Skip to comments.Why Gingrich Should Not Back Down From Questioning Romney's Bain Record
Posted on 01/14/2012 12:06:03 PM PST by wrrock
Mitt Romney's Bain Capital record is up for debate in the Republican primary because:
1) Romney has introduced his record in the business sector as what qualifies him for president. 2) Since it's what qualifies him for president--his management style and other actions at Bain should be scrutinized.
Clearly it is not anti-capitalist to address OR to question his actions. Any free enterprise business has the right to ask questions before 'hiring' someone. This election process is like America's job interview for the President of the United States. Questioning his record is 100% American, 100% capitalist and 100% free enterprise. We must ask: Did he show responsible decision-making? Were his decisions presidential? Do we want a president that makes decisions like Romney did at Bain?
Romney is trying to obscure his record by telling Republicans: Questioning my free enterprise activities is anti-Republican and counter to the free enterprise mentality. If these questions were raised to Mr. Romney in a job interview no one would be shocked. But suddenly to raise these questions in a primary is somehow shocking and contrary to the capitalist creed?
Therefore, you cannot fault Gingrich for asking some relevant questions. Especially since this is an 'anti-establishment' year and class distinctions are amplified. The past four years we have saw elite insiders receive bailouts--while Main Street America foots the bill. Romney made decisions that benefited the elite investors in his career and not the works. That's fine. It's capitalism.
However, will he do the same as President? What will he do with the extra political powers? Does this mean more bailouts/TARP/etc. for the politically connected? Will he do what Obama did? Ge is already comparing his work at Bain to Obama's takeover of the auto industry. We need answers to these direct questions because unfortunately his past statements are far from certain.
Lastly, the mere fact leading Republican candidates are asking these questions strongly suggest many independent voters will do the same! The Democrats will bring this issue up. If Romney cannot adequately address these issues with a conservative audience sympathetic to free market capitalism; he is not fit for to debate or run against Obama. We must fully vet Mitt--because if he is the nominee--this issue will not end until Nov. 2012.
Agreed...Romney will lose in November. Gingrich won’t. As the nominee Newt will go after Obama hammer and tong...and, what’s better, he will go after the Obama protecting press.
Romney is a loser who will accept the liberal premises of the questions the lefty press will press. Newt won’t. That’s reason enough to support Gingrich.
Hey, you better stop that! Questioning Romney’s Bain record is an anti-capitalist assault on free-enterprise. </sarc>
To my knowledge, Gingrich has not said that there needs to be government intervention as a response to the sort of thing Romney did at Bain Capital. As such, the claims by various Freepers on here that Gingrich is a “socialist,” etc. etc. are nothing but socially-autistic white noise.
Gingrich is absolutely right to question Romney’s ethics and his competency on this. Romney seems to be good at one thing only w.r.t. private enterprise - destroying businesses, rather than salvaging them and making them profitable.
Newt doesn’t need to pursue Bain anymore, the ball has been started rollin. IMHO, Newt should keep hammering Mutt for his history of capitualting to abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and liberal activist judges.
Newt needs to get back on HIS MESSAGE of what he is going to do for America, and the issues you stated. He needs to leave the dog fight to the others, let them keep Romney on the defense.
romney is enjoying this bain issue, as he now has all the Establishment GOP and all the media now defending him,how much better can that be?
In that blurred line between “ethics” and “principles”, where does the moral compass point? These are two rather different philosophical points. One may be very concerned with ethical behavior, while applying no general principle at all, and one may have a set of very fine principles, while behaving in a highly unethical manner.
Newt Gingrich is in possession of a fine set of principles, yet there is the perception (whether proven or not) that he lacks in ethical standards. Mitt has without question always been highly ethical, yet some would question whether he possess sufficient discernment of the principles to which it seems he pays only lip service.
Of course, it may be argued that Barack Hussein possesses neither ethics or principles, at least none of which are generally accepted in the United States, but he is, of course, “charming” and “well spoken”, one of which may be attributed to sociopathic tendencies, and the other augmented greatly by the capability to read a TelePrompTer.
So where are we today, at some ungovernable, indecipherable and wholly irreconciliable morass of which NOBODY could make any sort of order?
Obama’s response seems to have been to simply rule in the manner of despotic kings of centuries past. Romney still believes that applying the empirical methods of managing a business will be the way to slice apart this Gorgian knot.
Gingrich appears to be of the opinion that like the Augean Stables, opening up a way for the water to pass through and flush out the stables, by diverting the flow of two nearby rivers, the current state of our bloated and overgrown government may be cleaned out by applying the thrust from both limiting the restrictions imposed by government, and relying on the surging energy of personal initiative. Sufficient force may be generated to diminish the accumulated debts, and re-establish a firm footing no longer mired in ever-deepening legacies that have ceased to be of value.
While I rather like the resolution offered by Newt Gingrich, still it is a little frightening to those of little faith in broad new concepts. Relying on the established platitudes of another age, or to fall back on the belief that people simply do not know what is best for themselves, is to retreat from the great American experiment in a representative republic, which has no king, nor does it relinquish power to an oligarchy which has already decided the course, and only additional tinkering around the fringes is permitted.
Newt Gingrich probably generates more new ideas per minute than any American figure since Thomas Jefferson, but that in itself probably is about as off-putting as anything. Newt does not always succeed in fully articulating one splendid new approach, before he is off on another, and not everybody can shift gears that fast.
Hussein is a Marxist puppet for people like Bill Ayres and his “lovely wife” Bernardine Dohrn, so Hussein actually doesn’t need to have his own ideas. And he’d be incapable of defending them even if he had them.
Last time around, he ran on being black. This time around, he’s going to run on being in power. Setting up his unpaid youth volunteers for the summer, destroying the few agencies that opposed him or at least dealt in real figures and called him to account (Commerce) and announcing that he’s going to ignore Congress will give him incredible power. He’s a stupid man, but a vicious, spiteful one who seems to be settling his personal problems with whoever were his mother and father by attacking the US. He wouldn’t have gotten anywhere at all without Bill Ayres...and the American press, unfortunately, who were so suckered by him that they now don’t even care that there are no longer open press conferences, that Obama avoids every possibly encounter with them, and that reporting on Obama is limited to puff-pieces about his wife in People magazine and Ebony.
So we’re in a strange situation now, one of those odd moments that nobody could ever have predicted. That’s why I think Newt Gingrich, odd as he is, is the only one who has any chance of responding and succeeding.
Romney has no ideas, loves big government...and would never be elected in any case. So a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.