Would probably help if you actually
listened to Newt's explanation. It's unfortunate many Republicans don't seem to understand it.
Newt's case is simple:
1) Romney's vaunted "private sector experience", is of a particular kind that's going to represent a huge liability in the general election. Nobody's asserting that Bain Capital's actions were necessarily illegitimate nor unlawful, but it's obvious that Romney was no white knight of heroic, entrepreneurial capitalism.
2) Questions on
business ethics are legitimate inquiries that one should have to answer for, especially if they're running for public office—these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's completely goofy that some would construe it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors.
I heard Newt's explanation several times. I disagree with the entire line of attack. Business ethics is not the same as the occupy mindset in which rich people making money is somehow in and of itself unethical. From what I understand of the situation, those companies would have gone bankrupt either way. Bain found a way to make some money. They didn't take healthy companies and gut them for some unethical profit.
Newt's argument that this will hurt Romney in the general is true since it is hurting him amongst people who should know better. I am still in the Newt camp, but I really dislike this populist attack on Romney's left by the conservative candidates. I'm not saying everything that happens in business is automatically good and legitimate.
Think of it this way. Even if it's true and Romney loves to fire people who work for him then the absolute best place for him to be is in government.