By: Eugene Robinson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, January 16, 2012
Insulting Comments At Fox News Debate Show Newt Gingrich Clueless On Black Americans
If you want to understand why the GOP is so ill prepared to compete in an increasingly nonwhite America, just look at the exchange between Fox News questioner Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich halfway through last night’s Republican presidential debate.
It being Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Williams asked Gingrich whether some poor and minority voters might not be insulted at his claim that poor kids lack a work ethic and that black people should be instructed to demand jobs, not food stamps. Gingrich, as is his wont, haughtily dismissed Williams’s question, to wild applause.
Then Williams tried again, mentioning a black woman who had taken Gingrich to task for calling Barack Obama a “food stamp” president. By this point, the overwhelmingly white crowd had begun to boo the only African-American on stage. When Gingrich insisted that Obama was indeed the “food stamp” president—because more Americans are now on food stamps—and dismissed Williams’s criticism as “politically correct,” the crowd began to scream with delight. By the time Gingrich finished his answer, the crowd was on its feet in a standing ovation.
The fascinating thing about the exchange is that Gingrich is not a racist. I suspect he genuinely cares about the African-American poor. In fact, he’s convinced himself that his willingness to say things that many African-Americans consider insulting is an expression of that concern; that only he cares enough about African-Americans to speak the “politically incorrect” truths that black leaders won’t.
Gingrich’s problem isn’t racism; it’s ignorance. Only someone profoundly ignorant of African-American politics would suggest that black Americans have spent the past few decades seeking food stamps, not jobs. We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day, after all, in part because of the speech King gave at an event called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. If you look at the budgets proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus over the years, you’ll see that they often include huge, FDR-style government jobs programs. Gingrich may not think that’s the best way to go about providing jobs, but to suggest that African-Americans and their leaders don’t consider jobs important just reveals how shut off from Africa-American politics he actually is.
I’m sure Gingrich also sees nothing offensive in calling Obama the “food stamp” president. After all, under Obama the number of people using food stamps has gone up! So because Alan Greenspan presided over predatory lending policies by banks, perhaps we should have called him the “Shylock” chairman of the Federal Reserve. And if child molestations by priests rise on this administration’s watch, perhaps we should call Joseph Biden the “pedophilia” vice president.
Gingrich would never use those phrases, of course, because he’s familiar enough with Jews and Catholics to understand why they’d find them offensive. But for Gingrich—a veteran politician from the state of Georgia, speaking at a debate in South Carolina on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday—not to understand why calling the first African-American in the Oval Office the “food stamp” president would offend African-Americans is simply amazing. The most plausible explanation is that Gingrich inhabits a cultural and intellectual bubble. A bubble called the Republican Party.
I don’t doubt that Newt Gingrich wants to help African-Americans, just like I don’t doubt that George W. Bush wanted to help Iraqis. But in politics, if you want to help people, it’s a good idea to learn something about them first.
By: Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast, January 17, 2012
“Bait-And-Switch”: When Mitt Romney Ran Bain Capital, His Word Was Not His Bond
America has been learning a lot lately about “the Bain way.” The damning 28-minute video “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” put out by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC, and the new book “The Real Romney,” by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, have shed light on the strategies that Mitt Romney’s old private-equity firm, Bain Capital, used to generate outsize returns for its investors.
Make no mistake: Under Romney’s leadership in the 1980s and 1990s, Bain was a top-performing private-equity fund. According to an internal 2000 estimate, the fund achieved annualized returns of an astounding 88 percent from 1984 to 1999 for its institutional investors, including state and corporate pension funds that invest the savings of millions of American workers. It also made a fortune for Romney, whose net wealth reportedly exceeds $250 million.
For Kranish and Helman, the Bain way is an “intensely analytical and data-driven” approach to studying companies, what makes them successful or not, and how to boost their competitiveness.
The video “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” is understandably less sympathetic. To the filmmakers, bankrolled by the Winning Our Future super PAC, the Bain way is nothing less than “turning the misfortunes of others into . . . enormous financial gains.” The film spends most of its time interviewing people who lost their jobs and much of their savings after working at various companies that Bain bought, milked and sold to generate those huge profits.
Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.
Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.
I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.
By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)
For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.
This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.
Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.
At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.
Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.
The real Bain way may be nothing more than a clever tactic to eliminate competition from a heated auction in order to buy a business at an attractive price. After all, Bain Capital is seeking the highest returns for its investors. But Bain’s behavior also reveals something about the values it brings to bear in a process that requires honor and character to work properly. If a firm’s word is not worth the paper it is printed on, then its reputation for bad behavior will impair its ability to function in an honorable and productive way.
I don’t know if Bain Capital still uses the bait-and-switch technique when it competes in auctions these days (I’m told that it doesn’t). But that was the way the firm’s partners competed when Romney ran the place. This win-at-any-cost approach makes me wonder how a President Romney would negotiate with Congress, or with China, or with anyone else — and what a promise, pledge or endorsement from him would actually mean.
Would a President Romney, along with a Republican Congress, cut taxes for the wealthy even more than he has pledged to do? Would he not try to balance the federal budget, even though he has said he would? Would he protect defense spending, as he has indicated he would?
I have no idea how Romney might behave in office. I do believe, however, that when he was running Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.
By: William D. Cohan, The Washington Post, January 13, 2012
“Creative Destruction”: Re-Examining The Myth Of No-Fault Capitalism
From all evidence, the issue of economic justice isn’t going away. Break the news gently to Mitt Romney, who seems apoplectic that the whole “rich get richer, poor get poorer” thing is being discussed out loud. In front of the children, for goodness’ sake.
“You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms,” he told the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer last week. “But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach.”
Actually, those blasts weren’t coming from President Obama. That was Romney’s competition for the Republican nomination, sounding like a speakers’ lineup at an Occupy Wall Street rally.
Now, I predict, will come a furious attempt by the GOP to unring the economic justice bell. Damage control efforts began with Newt Gingrich backing away from his sharp-fanged criticism of Romney’s record at Bain Capital, the investment firm he led. Don’t attack the GOP front-runner for being a ruthless, heartless corporate raider, Gingrich announced, but rather for not being conservative enough.
This admonition came as a pro-Gingrich political action committee continued to blast Romney as a ruthless, heartless corporate raider. Inconsistency, thy name is Newt.
By most accounts, Bain was a relative laggard in the ruthlessness department. Other private-equity firms were far more brazen in the way they bought troubled companies, laid off workers, stripped away assets and fattened investors’ bank accounts. While Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs looks like a gross exaggeration, it’s true that Bain stuck with companies such as Staples and Sports Authority and helped them grow.
But as for heartlessness, well, it comes with the turf, right? Bain was just serving as an instrument of “creative destruction,” and if workers lost their jobs, if they had to raid their children’s college funds to pay their mortgages, if perhaps that money ran out and they ended up losing their homes, in the long run they’ll still be better off. Or the country will be better off. Or something.
In any event, capitalism means never having to say you’re sorry. Perish the thought that anyone would critically examine this ethos except in a “quiet room.”
But to the horror of radical free-market ideologues, the myth of no-fault capitalism is under scrutiny. No one is arguing against markets, which are indeed the best way to create wealth and thus the best weapon against poverty. No one is arguing that investors who risk their capital in a company should not be able to reap rewards. What the ideologues ignore, however, is that workers also have “capital” at risk — in the form of mind and muscle, creativity, loyalty, years of service. Why is this investment so casually dismissed?
The first of the Republican candidates to raise the fairness issue was Rick Santorum, who spoke in debates of the pain many families were suffering because of economic dislocation. This was before his strong showing in Iowa, so no one was paying attention.
Then Gingrich and Rick Perry picked up the theme in an attempt to slow Romney’s march to the nomination. Whether they meant what they said or were just being tactical, the effect was to open a discussion of economic fairness and justice that will be hard to squelch.
The next logical step is to look at the results being produced by the radically deregulated, no-fault capitalism that has been practiced in this country since the Reagan revolution. Overall, we’ve had tremendous growth and low inflation. But we’ve also seen rising inequality and falling mobility. Middle-class incomes have stagnated, upper-class incomes have skyrocketed, and rags-to-riches stories are now less likely than in most of the “European social democracies” Romney holds in such disdain.
We have failed to keep pace with other industrialized societies in public education, and rather than offer relevant retraining to employees displaced by innovation and globalization, we leave them to their own devices. As a result, we’re starting to lose not just basic manufacturing jobs but also high-value-added, knowledge-based jobs to countries where workers are more qualified.
Government has played a huge role in guiding the nation through previous economic upheavals — after World War II with the GI Bill, for example. It can and should play such a role now.
That’s my view, at least. Thanks to the Republican candidates, of all people, we’ll get to hear what President Obama and his eventual opponent think.
Unlimited Contributions Give “Super PACs” Power To Change Presidential Race
With the South Carolina primary less than a week away, residents of the state are being bombarded with a barrage of political advertisements funded by Super PACs.
“It’s coming in fast and furious,” said Randy Cable of South Carolina’s conservative talk radio station WORD.
Cable said that Super PACs are buying up a majority of his station’s air time.
“They’re a game changer,” Cable told Rock Center Special Correspondent Ted Koppel in an interview scheduled to air Monday night.
This election season is the first presidential race to feel the influence of Super PACs, political action committees that can receive unlimited money from individuals, corporations and unions. Some of these Super PACs have morphed into powerful outside organizations working solely on electing a presidential candidate of their choosing. While a campaign supporter can only donate $2500 directly to a presidential candidate, he or she can donate unlimited amounts of money to a Super PAC supporting the same candidate.
“The Super PACs are outspending the candidate committees two to one at this point in time,” Cable said. “The ones that are buying the most [air time] are going to have the biggest impact. You know, just like in the world of business and advertising, politics goes the same way. Those that spend the most have the biggest impact.”
Every major GOP presidential candidate has a Super PAC supporting their campaign. Super PACs are supposed to operate independently of the candidates, meaning they can’t communicate directly with the politicians and their campaign staff. Super PACs have been effective even with the communication barrier, because they are often run by people who already know how the candidates think. A look at whose running the Super PACs reveals a roster of former staffers and advisers to the presidential candidates.
Carl Forti, a former political director for Mitt Romney, helped launch the ‘Restore Our Future’ Super PAC in 2010. The Super PAC supports Romney’s campaign for president.
Koppel asked Forti, “Some of the research I’ve read on you and your organization suggests that you may by the end of this political year have spent four hundred million dollars on the campaign. Is that fair? Does that seem reasonable?”
Forti responded by saying, “Potentially. Well, that seems a little high probably, but between the different entities it may be three hundred, three-fifty.”
Of those criticizing the millions raised by Super PACs, Forti said, “There’s a lot of criticism leveled at Super PACs, but we’re just operating under the laws as provided.”
The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 allowed the unique political action committees to form. In the case of Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the government could not limit political spending by corporations.
Some of this election year’s most negative advertising has come from Super PACs, giving candidates a way to effectively attack an opponent without having the blame pinned directly on them.
At a press conference held Monday morning in South Carolina, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman cited the negative tone of this year’s campaign when he announced he was dropping out of the race.
“This race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people and not worthy of this critical time in our nation’s history,” Huntsman said.
Political analysts say that an anti-Newt Gingrich ad run by ‘Restore Our Future’ during the lead-up to the Iowa Caucuses significantly impacted Gingrich’s one-time lead. Gingrich finished fourth in the caucuses.
“We learned in Iowa, if you unilaterally disarm, you might as well not run. If you allow other candidates to have a scorched earth, multimillion dollar ad campaign and there’s nothing that responds, they simply, by constant defamation drive you down,” Gingrich told Koppel.
Following Gingrich’s finish in Iowa, a Super PAC supporting the former Speaker of the House called ‘Winning Our Future,’ received a $5 million donation from wealthy casino owner Sheldon Adelson. In South Carolina, ‘Winning Our Future’ has launched anti-Romney advertisements.
While Gingrich has publicly denounced the negative advertisement, the Super PAC supporting him continues to run the ad that paints Romney as a greedy businessman and attacks his record from his days at venture capital firm Bain Capital.
“We’re now entering a world where until the laws are changed, every serious campaign will have one or more Super PACs. They will spend an absurd amount of money and it will virtually all be negative. That’s a fact,” Gingrich said. “Given the playing field right now, you have no choice.”
The power of the Super PAC has been mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s ‘The Colbert Report.’ Colbert created his own Super PAC and recently handed over control of it to Jon Stewart, renaming it ‘The Definitely Not Coordinated with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.’
Colbert handed over control to form an exploratory committee about a possible presidential run in South Carolina. His Super PAC also launched a satirical anti-Romney advertisement that likened the former Massachusetts governor to a serial killer, implying that Romney killed businesses.
Colbert talked to Koppel shortly before he relinquished control of his Super PAC.
“It would be stupid to be in the 2012 campaign or want your voice heard in the 2012 campaign and not have a Super PAC,” Colbert said. “I mean, the RNC, the DNC, those organizations really don’t mean much anymore. Karl Rove has more money than the RNC.”
Back in South Carolina, the advertisements seem to be getting nastier by the day as the million dollar donations continue to pour in.
“These Super PACs don’t have reputations to protect, so I think that there is a tendency for them to get nastier in the ads that they run and they don’t have the same restraints operating on them as candidate committees do,” said Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner for the Federal Election Commission.
Weintraub and the FEC are tasked with regulating the Super PACs. Weintraub said that a key difference between the PACs and the candidate committees is that the Super PACs do not have to disclose their donors as often. The first time that many of the Super PACs will disclose their donors will be at the end of January, which means that voters will have cast their vote in several key primaries before knowing who is behind the advertisements that flooded their televisions and radios.
“At some point, you have to step back from the regulations, you know, take your face out of the book and see the forest for the trees,” Weintraub said. “And I think for a lot of people out there, seeing the massive amounts of money that are being raised and spent by groups in the candidates’ names effectively on the outside, and seeing that these groups do appear to have some kind of connection to the candidates. I think it’s going to raise a lot of questions for the public.”
So how do political advertisements get so nasty? Unlike consumer advertisements, political ads do not have to be vetted by the Federal Trade Commission.
“I mean it’s actually more difficult to sell somebody white bread than it is to sell a president getting into the White House,” said Linda Kaplan Thaler, an advertising executive.
Thaler is behind campaigns like Wendy’s advertising campaign and the Toys R’ Us popular jingle, ‘I Don’t Want to Grow Up.’ Thaler said that when it comes to consumer advertising, it’s about building a love for the brand. With politicians, it’s different.
“You know, when it comes to politics, it’s not so much about, you know, that I have to love the candidate I’m voting for. It’s very often, I have to dislike him the least,” Thaler said.
By: Jessica Hopper, Rock Center, January 16, 2012
Why The Bain Capital Controversy Is So Damaging To GOP Chances This Fall
The last few weeks of the Republican Presidential road show has been dominated by discussion of Mitt Romney’s career as head of a Wall Street private equity firm — Bain Capital. Most people who enter politics have some previous career in the private sector — especially if they’re wealthy.
But Mitt Romney’s career on Wall Street — which he apparently hoped would allow him to tout his credentials as a “job creator” — will instead weigh down his election hopes like a massive millstone. There are six reasons why:
1). First and most important, attacks on Romney’s history at Bain are not “attacks on free enterprise” — or being “anti-business.” They are important for what they communicate about Mitt Romney and his values and the contrast that it poses with President Obama.
Barack Obama – like Mitt Romney — earned a degree at Harvard — and all of the opportunities that afforded. But when he graduated from law school, Obama went to work helping workers in the shadow of closed -down steel mills. Romney made millions for himself closing down steel mills.
The point is not just that workers were laid off, or jobs were outsourced — though they were. The point is not whether some of the ventures Romney funded succeeded and others failed. The point is that the impact of Romney’s business activity on the lives of ordinary people was incidental to his one and only goal: making huge sums of money for himself and a small group of his partners and investors.
Romney’s idea of success was embodied in that picture from two decades ago, with Romney at the center, surrounded by a squadron of Wall Street sharpies with money coming out of their pockets, their mouths and ears.
The point of the Bain story is that Romney would do whatever he could legally do to make money for himself and his crew. The effect of his decisions on the lives of ordinary people — or even the businesses in which they invested — was simply irrelevant. If shifting jobs overseas would make him and his friends more money – fine. If Bain could make millions by loading up a business with debt and bleeding it of cash — that was fine too — even if it meant that the business itself was ultimately forced to close. If buying a business and chopping it up into parts for resale would make him more money — so be it.
Improving the lives of ordinary workers — or of local communities — was never his goal. His goal was to make millions and millions of dollars for himself — often at other people’s expense. Instead of viewing ordinary workers as human beings who were parts of a team, he viewed them as “factors of production” — assets to be used when they helped him make money — objects to be discarded when that would fatten his bottom line.
Americans want a President who understands and cares about ordinary people — that’s not the Mitt Romney of Bain Capital.
2). If you were the Republican Party, you couldn’t pick a worse time to nominate a candidate with a resume as one of Wall Street’s “Masters of the Universe.”
Even today, most voters are acutely aware that the recklessness of the big Wall Street Banks — and a complicit Bush Administration — caused the 2008 financial crisis that cost eight million Americans their jobs and worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.
The GOP will have to go some distance to convince everyday voters that they should trust their economic futures to a guy who was part of precisely the same crowd whose greed and recklessness just sent the economy crashing in flames.
After all, not many people would be keen to sign up for a cruise managed by the same team that commanded the Titanic.
3). Over the last year, Americans have become increasingly focused on economic inequality — and on the fact that the gang that caused the economy to collapse kept making billions while everyone else paid the price.
The message of the Occupy Movement doesn’t resonate solely on the left of the political spectrum. Occupy speaks to many independents and conservatives as well.
And let’s remember, the Occupy Movement started out as “Occupy Wall Street.” Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with the exploding role of the financial sector in the American economy. They are not uncomfortable because of theoretical or “policy” concerns. It just doesn’t make sense to them that a relatively tiny number of people — who don’t build a product or create a service — can make massive amounts of money, while ordinary people who work hard and play by the rules see their incomes flat-line.
Their view is simple. They create cars, or food, or houses or computers — or they provide police protection, or care for sick people, or teach our kids. Why should they be asked to sacrifice when guys who basically gamble for a living — as Wall Street speculators — make incomprehensibly large sums of money?
It makes no sense to them that 400 families control as much wealth as 150 million of their fellow Americans — that the top 1% control 30% of all of the wealth in America.
It makes no sense that a hedge fund investor like John Paulson can make $5 billion in income and pay a lower percentage in taxes than a secretary. He makes $2.4 million per hour — or $40,000 a second. Paulson makes as much in the first 1.25 minutes of the work year as the average worker makes all year long.
That kind of excessive wealth might not upset everyday Americans so much if their own incomes were growing. But those incomes have stagnated for decades. And over those same decades, the incomes of the top 1% have increased by almost 300%.
And perhaps most galling to everyday voters, is the fact that the wealthiest Americans have such an outsized influence setting the rules — cutting their own taxes — making their own regulations — and are rarely held accountable for the recklessness that has cost everyone else so dearly.
Americans feel that the middle class is in dire jeopardy — that it is under attack. They worry that the American dream will be snatched from their own families — and those of their children.
Not a great time for the Republicans to nominate a poster boy for the one percent.
4). The impact of Romney’s record at Bain is magnified by his own personality.
Romney comes across as a cold, calculating guy — precisely the kind of guy who doesn’t blink an eye when he orders up hundreds of “pink slips.” He is about as empathetic as a rock.
He has a hard time connecting with people in public — and on TV. And he seems to have a tin ear — a hard time understanding how his remarks will be interpreted by ordinary voters.
He “enjoys” firing people who don’t give him good service. Really?
He doesn’t understand how it might sound for a guy who has a fortune of $200 million to say that he is actually “unemployed” too. Or when — having graduated from Harvard, born into a family of the CEO of a big auto company, he says he has been worried about getting a “pink slip”? Sure.
He doesn’t even have to stop and think when he offers to bet $10,000 on who is right in a televised debate? Ten thousand dollars is two thirds of the average annual Social Security benefit.
That kind of tin ear sends a message to ordinary voters that he is simply out of touch – that he doesn’t understand or empathize with the lives of ordinary Americans.
Then there is the story of the 12-hour trip with the dog in the kennel on top of the car. The story about how when the dog got sick riding on top of the car — had an attack of diarrhea. Romney hosed down the car — hosed down the dog — put the dog back on top of the car and continued the drive.
These personal characteristics just reinforce the picture of Romney as a Wall Street baron who doesn’t understand or care about the needs, or lives, or interests of ordinary Americans.
5). The fact that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have joined in defining Romney’s Bain years absolutely inoculates Democrats from charges that they are “anti-free enterprise” or “anti-business” when they make the same charges.
Probably not very likely that Gingrich or Perry would volunteer to attack Romney’s history at Bain next September — but they just did. All Democrats need to do is put a clip of Rick Perry in an ad where he accused Romney of being a “vulture capitalist.”.
6). Finally, in so many respects, Romney’s Bain history makes him the perfect antagonist in the campaign narrative set out by President Obama last month in his Kansas speech.
The President will, quite correctly, frame the upcoming election as a battle for the future of the American middle class — a choice between a society where we’re all in this together or all in this alone.
He will offer a vision of America where we look out for each other — where everyone is called upon to play by the same rules — and everyone gets a fair shot, a fair shake and contributes their fair share.
The Willard Mitt Romney who ran Bain Capital is the perfect foil for the Democratic narrative this fall. That’s why the Bain Capital narrative is so important for defining Romney and setting the terms of this year’s election campaign.
Just visualize the national political debate that features the Mitt Romney we’ve seen on TV the last several weeks and the Barack Obama who made the speech in Osawatomie, Kansas last month.
At the close of his Kansas speech — which took place in the same town where Theodore Roosevelt had announced his “New Nationalism” a century ago. Obama said:
“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.
And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up.
By: Robert Creamer, The Huffington Post, January 16, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 