Newt Gingrich: I Crossed The Line (Bain Criticism)

politico.com ^ | Jan. 11, 2012 | Jonathan Allen

[truthkeeper]

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Santorum - behind Newt in NH

By like what, 49-something votes?

Nice try. Gingrich was 4th in Iowa, 4th in NH. He was trounced by Santorunm in Iowa, and tied by Santorum in NH.

If Santorum beats him in South Carolina, are we still going to here how Santorum has to quit because Gingrich is polling better in all the places where we haven't actually had votes yet.

[CharlesWayneCT]

“Even Zerohedge”? Even Zerohedge?

Are you under the delusion that ZeroHedge is conservative?

[Utmost Certainty]

How could anything about Bain Capital be “Crony Capitalism”? Nobody is saying they paid off politicians to change the rules to help them buy up and sell off companies. “Vulture Capitalism” may be a good but loaded description, but not “Crony Capitalism”, unless there is a tie-in with government.

Apparently you've missed out on sources that've been linked over and over. Such as this one: Mitt Romney's Bain Capital Bailout: GOP Candidate's Firm Profited From Company That Required $44 Million Federal Bailout

It's also fair to question whether existing bankruptcy and corporate laws are rational, when they allow Moral Hazards like this:

"Lately, Bain founder and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has found himself in a spirited defense of the private equity industry, doing all he can to spin decades of data which confirm, without failure, that PE Leveraged Buy Outs are nothing but "efficiency maximizing" transactions whose only goal is the "maximization" of EBITDA in the pursuit of dividend recap deals, IPOs or outright sales, while loading up the company with untenable amounts of leverage. All this with a 3-5 year investment horizon, which ignores the long-term viability of a company and seeks to streamline (read fire as many as possible) operations as quickly as possible in the goal of maximizing short-term returns. We wish him luck in his endeavor."

Private enterprise activity isn't exclusive from the legal conditions under which it occurs.

[kenavi]

It doesn't sound accurate, I've been involved in many "deals", and I've never seen one where everyone is so stupid that someone just walks away with an overnight steal.

Unless the government is involved.

Which transaction are you referencing?

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Vendome,


There's substantial evidence (as reported by the Wall Street Journal) that Mitt Romney-Bain Capital "did in fact" financially "rape and pillage" some corporations ...

WITHOUT A THOUGHT to cleaning up their business.

Care to argue with the Wall Street Journal about that ?



Newt Ginrich's Press Release today (2012-01-11) about Mitt Romney and Bain Captital's "Vulture Capitalism" ....


Spartanburg, SC – Newt 2012 released the following statement from Press Secretary R.C. Hammond responding to misleading reports on an exchange Newt Gingrich had with a voter in Spartanburg, SC


Regarding Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital (during which the phrase “I crossed the line” was never uttered from Newt, despite the headline from Politico):

“This issue at hand is neither about Bain Capital, private equity firms, nor about capitalism.

It is about Mitt Romney’s judgment and character. It was Governor Romney’s decision to base his candidacy, in large part, on his background as a portfolio manager.

Thus, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about whether he is accurately presenting how he conducted himself during that career.

“Reports by the Wall Street Journal and others contradict Governor Romney's claims that it was his goal at Bain Capital to make companies more successful.

In fact, there were cases where Bain Capital made huge profits and left companies bankrupt.

Further reports have cast doubt on Governor Romney's claim that he was responsible for 100,000 jobs being created thanks to his work at Bain Capital.

“Instead of accepting the responsibility to answer questions about his business background, the Romney campaign is throwing up a smokescreen about an attack on capitalism.

That’s just more pious baloney from Mitt Romney and his campaign.”


====================================


As usual, Newt Gingrich "nailed it" perfectly ...

We're now (breathlessly) waiting for Mitt Romney's response ...

... including releasing his Federal Income Tax Returns ...




.

[adc]

“I know Newt references Hayek quite a bit, which is pleasing to hear.”

WHY is that pleasing to hear? To suggest that that is a positive thing when the uninformed voting masses have all they can do to know who the Secretary of State is? Or what the 2nd amendment is?

Neither Hayek, Friedman or Reagan is on the top of anybody’s reading list in this culture. Newt’s “nuances” are lost. Just lost. If they have to be explained they will be misunderstood. Or easily twisted. This is getting absurd. Look at our electorate. Please.

Reality is hard to take.

[TomGuy]

So according to you, Mitt Romney is now the only Republican who can beat Obama this year?

I have NEVER said such a thing. And Romney is definitely NOT my candidate of choice. Don't try to make an assumption of whom I support based on one post or a dozen. You will be wrong. My state primary is not until late May, so I am waiting to see who is still standing by then.

But FoxNews did run a new Quinipiac poll this morning that showed Romney beating Obama by 46% to 43%.

[Utmost Certainty]

Neither Hayek, Friedman or Reagan is on the top of anybody’s reading list in this culture. Newt’s “nuances” are lost. Just lost. If they have to be explained they will be misunderstood. Or easily twisted. This is getting absurd. Look at our electorate. Please.

Well, I share your concerns about an electorate whose critical thinking skills don't extend beyond Twitter soundbites.

Unfortunately, if that's really the case, and it is as bad as we're both pessimistically inclined to believe, then all of our candidates are doomed. None of them are stupid enough to communicate effectively with the masses.

[Utmost Certainty]

The GOP will just have to wait to nominate future President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Then, it will take back the White House.

[altura]

Of course he still thinks it’s a good idea.

If he were somebody like Santorum, he could have said he ws re-thinking it or something.

It’s a small issue to me and I have a problem figuring out why you and others think it is something horrible.

Whether it was passed as a self-serving way to try to move people out of the dependent class, or as a matter of ‘having a heart’ it doesn’t cost Texans anything and it doesn’t prove that Perry is waiting at the border with a welcome wagon.

It’s just a small issue that’s been blown up to try to discredit Perry.

[Utmost Certainty]

ZeroHedge is Ron Paul territory, but they’ve a sound understanding of free-markets and real capitalism. Not this phony shuffle game of government-rigged corporatist faux-”capitalism” being parroted by useful idiots defending Bain Capital.

[truth_seeker]

“Read Milton Friedman, like Reagan did.

I do, and Newt should too.

I like Milton Friedman, but prefer Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc. Friedman is still too much of a government-interventionist for my tastes. If you want free-market purity, go Hayek.

I know Newt references Hayek quite a bit, which is pleasing to hear.”

I think I’ll stick with what I wrote, because it is more current, involved Reagan, etc.

The point was that Gingrich was out of line, in terms of political philosophy.

But he’s such a talker, he forgets to take time to fully think through what he is going to say.

Consequently his statements require clarification, just like Romney.

I commend Santorum and Paul for having the quick judgement to steer clear of the blunder made by Gingrich and Perry.

[Utmost Certainty]

Would probably help if you actually listened to Newt's explanation. It's unfortunate many Republicans don't seem to understand it.

It isn't an intrinsically difficult position to comprehend, nor is it any kind of Left-tard attack on capitalism. 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 entirely goofy to 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.

[Bernard Marx]

Bain bought it just to strip it of cash. I fail to see that this is investing in growth or, at any rate, the growth of anything except Romney’s bank account.

And of course that's what Newt's been attacking, and he's right. But the complexities are probably too subtle to expect a mass audience to sort the fly poop from the pepper.

[RedMDer]

Click

[fabian]

Bingo! nothing I have heard is an attack on free enterprise. That is a bunch of BS and I heard it repeated by Dennis Prager this morning. There are bad practices in capitalism at times and all of it is not kosher! Some people seem to think because it is not government, that it should be immune from criticism. No!

[Vendome]

LOL @ You is my response.

You have zero idea how money works, what the goals of a firm like Bain is and I have no problem with what he did.

Did he return huge profits to Bain investors on some companies which were going into the toilet and would have even without Bain?

Yes and he had an absolute responsibility to make as many gains as possible so they could finance their next investment.

You and everyone else really believe Bain should have taken a bath on every deal they found was going to be a loser? Really?

Do you ever wonder why you live where you live and live the way you live?

Does your piety pay the bills? Make you money?

I don’t mean this as an insult but, you are completely clueless as to what the objectives are of money and what it is suppose to do.

More people benefited from Bain than didn’t.

I wonder why we don’t hear about the deals where Bain absolutely and totally lost money? Wouldn’t be as sexy, right?

I have lost plenty of money on investments and I’m sure Bain had a few where they thought “We’ll do better on the next one and won’t make that mistake again”.

But there where still deals they lost money on.

No one bats 100% so let’s hear about the ones he totally lost their investment on and maybe went a little further in the hole on than they intended.

Anyone?

[Vendome]

BTW, sorry about the swipe at you but if you want to be partisan fine. Just don’t invent things out of whole cloth to support your position.

It’s way to easy to pick it apart.

And so you don’t think I’m full of crap there are more than one poster on here who know me and know the lifestyle I live and the companies we run.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


I'm a business owner ... an engineering consulting company ... so don't lecture me about using money profitably ...



My point ... and Newt's too ... is that when Mitt Romney had the chance to treat people DECENTLY .... and STILL MAKE MONEY ... they bailed ... many, many times ...

Instead ... Mitt Romney and Bain Capital OPTIMIZED both profits and screwing people over ... that's a personality trait usually known as "evil" ...




There's nothing wrong with making profits and money ... especially for outside investors ...

It's just when folks start behaving like the 1880s Rockefeller and Stanly Morgans ... and HURT PEOPLE unneccessarily ...

That's precisely what Mitt Romney has done ... Mitt Romney is just a Silver-Spooned version of Bill Clinton ...




Your financial investments ? I hope that you do well ... and my own business as well ...



.

[Vendome]

Like I said “Sorry about the cheap shot”.

Mitt didn’t have some moral obligation to continue employing people in an enterprise that had run its realistic course.

That is the bottom line.

He did have a responsibility to lift those companies he could and return a profit to Bain’s stakeholders.

I once worked for 13 companies in 7 years. Every last one of them went bankrupt. Life’s tough.

No one cut me a check or took care of me until the next job. The job ended and that was that.

Mutt is an effing A-hole for so many reasons but making money is about the only thing he isn’t an A-hole for. He did what he was suppose to do and was basically a one trick pony.

Sucked at running for Senator.

Sucked at running Massachusets.

Sucks at running for President.

No new ideas and total lack of imagination.

If the guy broke his ulna and had to leave the race, fine by me.

I’d like to Newt to kick Mutt’s azz and would love to see them go Mono e Mono.