Sassenach wrote:I think the point is that on several occasions they took over a business with a relatively small 'investment', sucked out 5 or 6 times what they put in double quick time and then simply left it to go bankrupt, putting all the staff out of work while they made lots of money. Gingrich this morning was hammering on about a particular example (which apparently isn't unique) where Bain bought a company for $30 million, took out $180 million over a short period and then the company went broke. Everybody lost their livelihoods except for Romney and his pals, who made a 600% return on their initial stake. People are not going to like that, and if the story keeps getting repeated there's every chance it could stick, which would go a long towards undermining Romney's main selling point as a candidate.

If that is true, then here's all I would say: that was one stupid company. If I had $180M in assets, I would not put myself in a position to be purchased for $30M.

Time will tell on this story. However, I smell a crock. Democrats in this State would surely have dug it up.

Furthermore, there are plenty of successes to point to--Staples, etc. Critics want to make a big deal out of investments like Ampad. I think if anyone bothers to look at the process, it's pretty easy to understand. No one goes into business to lose money--except President Obama. It's his "investments" people should be looking at.

Here's a quote of Romney's remark:

"I want individuals to have their own insurance," he said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

Gingrich picked up the story from the WSJ, which is reasonably reputable source. I'm sure the situation is much more complicated than that of course, but it does at least suggest that Bain weren't always especially concerned with leaving businesses in a healthier state than they found them so long as they made money out of it. Romney's claim to have created 100000 jobs seems highly dubious to me, and I suspect that nobody will believe him.

But more to the point, the more that this story airs the more Romney wil come to be associated with high finance and Wall Street financial engineering, which isn't exactly popular on 'main street' right now. It wouldn't even be an unfair association either since this is exactly how he made his fortune. I realise that Obama is hardly free from that taint either given the compostion of his economic teram, but he hasn't directly profited to the tune of millions from it while laying off thousands of ordinary American workers. The mud may not stick entirely but if it at least manages to turn a positive for Romney into a constant running sore that he has to defend himself about during the whole campaign then it becomes a major negative for him. Look at what happened to Kerry. His war record was his strongest card during the primaries and yet by the end it was a weight around his neck. The exact same thing could happen here.

Doctor Fate wrote:Furthermore, there are plenty of successes to point to--Staples, etc. Critics want to make a big deal out of investments like Ampad. I think if anyone bothers to look at the process, it's pretty easy to understand. No one goes into business to lose money

It's very easy to understand asset stripping. That doesn't make it OK. And even if it's OK in the context of making money for investors, that doesn't make it or the people who profit from it popular.

Ray Jay wrote:Here's a quote of Romney's remark:

Seen it. In context that last sentence becomes a little softer - but do you think Gingrich's pals will keep the context?

Even so I'm not sure it's appropriate to 'like' being able to fire people. What's wrong with 'regretfully, having to go elsewhere'? I know he's talking about consumer choice, so why could he not express it in terms of choosing the best or hiring someone better?

On it's own, it means little. But if the anti-Romney people (and let's face it, that includes a lot of Republicans) add it to the stuff that Gingrich is coming out with, they'll be saying it says something about his character, his approach. In elections to high office on a personal basis, that stuff matters just as much as 'record' or political positions.

Sassenach wrote:Gingrich picked up the story from the WSJ, which is reasonably reputable source. I'm sure the situation is much more complicated than that of course, but it does at least suggest that Bain weren't always especially concerned with leaving businesses in a healthier state than they found them so long as they made money out of it. Romney's claim to have created 100000 jobs seems highly dubious to me, and I suspect that nobody will believe him.

Bain wasn't the Financial Red Cross. They were a for-profit. Stunning.

I don't know if we'll ever be able to point out the 100K jobs or lack thereof. I suspect someone with a liberal bias will crunch the numbers and turn him into Donald Trump in the final minute of "The Apprentice" with a machine gun-like staccato of "you're fired . . . you're fired . . . " On the other hand, some conservative may crunch the numbers and fancy Romney the greatest job creator since the invention of labor.

If it is Romney, I look forward to Obama trying to defend his own record. That's something no one here wants to do.

For the record, I saw Gingrich back off this morning after the context of the "firing" comment was explained to him. However, he did use it as a reason to bolster his own credentials. The Great Newt would never say anything so foolish, so says he.

Well I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I do think you may be underestimating the potential damage Romney could take from this though. I'm sure that Kerry's backers initially thought they could shrug off the Swift Boat Truthers at first, but ultimately it sank his campaign by turning his main strength into a weakness. This has the potential to do the same to Romney. It doesn't necesarily matter what the objective truth of the matter is either. Objectively Kerry had a far more impressive war record than Bush, but he was never allowed to turn it into a positive for his campaign. If Romney is continually forced onto the defensive about his business record that it could at the very least neutralise his own principal selling point. Sure, it could all blow over, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this being a very big deal.

Sassenach wrote:Well I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I do think you may be underestimating the potential damage Romney could take from this though. I'm sure that Kerry's backers initially thought they could shrug off the Swift Boat Truthers at first, but ultimately it sank his campaign by turning his main strength into a weakness. This has the potential to do the same to Romney. It doesn't necesarily matter what the objective truth of the matter is either. Objectively Kerry had a far more impressive war record than Bush, but he was never allowed to turn it into a positive for his campaign. If Romney is continually forced onto the defensive about his business record that it could at the very least neutralise his own principal selling point. Sure, it could all blow over, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this being a very big deal.

We're not going to agree.

The comparison is inapt. For it to work, Romney would have to have bashed capitalism. That's what Kerry did regarding his service. He called his fellow vets murderers. He testified before Congress. He threw his medals away.

John Kerry, like most Democrats, doesn't much like the US. They like it when others pay taxes, but will dock their boats in Rhode Island to avoid paying them. That kind of thing.

Could it hurt Romney? Sure. People vote on all kinds of misinformation. They believed "hope" and "change." They believed all kinds of lies Obama told, so sure, anything's possible.

“There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business and I happen to think that’s indefensible,” said Perry. “If you’re a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it

Perry is in SC campaigning. He's pushing the Bain angle too. Why? Because Bain did in several businesses in SC and there are plenty of people there with long memories.
Gingrich and Perry are sounding an awful lot like Occupy Wall Street rabble aren't they?

And Steve, Danivon is right.I've never said a republican can't win. In fact I've said that given the economy a republican should win... But it just doesn't appear likely to happen as of today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Looking at the summary of face to face polling by reputable pollsters, the range shows mostly Obama in blue.... And with the economy improving a little now, .....

rickyp wrote:

“There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business and I happen to think that’s indefensible,” said Perry. “If you’re a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it

Perry is in SC campaigning. He's pushing the Bain angle too. Why? Because Bain did in several businesses in SC and there are plenty of people there with long memories.
Gingrich and Perry are sounding an awful lot like Occupy Wall Street rabble aren't they?

And Steve, Danivon is right.I've never said a republican can't win. In fact I've said that given the economy a republican should win... But it just doesn't appear likely to happen as of today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Looking at the summary of face to face polling by reputable pollsters, the range shows mostly Obama in blue.... And with the economy improving a little now, .....

Wanna bet?

Oh, sorry.

I'm as sorry as you ought to be. I actually have quoted real polls that are current. You? You're lazy. You look at Real Clear, see the average suits you, and post it. That's fine . . . until you look at the details. Some of those polls are nearly a month old.

And, worse, some "reputable" polls, like the CNN poll? Yeah, "reputable." It shows Obama +7 among . . . registered voters. That's fine, but will they vote? Furthermore, what's the party breakdown?

The Reuters-Ipsos poll? Well, at least they tell us:

513 Democrats; 414 Republicans; 119 Independents

Uh-huh. So, approximately half of the electorate are Democrats?

These are your "reputable" polls? Please.

Furthermore, you take a slight uptick, during Christmas, as a sign the economy is rebounding? Maybe. Will it feel like that 9 months from now? What will the unemployment rate be? If it's above 8, lots of luck. Remember the "if we pass the Stimulus, unemployment will not go over 8%" pitch? It rings pretty hollow if it's still over that.

Keep trying, Ricky. Sooner or later, you'll formulate a real argument. In the meantime, send those monkeys back to their keyboards.

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know if we'll ever be able to point out the 100K jobs or lack thereof. I suspect someone with a liberal bias will crunch the numbers and turn him into Donald Trump in the final minute of "The Apprentice" with a machine gun-like staccato of "you're fired . . . you're fired . . . "On the other hand, some conservative may crunch the numbers and fancy Romney the greatest job creator since the invention of labor.

Perry and Gingrich and Jason Killian Meath (producer of the documentary/campaign ad "When Romney Came to Town" and former aide to the RNC) have a liberal bias now?

A strong result for Romney, and Huntsman clear into 3rd. Looks like the late polls were right to show Huntsman picking up support, but wrong to suggest it was at the expense of Romney and Paul. Gingrich and Perry must be desperate for something to happen in SC (hence their anti-Romney rhetoric I guess).

Romney has snuck ahead in the SC polling, with Santorum's Iowa surge coinciding with the drop for Gingrich. I think Perry will be squeezed out here. Colbert might beat him and Huntsman as things go.

I don't see how Huntsman stays in ... he's campaigned forever in NH which has demographics just right for him, and allows independents to vote in the primary. if he can only get 1 out of 6 voters in NH, I don't see the point of him continuing. Russ?

Some of those polls are nearly a month old.

Rasmussen, who you favour, is a week old. It has Mitt in a tie with Barrack....
Go figure why....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html


Unless the Bain Capital scourge takes hold in SC Romneys home and cooling ...
He's leading polls in SC and should get a bumpo from NH.

The upshot of the direction this is taking is that even Republicans have been playing into the expected narrative for the general election. WHo'll fight for the common man against a do nothing (rfuse to do anything republican ) Congress or a vulture capitalist. (The usual term for much of what Bain did in the 90s.)
,

rickyp wrote:

Some of those polls are nearly a month old.

Rasmussen, who you favour, is a week old. It has Mitt in a tie with Barrack....
Go figure why....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html


Unless the Bain Capital scourge takes hold in SC Romneys home and cooling ...
He's leading polls in SC and should get a bumpo from NH.

The upshot of the direction this is taking is that even Republicans have been playing into the expected narrative for the general election. WHo'll fight for the common man against a do nothing (rfuse to do anything republican ) Congress or a vulture capitalist. (The usual term for much of what Bain did in the 90s.)
,

I think you know Obama won't win. You simply delight in being a donkey.

oh my goodness Steve!!!!
Today...thats right today. january 11
Rasmussen has the head to head
Obama 44 Mitt 41


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... l_matchups

Whats wrong with Rasmussens methodology now!!!