Posted on 01/13/2012 10:01:01 AM PST by bigbob
Newt Gingrich has called on the Super-PAC funding a series of ads critical of Mitt Romney's job creation record at Bain Capital to fix inaccuracies in the ads or remove them from the air.
“I am calling for the Winning Our Future Super-PAC supporting me to either edit its “King of Bain” advertisement and movie to remove its inaccuracies, or to pull it off the air and off the internet entirely," Gingrich said in a statement released Friday.
“Furthermore, I am once again calling on Governor Romney to issue a similar call for the Super-PAC supporting him to edit or remove its ads which have been shown to contain gross inaccuracies, something the Governor has thus far refused to do."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Your questions are moot since Newt is not self destructing. Take a look at what is going on in the south bigbob.
Correct-a-mundo. It's a trapdoor olive branch.
’ “He’s setting this up as an issue at the debate. He can turn to Romney and say I’ve called off the dogs. Are you going to do the same?”
Correct-a-mundo. It’s a trapdoor olive branch.’
Check. Knight captures bishop. Your move Myth.
“Attacking capitalism” is right-wing hyperbole hype line. Yeah, I went there. If criticizing the practices of ANY business is now akin to “attacking capitalism” then I must have missed the part of the bible where it was declared that anyone who calls themselves a “business” is automatically absolved of all their sins.
Bain’s profits relied in large part on making sure that they paid no penalties when the companies they took over went bankrupt and they took advantage of government funding to cover the cost of pensions that they underfunded. They socialized their losses. That is a valid criticism with a moral basis. It’s not anti-capitalism. Once you start profiting off of other people’s money (banks, governments, insurance) and not your own, you are out of the capitalist realm.
As I understand it, the criticism of the long Bain ad is that some of the stuff that happened to 1 or 2 of the companies in it happened after Romney supposedly left Bain. But even in the ad it says there is evidence Romney worked there after he claims he left, and I believe he still collects a paycheck from them to this day as sort of a pension.
Newt is not attacking from the Left. He is attacking from the Conservative, PRO-Capitalist, ANTI-CRONY-CAPITALIST Right. Romney is not now and never has been a Capitalist. We should all be thanking Newt and the PAC for outing Romney before it is too late!
The reason why Romney is a poor candidate is because he is everything that the Leftists so wrongly claim that the Republicans are. He is a son of wealth who has used his family's wealth and power to increase the wealth of himself and a small cadre of investors at the expense of the larger society. He is by definition not a capitalist, he is a corporatist.
It is highly beneficial that we as conservatives and free-marketeers expose him now before he becomes the nominee.
How long before Romney’s PAC comes out accusing Newt of an “ethics violation” for supposedly breaking this stupid law? This is about as nonsensical a rule as the one they accused him of in the House of teaching a college course that supposedly promoted conservative Republican values.
I want to see what Newt said directly. Bet he said, IF there are inaccuracies correct them or pull it down. I want Newt, Perry, or Santorum to be the candidate.
Romney has stated than none of the other candidates are as qualified for president as he is, because of his experiences at Bain. He claims he created 100,000 jobs. He has chosen to make this issue front and center, and it needs to be vetted.
Romney talks about Staples and other venture capital deals which worked out real well. He doesn't want to talk about the non-venture “management consulting” part of the business which reminds me of a type of LBO. So other candidates are just supposed to keep hands off of anything Romney doesn't want to talk about?
Romney needs to prove his claims on job creation(it appears he might have padded his resume). He also needs to explain those handful of companies where questions have been raised regarding his mismanagement, fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders where he/Bain profited and the firm went under.
What is over the top is that the GOP E and their synchophants in the media have tarnished the image of Capitalism by framing this as an attack on Capitalism instead of a questioning of Romney's grandiose claims/record.
Personally, I am PO’d that Pubbies have tried to hide these issues from the voters. I think it is pathetic that the only way these candidates get vetted is by other candidates.
If there were any true investigative journalists out there, this would have been discussed adnausem a year ago, and questions would have been raised in the beginning debates.
The free market system has much more to it than private equity firms and leveraged buyouts. Calling an attack on Romney an attack on Capitalism is like calling an attack on a shady bounty hunter an attack on Law Enforcement.
Like Romney said, politics ain't bean bag, and the candidate has to take the heat. Maybe mittens needs to step out of the kitchen.
is akin to:
“Saying to be anti abortion is an attack on the medical profession”
Or it's like someone saying how dare you disagree with me because I have a right to free speech. Having freedom doesn't mean you can't be criticized if someone feels you exercise your freedom in an improper fashion. People here criticize others for making all kinds of immoral or unethical choices all the time...but we're simply not allowed to do that when it involves criticizing a business?
Exactly right. Some of this is a real issue...both politically (it will come up in the general and be effective), and also as insight into the candidate. There is little secret that Mitt's machine has been involved in the savaging of Palin and other conservatives during the four years leading up to this campaign. His people have also been credited with the stealth attacks that sunk Fred Thompson last time. He is a ruthless competitor.
On the other side, the firing of people is not always wrong. Part of rebuilding a company is turnover and making fundamental changes. That is appropriate and fair. If (and I don't know), their primary track record is the 'vulture' actions of grabbing functioning business and sucking it dry for profit, that's not such a fine attribute. Bain has many great turnaround success stories that are a feather in Romney's cap. I do not begrudge his success before running for office in Massachusetts. My issues with Romney start with his campaigning and governing in the past 20 years.
There is a heck of a lot more to capitalism and the free market system than venture capital, leveraged buyouts, and management consulting. Heck, up until 30 years ago LBO wasn't even an every day phrase.
The GOP E and their syncophants in the media are the ones that have turned a vetting of Romney's claims and record into an indictment of capitalism. He is on record making his private sector experience the main reason he should go against Obama and no one else.
If I were to criticize a bounty hunter for questionable decisions, would that be an indictment of Law Enforcement? All this outrage about protecting Capitalism is just protecting Pubbies “anointed” one using Alinsky tactics.
This issue was used by Kennedy to defeat Romney in the senate race years ago. He has had years to prepare to demonstrate how he made good management decisions, walked off with profits for Romney & Associates, and left a weakened company which went bankrupt shortly after leaving shareholders and creditors in the cold, and workers as collateral damage.
Management(Bain) has a fiduciary responsibility to make profit not only for Bain, but also the shareholders of the company they are helping to manage to not only make profits for the short term, but keep the firm healthy enough to survive. I want to know whether they fulfilled this responsibility for both companies or just Bain. Did they make decisions that benefited Bain to the detriment of the shareholders of these companies?.
There were some lawsuits out there which creditors brought against Bain. I want to know those details. What was charged, and what was proved, and what was the evidence?. All I've heard so far, is how dare you ask. How dare you attack capitalism.
As a former auditor, if all this reaction happened when I asked a question about management's decisions, it would make me so suspicious, I would insist on seeing every smidge of information and documentation there was before I would sign off on it..
Well as a voter, I feel the same way. Tell me the story, show me the evidence, and I will make up my mind about whether you have demonstrated you deserve my vote.
Newt does have the right to publicly ask a PAC to correct inaccuries or pull an ad, just not to go to the PAC directly and privately.
Romney has the same rights but choose to deny (LIE)that he had this right and let his PAC continue to lie and defame Newt.
Newt is fighting fire with fire and the rinos and msm are all upset about the attack on Romney, they would be on much firmer ground had they admonished the Romney campaign for the attacks on Newt.
I would much rather have Newt fighting for me and the country than Romney. He is so much better equipped.
I’m with you wardaddy. I am no fan of LBO either, and I think this form of consulting is an issue too. When an individual owner hires a management consultant, there is a natural restraint in that the owner will not agree to decisions that will leave him so in debt that his company might go bankrupt.
When the management consultant becomes the controlling decision maker for a corporation, they have an inherent potential for a conflict of interest. Such management has a fiduciary responsibility to both Bain and the shareholders/owners of the company they are managing.
Voters have a right to know whether Bain subordinated the interest of any companies they were managing to their own interests, were they just guilty of poor decisions, or whether unforeseen events tipped the balance into failure.
I think it is pathetic that these candidates are only vetted if another candidate asks questions. And it is outrageous when Alinsky tactics are employed to try and shut up the person asking pertinent questions.
I like your medical analogy better than mine. I said that it was like criticising a bounty hunter’s questionable actions was an attack on Law Enforcement.
I agree with you. I would rather Newt than the Plastic smiling RINO Mith!
No! No! Newt is asking the PAC supporting him to remove “inaccuracies” in their ads about Romney. I was asking what are those specific “inaccuracies” in those ads?
I sympathize. If you spend some time in investing and finance, you eventually learn that the guy walking around with a white hat is really wearing a grey hat. In my case, I lost my innocence over the Hunt Brothers flap. Some of the governors of the commodities exchange who shut down silver trading on the long end, on the basis that the Hunts were trying to corner the market, were short silver at the time. In other words, those people were saving their own bacon while putting on the white hat. Some would say that they moved the goal post in order to do so.
Of course, there's always an option for those who still have some idealism: it's usually rebelish. The Hunt Brothers were victims of a group of wicked Establishment short sellers who aim to keep silver down by rigging the market their way. Michael Milken was a hero who was persecuted by the "JustUs" legal system. And so on.
As cynicism sets in, though, you see a lot of grey. The black hats begin to look grey as well. The only unambiguous market evil that's left is corporate fraud, which makes some short sellers the good guys.
As for so-called "vulture capitalism," here's my take: A pure vulture capitalist is doing the work that used to be done solely by bankruptcy trustees. Central to the job of a bankruptcy trustee is asset-stripping. On the one hand, doing the work at a profit gives the vulture capitalists an incentive to push companies into bankruptcy. On the other hand, loopholes in the Bankrupcy Code have made the process of bankruptcy less onerous at the operational level than they used to be.
Yes, it's true that bankruptcy-for-profit incentivizes vulture capitalists in a certain way. But, fee-based bankruptcy a la trusteeship incentivizes the designated asset strippers in another way. At the worst, the former is a Gordon Gekko - but the worst of the latter is something out of Bleak House.
"You can have any colour you want, as long as it's grey."
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Haven’t seen the ads you’re talking about. Do you have links?
I’ll take a guess that Newt was referring to material highlighted in the Wapo fact checker column, link in above post.
He has no feelings and will lay off hundreds of people to reach his goal.
You do understand, in the actual conservative world, the goal is to have no feelings and lay off TENS OF THOUSANDS of people who work for the government to reach our goal?
Or do we not want to hurt anybody’s feelings?
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.
