Replies

People owe it to themselves to actually listen to Newt's explanation. Unfortunately, many Republicans don't seem to understand it, and are projecting it as an attack on capitalism.

But this isn't some Left-tard kind of attack at all. 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 are construing it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors—rather, they're ironically validating the Left's destructive sophistry against capitalism.

Selling out capitalism in the defense of Romney and Bain

Even ZeroHedge doesn't defend Romney's record as a 'capitalist':

"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."

Shame we have so many wannabe Capitalistas here at FR and elsewhere, who adamantly defend this kind of shuck and jive financial paper shuffling as exemplary acts of free-market enterprise.

Precisely! If a person can read what Newt said and somehow take it as an attack on capitalism, then I have to wonder if they actually read his words or if that person is just spouting what the main stream media said.

He simply told the truth about Mitt’s business practices, and the difference between buying a business and investing in it to improve it as a going concern and buying them to pillage. There’s a vast difference. Just because being a corporate raider or hostile takeover man is LEGAL is a mile wide difference from being either ethical or RIGHT.

Newt has spent the last decade as a businessman himself and can see the difference in worldview.

Why can’t we? Are we that dense? Or do we only believe in conservatism and right/wrong when it suits us?

Newt’s comments over the last few days have been very accurate about the state of the economy and some of the core problems. (Crony capitalism, the Fed and justices.)

I thought we all agreed with those issues here?

He’s hitting the issues, but we don’t like the WAY he is hitting the issues? I’m begging conservatives to grow up, and quickly. There’s no time left for this foolishness.

We are about to get stuck with Romney or Paul. The train light is headed for us on the track. If we can’t push Newt or Santorum over the top we are screwed.

I’d prefer Newt but we have got to stop this crazyness now.

People owe it to themselves to actually listen to Newt's explanation. Unfortunately, many Republicans don't seem to understand it, and are projecting it as an attack on capitalism.

If you can't further your position without long winded explanations and 28 minute videos, you lost the argument. Newt should have stuck with his original statement yesterday to the voter and just moved on to another attack avenue. It looks to me that Newt is doubling down on this out of spite and not smart stategery. Not really a Presidential move.