Calling all Newt supporters
Tell me, what do you think is going on here (please read the link to understand what I’m referring to)?
(1) Gingrich is just being helpful in trying to move Romney to the right, because he knows that Romney will face the same charges at the hands of the Obama crowd come the general.
(2) Gingrich feels a deep moral outrage by Romney’s actions during his tenure at Bain and by all similar business practices, and he thinks the American people ought to be informed, come what may.
(3) Gingrich really thinks the lies in the movie are true; he’s just misinformed.
(4) It’s payback time, and all’s fair in love and campaigns.
(5) Gingrich has gone over to the Dark Side (or maybe he was always there).
(6) Gingrich knows nothing about this film, disapproves of it, has no power to stop it, and will denounce it.
(7) Gingrich is like the drowning man who knows he’s going under and wants to pull Romney down with him (oh, I guess I said something like that yesterday).
(8) Gingrich thinks he will win the Republican nomination this way.
(9) Gingrich thinks Santorum will win the nomination if Romney gets knocked out and that he’ll then pick Gingrich as VP.
Or, if your answer is (10) (none of the above), please let me know what you think is really going on in the cranium of Newt Gingrich.
Combination of (4) and (7).
The fable of the crab basket is that if you catch one crab you can’t keep him in a basket. More than one is no problem, because any crab trying to escape the basket is pulled back in by the others, trying to escape at the leader’s expense. I think this describes Gingrich today.
texexec is right on: (4) + (7). Little else.
I have been a Newt supporter because he has convinced me that he is the only candidate willing to set his own terms vis-a-vis the media debate onslaught (e.g., his responses to Scott Pelley on the judiciary and Diane Sawyer on anti-Cjristian bias). I also think he knows “where the bodies are buried in DC” and how to work the legislative system to get things done (first Repub congress in 40+ years, balanced budget w/ a dem president).
The downside is IMO that he has an ego that may well surpass even the current wish-that-he-were-king resident of the White House. Unfortunately, I think the he just proved that the new Catholic grandfatherly Newt is no different than the former Protestant multi-wived Newt. I don’t think he’s learned a damned thing since he was rousted from the Speaker’s chair.
Since you asked for an opinion, I agree w/ texexec above, 4 & 7
Since I’m new here (well, not actually new – I’ve been reading this post for years now I think – but I’m new in the comment section 🙂 ) I thought it would be appropriate to introduce me shortly. I’m a student from Europe and would consider me a liberal (in the european sense) and leaning strongly towards the GOP – which makes me kind of an outcast here in Europe, i guess ;). I like this blog a lot and will be hopefully more present in the comments in the next time. Oh, and please excuse when my english is not the best – it’s not my native language.
Now to Newt: His ad applies to sth. that I would call in Europe common sense – evil entrepreneurs don’t care about people’s lives and do everything to increase their profit. I don’t know how popular this worldview is among the american voters, but I guess Gringrich is counting on it that in a country that elected Obama and that seems willing to give him a second term this belief is beginning to spread, too. And therefore, by appealing to this resentment, he hopes to reach goal (8) or (9).
Well, I admit that I really don’t know where the truth lies here.
From what I can see, it is true that the Republican establishment/Country Club Republicans/Congressional Republicans were and are scared of the magnitude and the kinds of change Newt was proposing to bring to Washington, which apparently threatened their seats on the gravy train and in the councils of power, and tried everything they could to put obstacles in Gingrich’s way, thereby smoothing the way for the presumably much more biddable and less disruptive Romney–a guy who spoke their language. There was no love lost there.
Then, there is the Punditocracy which–from the evidence– also fears and hates Newt, my favorite example of which is Charles Krauthammer, who gave this analysis of this situation over the last couple of nights:
Last night he saw a crazed, revenge-seeking Gingrich as Capt. Ahab, relentlessly trying to kill the White Whale of Romney. In another commentary yesterday, Krauthamer saw this as a situation in which Newt’s towering ego and grandiose self-estimation that he was a “world historical figure,” who was “entitled” to win the nomination, and whose time had come to take center stage in the world came crashing down under the force of Romney’s huge ad campaign, which treacherously caused the coronation that Newt thought inevitable to be destroyed and, thus, Newt was out to destroy Romney, in any way he could and no matter what effect that might have on Republican’s chances to defeat Obama and win the White House i.e. It was all about Newt’s hubris and wounded ego. I wonder just what Newt might have done to Kraut
As for the anti-Romney video about his time as CEO of Bain, the one thing I do know is that I do not buy Newt’s protestations that he had nothing to do with it.
As I understand the Capitalist system and the business cycle, it is true that some companies–that offer popular products, have efficient production, adequate capital, competent management and good timing (and some luck) –survive and make profits, and those companies that aren’t making products the public wants, are not efficient, have inadequate capitalization and /or out of control overhead, and incompetent management–or just open at the wrong time or place and guess wrong–will go under, and that means that the investors in those failed companies will lose part or all of the money they invested in those companies, that bank loans that were made will be paid off or otherwise cleared out of the financial system, and that the employees of those companies will lose their jobs; this is the “creative destruction” that clears the way for new companies to try to succeed, for new investors to be found, for new bank loans to be made, new plant and equipment to be purchased, and for fired workers to look for and to get new jobs. I see nothing wrong with this for, up until the government became increasingly successful at strangling businesses with ever more taxes, and regulations, and mandates, this was an extremely productive and successful system, in which fired workers who wanted to work could fairly easily find new jobs, or retrain for new careers, with the expectation that there would be such jobs available; not so today.
Finally, if a reckless, crazed, infuriated Newt is indeed intent on sinking Romney , no matter what the cost to him personally and to Republican chances to recapture the White House, then this is a total betrayal and refutation of the persona and ideals he generally present up until now on the campaign trail, and in his speeches and writings.
First, and, really, last: STRATEGY
2012 is a different primary structure. And thank God for that: Repubs must fight back against allowing Repub voters to be railroaded by a combination of New Hampshire voters + entrenched Repub power structure/big money + MSM rooting for the most moderate Repub candidate. McCain’s sudden grasping, of the 2008 nomination, via a sudden NH + SC blitzkrieg, was a usurpation of the process … away from voters and into the hands of the powerful few.
In 2012, there is enough time for Newt or for Perry to fight back,. and to win. There is enough time for Santorum to put a campaign structure into place, and to win. There is enough time. A miracle is not required: the new primary structure is stretched out. Effective campaigning can defeat a Romney whose Iowa and NH results barely eclipsed his 2008 results. (There is, also, still time for a miraculous entry such as Jindal. But that is another, and longer, story.)
Second: TACTICS
Its PAYBACK TIME. In game theory – which has been tested over millions of computer iterations: tit for tat is the proven superior strategy.
There exists, standing beside the cold tactical view, a primal defiance which has driven humanity to continue our existence throughout the ages. Thank God for that defiance. Romney’s team assaulted McCain, Huckabee, Bachmann, Perry, possibly was behind the Cain accusers, then assaulted Newt … in ways which infuriated all of the assaulted candidates (possibly excepting Cain); in ways which Newt believes were out of bounds. Inside, it screams out to me, and it must scream out to Newt: cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war. The primal part of me was satisfied with McCain’s willingness to fight back, with Huckabee’s willingness to fight back; is deeply satisfied with Newt’s willingness, with Perry’s willingness; craves the unrestrained defiance of Anne Barnhardt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8O3EPOtT4
Fight, boys. The game is not over. Game ON.
Hardly Gingrich himself knows what going on in his cranium. He behaved like cornered rat, utterly mad, charging at random at all possible directions. This is a pattern with him: a true political animal, seeking gain quite opportunistically by enraging himself first.
Gingrich is a phenomenon: hypersocial sociopath without concsience, capable to convince himself in absolute nonsense and feel like Messiyah on a path of crusade. A winning formula for perfect demagogue and great politician. Republicans must nominate him.
Narcissistic Rage.
Newt’s been WRONGED, and Mitt must pay, regardless of consequences.
Your question presumes that the film is filled with lies and slander. Let us wait and see if that’s true or false.
Mittens is going to have to defend his Bain days, now is a good time to start.
Above, I tried to explain that the primal, base part of me (defiantly unleash the dogs of war!) stands beside the intellectual and higher ordered parts. The primal part exists.
Yet, there is every possibility that a seasoned professional Newt Gingrich is taking a cooly calculated look at the strategic circumstances (stretched out primaries; opponent w/o passionate following), and is choosing the proven superior competitive tactic (tit-for-tat).
Separately, it can be argued that it is Romney who is damaging conservatism … via falsely equating criticism of his Bain record with criticism of free enterprise. Is it Gingrich/Perry who are embracing the leftist tactic of criticizing free enterprise? Or, is it Romney who is embracing the leftist tactic of smearing conservatives as hypocrites?
We, who support free enterprise, are accustomed to seeing it attacked. Are we knee jerking a defense of free enterprise … against imagined, yet nonexistent, attacks? I think we are.
The current circumstance provides Romney with a giant platform from which to mount a stirring defense of his principles: a platform from which to draw comparisons between his principles and classic American principles; a platform from which to speak his principles and philosophies … in inspiring ways … which will win skeptical conservative voters to his side.
Yet, so far, Romney has responded by issuing a leftist smear which accuses conservatives of being hypocrites about free enterprise. Romney has responded by attempting to ignore the issue; by attempting to not be dragged into give and take re the accusation that his time at Bain included actions which were ethically questionable.
From the standpoint of trying to win a general election: Romney should EMBRACE give and take re his principles and values; should draw comparisons between his principles and classic American principles. And he should do it NOW, when he can gain some innoculation from what Axelrod will aim at him in a general election.
Romney is missing his opportunity, and he is smearing Repubs. It is not his greatest moment.
Unless, of course, Romney truly did engage in ethically questionable activity at Bain. In that case, this IS Romney’s greatest moment, and, from here, it will be downhill for him.
Numbers 4 and 7. He suffered a Pearl Harbor attack and now he’s fueling Enola Gray.
The attack on Paul Ryan was unprovoked, so Newt’s problem goes way beyond self defense. He’s like Obama–always has to be the smartest man in the room. Is Callista his Valerie Jarrett?
Said it before and will say it again until the end of time: “Republicans. They thirst for death.”
I agree with dicentra.
Revenge itself need not be self-destructive. See “The Count of Monte Cristo”.
I think Gingrich was wronged in the Iowa phase of the campaign. However, his response is not well-planned revenge; it is a rage that is even more destructive to himself than it is to Romney. In the process he is destroying the very image of what he was trying to create, of being what a good Republican candidate should be, one who is not destructive of his party’s chances in the general election while competing with other Republicans for the nomination.
He not only is destroying his own chances but also is reducing the changes of any Republican candidate; and in the process he has destroyed the better side of himself.
I find it quite sad.
And, today, Romney is defending his Bain record by saying: Pres. Obama did it too! Pres. Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler!
This is an immense unforced error by Romney: an immense executive miscalculation (for those who pay attention: yet another pinprick to the balloon of illusion that Romney is an outstanding executive). This unforced error amounts to an admission by Romney that his actions at Bain are a serious electoral problem for him.
Further, Romney’s unforced error shines a spotlight on Romney’s lack of understanding of first principles of conservatism. Voter who oppose Romney have noticed this in past, and will notice this today.
A good thing about Romney: he will probably learn from this mistake, and will probably pivot to a better argument. A bad thing about Romney: if he had first principles ingrained within himself, then he never would have made this mistake in the first place.
If Romney’s actions at Bain were principled actions: then this entire circumstance amounts to a giant opportunity for Romney to gain the hearts of conservative voters. And Romney is blowing it.
Above, I should have said Romney is defending himself by saying: Pres. Obama tried to help GM and Chrysler, and failed, just as I failed to help some of the companies which Bain tried to reorganize.
Dicentra is right. Narcissistic Rage is a correct diagnosis. But it also can be a formiddable weapon: Hitler was known to use it every of his grand speeches electrifying listeners.
wailing and gnashing of teeth in the darkness….the GOP cannibalizes itself…..
(4) & (8)
But he’s misplaying it. As gcotharn observes Romney is missing the opportunity to show himself as a noble agent of creative destruction. Newt would do better by clarifying that Romney is a financier, not the mythical American entrepreneur who started in his garage, ate ramen to make payroll and introduced some insanely great product.
My ideal result would be (7). But Mitt’s hair is a flotation device…
“This is FALSE. Private equity firms do arrange bank financing for their acquisitions, but the firms themselves are not the real borrowers. Instead, the debt is secured against the acquired company’s assets — which effectively means that the company itself is the debtor. For example, let’s imagine that Bain purchased a company for $1 billion. Of that, Bain might put up $300 million in equity. The remaining $700 million comes from banks. Were the company to immediately collapse, the most Bain and its investors could lose would be $300 million.
It also is worth noting that National Review completely ignored the issue of dividend recaps, which is the real issue that keeps getting glossed over because it doesn’t fit into a 30-second soundbite. Dividend recaps are when a private equity firm raises even more debt for an existing portfolio company, and then takes a dividend out of the debt proceeds (rather than from profits). That is how a private equity firm can profit on an investment whether the company later thrives or fails (although, typically, dividend recaps alone do not generate the type of returns that PE firms promise their investors).”
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/13/fact-or-fiction-romneys-private-equity-past/?iid=EL
Some information that might help people here make up their minds about Mitt’s actions.
Romney did something directly opposite to Obama’s bailouts: he destroyed some jobs to make economy healthier, while Obama saved jobs in dysfunctional companies hurting economy. Strange that Romney himself can not see the difference. Not great for his economy policy if he eventually become President.
I continue to have Romney’s defense of Bain via attack of Obama on my mind. Romney is making an argument about his own electability, i.e. Obama cannot use Bain to make me unelectable!
Romney is failing to seize the moment, and the opportunity, to promote conservative principles and values.
The entirety: promoting his electability; failing to promote conservative principles … is exactly what conservative voters hate about Mitt Romney. It is as if Romney is presenting a parody of himself as the candidate whom conservative love to hate.
while Obama saved jobs in dysfunctional companies hurting economy.
Something POTUS has no business doing in the first place, whereas VC firms just do what they’re supposed to do.
gcotharn: oh, so we who accuse Gingrich of making statements that sound as though he’s against free enterprise, and doing it to hurt Romney, are guilty of a “leftist smear”?
Funny how I thought it was Newt who was guilty of the leftist smear.
I R A Darth Aggie: did you read the link I provided, that I told everyone to read in order to understand what I was referring to?
I haven’t actually seen the film, of course, but the article makes it rather clear that the film contains a significant amount of lies and slander (although, since it’s a film, it would technically be libel).
The only thing my question presumes is that (a) the article contains a relatively accurate description of the film, and (b) the reader has looked at the article.
@neo
Yes, that is my argument: intentionally or unintentionally, you guys are promoting leftist style smears about conservative hypocrisy towards capitalism. Gingrich and Perry are talking about the ethics of Romney’s actions at Bain; are referencing how Bain affects Romney’s electability.
Gingrich and Perry are not making leftist style smears against capitalism. There are many legal, capitalistic activities which I do not want a Repub candidate to have on his resume.
Newt is making a brutal political calculation – the only way he can beat Romney is to attack him in ways that will resonate with the white working class. So Mitt is now Gordon Gekko, the evil corporate raider who buys and sells companies at will, stripping assets and leaving thousands of people out of work. This is a theme promoted by Hollywood (Wall Street, Pretty Woman etc) and by the major recipients of Wall Street campaign cash, the Democratic party. And now Newt.
Unfortunately for Newt, people like me, who were reluctantly edging into his camp, are completely turned off by these anti-free market attacks.
The good news is that Romney now has to defend himself from attacks from the left sooner rather than later. He needs to draw a clear distinction between free markets and crony capitalism. He needs to contrast his success with Staples compared to Obama’s failures with Solyndra and the rest. If Romney can do that successfully, without fudging, I might reconsider him.
But what a poor set of choices we have. My favorite potential candidate gave this great campaign speech back in September and then declined to run. Romney could learn a lot from it.
Not being a mind reader, I really have no idea. If I was to ponder how I would think in Newt’s shoes, it would go something like this. He endured several weeks of relentless and unfair attacks from Romney and his surrogates in the Republican establishment (Rubin, Coulter, Krauthammer, etc…) the minute he looked like a credible threat to Romney, as did Perry before him, Bachman before him, and so on. Since everyone else was playing hardball, and Newt was merely playing Nerf ball, he decided it was time to take the gloves off. Interesting that when Newt was subjected to unfair bare knuckle attacks, no one complained, but now that it’s the establishment’s favored fair haired boy, it’s a f*c<!n sin!!!!111
If this is true, Romney has stepped in it big time.
In defending his Bain record, Romney said: “”In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler — closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers — he did it to try to save the business.”
Yes Mitt, but we hope you didn’t use billions of taxpayer money to do it. We hope you didn’t screw legal bond-holders and hand the keys to the unions that helped cause the failure. What a stupid response.
“There are many legal, capitalistic activities which I do not want a Repub candidate to have on his resume.”
Hear, hear! The law has been manipulated to serve financial and mega-corp interests for a couple of centuries.
The lefties are onto a story that Bain under Romney asked for a $10M bailout from the FDIC.
I need more details, but it appears Mitt has blood on his hands.
foxmarks: You know, of course, that Bain and Company and Bain Capital are two separate entities? And that although Romney started with the first, after 1984 he was head of the second (which had started under his leadership)?
That’s a little detail for you.
Here’s another: Bain and Company and Bain Capital are not the same:
Romney certainly knew people there at that time, but he had no power and no input into the decisions Bain & Company made. So the whole thing would be moot, even if it’s true.
neo:
Yup, I knew the difference. I harp on Romney’s abandonment of the “Bain Way” so he could play finance guy at Bain Capital.
It seems, however that your detail winds up supporting the theory that Mitt has bailout blood on his hands. Further down in the Wiki you linked:
Mitt came back Bain&Co, secured the FDIC bailout, then went back to BainCap.
Detective Monk would be saying, “He’s the guy.”
foxmarks: Before I saw your comment above but after I wrote my comment, I did some more research on the situation, and I saw that the article in question referred to Romney’s year when he returned to Bain & Co. to deal with a time when the company was having difficulty. So yes, I agree with that.
However, this is what was going on (and when I finish this comment, I’d like to try to dig up the original Globe story and get more info):
I don’t call that blood on his hands.
By the way, Romney’s Wiki entry says that he only took one dollar in compensation for his year working for Bain & Co. on the restructuring. I’m not sure what that $4 million is referring to; stock options or something? Or is that the amount of the loans forgiven by the FDIC for the Bank of New England? As I said, I’m going to try to find the Globe article and read it.
foxmarks: well, I haven’t found the Globe article yet, but I found the source of the $4 million claim.
And by the way, this whole thing is based on Ted Kennedy’s campaign ads, and then other Democratic operatives recently bringing the whole thing to Politico’s attention, according to this article from the Globe last July.
Here’s the relevant quote:
If that’s blood on his hands, then everyone in banking and finance has blood on their hands. Is that really the way you want to go?
So that $4 million the original Kennedy ad was referring to when it said, “Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal” was the amount of interest the firm didn’t have to pay when the debts were forgiven. And Romney himself got $1 for his pains—although it’s logical to assume he owned a lot of Bain stock and would have saved the value of that when he saved the company. Is this now considered a crime?
neo: You’re probably already onto it, but the Globe story is here.
The Politico story has me riddled with self-doubt as I learn Trump was on the same line as I am:
I fear for the future of my hair.
foxmarks: you can see that our comments crossed. Yes, I found the Globe article you mention, but that’s not the original 1994 one on which the Ted Kennedy ads were based, which I haven’t yet located.
“everyone in banking and finance has blood on their hands. Is that really the way you want to go?”
Yes.
Romney used legal means to secure a $4M gain for his firm in an entirely financial transaction. He didn’t make more widgets or increase customer satisfaction. He shifted a wad of money from depositors (who fund the FDIC) into his cronys’ pockets.
That he took no compensation for screwing people does not make the act virtuous. That Teddy K. saw it as an effective line of attack does not alter the nature of the deal.
Part of where we diverge is revealed in your plea, “Is this now considered a crime?”
I say Romney is a tool of the corrupt and broken financial system. What is declared a crime is the result of lobbying Congress and the regulators. Romney (and Obama) have truckloads of bankster money in their campaign coffers. Those banks are just giving the money away, they are securing future favors by which they can continue looting the real economy.
At least Newt’s affair with the financiers appeared to be a one-time contract. Romney made it part of his lifestyle.
Romney/Bain hair thing?
Consider: Kennedy
Trump, Gingrich, Perry
foxmarks: I don’t share your point of view at all. I’ve read a lot about Bain Capital, where Romney spent the bulk of his time. They really did help a lot of companies (that did make widgets and things like that) stay in business. And I don’t have any problem with people who do what Bain & Company did for a living, even if widgets aren’t being made, as long as they follow the law. And I don’t see handling a restructuring by trying to get the best deal for your firm as any problem whatsoever.
I’m very surprised at this vein of finance-hatred among conservatives. Maybe it’s one of the points where left and right meet up. I don’t like crooks like Madoff, but I consider that people enter business to make money and that’s okay if they play by the rules. Would I want to be in that business? No. But I have no problem supporting a candidate who was—and by all accounts Romney was one of the more upright people in the field.
Pretty soon the only people who will be able to enter politics will be career politicians or saints.
By the way, here’s more about the Bain loan forgiveness and Romney. I just don’t have any problem with this (and you might want to read the whole article; it’s rather interesting):
You know another odd thing? All accounts say that Romney’s return to Bain & Co. for the restructuring lasted a year. This article says he left Bain & Co. in December of 1991. However, this piece purports to quote the original Globe article from 1994 (the one I can’t seem to find) as stating that “The roughly $10 million forgiveness by the FDIC occurred in 1993, when Romney was chairman and chief executive of Bain & Co.”
What gives? The dates don’t add up. Either that’s not when the loan was negotiated, or he didn’t leave in late 1991, or he wasn’t in charge of Bain at the time of the debt forgiveness by the FDIC.
Here’s the film if you’re interested.
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/
No matter what, Romney needs to figure out a way to deal with this, because, due to some of my own life experiences, I can relate to a lot of what is said in the film. I’ve worked at companies that were run into the ground, and the CEOs walked away with millions in company stock, while the employess were told to leave. I’ve worked places where we didn’t get raises, but the CEOs made millions, and management got 5 figure bonuses. So when the film talks about companies being closed, and Bain execs walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars, I don’t find that to be too large a stretch. While I am a capitalist, and I’m not concerned about other people making money, sometimes things seem a little out of whack. In a year where there is so much anger at Wall Street, and the bailouts, while average people lost their homes, some of this really hits home for me.
foxmarks: hot on the trail of more info.
Here we have the following (and who knows whether it’s correct or not, at this point—but it again quotes that single 1994 Globe article that all of the information about this deal seems to be based on):
The firm seems to have owed $38 million to the bank and $10 million was forgiven by the FDIC as part of a huge and complex deal that involved a lot of other stuff that’s unspecified. What should Romney have done? Refused to negotiate and help the firm? Insist the FDIC not forgive the loan, and allow the firm and its employees to go under?
I have to admit skipping over the details of neo and foxmark’s debate/details. NONE of this will matter once the lefties start sharpening their knives. The public will not care about details such as $1 in comp, different companies, switching between the two, etc. No one will listen long enough. The R party will be portrayed as ‘out of touch’.
The ignorant will consider Romney a ‘bankster’, and the more in-tune regular-guy conservatives will react like Tom. I’m of a similar opinion.
While I will vote R regardless, still pining for my Sarah, will the bankster attack work in the general?
On the other hand, recalling the bowing of O to all the foreign leaders, the treachery towards our friends, the kissing up to our enemies…. I can’t imagine Newt doing any of that.
“”I’m very surprised at this vein of finance-hatred among conservatives.””
Neo
Yes. Very surprising. Because actual conservatives crack a little smile at someone more successful and clever than themselves. This chip on the shoulder shit is narcissistic leftist.
We are supposed to be surprised and shocked that Presidential candidates are “more ruthless than Wall Street”? That’s what it takes, people. It is part of the candidates’ job descriptions, along with seeming credible, making false promises, dancing with them that brung ya. I give you Barack Hussein Obama, lest we forget; Queen Hillary; good ol’ Bill, our “first Black President.” Bush W partially failed at this, thus failed as POTUS. The list goes on….
There ain’t no Mr. Smith going to Washington. Never was, never will be.
Doing things legally just means playing by the existing rules, which have a tenuous connection at best to morality and financial prudence, and are subject to change. Securitizing pooled mortgages was quite legal, after all, and issuing mortgages to those who had no chance of amortizing them was entirely legal too. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? Entirely legal.
So there should be disappointment, but surprises? I think not.
Hmmm. I read the Deseret News story. It appears to claim that Romney was the head of an investment company who was not involved in the financing aspect. It’s at odds with the Wikipedia portrayal and Trump’s assessment.
Mitt was the finance guy in the Bain&Co rescue. OWS and TEA people would likely agree that Bain&Co should have been liquidated, with the partners eating the losses instead of shifting them onto bank depositors. “No bailouts” is common ground of both factions.
We still need to understand more about the purported $4M benefit resulting from the bailout-fueled rescue.
To call it “finance hatred” is fair, but insufficient. My faction hates the financiers who engage in fraud, who manipulate regulations to permit unsound debt instruments, and who ultimately use their essential role in the economy (capital formation and liquidity) to shift their cost of risk onto the public. Animosity toward “Too big to fail” is also shared territory between OWS and TEA. Playing by the rules isn’t fair if only one side gets to make the rules for everybody.
Further, provable and admitted fraud or rules violations go unprosecuted because of prosecutorial discretion (corruption) and a belief that enforcing the law would precipitate financial collapse. cf: Robosigning mortgages. The financial sector is now above the law they wrote for themselves.
Back to Romney and the Bains, Mitt’s claim that he created all those jobs is about as disingenuous as Perry’s taking credit for the Texas economy. Bain as venture capital merely provided money. The firms they financed are the ones who created jobs. Romney didn’t operate Staples, he cut them a check.
By Romney’s metric, anyone holding a certificate of deposit at their local bank could take credit for all the jobs created by whoever the bank loaned the deposits to.
It’s off my finance rant and back to my managerial rant about Romney, but the long article says he ran a company of a couple of dozen, then moved up to manage a headcount of 1000. That’s not really a bigtime managerial credential. Whoever actually runs Staples, for example, manages 90,000 employees. Herman Cain’s former pizza chain has maybe 18,000 employees.
The more we go back and forth, the more it seems to me that Romney is a house of mirrors.
“NONE of this will matter once the lefties start sharpening their knives.”
Aside from my vendetta against Romney 🙂 that’s a big part of why I have disagreed about his electability. Let’s say I’m all wet and suffering Romney Derangement Syndrome, a symptom of Banksterphobia. The lefties will see the infection spread far and wide. Anyone who has ever felt cheated is susceptible.
Electability…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
“”Anyone who has ever felt cheated is susceptible.””
foxmarks
Dude. I had an ex wife that took everything and feel blessed. WTF is it with the chip on your shoulder? Grow up. This IS the world as it actually is. Its great!
foxmarks: do you believe that people and/or companies should be allowed to go into bankruptcy? Just wondering how far this goes. Should we revive debtor’s prison?
Because, to the best of my knowledge, bankruptcies for companies (and this is NOT my field of expertise, I’ll be the first to say) often involve some sort of restructuring and regrouping, with some creditors getting paid less than what is owed, and yet the company is sometimes allowed to continue on in some reduced and changed way.
It sounds to me (and I admit it’s really hard to get a bead on what really happened) that, without formally going into bankruptcy (they were insolvent but not bankrupt), Bain & Company worked out a series of agreements with creditors where Bain paid them back some but not all. It sounds as though Bain owed the Bank of New England (which WAS in bankruptcy) $38 million and paid them $28 million, in exchange for something or other (not sure about that part at all). Restructuring and renegotiating debt can be part of the deal, isn’t it—since the creditors wouldn’t necessarily get any more money anyway if the debtor company went bankrupt?
For example.
So. Question.
How does this primary season actually all end up, when there’s no “Electable” Last Man Standing?
FYI: I saw about half the film. As far as Newt’s raison d’etre? – Oh definitely No. 4, paybacks (via the nuclear option).
My personal observation: Ouch, that’s gotta sting.
You gotta wonder if there was a gross political miscalculation on the part of the Romney primary team about the potential use of this kind of “nuclear option” from his opponents, as they became increasingly ticked off by the Romney campaign’s reliance on take-no-prisoners negative ads.
Really, I’m kind of surprised that the Romney campaign felt they were somehow inoculated from this kind of reciprocity (I’d like to have been a fly on the wall, yada-yada).
I guess I’d be tempted to add Newt No. 10 to your “reasons for” list: mutual assured destruction.
…and the only Romney response to the charges I’ve came across so far is “Hey! Obama did it too!”?
…omigawd. That’s it? That’s all he’s got?
And thinking on’t: wouldn’t that be the kind of reflexively guilty [sounding] response you’d get if he-who-presumably-should-know-the-facts-on-the-ground don’t think it’s groundless …hence making the faux outraged cries of libel-libel-libel from his camp [followers] seem, well, kind of, you know, contrived?
The real question that you (and all of us) should be asking is, will this [type of attack] resonate with the voters?
I’d argue that, after seeing the banks & financial houses, and the political actors & operatives, grossly enrich themselves to the tune of several trillions of the middle class’s decades of built-up equity, via what appears in retrospect to have been an orchestrated out-and-out “politically legalized” theft of middle class assets over the past decade or so (culminating in the 2008 meltdown, and the last squeeze of $1.5T USD by the then incoming Democrat administration & Congress) …the answer is a likely to be a pretty definitive “you bet’cha”.
…all the cries of outrage at the use of his same tactics by Romney’s opponents though: now that’s just downright funny.
——
…and to anyone who doesn’t realize that the Obama campaign hasn’t got anything similar to this film already in the can, probably times 100: what other political illusions do you inoculate yourself from political reality with? – Just curious.
davisbr: I don’t think anyone has suggested that Obama wouldn’t have used this tactic if Newt and Perry hadn’t shown him how. Of course he would have. That’s not the point; you’re creating a strawman.
Nor do I recall anyone suggesting (if you’ve read previous threads here on the topic) that Romney hadn’t attacked Gingrich earlier. It’s the subject matter of the attack by Gingrich on Romney that is the problem, not the target (see this thread, including comments). The subject matter is incredibly bizarre coming from supposed conservatives Gingrich and Perry.
I’m not going to go into details for the 20th time. It’s all there in the previous threads and comments.
Or maybe you’d like to read Rush Limbaugh on the subject. I mention him because he is no Romney supporter; au contraire, and yet he’s very upset at Perry and Gingrich.
Here’s an excerpt:
James Pethokoukis shows how Romney ought go about defending himself:
Romney needs to begin with the Pethokoukis defense, then transition into Milton Friedman’s
Romney needs to finish by drawing a parallel between his own principles and classic American principles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above said … I just watched the Bain film. It is a classic of the “hit piece” genre.
It is also a classic revenge movie: the laid-off workers are taking off a chunk of Mitt Romney’s hide. They are punishing him. The viewer cannot help but root for them. And they are effective.
I do not think Mitt Romney has it within himself to recover from their damaging blows to his reputation. In order to recover from this film, Romney needs to understand first principles; needs to communicate first principles in a credible way. Romney also needs to get out specific detail about why the 5 companies in the film could not be saved.
I do not think Mitt has all of that within him. Romney might be toast. We shall see. Nothing, about the way Romney has so far operated, indicates that he has what it takes to overcome this film. The Republican race might be thrown into disarray; into wide open blue sky.
Wow! A lot of feuding within what should be friends.
Romney is nowhere near the top of my list of preferred potential presidents. However, Newt is deservedly near the bottom, just above BHO, because he is a narcissistic, corrupt politician nearly on par with BHO. Someone needs to show me accurate, verifiable info that Romney has done something illegal (committed fraud) before I take all the comments about Bain and Romney’s ‘ethics’ seriously. So far its critics zero.
SteveH: Do you have a counterargument to suggest that Obama cannot or will not paint Romney as an exploiter?
neo: Bankruptcy is entirely acceptable in foxmarkstopia. The deal in question has more details than we know, so it is tough evaluate. Failure to actually follow through with restructurings and write-downs is one of the areas where I fault the financial sector and its gov’t regulators.
The FDIC was conceived as a short-term measure to protect small depositors and main street banks. In this case, our sketchy details point to a large sum benefiting Bain personnel and/or the NE Bank owners. It sure could be a great example of how the rules/laws get changed over time to favor monied interests.
Tom & davisbr: I watched the film. It is good propaganda. The class warfare angle is a bit heavy-handed, but the description of the deals meshes with what I am on about. Bain leverages up, uses insider connections to pump the company, sells out at the top and leaves an unsustainable over-levered debt-ridden company. It’s the financial extraction of wealth from the real economy by means of issuing and selling debt.
Parker:
The essence of my beef is that a whole lot of stuff which should not be legal (if we’re going to regulate banks) was made legal or crimes were not prosecuted.
Romney himself committed no crime. And he surely has a virtuous character. In another thread I called him Gordon Gekko with ethics. But he is a prince of the financial class, and I do not foresee a Romney justice department doing anything to “stop the looting and start the prosecuting”. His top ten funders are from the banks that write impossible debt instruments and side-step laws about disclosure.
I want someone to do with the financial sector what Giuliani did to the mob. The government must stop socializing financial risk.
Oh, I’ve already read the threads: I just didn’t think it was an effective line of response, neo.
Actually, and “in effect”, I “pre-responded” to this tack (before I knew exactly with the exact “this” issue was going to be, other than based-on-Bain, if you will, in a comment at another house-blog to (which again, I would edit and emend, if I could, in the interest of clarity) viz your rationale (it’s worth a perusal …but I would say that, after all).
I happen to disagree a) that this is/was an attack on free market capitalism, b) with the assertion that there’s somehow a qualitative difference in a “politics is politics” environment which makes one form of negativism “legal” and another off-limits (in this campaign in particular), and c) that this act of justly pure reciprocity has even dis-served the Party OR conservatism (let alone somehow capitalism or jurisprudence or the fabric of western civilization …seems rather an over-blown drama-queenish assertion to my ears).
To the point: I find myself in sui generis disagreement with Rushbo (I’ve seen a successful family company or two “bled dry”, Rush: that IS what happens …granted, not always, and whether in this case, who knows: but let us see Romney effectively respond to the case, NOW and not later, when it’s too damn late, as he’s devoured by the Obama machine).
And too, rather apparently, others.
Neo, I really don’t think there’s much of case to be made for the shenanigans I’ve seen in the financial markets this past decade (and longer) to be defended as anything remotely resembling “free market capitalism”. Or even as economically valid “creative destruction”.
I’ve trusted these people to know what the hell they were doing …and it’s pretty damn apparent at this point that it’s all been smoke-and-mirrors …just lies, damn lies, and out-right bold-faced lies.
Enough is enough.
And so after negating (to my satisfaction, at least) the arguments of the mawkish omigawd-this-is-so-wrong POV, I’m left with this as simply another case of “a political attack is a political attack” coupled with the Party as having not been adequately served – i.e., by the Romney campaign being under-vetted – to date.
And one in which I would rather see NOW rather than later, the Romney response.
…to which, Patterico apparently agrees.
And though I understand your arguments & your concerns, I just think it’s disingenuous to complain about something (damn near anything now) as being off-limits for this reason
And especially as it calls into question the long-running “electability meme” which has often enough been the fallback for his inevutibility (IMHO …and granted, by some less-than-savvy supporters).
…and most especially after what I rather suspect I’ve been watching (through a glass darkly, if you will) for some time sourced from the Romney campaign …turn-about/fair play, and all that.
Last, re: my rhetorically witty [final] observation[s]. Truly that is not really considered a strawman these days, is it?
///whoa: there were a lot of comments while I was writing my response.
Oh crap. I forgot to close an href with a “/a”. My extreme apologies. The link is to a comment I made at AOSHQ.
…what a bumbler. Sorry.
[note from neo-neocon: I fixed it.]
davisbr: when did I ever say it was off-limits? Gingrich and Perry can say whatever they want, and I can think they’re wrong, dumb, and hypocritically betraying their conservative bona fides into the bargain when they do so.
I’m getting tired of repeating the same things, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said before (somewhere!—and in greater detail) what I’m about to say here, but I’ll repeat it briefly:
If Gingrich/Perry had merely said that companies such as Bain sometimes do shady things, and accused Romney of doing a specific shady thing (names, dates, sources, describe it) while at Bain, and asked him to respond, it would be reasonable. What they did (and I’ve read a lot of direct quotes) was populist rabble-rousing of the worst, and most generically sophistic, sort. Just throwing a bunch of excrement against the Romney wall and seeing whether it sticks. The majority of their remarks were indistinguishable in substance and in tone from those of the Occupiers. It was not a pointed, focused discussion of what actually went on with Bain. And Bain is not responsible for the worst excesses of the financial industry as a whole, or what corporate raiders do in general. Gingrich and Perry cynically tapped into the free-floating hatred of rich people that Obama has been exploiting for much of his administration. That can only hurt Republicans and help Obama.
Foxmarks says, “The essence of my beef is that a whole lot of stuff which should not be legal (if we’re going to regulate banks) was made legal….”
I agree. But, I recognize that it is the nature of the fox to try to enter the chicken coop. So I won’t condemn Romney for being a fox.
However, I think we both can agree the whole economic-political system is corrupt and requires serious overhaul. Where we differ is you appear to want everything to be resolved by your ideal candidate within a few weeks or months or years. Instead, I favor slow, excruciating reform and economic contraction spread out over a decade as the means to reform the financial system & the long, overdue reform of the federal government. I admit my preferred solution is also unlikely given the circumstances; but I want to give it a few more years with someone other than BHO in the Oval Office.
[note from neo-neocon: I fixed it.]
Best. Blog-master. Ever.
…keep in mind, too, neo: I may not like nor approve of nor trust nor support the Rom’ at this point, but I don’t have history with him that is going to prevent me from voting the ticket should he – as I fully expect, as I don’t see Santorum having legs …and my prayers for a brokered convention that chooses Palin quite apparently aren’t going to be answered either – lead the fall ticket.
If he wins the gen’ (don’t think he can, no resonance: the only hope FTW is the continued strength of the ABO vote, and an economy continuuing to perform below expectations) we’ll also give him some time to actually govern before we finally break-away to the New Whigs, heh.
Not that I wouldn’t vote for a quad-headed multi-humped crazy-eyed quasi-khamel** over Obama, mind you.
**Those are indigenous to Altair IV btw, and quite intelligent, actually. But no bottom to ’em in a bar-fight whatsoever: they blow through at the first inklingof a good stir-up. <–free pun, n/c
“you appear to want everything to be resolved by your ideal candidate within a few weeks or months or years”
That’s not a fair characterization. It’s the same strawman nonsense I see trotted out against the Paulbots.
I am not mesmerized by a magical candidate. You have me confused for an Obama voter.
How long should I wait to see standing law enforced? Is it too much to expect government to attempt the job it set out for itself (most of it not authorized under the Constitution anyway)?
I refuse to keep participating in my own rape. Anyone who wants to lie there and take for four more years is welcome to dispose of their life and their body as they wish. You know he will stop beating you, he says he loves you, right?
Even when in nominal agreement on the major points, it always winds up with an attack on my maturity or intelligence. I hear, repeatedly, “You don’t want to vote the way I think you should. You’re a stupid baby.”
The thing is, when dealing with other adults, y’all have to come to terms with our different perspectives and different motivations. Y’all end up treating opponents as children, presuming you are qualified to parent another adult. It’s the same hubris that leads to the nanny state we all seem to despise.
[The foregoing rant was inspired by Parker, but is not aimed at Parker.]
Parker:
I don’t blame Romney for being a fox, either. It seems he played by the corrupt rules he found. There’s a parallel to a defense attorney for an admitted murderer. I do not blame the lawyer for doing his job using the details of law as a tireless advocate for his client.
As a rooster, however, I will always vote against the fox, no matter how virtuously he ate my family. There is something in the nature of foxes which I do not want in charge of the henhouse.
What is going on here is that Newt believes that the Mitt Romneys of the world should not run for office. They should sit quietly in the back room, and provide funds for lobbyists, and campaign contributions for the Gingrichs, Santorums and Perrys of the world, and let those men pontificate about American Greatness so that they can attract the voters who will continue to allow them to protect the interests of the Mitt Romneys of the world.
I am not sure whether Gingrich has completely lost it and believes that this will somehow get him or Rick Santorum nominated for President. Perhaps. But in addition to any delusions he may have, I think he is irate at Romney for waltzing up to the front of the room and declaring that corporations are people. Republicans are not supposed to say that. Democrats are supposed to say that Republicans say that, and then Republicans are supposed to laugh and say “abortion” and “death panel” and “welfare queen”.
Gingrich fears that the Obama Chicago machine will be able to paint Romney as the cartoon capitalist villain. Perhaps he thinks that getting out ahead of such an attack will neutralize it. And perhaps it will. But perhaps it wont.
I think that Newt Gingrich is deeply committed to a particular vision of the GOP, where the Romneys of the world provide the funds but stay in quiet back rooms while people like Newt run the show. And perhaps he is so committed to this vision that he is willing to let Obama have four more years rather than give it up to Romney. If Romney wins and splits the Reagan coalition, the GOP is toast. If Romeny loses, Newt can say “I told you so” and continue to bellow against Obama for the next four years. Newt’s days as a candidate are over, but if he appears to succeed in warning the GOP of the dangers of nominating Romney, then he becomes a king maker. If Romney beats Obama, Newt becomes a footnote. And the next white guy to become the Democratic nominee wins the working class vote for a generation.
#8. I think that Newt is clawing and ripping as hard as he can. He wants to win the nomination, and the only way for him to do so is to force Romney out of the race. The politics of personal destruction worked on Herman Cain, so maybe Newt thinks it will work on Mitt Romney.
I’m not really outraged by Newt’s attacks though. Actually, I think that he is doing Romney a favor. He is doing the job that the mainstream media won’t do … until the day after the Republican primary. It’s almost the equivalent of a spoiling attack. Don’t think for a moment that the Democrats and MSM aren’t preparing material like this for the general election. They are. What Newt is doing is wearing out the allegations. He is turning the accusations into old, tired, used up news. By the time the primaries are wrapped up and the general election begins, people are going to be sick and tired of hearing about Bain, Romney’s millions, “vulture capital” and all the rest of this nonsense. All this should be coming out now, and the MSM and Democrats are very deliberately and strategically not doing it. Newt, whether he intends it or not, is wearing out and defusing Obama’s potential arsenal of weapons to use against Romney. He’s certainly not scoring any damage against Romney. All of the condemnation is being aimed at Newt for bringing this stuff up against a fellow Republican. Whether he means to or not, he is the only one seriously vetting Mitt Romney. Republicans and independents need to decide now whether they are going to support Romney in spite of all of the negatives of the candidate.
If Mitt Romney cannot survive an attack by Newt Gingrich, then he will certainly not survive the combined attack of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the entire Mainstream Media, all of which will be fighting with full cooperation and operating in complete synchronization to defeat him in November.
jms:
Romney seems to agree with you: