Aaron Goldenberg wrote a brief article in American Thinker titled “Mitt Romney and the Hypocrisy of Bain Capital” In it Mr. Goldenberg makes a very good point:
“Mitt Romney was NOT primarily a venture capitalist. A venture capitalist invests in early-stage businesses with the hope that they grow and prosper. These early-stage businesses are often risky investments. Though most ultimately fail, some succeed spectacularly making the risks worthwhile. Apple Computer and Google are two such examples. This is what Mitt Romney means when he says some investments succeed and some fail.
By contrast, Mitt Romney was primarily what is affectionately known as a vulture investor. Bain Capital invested in failing companies with the intention of either restructuring their business or stripping the business and selling its assets. This business model often adversely affects a company’s employees. To be fair, if the company had gone bankrupt on its own, that would have adversely affected the company’s employees too. The question Republican primary voters need to ask themselves is not whether Mitt Romney did anything illegal or immoral. In a climate of near 10% unemployment, do Republicans want a vulture investor to be the face of their party?”
There is a good way to make money and a not so good way to make money. Both are legal. Venture Capitalist, and Vulture Capitalist. The idea of one is to profit by backing a new venture early and profiting off it as it grows. The other is scouting out a failing company that has three ways to pay off:
1) Through restructuring it becomes profitable.
2) Assets are liquidated and the profit comes from the liquidation.
3) Restructure the company so that it is able to borrow massive amounts of cash, profit off the influx of borrowed funds, cash out, and let others deal with the debt after you have made your money.
Its all legal, its all Capitalism. But can one honestly say to themselves that all of the means to make money off a company are equal in the eyes of the voter?
Another question I have seen being contemplated on various blogs but Mr.Riehl on his blog Riehl World View answers it easily:
“Sorry, I do not have to respect that person’s values as a candidate for POTUS, no more than I might if he ran strip clubs, or peep shows, or abortion clinics, because maybe they would pay off big time, too. Just because I am able to respect Romney as a great capitalist does not mean I must accept his values in exercising his acumen as one, now that he seeks to be my president.”
What if Staples had been a company that mass produced pornography and Bain Capital turned it back into a profitable company? Would conservatives still praise Romney for this capitalist venture or would you condemn it? Would they just ignore it?
This issue is not as cut and dry as some want to make it. By now if you have not figured out that “Mitt Romney” is about to be synonymous with “Gordon Gekko” conservatives are very mistaken.
Watch for videos of Mitt Romney with these words streaming below his image.
“I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.”
Gordon Gekko, “Wall Street” (1987)
He is just a fat guy in Maine.
Do you guys want to win this election or not?
Dr John: I very much want to see Obama go but Mitt Romney can not get the job done.
1.) We are having a revolt within the Republican party as to good capitalism vs bad capitalism. Just imagine when this hits the voting public as a whole. We lose on the argument.
2.) Romney is incapable of defending himself or capitalism. His response when asked is a.) “Obama is rich too.” and b.) “Obama invested in GM”.
3.) Romney’s campaign didn’t think this was going to come so early and is completely unprepared to deal with it. If they are so out of touch with the average American with unemployment as high as it is that this was not going to be a problem, then they are incapable of understanding the issues that face average Americans.
4.) Romney does not have the basic personality make up to take the fight to Obama. It would just seem too “ungentlemanly” to him. It is not his nature. He is an pragmatist, a person who does not like conflict, someone that needs to be liked.
If Mitt Romney is our candidate, regardless of how you feel about the merits of Bain Capital…we lose to Obama.
Right on the money, Michael. As I mentioned to someone else on another thread, are we going to spend 2012 defending corporate raiding as synonymous with healthy capitalism? If so, just hand the keys to Obama for term two, and skip the election expenses.
Yes… private equity/venture capitalists are legal. And corporate raiding is also savvy opportunism… if not somewhat reprehensible in it’s concept. Rather like the late night infomercials teaching quasi flippers how to take advantage of homeowners in a tough corner in order to “sell” their house. What they do is legal, and reprehensible, as long as their state doesn’t require real estate licensing to engage in that activity, as so many do.
That doesn’t make it a palatable, or happy face view, of healthy capitalism that rewards companies with growth, or allows them to fail for bad ideas.
Bain has positive and laudable results in the first years that Romney created it. Staples is one of those. But 3-4 years after Romney started this, they switched their directions and started looking for those “infomercial” type opportunities. Buy, liquidate and run with the profits. Others were simply bad investments where they bought an undernourished milk cow, continued taking the milk without feeding it, then discarded it for low grade beef.
If Romney can’t survive scrutiny of his perceptions of corporate raiding by fellow Republicans, and provide plausible explanations now, Obama and the Democrats will be having a field day in the general. Which is exactly why those like Donna Brazile are rooting for a Romney candidacy. Romney is the perfect target for their campaign that characterizes capitalists as heartless, souless pigs. They couldn’t ask for more.
And that, drj, should partially answer your question… “do you guys want to win this election or not”?
First, we’ll never win if he can’t survive peer vetting.
Second, it all depends what you define as winning. Do I see a Romney presidency as a win? Hell no…..
So prez O’Bama and Solyndra aren’t sort of Vulture Caps? Didn’t most of the bailout funds go missing in a Vulture sort of way? I hope all the Venture Caps pouring money into O’Bama 2012 loose their shirts because Prez O’Bama is the riskiest venture I’ve ever witnessed.
CharlieGee
very well put, I like it
thank you
edit, if we only had one of FA running for the job,
we have such good debaters here.
@CharlieGee:
Unfortunately, the ”well, he does it, too!,” argument is deadly faulty.
It can’t work in the rough and tumble of politics.
Lying can.
Making your pol look good – even if it is just on paper – is very effective.
Earlier this week I was pointing out how Obama has gamed the census figures to pretend that 48% of Americans are below ”Middle Class.”
(How Occupy-freindly of Obama!)
A few weeks before the election Obama plans to re-figure those census numbers (adding in excluded income) to miraculously lift millions of Americans into middle class.
Our Saviour!
Today, in a blatant attempt to make Obama look like he’s controlling gov’t growth, Chris Matthews preposterously insisted that Barack Obama had added “only 13” people to the federal workforce in 2009 and that the total number of individuals working for the U.S. government (as of 2010) was 4,443.
Of course Matthews is off by a large amount.
According to the Office of Personnel Management (the source Matthews cited), there were 4,430,000 federal employees by 2010 and the President increased the numbers by 13,000, not 13.
Video at the link above.
With friends like Matthews in the media what does Obama have to worry about?
This is real simple and basic. Mr. Romney is far from my first choice on social issues alone. However, the plan here is to win the ballgame, period. Women, Independent AND Registered Democrats! will vote for Mitt Romney. And lots of them will. His election will have long coattails for Senate, House and statewide Republican slates all over the country.
A fiscally conservative, Tea Party inspired sweep of both chambers will go a long way to a Cut, Capped, and balanced national budget. A future President Romney will have ho choice but to sign Bills presented to him by a UNIFIED congress for the good of the nation. The Federal government is sorely in need of a “Bain Capital” Business model. Lots of Federal jobs need to be eliminated and budgets downsized. A leaner, more effective government is the only way to a budget Valhalla. This specious argument over “good” Capitalists and “bad” Capitalists is right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Under no circumstances Should we lose this election because we begin a feeding frenzy eating our own entrails. It has to stop, and we have to have a unified effort to keep our eye on the prize. The Obommunists will use the exact same line of attack. Do we need to buy into their playbook?? I think not. We have to fight with the candidate we have who can win, not the one we dreamed of who does not exist.
Well well well…..
Maybe Team Romney should have thought about attacking Gingrich for doing consulting work exercising his right to practice capitalist principles. I believe the comment “This aint bean bag” was the phase uttered by Romney.
As to the “playbook”. Maybe instead of whining about who is bringing out the questions that Romney is obviously going to be confronted with Team Romney should be coming up with a damn game plan to defeat it now.
It amazes me to see the Republican Establishment call for unity when they have done nothing but smear anyone who is a threat to the Golden Boy. Once again I believe the phrase “Man Up!” was used by Team Romney.
How about instead of bitching, advise Team Romney to take their own advice.
blogforce one
hi,
you carry your name very well, this is the right way, but I think the scenario might change as other
STATES get to have their say in CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE, MAYBE ROMNEY will fall behind
another one, we might see the RICK PERRY take the lead like projected in front like a missile target.
or NEWT OR BOTH of them together as one, what the heck they would really deliver jobs fast,
bye
@Michael Henkins…
Thanks for weighing in. Between all the big wig talking heads, huffing and puffing about Newt’s challenge and portraying the scrutiny as anti-capitalist, I was beginning to think I was living alone in an alternative universe.
I like Gingrich and the challenge is that he is a walking hand grenade. You are absolutely correct Michael regarding clarification from Romney
what if you all back up and look at previous PRESIDENTS, their strategy of winning,
their flaws that prevented them from winning early but brought them from the back,
what about a PRESIDENT WIN IN A DEPRESSION SUCH AS, OF COURSE IT WAS NEVER AS LOW, BUT JUST TO COMPARE HIS STRATEGY AGAINST THE TODAY CANDIDATES,
WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THEM TO WIN, MIGHT BE BRILLIANT TO INTRODUCE IN A PLAN
IN PART OR WHOLE along with a today add up.
we must keep in mind, that CHEERFULL CANDIDATE project confidence too, and is an important factor, to project COOL
to the DUDES
I think the CANDIDATE MUST EXPECT ANY THING WHEN THE LAST MATCH COME, AND MUST BE PREPARE TO BE FACING
ANY SCENARIO, SO NO SURPRISE WILL SHOCK HIM,
WE need a WARRIOR DISCIPLINE IN THERE
Is Rush Limbaugh the “establishment?” He clearly is not a Romney supporter but he gets it regarding the attacks on Romney coming from Perry and Gingrich for being a “bad Capitalist” is a terrible development. There are plenty of issues to use in attacks on Mitt Romney. Being a Capitalist is not one of them that helps the Republican Cause at all. and I agree 100% that “Team Romney” needs to address this issue front and center.
blogforce, it’s a “terrible development” because they have made it so. And, as far as I’m concerned, it’s one of those times when both Rush and Levin are wrong.
As I said, if we are going to go the entire 2012 election season, trying to convince the nation that corporate “Gekko” raiding is synonymous with healthy capitalism, then save the cash and hand the keys to Obama now.
@MataHarley:
I disagree. THE most important thing on Earth is getting Obama out of office. If it’s Romney, it’s Romney.
@MataHarley: I think Newt is a dead man walking- a pariah among Republicans.
Has nothing to do with Newt as the nominee, drj. This action may be, in fact, Newt strapping on a vest and committing a political suicide bombing when it comes to his own campaign. If he accomplishes nothing else, it will prove if Romney can survive an even worse Obama frontal assault.
But it’s nice to see that you believe two primaries is enough for you to call the game, and that the “golden boy”.. LOL… shall not be touched.
And, as I said, I don’t see a Romney presidency as a win over Obama at all. We just may not see how badly we lost by “winning” until 2016.
MATA
hi,
it’s just beginning, we must be confident of what is coming,
bye
tornado hit NORTH CAROLINA TOWN HOME DESTROYED 15 DEATHS SO FAR
PERRY’S PLAN IS INTRODUCE IN CONGRESS, THAT IS SHRINKING CONGRESS WORK HOURS
OBAMA FUNDRAISING COULD FUEL THE ECONOMY,
IMAGINE ALL THIS MONEY JUST FOR HIM, IN THIS TIME OF DESPAIR FOR THE AMERICANS, I WOULD SAY F… THE CAMPAIGN
MY AMERICA NEED ALL I HAVE, I SHOULD RUNN FOR AMERICA’S PRESIDENTCY
No Mata you are not in an alternate universe, you are on to the essential truth about a lot of these PE deals. Still, nothing illegal’s being done, so, heck, it’s a free country right? The problem with Gingrich’s attack is that it seems pointless and petty. Gingrich has way too much baggage to win in the general election. All he’s doing is damaging a guy who may be the only alternative to Obama this year. Gotta keep your eye on the ball, and the ball is avoiding another 4 years of Obama. The largest tax increase in history in 2013. 4 more years of yawning deficits. A debt/GDP ratio of Grecian proportions by 2017. More social justice judges with lifetime tenure. Including, perhaps, the supreme court. 4 more years of selective justice from DOJ. 4 more years blocking realistic energy sources. 4 more years of crony capitalism. More bailouts of states with unsustainable pension schemes, disguised as stimulus. 4 more years of usurping the power of congress through executive fiat. Cementing more permanent expansion of the entitlement state. Hollowing out our national defense to fund more spending at home. More kissing up to leftist thugs leading hostile governments abroad. I could go on and on.
Again, Doug… nothing to do with Newt and his own campaign. Like I said, he’s likely throwing himself under the bus as a sacrificial lamb with this move. This is a half-baked attack mounted by a GOP competitor that will pale in comparison to the one that Obama will launch with his fully fueled campaign coffers. This is vetting in advance, while they lay in wait, snickering and applauding… hoping that everyone will dance around the definition of “capitalism”, and be afraid to broach the truth.
Your mantra/list of why not to have Obama for another four years is valid. But a Romney candidacy that will fail in the general because he was unduly protected in the primary by the powers that be will still result in a loss. Surely you don’t think these are arguments that the Dems haven’t thought of themselves. Not to mention, these questions of whether he was a legal vulture or a genuine job creator are not only necessary, but may be the key to switching a nominee that the anyone-but-Romney base can rally around. And that is 2/3rds to 3/4ers of pretty much everyone.
If not, we’ll find out if his responses will be enough to hold out against the Obama onslaught. So far, nope…. Playing the “obama did it too with GM” game will score no points with anyone. Obama will claim it was necessary for the nation, while Romney did it for personal gain. Game, set, match. It’s heinous that Romney even attempted to justify it with that analogy. The man is in serious need of practice, because at this point, I see him as being mincemeat in the general.
Therefore, you should not run and hide from this very healthy, and legitimate, Romney challenge. Nor should anyone even consider defending corporate raiding – ala Obama/GM style – if they are interested in winning the general in this climate.
As far as anointing Romney, it’s two primaries in to the process. In the Ford/Reagan primary race, Reagan lost the first six. In the end, he ultimately lost to Ford, after picking a moderate Veep to appease the establishment, 1,187 delegates to Reagan’s 1,070. However none of those delegates were gained until after the first six primaries.
This race is far from over. Whoever the GOP nominee may be, I can only say that it’s beyond premature to be calling the game.
And a nuclear Iran with thermonuclear war. OBAMA enables and encourages despots
I once worked for a company who was bought by Bain Capital Back in 2004. No one got fired, (although I though some higher ups should have) everyone held their positions and it was basically ‘Business as usual”.
A lot of this company’s problems were brought on by themselves – and there was, as I found out later a few other things that could not be helped. I thought very it a dysfunctional company in many areas.
For instance the (new) President of the company not showing his face at/in/or around the company for several months at a time? Never having a ‘direction’ for the Company. So, it did not surprise me when someone had to come in and bail them out.
Once Bain capital ‘saved the day’ so to speak, the company wound up getting sold to a bigger company 4 years later anyway…
As far as firing people, some people ‘need’ to be fired…especially the ones who just take up space.
I don’t know what the hype is all about??? I guess once again it’s the “Political Drama” injection (from the Left) and the Right this time…
Flip/Flopping — elevated to breathtaking heights:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rush-freaks-20120112,0,16119.story
Huh?
Now, I know that my good friends here will never acknowledge that the auto bailouts were a brilliant success, the way that Romney, I, and others see it, but that’s not the point of this post.
Can anyone think of anyone who takes so little shame in taking whatever position is perceived to offer the opportunity to pick up a few more votes? At every stage in his career? In any direction? Leftward. Rightward. Up. Down. Forward. Backward.
It’s breathtaking.
The man truly has no shame. But he’s the Republican candidate for President who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.
And the guys who are trying to stop him have no idea what to do. In the past week, we’ve seen Gingrich and Perry go to the left of Obama in criticism of private equity.
A few months back, conventional wisdom was that the only way the GOP could lose to Obama was by handing him the election. No one could have dreamed of the circular firing squad which is going on right now, and, in Romney’s case, he can’t seem to stop firing his gun at himself.
The GOP candidates have given Obama’s media coordinators enough material for campaign advertising for two election cycles.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Just reading through some recent conservative commentary about Mitt, came across this interesting analysis:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/01/12/why-mitt-romney-comes-off-as-a-bit-of-a-phony/3/
What I like about this is that the author emphasizes the truly trivial impact of “regulations” on economic growth. “Regulations” are a mere nuisance to be overcome by resourceful entrepreneurs and businessmen. Regulations nibble at businesses at the margins, they don’t kill businesses. This doesn’t mean that it’s not desirable to improve the regulatory environment, it just means that one should beware conservative reformers whose economic programs consist of little of substance beyond regulatory reform.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
If you continue bashing Romney I will stop reading this site.
Ye Gods man, do you think Obama is better?
Come November, there will be TWO CHOICES…..
I say — anyone but Obama!
@MataHarley: AMEN!!!!!
If you want to see Romney debate Obama…see how well he did against Kennedy.
Romney has flipped flopped on all these issues. If Romney is our nominee…WE LOSE!!!!!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b25_1325351347
Cutter memo twists the knife on Bain
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 1/13/12 8:06 AM EST Politico
Via James Hohmann’s Morning Score, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is weighing in directly on the debate over Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, with a memo from Stephanie Cutter that includes an interesting biographical contrast (in bold, emphasis added):
Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices, and cut employee wages, benefits and pensions. He laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries. And he and his partners made hundreds of millions of dollars while taking companies to bankruptcy.
Although some of the businesses in which he took a stake undoubtedly added jobs, neither Romney’s campaign nor any independent fact checker has supported his claim of producing a net increase of 100,000 American jobs – or even anything close to it. …
Mitt Romney boasts about understanding the “real economy,” but President Obama has worked alongside hardworking Americans in that “real economy.” President Obama – who, like Mitt Romney, earned a degree from Harvard and all the opportunities that affords – began his career helping jobless workers in the shadow of a closed-down steel mill. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, made millions closing down steel mills.
When he began his presidency at the height of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, President Obama immediately addressed the economic crisis, put Americans back to work and held Wall Street accountable. …
Our economic crisis and endemic income inequality were caused in large part by a few who put profits over people. Taking advantage of an uneven playing field, where there was one rulebook for those at the top and another for everyone else, Mitt Romney and his friends made money hand over fist while working families lost their grip on the middle-class lifestyle they earned.
Between now and November the American people will decide whether to respond to this crisis by electing a corporate raider who profited from – and promises to restore – the conditions that caused it, or re-electing a President fighting to level the playing field for American businesses, restore fairness for consumers and help the middle class reclaim a sense of economic security that will benefit the entire economy. That’s what’s on trial, not “free enterprise.”
The memo takes the Democrats’ economic argument against Romney a half-step further than what the party has said so far about most Republicans. While every Democratic campaign committee has said the GOP wants to return to the policies that created an economic crisis, the Obama campaign argues that Romney both supports those policies and was personally involved in the business culture that triggered a financial meltdown.
Tercel
wow, it doesn’t look good, although OBAMA SUNK THE ECONOMY, SPEND TO GET AMERICA BROKEN FOR YEARS IN UNDER 4 YEARS, KILLED ALL THE AMERICAN’S JOBS, DEPRESS AMERICANS TO A POINT OF SUCH LOW THEY CANNOT THINK OF THE FUTURE, DIVIDE THE NATION WITH HATE BUSH AND ALL WHO IS NOT ON HIS SIDE, AND USED RACIST CARDS TO CONVINCE THE BLACKS HE IS THE ONLY SAVIOR FOR THEM, HE PUT THE BLAME OF HIS FAILURE TO THE CONGRESS, AND THE REPUBLICANS, AND THE WALL STREET AND THE TEA PARTY, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND THE CONSERVATIVES,
HE HAS NOTHING TO SHOW WHICH IS SUCCESSFUL FOR AMERICA,
SO any of the CANDIDATES ARE BETTER EXPERIENCE TO TAKE HIS JOB
That seems to be exactly what Bain did when they took over GS Technologies. Right off the bat, the new company issued $125 million in bonds and paid Bain $36.1 million with the proceeds. After the company closed down, it dumped the underfunded pension on the taxpayers.
It was obvious to the most casual observer that American steel companies were in big trouble due to cheap foreign competition and over-generous union contracts. Bain must have known all along that GS Technologies would NEVER be a going concern. Their only intention must have been to suck it dry and then abandon it.
None of this was illegal, but it stinks. This kind of scheme is not what I think of when I think of capitalism.
That’s what many conservatives don’t understand. One of Romney’s partners at the time questioned Bain doing this knowing that this is not how you set a company up to succeed in the future.
Its a matter of “optics”. Not if its illegal.
Asking these questions and pointing out these facts is not questioning capitalism as some try to redirect the argument. Its about running on a record of job creation you can’t prove. Its about claiming you were trying to save a company when in reality you were using its to make a quick buck and leaving it to die intentionally.
I do believe that @Tercel, @John Cooper, and @Mike Henkins represent out the Pollyanna example version of what an Obama frontal assault again Mittens would be during the general… and that doesn’t even account for the bottomless pit of cash he will have at his disposal.
For those of you, wringing your hands in despair, thinking that daring to even suggest that Mittens is another Gekko… thereby back peddling on all things capitalism/conservative in the process… I can only say again: you turn around and face a frustrated nation and try to defend corporate raiding as synonymous with healthy capitalism. Legal? Yes. But is this the self-absorbed business ethics we want from a POTUS?
uh, don’t think so. At least, not me. You’re on your own here if you do.
Instead you shoot the messengers, and attempt to nanny protect Romney… leaving his ppampered arse totally unprepared for the real challenge in the general should he get the nomination.
If he is the nominee, you do him no favors. If you ignore his background, you thwart any chance that an any-one-but-Romney candidate can advance and gain the more genuine support of the other 75% of conservatives.
If you attempt to claim that corporate raiding is a beloved conservative value, you do conservatism no favors either. Should there be laws against it? Or course not. But elevating it to a threshold where you find a corporate raider a stellar candidate for leader of the free world, and you do long term damage to the concept of conservatism and capitalism both.
Richard A. Viguerie
Conservative fundraiser, activist and chairman of ConservativeHQ.com :
Romney’s Real Bain Capital Problem is His Hypocrisy Establishment Supporters of TARP are the Real Anti-Capitalists
While Romney’s supporters are putting up a heavy smoke screen, Tea partiers should understand that, as a supporter of the TARP Wall Street bailout, Romney’s “creative destruction” only applies to Main Street, not Wall Street.
Far from being anti-capitalist, Mitt Romney’s opponents are asking one of the fundamental questions that brought forth the tea party rebellion: Do we have free markets and moral hazard or do we have crony capitalism where favored interests have the advantage over the little guy?
_______________
Could not have said this better myself!
@MataHarley:
I never said that. Why would you suggest that I did? What I wrote on another forum was:
JC, I never said you did. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment #33? What I said was that what you, Michael and Tercel presented as Romney vetting (which I agree with) are mild compared to what Obama will do in a general, backed by beaucoup bucks. Why would you think that I thought you were defending corporate raiding?
Only the first paragraph relates to you three, along with me, playing the devil’s advocate to Romney’s cushy position. The rest is addressing those, up in arms about attacking the front runner. Also that they feel Romney’s past as a corporate raider deserves protection, while any one who dares to question it is anti-conservative and anti-capitalist.
We’re in agreement, JC. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. My apologies for not making it more distinct.
What do you think the Chicago-rules political machine will throw at Santorum, Perry, or Gingrich? Let’s face it Obama will be hard to beat under the best of circumstances. The economy is likely to be a bit better. Perhaps the stock market will be higher. All of the really really big problems will lie in the future. The debt for one. Energy for another. Iran for another, and North Korea for another (God willing neither will blow in 2012, or ever). Some nearer-term problems, such as the massive 2013 tax increase, will be spun as positives to a base that increasingly votes for benefits paid for by others. And let’s stipulate that he’s on his game when it comes to soaring speeches. Let’s stipulate that the mainstream press is in the tank for him. Of course there’s the $1 billion plus war chest, not to mention the legions of well-heeled cronies such as Soros et. al.
Doug
hi,
are you trying to convince yourself,? or just thinking out loud?
bye
@blogforce one:
Yeah, and Rush is brought to you via the Clear Channel. Owned by Bain Capital.
The media does its collective best to carry water for Obama.
Just Thursday an NBC report had a photo of a nicely dressed Mitt Romney seated in a chair on the tarmac near a private jet.
NBC Today reporter Peter Alexander said it showed a pampered Mitt Romney getting his shoes polished.
Except it doesn’t.
In reality the picture shows Romney being wanded by an airport security official – like everyone else – before boarding a charter flight.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/01/13/romney-shoe-shine-photo-touted-nbc-actually-him-getting-security-check#ixzz1jRczNCll
retire05
we missed you,
what took you so long.
bye
@Doug: Gingrich has baggage because of his “non” lobbying for Freddie Mac and others. Not to mention his flip flops on global warming and the healthcare mandate. And then there are the 2 mistresses/3 wives issue.
Santorum’s Senate record is awesome on the life issue and gay issue but he is a Big Government Republican anyway you spin him.
My personal choice is Rick Perry. His consistent conservative governing record and job creation record in Texas are unimpeachable and so is his character.
All the candidates will have to take the billion dollar body blows but Governor Perry is a fighter and a proven chief executive of a government that has been an unparalleled success.
All three of the above are preferable to Romney or Paul.
Tercel #42 Would suggest you pray for a miracle or a Tebow endorsement.lol
This idea that Obama is a success just proves without a doubt that the universe has shifted polarity and that down is now up, bad is now good, lies are now truth and Obama just might be the anti-christ everybody’s been looking for along with Soros running the beast. By the way; crackpots are now pundits, no offense to most anyone here.
CharlieGee
yes that is what we notice, and the MEDIA feed AMERICANS THOSE UPSIDE DOWN NEFARIOUS POINT OF VIEWS ; so often, that they succeed on getting a whole CROWD TO FOLLOW BLINDLY IN ECSTASY A LEADER WHO FAIL TO CARRY THE ABILITY TO BE ON THAT JOB,
BYE
Today Romney was campaigning and met a lady in one rope line who was about to have her lights turned off by the electric company.
He did not hesitate.
He opened his wallet and gave her his cash.
When you go to his web site to buy Mitt stuff the prices are average: $20 for a t-shirt, $40 for an embroidered polo shirt, comparable to non-campaign stuff in price.
What has Obama done?
Gone straight to the high-end customer at his http://store.barackobama.com/runway-to-win.html?limit=9999&p=1
A campaign button is ONLY $50!
T-shirts $45 and up.
Tote bags $75 and up.
He’s really aiming at the 99%ers, huh?
Maybe those in the tip-top of the 99%.
LOL!
NAN Brilliant. That $100? worth a million in advertising.Can we expect to see you and hubby in Romney for prez. tees? He’s back up 21 points in yesterday’s S. C. Poll.
Patriots and Brady gave Tebow and Broncos lesson in big boy football.
Anticsrocks You and beezy having fun playing on other Tebow post?.
@Nan G:
That’s impressive right there. Most politicians don’t carry money in their wallets if they even carry a wallet. Remember Obama struggling over whether his credit card still worked? Remember Hillary failing to leave a tip wherever she dined?
Along those same lines, here’s a funny Day-by-Day cartoon about Obama having never seen a paycheck: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/01/14/#006390
@MataHarley: Yeah, I did misunderstand. Sorry. On that other forum I also added:
As Ayn Rand wrote:
JC, I don’t object to the existence of corporate vultures either. I don’t glorify them, but when a business makes the choice to work with them – just like if someone deliberately opts to deal with a loan shark – that is entirely their right.
My point is that corporate raiders/vultures exist as part of our system. But I don’t intend to spend my time attempting to defend a vulture who seizes companies to milk them, then dismantle them for profits as the best example of capitalism. While I can see the difference, and accept it’s presence in the system, I doubt most emotional Americans will feel the same way. It fits the “heartless, soul-less capitalist pig” description to a tee because it enriches the vulture. Thus why Obama, Axelrod, Brazile and the Dem powerhouses so desperately want to run against Romney.
Trust me, they won’t ever mention to the nation that the vulture also enriches his investors simultaneously. That’s just beyond the emotional range of most. Even now they can’t figure out that “Wall Street” is comprised of almost half the working population of America and their pensions/401Ks etc. So they’ll never “get” corporate raiders. It just “feels” bad…. and rightfully so. It is taking advantage of some in a tough spot. Rather like being forced to focus on defending pornography or outright bigotry as free speech. Yeah… it is. But dang, who really wants to defend that behavior?
Secondly, while I have no problems with corporate vultures in the private sector, that doesn’t mean I want a one of them as leader of the free world and representative of this nation. And this is just a pile on of Romney’s vague and ever changing positions. He’s “for” alternative clean energy, but stops the Cape Wind farm because it will damage the real estate values of his MA rich folk buds. He’s not for a mandate unless it’s a state mandate. This guy is a grab bag of problems and hot air.
Therefore the vetting should continue, and Romney had better get his answers perfected before the general. Otherwise I’m settling in for another Obama four years because the GOP foisted another loser on to conservative voters that they were sure “could win”.
How far down on your personal scale of potential choices is Mitt Romney?
Here’s a dating compatibility quiz you can take to rank your mates:
http://www.votingaid.com/start/usa2012.html
Mitt was not on top of my final score, but he wasn’t at the bottom.
Ron Paul was.
Try it yourself.
@Nan G: Interesting website! I wonder about the weighting, though. I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his suicidal foreign non-policy ideas, yet he came out as my supposed first choice. I played around with some of the slide bars, though, and found that if I strongly agreed (which I don’t) that: “It is within the rights of the President to order an assassination of a U.S. citizen if he or she is engaged in terrorist activities.”, then Ron Paul would drop several notches.
So any bets on whether this site is a secret Paulbot site?
@John Cooper:
I don’t think the weighting is crucial, JC.
I noted that, no matter how I take the quiz, weighing it light or heavy, as long as I am honest, there is less than 10% points between my agreement with Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Perry.
BUT way down at the bottom, more than 20% points away are both Huntsman and then down 10% more, Paul.
The main difference is are my highest numbers in the 90’s or the 70’s.
If one strongly disagrees with “U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan sooner than currently planned”, Ron Paul goes way down.