As recently as five days ago, Mitt Romney argued that any criticism of his controversial private-sector background was evidence "character assassination," and an attack on capitalism itself.
It's a curious way to stifle debate, isn't it? To hear the Republican candidate tell it, he could make Bain Capital the centerpiece of his campaign, but criticism of his business tactics has no place in the public discourse.
Yesterday, however, the line appears to have been moved. As Rachel noted last night, former Gov. John Sununu (R-N.H.), one of the most prominent Romney surrogates, told reporters, "I think the Bain record, as a whole, is fair game."
What's more, Priorities USA Action released this video:
In the two-minute clip, we see several prominent Republicans -- including Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Sarah Palin -- all of whom agree that Romney's leveraged buyouts and mass layoffs are a legitimate subject for campaign debate.
So, which is it? Is Romney right when he characterizes this scrutiny as "character assassination" and an attack on free enterprise, or is Romney's surrogate and fellow Republicans right when they say Bain Capital is fair game?
Leave a Comment:
You bet it is fair game. His record as governor is pathetic also. Unless you are wealthy why in the world would anyone vote for this guy?
You can't have character assassination if you have no character. And Romney is doing everything possible to depict himself as the ubiquitous Anybody But.
Well said Dan.
This is a powerful ad. Sarah Palin alludes to Bain taking American jobs and sending them over-seas. I haven't seen any reporting on that but if it's true I think Obama should play that up as well.
I think at the end of this ad...Obama campaign needs to add on how he helped save AMERICAN jobs w/ the auto industry bailout. That all ties in nicely.
Of COURSE, Bain is fair game. So is Romney's term as Governor. I finally figured out WHY he doesn't want to talk about it. He 'inherited' the whole mess. So he 'didn't start it but he didn't make it any better'...I guess I would want MY mess thrown back at ME either...oh crap. I must be indulging in 'character assassination'...
All of it's fair game. It's called free speech.
It seems to be the left that has taboo topics.
No Shooter, it is like siblings when they are younger. Fighting among themselves is fine, but let anyone else argue the exact same points against them and that is a fight. They will band together and say don't you do what I just have done!
It seems to be the left that has taboo topics and loses elections in the name of ill-perceived piety or self defeating propinquity.
Fixed it for you!
So absolutely no one on the right has stated that this should not be talked about?
Apparently eap did not read the first sentence of this thread:
Again logical fallacies =/= pointing out hypocrisy
This just in:
Evangelical write-in candidate Henry VIII reveals his campaign platform of marriage and religion expertise.
I think what Republicans mean is "discussion about Romney's years at Bain Capital is fair game, as long as the discussion is praise. Positive comments are American, negative comments is an attack on all patriots hold patriotic.
This is just a Republican talking point to bolster the loyalty of any possible weak and wavering Useful Idiots who might be tricked by the public discussion of Bain into thinking that there might be something about Rmoney's management experience there that might not be applicable to being President.
Republicans are simply inoculating the already True Believing Wingnuts against any outside Socialist influence.
Romeny just want a free pass on the his record while he runs on it.
Because as Ann Romney stated in an interview: "It's Mitt's time..."
And these are the same people who complain about entitlements?
Anything and everything in Romney's background is fair game. His time at Bain and in government in Massachusetts, all of it. And while there is nothing wrong with him working at Bain Capital and doing what he did for a living, you cannot claim to create jobs when the point of a company like Bain is to come into a bad situation, strip out all the good stuff that is left, and send whatever is left to the bankruptcy courts. Yes, he might have created some jobs, but how many jobs were stripped away for the few that were created? A net loss is still a net loss.
Also, while he was governor of Massachusetts, did he create any jobs there in the government or did he cut jobs? I have never seen any discussion of that part of his record, which should be examined as well. Romney is beyond a joke....
Massachusetts under Mitt Romney was 47th (or maybe 46th) in job creation. When there are only three of four states our of 50 that did worse than you did, would you claim that as part of your experience? :-)
Of course it's character assassination. A statement of truth made about any teapub is character assassination.
free speech, if political parties lie. when does it become slander ?
"...or is Romney's surrogate and fellow Republicans right when they say Bain Capital is fair game?"
Of course Bain Capital is fair game! Romney chose to run on his "experience" at "job creation" while working at Bain, therefore, let US examine exactly what did happen while he was there; and while we're at it can we discuss exactly what this style of vituperative capitalism does to US as a nation, and how does it factor into the historic wealth inequality that we're experiencing right now, and is Bain really the business model type of "free-market" capitalism that "works" for US all?
Romney may well want to highlight the successes, but his failures need to be highlighted as well because we've already experienced the Presidency for the 1% under Shrub and WE can't afford to go backwards!
Damn right it's fair game, I bet you $10 you have spineless democrats saying the opposite in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... And we (people) need to hold them accountable by tweet, text, e-mail...
One of the primary reasons for having election campaigning is to establish the character of the candidates. That character is demonstrated by how they have lived their life and their accomplishments that show what kind of person they are. If Bain Capital was a significant part of His “accomplishments’, then it’s part of his character as well, and
that makes it fair game. So are his term as governor, his flip flopping, his religious beliefs (Rev. Wright wasn’t off the table), his tax rate, and his elevator for his cars. Being a school bully might have been in the past, but it is still part of his character. Didn’t He say that “He likes to fire people” in the campaign? Sounds like He’s still
playing the school bully.
Character is one of the most important parts of being President. That’s why I’m happy to have President Obama in the White House.
Look everybody, they accomplished their goal by having people debate whether it's fair game to discuss this. Of course, it's fair game. Dismiss it out-of-hand, and they've accomplished nothing by asserting it isn't. That is, don't argue about it. Just make it part of the discussion. Period.
Of course, examining Romney's business practices while at Bain is fair game. Duh.
It's one thing, though, to be the sort of businessman who builds a business from the ground up, producing a worthwhile product or service, hiring employees as demand grows (demand being the thing that spurs hiring), taking care of employees fairly (because they are both part of his success and consumers who further the success) while still making money, and supporting the community all along in many ways.. I have long thought that a caring, successful businessman of this sort, who knows how to run an energetic, happy, growing company, contributing to a thriving community, might have a clue about running a functional governmental "business."
It's another thing to be a vulture capitalist, targeting struggling companies, coming out of it with millions for your equity firm but leaving employees out on the streets with no health care and no pensions. Leaving communities broken and bereft. Letting the government to pick up the slack, while also (before abandonment) including government spending as part of the the scheme to make money. (Not to mention that, as far as I can tell, Romney took no part in actually successfully running any company.) One can only assume that Romney would see the Presidency as a continuation of that role -- making it possible for the rich to get richer by whatever means while disregarding all others.
It's been pretty clear where Romney's interests lie, and it's not with the middle class or the poor. Not with consumers or towns. Not with making sure people and communities are provided for, leaving them better off after your appearance than before.
The problem is that, whatever you think of vulture capitalists, the skills for being President are quite different. The President is not supposed to plunder the government to make money for the rich. He's supposed to do his darnedest keep every aspect of the country functioning so that every person has a chance to prosper. And part of that job is to keep predators and vultures, both inside and out, under control.
One doesn't want to put a fox in charge of the hen house. Not if you want all the hens to survive and keep laying eggs. You want someone who makes sure the hens are all happy and healthy and safe and ready to produce. (The GOP barnyard analogies have a place, perhaps.) You don't want a few fat foxes in an empty yard. (And, guess what, the foxes wouldn't stay fat for long. It's an inherently unstable situation, even disregarding the harm to the hens.)
If that evaluation of his work at Bain is not correct, he should pony up the facts to support his alternate reality. That is, if one can believe anything he says. Problem is, if he said "Hey, it's going to be a nice day", I'd grab my umbrella.
Of course, it's fair game. Too bad, Mayor Booker, your little false equivalencies didn't work out so well for you. Turns out the people are smarter than you think.
Jay Smooth says it best about Booker..
http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/ill-doctrine-cory-booker-and-the-young-money-clique/?tw_p=twt
These seem like interviews that might have taken place during the primaries--except for the Sara Palin remarks. Are they current? If so, you can bet there is a reason they want to discuss this------as in, there is something about President Obama's past that they think can harm him. We will just wait to see just what this is about. Apparently the ALEC memo featured this today (if these are current interviews).
Really who cares this is more nit picking crap that people just take liberties to bash rather than really look at issues. Why don't most of you go back to playing king of the hill because it appears that's where you peaked.
Rachel, it's so easy for so many business people to focus on one thing, and only one thing. Profit. The all consuming dollar. Profit is the reason to open or own a business, but at what point does profit outweigh the effects of earning profits. The thing missing from guys like Romney is simple humanity. There is no worth in lives to guys like this. Honest, solid business people want to earn reasonable profits while caring some for the folks operating their business. Romneys company seemed only interested in maximum profit at the expense of everything and everyone he employed.