is a greedy envious class warfare hater, Icy. Income inequality uber ales. Equality of outcome. Punish success. Zer sum nonsense.

    JD (318f81)

  281. Leftys don’t care about the environment but expect us to.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  282. Moved from Google search thread:

    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/14/2012 @ 2:23 pm

    “Three former factory workers featured in a film about layoffs at companies bought by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital say they weren’t laid off by Bain, as the film implied, but got promotions and raises after Bain bought the plant they worked in.

    The workers’ charges of inaccuracy involve “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” a 28-minute film also known as “King of Bain.” The film has become a focal point of the Republican presidential race in the past week. It was cited by rival Newt Gingrich at a televised debate last weekend and has been posted online by Winning Our Future…”

    From the Wall Street Journal Saurday/Sunday January 14/15 e

    There’s more. They actually were fired by a Canadian teacher’s union pension fund!! (which bought the plant from Bain in 2005.)

    Now I suppose Bain can be blamed for selling it to he highest bidder.

    There’s more:

    These workers were tricked. And I will say, by somebody who could only have been intending to help Obama.

    The story here is about 3 of the 7 people named in the film. They were the only ones named in the Marianna, Florida, UniMac washing-machine factory segment.

    Mr. and Mrs. Tommy and Tracy Jones, and their partner in “Washers-R-Us, a washing machine sales and service business they formed after losing their jobs, were approached in September John Burke, who said he was private producer from Bat Rogue Louisiana, who wanted to make a documentary about factory closings. He said nothing about Mitt Romney, or Bain.

    Rick Tyler, the former Newt Gingrich campaign spokesman who quit the campaign back in June, he same time as most of the rest of staff, thinking Newt Gingrich’s campaign was going no place because he took a Greek cruise against the advice of his campaign consultants many of whom quit then to go to work for Rick Perry, and who now runs the pro-Gingrich Super Pac “Winning Our Future” said he didn’t who John Burke was and that he had purchased it from Jason Meath, an independent filmmaker.

    Mike Baxley had a cell telephone number for John Burke. calls placed to it by the wall Street Journal weer not returned They heard about Jason Meath too late to be able to get in touch with him.

    When Mike Baxley and the Jones’ had lunch with Burke he seemed uninterested in their success story. A week later he returned and interviewed them and paid them, not with cash, but the next best anonymous thing: Visa gift cards.

    When he saw the film this week, Mike Baxley was shocked, and they felt they had to correct the record.

    These were actually three of the people who did best under Bain management. They received multiple promotions. And even after it was bought by Teachers Private capital owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and they decided to close that plant, and a second plant, and consolidate and move them to Ripon Wisconsin (birth place of the Republican Party by the way and the place the liberal Republican group, The Ripon Society is named after) Tommy Jones still landed a consultant’s job with UniMac’s parent to co=ordinate the move and consolidation of those plants in 2006.

    With the money he made from successfully moving the plants, he started Washers-R-Us with his wife and Mike Baxley..

    Rick Tyler said that they were now reviewing the full transcript of the interviews, which they have, to see =if the context is correct.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  283. _______________________________________________

    That’s why you think Reagan negotiated with Iran. That wasn’t what he thought he was doing.
    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/13/2012 @ 12:34 am

    My point, Sammy, was to highlight the way that left-leaning sentiment can make ANY person — Democrat (natch), Republican or independent — susceptible to poor judgment or foolishness. If anything, it therefore makes a flat-out, garden-variety, unrepentant liberal in a position of power (Hi, ultra-liberal Obama!) even more prone to idiocy, if not outright lunacy.

    latimes.com, Tom Bethell, November 1986:

    President Reagan, it turned out, just couldn’t say no. It was his soft heart that landed him in trouble. The families of the hostages were appearing on television, pleading for presidential attention and compassion. Eventually they were shown into the Oval Office.

    One sensed that television’s excessive attention to their sorrow was potentially hazardous to politicians, and therefore to us all. In recent weeks, apparently, Reagan raised the issue of the hostages’ plight “at half of his daily briefings.” This, surely, was disproportionate.

    How extraordinary that Ronald Reagan, who campaigned against Jimmy Carter’s alleged weakness in handling his Iranian hostage crisis, should have allowed his own judgment about what was best for the country to be clouded by personal sentiment, no doubt exacerbated by getting to know the people involved. To this extent Reagan’s Iranian hostage crisis was one of his own making.

    For years Reagan has been mercilessly and falsely depicted by his political opponents as uncompassionate, hard-line, bellicose and hawkish. There never was any truth to this characterization. Nancy Reagan was closer to the mark when she said in 1984: “They portray Ronnie as mean and cruel and an uncompassionate man, when they know better. He’s the softest touch in the world.”

    “Reagan’s problem,” a White House source told me on the day on which national-security adviser John M. Poindexter resigned, “is his inability to say no when confronted with a hard-luck story.”

    “The President is a man of compassion,” White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan said at a recent breakfast meeting with reporters. “He is sitting there. You have Peggy Say (the sister of kidnaped Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson), all of the family saying, ‘Please, Mr. President, you’ve got to do something.’ We’re branded as being callous. We’re not trying to get these hostages out. But when you try to do something to get the hostages out you’re swapping human flesh . . . . I ask you, think it through. What would you have us do?”

    Better to have done nothing. Say no to Peggy Say–politely but firmly. Better for Reagan to have lived up to his image of toughness, taking it as a compliment rather than as an accusation. Instead, on many issues Reagan’s critics succeeded in bullying him into a posture of conciliation.

    Mark (411533)

  284. Bain Capital owned it for seven years 1998-2005.

    The plant was closed in 2006 by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan private equity arm, and these three people made out all right, nevertheless.

    ‘When Mitt Romney Came to Town” also involves 3 other plant closings besides the Mariana Florida washing mschine factory, and the Wall Street Journal story has nothing about them.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  285. Aren’t/werent union pension funds some of the biggest greedy evil capitalist investors in Bain?

    JD (318f81)

  286. Google jukeboxgrad. That is a good starting point.

    Good idea. I highly recommend that. Better yet, do something like this:

    site:volokh.com jukeboxgrad

    I’m not the only person using the name, but I’m the only person using the name at certain sites. So when you make the search site-specific, you get to automatically filter out people who aren’t me.

    You could also do something like this:

    site:volokh.com jukeboxgrad palin

    Or this:

    site:volokh.com jukeboxgrad torture

    Or this:

    site:volokh.com jukeboxgrad plame wilson

    Or this:

    site:volokh.com jukeboxgrad aluminum tubes

    That way you’ll see discussion regarding specific topics that might be of interest to you.

    I’ve posted thousands of comments at VC, starting in roughly 2005 when they first opened comments. If anyone can find any errors in any of my comments, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Thanks in advance.

    These are important figures to know in connection to allegations of harm

    There are all sorts of details that would be helpful to know. Trouble is, Mitt and Bain are stonewalling all requests for information. Politically, this is a problem, because it creates the appearance that they have something to hide. And there over 100 deals, so all sorts of details are going to keep leaking out, despite their efforts to hide them. Drip, drip, drip.

    Hewitt pointed out correctly almost five years ago that it would be much better for Willard to get in front of this and release a detailed account himself. But he’s not doing that. So instead you’re going to get drip, drip, drip. Some of that will happen pre-October, and maybe some of the best stuff will be held back until October. I’m sure this will be lots of fun for you. But at least you’ll be running a candidate who has been fully vetted and is highly electable.

    Clearly you are unfamiliar with these concepts.

    Clearly you are making shit up, because you have no idea what kind of background and education I have, and you have shown this many examples of incorrect statements on my part: zero.

    Equality of outcome.

    I hope you and your little straw man are having lots of fun together. I realize responding to what you think I think is much easier for you than responding to what I’ve actually said.

    So now Romney has gone from “immoral capitalist” to thief?

    What’s the difference? Or are you saying that by definition, there is no such thing as an immoral capitalist?

    Aren’t/werent union pension funds some of the biggest greedy evil capitalist investors in Bain?

    Some people have made that claim. Let me know if you actually find any actual proof to support the claim. Remember that Mitt/Bain are being exceptionally stingy with details.

    And if it’s true, how does that justify immoral acts by Bain? How much detail did Bain reveal to investors about their actual business practices?

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  287. Jason Meath’s website:

    http://www.jasonkillianmeath.com/press.html

    Jason Meath filmography:

    http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1012734/Jason-Meath/filmography

    Amazon.com’s listing of Jason Meath’s 2009 book ollywood on the Potomac (Images of America) (Images of America (Arcadia Publishing)

    http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Potomac-America-Arcadia-Publishing/dp/0738567558

    Remember to use the Amazon.com link to the right of comment 3 if you decide to order this book.

    From the publisher:

    Meath, a media consultant who worked on messaging and advertising for President George W. Bush’s campaigns, even starts the book with a 1918 photo of Charlie Chaplin delivering a pitch in D.C. for the Third Liberty Loan benefiting U.S. forces in World War I.

    “A lot of people feel, ‘Oh, it’s Obama who is bringing people here,’ ” Meath says. “But I remember a similar sentiment when Bill Clinton came into office. In fact, (stars) have always been there.”

    Meath got the kernel of the idea for the book when he was a teenager watching news coverage of President Ronald Reagan hosting Michael Jackson at the White House in 1984, an appearance he thought was “the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my life.”

    Over the years, Meath began compiling photos, searching through archives in Washington and presidential libraries. The result is a gallery of staged press shots and surprising encounters.

    The book’s 200 or so photos do show that some presidents mingled with the glitterati more than others, namely Clinton, Reagan and John F. Kennedy, who seems to have met just about every A-lister of the early 1960s.

    Obama’s interaction with showbiz figures, Meath says, echoes the days of JFK and Reagan.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  288. More aout Jason Meath:

    http://gifilmfestival.com/2010-filmmakers/attachment/jason-meath-ff10/

    Meath is a long-time Washington media consultant, having established a career in politics at the Republican National Committee
    in 1990′s. As partner with The Stevens & Schriefer Group, he directed and co-wrote The Surge: The Untold Story for SSG client The Institute for the Study of War. He is currently President at Xenophon Strategies heading up the advertising and media division at one of the nation’s leading boutique communications firms.

    In 2004, he was a member of the Maverick Media team — the inner circle that produced all message strategy and advertising for President George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns. At the Stevens and Schriefer Group, he helped U.S. Senators, Governors and Congressional leaders throughout the years and was dubbed a ‘rising star among Washington image-makers.’

    A bestselling author, Meath’s book “Hollywood on the Potomac” (Arcadia 2009) chronicled a century of the intersecting paths of Washington and Hollywood. He was writer, director and co-creator of the documentary series The Feds (Discovery Channel) which profiled real life cases of federal agents across the United States. His films, screenplays and television commercials have earned recognition from The New York Independent Film Festival, Cine, Austin Heart of Film Festival, Worldfest and Pollies among others.

    And he obtained and sold the tendentious 28-minute anti-Mitt Romney film “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” to pro-Newt Gingrich Winning Our Future Pac.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  289. Well he’s promilitary and pro law enforcement, I don’t who to believe anymore frankly, with Primack and his counterpart at the Times, going so far as
    to muddy up the name of TEd Forstmann,

    narciso (87e966)

  290. That’s why you think Reagan negotiated with Iran. That wasn’t what he thought he was doing.
    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/13/2012 @ 12:34 am
    ——————–

    Comment by Mark — 1/14/2012 @ 9:50 pm

    My point, Sammy, was to highlight the way that left-leaning sentiment can make ANY person — Democrat (natch), Republican or independent — susceptible to poor judgment or foolishness.

    It’s the business about caring – or possibly about peace – that does this thing. But as I said, Reagan did not exactly (in his mind) negotiate with terroriss,

    Incidentally I remember now John Poindexter actually said that Reagan signed the finding (that made the whole thing legal) on January 6, 1986, but said it was by mistake. He wouldn’t or didn’t explain how. Most likely, expecting Reagan to approve it, he shoved it into the middle of s pile of papers to sign. When Reagan didn’t, he had to destroy it, or otherwise if let;s say this went on and Reagan found out, and didn’t approve, he’d be in a lot of trouble to say the least. Reagan did finally approve it on January 1 17, 1986, as his diary said, and in the meantime some details were changed, including avoiding the Defense Department. here couldn’t be amore blatant lie than Casper Weinberger’s secret memo which he dated to the Library of Congress which claimed Reagan had approved the sale on January 6, 1986 and the plan originated with Israel. This completely hid all the changes between January 6 and 17th. Casper Weinberger was indicted just before the election of 1992 for perjury because of this. (and because it made Bush look bad because it supposedly contradicted Bush’s claim of being out-of-the-loop – except that out-of-the=-loop didn’t mean ignorant either but only outside the chain of authority – Special prosecutor – aka independent counsel – Lawrence Walsh was trying to help Clinton)

    Bush I pardoned Weinberger and nothing much was heard of this again. But I’m saying, it was the memo – his “contemporaneous” memo – not his later Congressional testimony, that was big lie. He might have lied in his testimony too, but not that way.

    If anything, it therefore makes a flat-out, garden-variety, unrepentant liberal in a position of power (Hi, ultra-liberal Obama!) even more prone to idiocy, if not outright lunacy.

    Well, it’s probably not just Obama alone. Prime example of idiocy today: Negotiations with the Taliban. How can anyone believe in this? Even as a possibilit/

    In some areas he’s learned it seems.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  291. * There couldn’t be a more blatant lie than Casper Weinberger’s secret memo which he dated to the Library of Congress which claimed Reagan had approved the sale on January 6, 1986 and the plan originated with Israel. This completely hid all the changes between January 6 and 17th.

    It also, as I said, provided useful fodder for the democrats to accuse George H.W. Bush of being a liar.

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-10-31/news/1992305001_1_weinberger-george-bush-iran

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1032519.html

    All from one very short memo!

    “President [Reagan] decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4000 TOWs to Iran by Israel — George Shultz + I opposed — Bill Casey, Ed Meese + VP favored — as did Poindexter.”

    A real pack of lies. Ronald Reagan did NOT approve the sale of arms for hostages on January 6, 1986. That’s undeniable. He turned it down on January 6. Admiral Poindexter had to tear up the finding he’d tricked Ronald Reagan into signing early. And it wasn’t ever characterized as arms to hostages. And it was an Israeli-Iranian offer.

    And Bush knew about the proposal which was rejected but did not know something a little bit different was later approved on January 17, 1986..

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  292. * And it was NOT an Israeli-Iranian offer.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  293. Maybe a correction:

    From that Baltimore Sun article:

    In public statements by Mr. Bush and by his aides, there has been only one comment — by the president himself — that implied he had approved an arms-for-hostages deal.

    That came earlier this month, on the NBC-TV “Today” show when Mr. Bush was asked directly: “You knew about the arms for hostages?” He replied: “Yes, and I’ve said that all along, given speeches on it.”

    That’s right. Bush I said he was “out-of-the loop” He did not say he did not know about it.

    Out of the loop did not mean ignorant in 1986 and I can prove it from the entry on Senator Charles Mathias (R-Maryland) in the 1986 Almanac of American Politics.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  294. Romney started Bain in 1983, and left it for about six months to run for the Senate in 1994 and left it for good on February 11, 1999 to run the Salt Lake City winter 2002 Olympics. (Wall Street Journal Holman Jenkins column Jan 14/15 2012.)

    Romney never talks about the Olympics. He did fire a lot of people.

    There had been a bribery scandal before he got there.

    Jenkins also cites two economists as saying that every year 15% of all U.S. jobs are destroyed (but total jobs grow by 2% a year) That is an average for the years 1977 through 2005

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  295. #282, 283

    SF: Bain Capital owned it for seven years 1998-2005.

    The plant was closed in 2006 by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan private equity arm, and these three people made out all right, nevertheless.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/14/2012 @ 9:56 pm
    ———

    Comment by JD — 1/14/2012 @ 10:00 pm

    Aren’t/werent union pension funds some of the biggest greedy evil capitalist investors in Bain?

    That’s what New England Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft indicated. (See comment 179)

    Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5)

  296. Old idjit, same as the Newt idjit.

    Icy (c1ca31)

  297. JuicyBowtox

    Lay off outing JD – period, or anyone else here

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6735 secs.