Rush “dinged” Newt because Newt deserved it! His argument about Bain and “vulture capitalism” is antithetical to Conservative principles and values — mainly because his goal is to destroy Mitt more than to stand for Conservative values or win the Presidency. He’s angry. He wants vindication! How DARE anyone attack HIM! He’s NOT got the temperament nor the moral values to be the President.
On the same token, Rush also smacked down Mitt for stupidly comparing what he did at Bain to what Obama did with his big corporate and bank takeovers when he became President! How STUPID is that?!
Neither one of these guys - Newt NOR Mitt - are worth a vote or worthy to be the nominee, much less the President! God help us all.
You are wrong my friend. Bain is not capitalism it is opportunism. It is not what the republicans want to support. They raid people’s pensions. Get it. Some of this stuff should be illegal.
Emanuel at RedState –
… let me sum up by making sure I’ve got this right: in an election in which jobs and Obamacare are the top two issues, the ‘inevitable’ Republican nominee is a person whose business career consisted in no small part of eliminating jobs, and whose signature legislative achievement is the enactment of state-run health care. Is that about right?
Yup.
Let’s look at the first element of Jeff’s concern and whether Romney’s time at Bain Capital should fairly be considered a liability.
To get started, readers should understand that there is a difference between venture capital, which is designed to nurture and build a great business or to make an already great business greater; turnaround financing, which is meant to bring a once-great business back to life, but which in the process often necessarily initially involves painful layoffs and cost-cutting former owners and managers resisted (see Herman Cain, Godfather’s Pizza), and which of course won’t always work; and “vulture capital,” which is designed to pick apart the carcass of a functioning business solely in the name of rewarding original investors at the expense of future growth, stakeholder well-being (employees, suppliers, public investors, etc.), and sometimes even the viability of the business itself.
I would argue that venture and turnaround investors are critical to capitalism’s effective functioning, while those who are deliberately involved in vulture capital as defined are usually not engaging in legitimate capitalism.
Bain Capital has definitely engaged in venture and turnaround investing, which is fine. But it also appears to all too often have crossed the line into vulture-land.
More at link http://www.bizzyblog.com/2012/01/10/romney-and-bains-wreckage/