Are You Sitting Down? (Shortened Title

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me find this. This is from TheHill.com. You are not going to like this. Let me just read it to you. It is by an Jonathan Easley (I always like to put the journalist's name to the story), and we're gonna assume that it's true. We don't know if it is or not. It's in the mainstream media. "On the heels of his decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney took the attacks on his private sector record used by GOP rivals and turned them against President Obama. Romney's critics have accused him of destroying jobs in order to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, but speaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said..." Are you sitting down? "Romney said that what he did" running Bain Capital was...

Are you sitting down? If you're driving, you might want to pull off to the side of the road here. "[S]peaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different..." Are you sitting down? Are you paying very close attention? Look at me. Do I have you here? According to TheHill.com and Jonathan Easley. Today on CBS, "Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different" Dadelut dadelut dadelut! from what Barack Obama did bailing out the auto industry. Thud! Kerplunk! You've got to be kidding me. The next paragraph is a quote from Romney. Are you still sitting down?

"In the general election I'll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler -- closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers -- he did it to try to save the business." So TheHill.com is reporting that Romney on CBS today said that what he did with Bain Capital is no different than what Obama did in taking over the auto companies. Obama had to lay people off; Obama had to streamline the place to make them profitable. So he's accepting the premise that Newt and Perry have put out there, apparently, that he has gone into these companies with a chainsaw -- and now he is using Obama and what he did at General Motors and Chrysler as: Hey, the president did it! Now, General Motors and Chrysler are not profitable, and... (sigh)

You just don't, if you are the leader in the race for the Republican nomination, come out and give tacit approval to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler and then compound that by saying: Hey, what I did is no different. I was trying to save the businesses. (interruption) I did leave the possibility that this is not accurate. Yes. It's in TheHill.com. I've not seen it anywhere else. So, yes, I've held out the possibility that this is inaccurate. For example, there was a story all day yesterday on Drudge that Newt is gonna go into South Carolina and meet with the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucasians (Clyburn, James Clyburn, whose daughter is named Mignon Clyburn) and gonna have a joint press conference, appearance about the housing industry, that Newt is gonna meet with a Democrat -- a ranking Democrat -- member of the Congressional Black Caucasians. So I fired that off to some people I know who are dyed-in-the-wool, Newt-can't-do-anything-wrong supporters, and I said, "Can you explain this to me?" and a few hours later I had a reply. "Newt says this isn't true. He thinks Romney people are spreading this rumor. He's not got a meeting with Clyburn," but it's in The State newspaper in South Carolina. So I share with you this Hill.com story with the proviso that it might not be true, but there it is. Okay.

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, to be clear, Romney has said this before. He was on Bill O'Reilly's show (that's on the Fox News Channel, eight o'clock) on December the 20th and Romney said on that show, "'The president has had one experience overseeing an enterprise, a couple of enterprises: General Motors and Chrysler. What did he do? He closed factories and he laid off people. He didn't do it personally but his people did. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to save the enterprise. He wants to make it profitable so it can survive.' Romney's comments came as scrutiny intensified over company's controlled by based upon the company." That's back on December 20th.

So he said this and his point is, obviously: Well, look, Obama's taxpayer dollars; I was using private sector dollars and so forth. The problem with it is (and the AP, by the way, is saying that the new line of defense "is part of an effort by Romney to shield himself against criticism that as a partner in the equity firm Bain Capital, that they slashed tens of thousands of jobs." So I know what the thinking is. The thinking is, "Hey, look at me! I'm no different than what Obama did, and you love Obama. You don't criticize Obama for doing this, so you can't criticize me for doing it. We did the same thing." Uh, sorry. That... I'm not a politician, and I don't measure things I say in a political context. I just don't. That's why I don't run for office: I couldn't do it what these people do.

I don't know how you say this. You've just accepted the premise of the Newt and Perry criticism! You just accepted the premise with this comment to CBS today, and you're trying to blunt the criticism and saying, 'Well, I'm no different than Obama." Mitt, would you take over General Motors and Chrysler if you're president, is that what you're saying? And, by the way, who the hell says that Obama's trying to save the companies? Who the hell says that Obama cares about profitability? That's not why Obama took over those companies! If anybody remembers, it was the Romneys that owned those companies that got the shaft: The bondholders.

The bondholders -- who had the first dibs on any bankruptcy or payoff or payback, anything that was made whole to General Motors -- who have more say so than stocking were told by Obama (summarized): "Get the hell outta here! You're greedy! It's people like you that have caused this country to end up being so unfair. I'm giving this company to the unions, and the reason that I'm saving this company is to save pensions and health care benefits -- and so I can market a stupid-ass car that nobody wants. I don't care about profit!" Folks, I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this. Why in the world would anybody seeking the Republican presidential nomination try to shield themselves from criticism by hiding behind Obama?

Now, this is where I don't get it politically -- and maybe the political experts have looked at this and said, "Okay, this is the best way to handle it," and maybe the consultants are saying, "They love Obama. They've not ripped Obama for taking over General Motors. They've not ripped Obama for people lost their jobs they've not ripped President Obama for people who lost their investments so they're not gonna rip you." Really? Ooookay. Anyway, the idea that Barack Obama took over General Motors and Chrysler for any benevolent reasons or any capitalistic reasons is simply absurd, ladies and gentlemen. Obama wanted to save the UAW's pension fund! I'll tell you what else he wanted to do -- and let us never forget this.

Barack Obama thinks this country has been inherently unfair since its founding. Barack Obama thinks that this is a country that was assembled by and governed by the 1% white power brokers from the get-go, and they have had stewardship over this country and they have slanted everything. They have built everything, they have scheduled everything, they have arranged everything so that they are the primary financial beneficiaries of the United States of America. The 1%! Barack Obama believes that the Founders and the white majority of this country, since its founding, have been inherently unfair, have screwed everybody else, have taken everything for themselves -- and then sent our own sons and daughters around the world to war to protect their own personal spoils.

This is what he believes. So when General Motors is going belly up, he looks at General Motors as not something to save profitability. "Saving" General Motors and Chrysler is not saving General Motors and Chrysler. It's turning it over to the people who should rightly have it because they made it. It's Elizabeth Warren (summarized): "The workers should own General Motors. They're the ones that made it, the people who have been fired and laid off and subject to puny little union contracts." No, Obama, it's exactly what he did at General Motors (summarized): "I'm gonna see to it that the rightful owners -- the 99%, the schlubs who have been raped and taking advantage of -- that this their company now! I'm giving it to 'em. I'm bailing 'em out! I don't care about profitability," and to run around and to compare your own private sector business to that? Lord help us!

RUSH: Romney gave what may be the best speech ever last night, his acceptance speech, victory speech. It may have been the best speech he's ever given. Somebody needs to put a pair of comforting hands on the shoulders, and a gentle shake, and say, "Let me remind you who Obama is. Let me tell you who your opponent is and what he's doing and how you are nothing like him, and you don't want to be seen as anything like him."

But that's not my job, man. (interruption) Yeah, I know. Obama's not just a nice guy who's in over his head. Obama has a plan. Obama's plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it's about time that the scales were made even. That's what's going on here, and that's why the president is lawless, and that's why there is no prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation because it's not possible for a minority to intimidate the white majority. It's not possible.

It's always been the other way around. This is just payback. This is just "how does it feel?" time. That's how he sees himself, pure and simple. He doesn't see himself as a capitalist reformer saving a stupid automobile company. He sees an opportunity to take it away from the people who founded it and give it to the people he thinks have a moral right to it because somehow they have been taken advantage of, used, exploited, paid unfairly, what have you.

CALLER: Hey, thanks, Rush. Mega dittos from the liberal bastion of northern Minnesota.

CALLER: You know, I was listening, and, you know, you told me to pull over when Romney made his little comment about Obama bailing out GM, same thing he was doing with Bain. You know, I started thinking about it, and, you know, to read in between the lines, I think he already thinks he has the nomination. I think he is kind of doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him.

RUSH: Well, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You think that Romney is doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him?

RUSH: Okay. Pretty much what I said. Maybe the political advisers are saying, "Mitt, go ahead and say you're no different than Obama, because the press is not ripping Obama. The press is praising Obama for every aspect of General Motors, taking it over, laying people off, making it profitable. So how can they criticize you for doing exactly what they praised Obama for?" And the answer is they are the media, that's how they can do it.

RUSH: Since when did we ever neuter the media? And what the hell is this playing defense stuff? Sorry, don't get me started here. Here's the bite. Chad, I only hope you're right. I've got the bite now. The Hill got it right, TheHill.com. So here it is. Are you sitting down? CBS morning show, Charlie Rose interviewing Mitt Romney. Charlie Rose said, "Clearly, you know the outlines of what they want to say about your tenure at Bain Capital are clear. You were a destructive force. Will they be able to make that stick? Can you defend that, not only in the primaries but in the general election?" Can they make it stick that you're a destructive force?

ROMNEY: Well, of course, they tried the same line here in New Hampshire and it fell extraordinarily flat. People here in the state know that in the work that I had, we started a number of businesses, invested in many others and that overall, created tens of thousands of jobs. So I'm pretty proud of that record. By the way, in the general election, I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers. He did it to try and save the business. We also have had on occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business. Like, I'm going to go to Washington and cut it down to size. Washington is simply too big.

RUSH: Okay, so said it there. Going to do exactly what Obama did, taking over General Motors and Chrysler. I'm sure the thinking -- there's no doubt -- I think Chad here, Chadley from Duluth is exactly rightly. I think that they think they're inoculating themselves, this is how to blunt the criticism. Obama did it. See, it's based on the fact that the media loves Obama, will never criticize Obama for this, and to criticize Romney makes 'em hypocrites. That's obviously what the thinking here is.

RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. Just to clarify (sigh), my angst or my disquietedness here with Romney is not that he seeks to defend himself from getting rid of losing propositions at companies in order to save them. I know that's gotta happen. My concern here is that capitalism's under assault; Barack Obama's not a capitalist. Barack Obama and Romney did not do what they did for the same reasons -- for the same objective, same things -- and I just think if you're going to wade into this pool of defending the way you save a business, you're not government. I don't know. I just think there's a better way of doing this educationally, informatively than tying yourself to Obama. It's not that I think Romney's gonna take over car companies as president.

That's not what my fear here is. I just think in order to win this, Obama is gonna have to be properly defined as what he is and what he intends for this country, and his takeover of General Motors was not benevolent. There was nothing about the takeover of General Motors that was oriented toward saving it. He doesn't care whether it runs at a profit. Government does not have to make a profit running anything. I give you the Volt. They don't care! The Volt ends up costing $250,000 per car when you account for all the subsidies and everything else. They don't care. They don't have to show a profit.

RUSH: I'm still struggling with this here, folks. What Romney should have said is, "You call what I did layoffs? I was trying to save jobs! I was trying to save companies. Look at what Obama did with General Motors: Those jobs went overseas to the ChiComs. Look at how he's laying off 80,000 soldiers," and this is the point: Is Obama trying to save the Pentagon by laying off 80,000 soldiers? No, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. There's nothing -- there's not a single thing -- that is common between we as conservatives and Barack Obama.

Not a single thing. In the areas of economics and substance there's not a single thing. Now, the Democrats may talk about the fact, "Yeah, we need to streamline the Pentagon! Lean and mean. So we're gonna lay off 80,000 soldiers." That's not why they're laying off 80,000 soldiers. They are cutting that money to spend it elsewhere to buy more votes. They're doing it to cut the military down to size because they think the US military has been the focus of evil in this world. The colonialism and imperialism are rooted in the US military. And it's not just Obama; that's the Democrats from as long as I've been alive. Well, since JFK.

You wrote: “In regards to this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831171/posts I did not hear Rush yesterday. So this was my first exposure to what Rush said about Newt attacking capitalism using class warfare like the left, which he wasn’t.”

Since Rush played the soundbites of leftists and quoted leftists making the EXACT same points Newt was making, it PROVES that he, too, was using the class warfare rhetoric of the left.

Read it yourself:

Newt Sounds Just Like Obama
January 10, 2012
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/newt_sounds_just_like_obama

[...snip...]

Let’s go to audio sound bites, let me illustrate some of what I’ve said. We’ll start with Newt. This was on Fox & Friends this morning. The co-host, the weather guy, Steve Doocy, said, “I was driving around yesterday my car,” and like every other American,
“I was listening to Rush, and he was talking about you and how you’ve gone after Romney and Bain Capital. He said you’re using the language of the left to beat up Romney over Bain. He said it makes him uncomfortable because that’s what the left is gonna do if Romney’s the nominee.”

GINGRICH: I don’t think I’m using the language of the left. I’m using the language of classic American populism. Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street. Small businesses have always worried about big businesses. People have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed behind. There’s a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail, if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together, that’s one thing. But if somebody who’s very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that’s not a model we want to advocate and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.

RUSH: Well, but that’s not the model. That’s not what happens. See, this is why my old buddy Jay Nordlinger in Impromptus at National Review is pulling his hair out, because that is language of the left. You could say that Newt actually compounded this and made it worse with these comments on Fox this morning. Small business has always worried about big business. Main Street’s always been suspicious of Wall Street. People have a natural concern, they see financiers coming from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits and leave unemployment behind? My gosh, that’s what the people who indict capitalism say. So it continues to make me uncomfortable.

The next question came from Gretchen Carlson. She said, “Well, what constitutes acceptable capitalist behavior, then, in your mind?”

GINGRICH: To put in $30 million and get back $60 million would be a fabulous return. To put in $30 million and get back $90 million would be a fabulous return. Did they really need to take out $180 million if leaving $30 or $40 million behind the company would have survived, the people would have been employed, the jobs would have been there? I just say Romney’s gonna have to have a press conference and walk through case by case the places — these are not places where they lost money when a company went broke. These are places where they made money while a company went broke.

RUSH: How do you translate that? You want me to show you how you translate that? Here’s how you translate that. Audio sound bite number four, Mister Broadcast Engineer. Here’s how you translate what Newt just said.

: I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service.

RUSH: (imitating Obama) “Yeah, but we don’t want that. At some point you’ve made enough, and we’re gonna be the ones to say so, and then we’re gonna have you appear at a press conference, defend yourself, making too much money. That’s what we’re gonna do. And after you defend yourself, we’re gonna take it, because you don’t need that much, we’re gonna decide how much you need.” The way Newt’s talking here — I never heard him speak this way before — I must tell you, and the way he’s speaking, this sounds like left-wing social engineering, does it not, when I have to play an audio sound bite from Barack Obama to translate what Newt said about Romney and Bain. What’s the number of companies that Bain took over? It was two out of a hundred and some odd. ...

....when you have to play Obama to translate what Newt just said, basically, “Romney, it’s okay they made that much, maybe it’s okay they made that much but at that point nobody needs to make that much, $180 million, no, you can leave some of that in there and not fire a bunch of people and what have you.” It’s none of his business. It’s none of the government’s business. This stuff, if you just leave it alone it will all shake out. You could have read this in an Occupy Wall Street flier. (interruption) I know, a lot of people don’t think Newt should have taken a million dollars or whatever it was from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it was too much, he didn’t need that much. (interruption) Right, left the mortgages standing, I know. I know. Where does this stuff stop once you start going down this slope?

So here is an ad. Newt’s got some super PAC money now. Let’s put it this way, there is a super PAC now for Newt. We gotta be very careful, because the candidates are not allowed to have any contact with the super PAC, and I don’t want to be misunderstood saying that there has been between Newt and his. Newt’s super PAC has got an ad running out there on the YouTube channel called Winning Our Future, and we’ve got the audio. It’s about 21 seconds. Here it is.

ANNOUNCER: A story of greed, playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began... (dramatic pause) when Mitt Romney came to town.

RUSH: (laughing) It’s funny listening on the radio. (imitating voice) “The suffering began....” Music stops. “...when Mitt Romney came to town.” (laughing) The suffering began. A group of corporate raiders. The left could not improve on this. (laughing) Hey, you people at the Newt PAC, you need to add a line, you need to add Romney saying, “I love being able to fire people” at the end of this ad. “The suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town. ‘Hi, I’m Mitt Romney, and I love firing people.’” Why don’t you close the loop, make this ad really good? Now, then they brought forth — this is not all that’s in the ad. Then they brought forth a parade of victims, little old ladies whose lives were ruined by Mitt Romney.

ANNOUNCER: Mitt Romney became CEO of Bain Capital the day the company was formed. His mission? To reap massive rewards for himself and his investors.

MAN: Mitt Romney, them guys, they don’t care who I am.

WOMAN: He’s for small businesses. No, he isn’t. He’s not.

WOMAN: And that hurt so bad, to leave my home, because of one man that’s got 15 homes.

RUSH: David Axelrod’s shop, they’re listening to this stuff, they’re looking at these ads and saying, “Man, these Republicans are good. These Republicans are great at playing the class envy game.” Of course they can use it. Fair usage, take a ten second excerpt of it. At least I’ll say this. At least Romney knows how many homes he’s got. McCain didn’t, if you recall. ......”

Now today, Newt backs off - “I crossed the line”

POLITICO:

Newt: I crossed the line
By: Jonathan Allen
January 11, 2012 02:36 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71336.html

SPARTANBURG, S.C. Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital is a mistake and that he’s created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

Gingrich conceded the problem when pressed by a Rick Santorum supporter at a book-signing here Wednesday.

“I’m here to implore one thing of you. I think you’ve missed the target on the way you’re addressing Romney’s weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuous about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think it’s nuanced,” Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C., said.

“I agree with you,” Gingrich said. “It’s an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect. … I agree with you entirely.”

After ditching promises of a positive campaign, Gingrich had been leading a multi-candidate pile-on of candidates attacking Romney’s Bain record, starting in Sunday’s debate and continuing in campaign events Tuesday. If he pulls back on the criticism now, it would be the latest abrupt shift in tactics from a candidate whose campaign has been full of them.

In addition to providing another example of Gingrich’s erratic campaign style, the decision could put the former House speaker in a precarious spot: the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future is set to begin a $3.4 million airtime buy for a 27-minute long documentary showcasing people who lost their jobs when companies Bain was invested closed. Through Tuesday, Gingrich had expressed support for the film.

After the event, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond argued the film was not actually about Bain specifically.

“It’s the decisions that Romney was making as CEO that are under review of public opinion,” Hammond said. “We’re not bringing Bain up, we’re responding to questions” prompted by the video.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.