“Bain Capitalist”: Mitt Romney Haunted By His Victims
During Mitt Romney’s Senate campaign 17 years ago, the Republican politician was faring quite well against Ted Kennedy, right up until voters started hearing from some of Romney’s victims.
To briefly review, Romney got very rich running a private-equity firm, Bain Capital, which broke up companies and laid off American workers. He had considerable success orchestrating leveraged buyouts, seeking taxpayer subsidies, flipping companies quickly for large profits, and making money for investors, even when the employees of those companies were deemed collateral damage.
In the 1994 campaign, this mattered. Many of Romney’s victims drove to Massachusetts to protest the Republican’s campaign, and Democrats put together a half-dozen ads featuring laid-off workers who said they suffered while Romney lined his pockets at their expense.
It proved effective in 1994, and Dems hope it will work again in 2012.
A former employee of Bain Capital, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney’s former company, said Sunday that Romney’s decisions cost him and many others their jobs.
Randy Johnson said Sunday that the former Massachusetts governor’s decisions as Bain’s CEO put him out of work.
Romney was the chief executive officer of Bain Capital in 1992 when the company purchased American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, and oversaw the management of that company and others.
Ampad went bankrupt in 2000, and investors netted over $100 million from the deal, according to the Boston Globe.
Johnson told reporters yesterday, “I really feel that he didn’t care about the workers. It was all about profit over people.”
For its part, the Romney campaign recently began arguing that critics of Bain Capital’s layoffs are borderline communists, trying to “put free enterprise on trial.”
Between this and Romney’s agenda — take away health care coverage from millions, tax breaks for the wealthy, free reign for Wall Street, more foreclosures — the “man of the people” routine may prove to be a tough sell.
By: Steve Benen, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, January 2, 2011
Battered In Iowa, Gingrich Plans To Rip Romney In New Hampshire And Beyond
The morning after the Des Moines Register‘s final Iowa pre-caucus poll put Newt Gingrich in fourth place and falling, the former Speaker of the House attended mass at St Ambrose Church in Des Moines and then rode thirty-five miles due north in his bus to Ames for an event at the West Towne Pub. The event was billed as a meet-and-greet with voters, but in truth it was more of a full-blown media clusterfuck: the ratio of reporters/pundits/TV personalities (David Gregory, David Brooks, and the inestimable Al Hunt were all in the house) and photographers/cameramen to actual Iowans was roughly ten-to-one. As Gingrich and his wife, Callista, made their way slowly through the jampacked bar, he seemed giddy and slightly gobsmacked by the extent and intensity of the attention. “I’ve never seen so many reporters in my life,” Gingrich marveled. “Don’t you all have anything else to do?”
A fair question, to be sure, especially in light of Gingrich’s standing in the race. One explanation is that his schedule—unlike that of his rivals, all of whom were farther afield today—took him to venues within easy driving distance of Des Moines, which is ground zero for the lazy (or, in the case of Impolitic, skull-splittingly hung over) schlubs who constitute the campaign hack pack. But two other explanations also account for the media scrum. The first is that Gingrich’s unpredictability raises the potential payoff of trailing him around. And the second is the sense among many in the press and the political class that, despite the stunning collapse he has suffered in Iowa, Gingrich may still have the best (and possibly the only) chance of tripping up Romney in what is looking increasingly like a waltz to the Republican nomination.
First a word about that collapse, which has been apparent for two weeks and the Register‘s poll confirmed. As recently as the second week of December, Gingrich was in first place in Iowa, polling north of 30 percent. Today, the stats gurus for the local broadsheet—who have historically produced the most reliable caucus surveys—find his support just barely in double digits (12 percent over a four-day sampling last week, 11 over the last two of those days). The Register also found Romney in first place, with 24 percent; Ron Paul in second with 22 and Rick Santorum in third with 15 (though if you only count those most recent two days of sampling, their positions are reversed, with Paul fading to third with 18 percent and Santorum surging to second with 21); and Rick Perry flatlining in fifth with 11.
The cause of Gingrich’s downward spiral is clear enough: the relentlessly brutal and brutally relentless negative-ad barrage inflicted on him in Iowa since his surge in late November and early December. Indeed, something like half of the vast number of spots that have run here in that time frame have been assaults on Gingrich. The primary source of those spots has been the pro-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future, which has spent something like $3.5 million on the effort. Gingrich has done nothing to disguise his ire at this turn of events; as the MSNBC host Alex Wagner has described his recent countenance, “The Teddy Bear is angry.”
What the Teddy Bear has not done, however, is fight back—not in any effective way, at least. But at Gingrich’s second event of the day—another meet-and-greet at another sports bar, this time in Marshalltown—he indicated that his passivity is about to disappear. After chatting and taking pictures with voters for about an hour, the candidate decided to conduct an unscheduled media availability. Among those present was another MSNBC host, Chris Matthews, who more or less took control of the proceedings, goading Gingrich by suggesting that he had let Romney’s super-PAC “kick the shit” out of him.
More than any other candidate in the race—more than most politicians, period—Gingrich is perfectly happy to address process questions, adopting the mien of a hardened political consultant. Comparing himself implicitly to John Kerry, Gingrich complained that he had been “Romney-boated” by the negative ads. “I probably should have responded faster and more aggressively,’’ he admitted. “If somebody spent $3.5 million lying about you, you have some obligation to come back and set the record straight.”
Then Gingrich went on, incredibly, to lay out his post-Iowa strategy. “New Hampshire is the perfect state to have a debate over Romneycare and to have a debate about tax-paid abortions, which he signed, and to have a debate about putting Planned Parenthood on a government board, which he signed, and to have a debate about appointing liberal judges, which he did,” Gingrich said. “And so I think New Hampshire is a good place to start the debate for South Carolina.”
So there you have it: Gingrich, who trails Romney badly in the Granite State, plans to use the week between the caucuses here and the primary there to rip Romney a new one; and in doing so, weaken him in South Carolina, where Gingrich (for the moment) is polling strongly and is at the head of the pack. Now flush with a decent fundraising haul in the last quarter of 2011—around $9 million, he claims—Gingrich apparently intends to take to the airwaves to make his case, in addition to hammering Romney as a dreaded (and self-described, albeit long ago) moderate in the two debates scheduled for this weekend in New Hampshire.
There is, no doubt, something deeply ironic (or even wildly hypocritical) about this putative strategy being outlined by a guy who continues to insist that he is waging a “relentlessly positive” campaign, and who says that he is pinning his hopes of exceeding expectations in Iowa on the possibility that voters here will rise up and repudiate the Romney camp’s negativity towards him. But in politics, consistency is the hobgoblin of … well, almost no one, and least of all Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The more salient and remarkable fact, however, is that Romney has somehow managed to have been the GOP’s de facto frontrunner through all of 2011 and yet never faced sustained negative attacks from his any of his rivals. Romney has improved as a candidate in many ways, but on this score, he has simply been lucky. Barring some strange twist, that luck may be enough to help him win a victory in Iowa on Tuesday night that was barely thinkable a few months back. But if the Angry Teddy Bear has his way, Romney’s luck—at least on this front—is about to reach its end.
By: Published in Daily Intel, January 1, 2012
Recall Of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Appears Inevitable
A recall of controversial Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker now appear inevitable. In just 28 days, activists collected 507,533 signatures. Organizers have until January 17 to collect 540,208 signatures, which is equal to 25% of the state’s 2010 general election turnout. To be safe, recall advocates have set a new goal of 720,277 signatures by the deadline.
The recall efforts success has propted the Scott Walker’s campaign to take aggressive action to invalidate signatures. Walker sued his own Government Accountability Board, arguing the proceedures adopted by the board to review signatures aren’t agressive enough. Without citing any concrete evidence, Walker alleged to Fox News that there was massive fraud in the signature gathering effort. The case is still pending.
Nevertheless, Walker has changed his tone in recent days and acknowleged making mistakes in pursuing his an anti-union effort in his first few days in office. Walker told the LaCross Tribune that “that he’s made mistakes in how he’s gone about achieving his agenda” and “he regretted not having done a better job of selling his changes to state government.” Walker also said he regretted his statements on a phone call with a man pretending to be billionaire David Koch. He said his comments on the call, where he referred to his plan to undermine collective bargaining as “dropping a bomb” and admitted he considered planting troublemakers among the protesters, were “stupid.”
Assuming the final signatures are collected and verified, a recall election is expected in the late-Spring or Summer.
By: Judd Legum, Think Progress, December 31, 2011
Republican Presidential Primary: A Quiz for All Seasons
What a big week coming up! New Year’s Day and then the Iowa caucuses! Doesn’t get any better than that. And, in honor of this double-whammy of exciting events, here’s the End-of-the-Year Republican Presidential Primary Quiz:
I. Which of the following has Rick Perry not gotten wrong, so far, during his presidential campaign:
A) Number of Supreme Court justices
B) Legal voting age in the United States
C) Date of the election
D) Whether New Hampshire has a primary or caucuses
E) Number of stars on the Texas state flag
F) Name of the late leader of North Korea
G) Century in which the American Revolution was fought
II. “I was born free!/Born free!/Free, like a river raging. … Wild, like an untamed stallion” is a quote from:
A) The opening of Rick Perry’s biography
B) Newt Gingrich’s third wedding vows
C) Mitt Romney’s campaign theme song
D) Ron Paul poem entitled “World Without Fed”
III. Match the speaker:
1) “She was hot and got ratings.”
2) “He’s a big cereal hound.”
3) “I had dinner last night with Jim Perry. I was impressed with him.”
4) “He’s on the battlefield right now fighting the battles God wants him to fight. The only way I get through it is daily Mass and keeping my prayer life in order.”
5) “She hates Muslims. She hates them. She wants to go get ’em.”
6) “… He really wants my endorsement. I mean, he wants it very badly.”
A) Ann Romney on husband Mitt
B) Donald Trump on Mitt Romney
C) Donald Trump on Rick Perry
D) Karen Santorum on husband Rick
E) Roger Ailes on Sarah Palin
F) Ron Paul on Michele Bachmann
IV. Finish the quote:
1. Rick Perry: “Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country and say things like”:
A) “Yippee Ki Yay.”
B) “Nobody likes Mitt Romney. Face it.”
C) “Close the Departments of Education, Commerce and, yes, Energy!”
D) “Let’s get America working again”
2. Ron Paul on border security: “Every time you think of a fence, keeping all those bad people out, think about maybe those fences being used”:
A) “To keep in those alligators Herman Cain talks about.”
B) “As building materials.”
C) “Against us. Keeping us in.”
D) “For 2,000 miles worth of graffiti.”
3. Michele Bachmann: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe”:
A) “In intelligent design.”
B) “That vaccines cause mental retardation.”
C) “That the founding fathers eliminated slavery.”
D) “That I should be president of the United States.”
V. Match the money:
1) Said mortgage giant Freddie Mac paid him $300,000 for his advice “as a historian.”
2) Double-dipping gets him a quarter-million in state salary and pension combined.
3) Got $68,000 for appearing at the International Franchise Association convention in Las Vegas.
4) Although he appears sort of unemployed, he actually made $970,000 last year.
A) Rick Santorum
B) Newt Gingrich
C) Mitt Romney
D) Rick Perry
VI. Match the candidate with a high point from his book:
1) Mitt Romney
2) Herman Cain
3) Rick Perry
4) Ron Paul
5) Newt Gingrich
A) He’s “the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”
B) Tells the reader how to become the C.E.O. of Self.
C) “Chicken-hawks are individuals who dodged the draft when their numbers came up but who later became champions of senseless and undeclared wars when they were influencing foreign policy. Former Vice President Cheney is the best example of this disgraceful behavior.”
D) His daughter and co-author tells about the time she averted a meltdown during a TV makeup session by begging her father to “Close your eyes and go to a happy place.”
E) “I love jokes and I love laughing.”
ANSWERS:
I-E; II-C; III: 1-E, 2-A, 3-C, 4-D, 5-F, 6-B; IV: 1-D, 2-C, 3-A; V: 1-B, 2-D; 3-C; 4-A; VI: 1-E, 2-B, 3-A, 4-C, 5-D.
By: Gail Collins, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, December 30, 2011
Nobody Understands Debt
In 2011, as in 2010, America was in a technical recovery but continued to suffer from disastrously high unemployment. And through most of 2011, as in 2010, almost all the conversation in Washington was about something else: the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit.
This misplaced focus said a lot about our political culture, in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering of ordinary Americans. But it also revealed something else: when people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt, by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least.
Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring.
Any day now!
And while they’ve been waiting, those rates have dropped to historical lows. You might think that this would make politicians question their choice of experts — that is, you might think that if you didn’t know anything about our postmodern, fact-free politics.
But Washington isn’t just confused about the short run; it’s also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem, the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong, and exaggerates the problem’s size.
Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.
But isn’t this time different? Not as much as you think.
It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction.
Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest.
And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan.
Of course, America, with its rabidly antitax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves.
So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, January 1, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.