E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRomney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom responded on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports to the Obama campaign’s attacks on Bain: “[T]hese attacks are so old they have cob webs,” he said. We saw this attack rolled out by some of Mitt Romney's Republican opponents during the primary and it didn't work. Before that, we saw these negative attacks on Bain being used against Gov. Romney when he ran for governor in Massachusetts in 2002 and didn't work. Look, this election is going to be about jobs and the economy, but I agree with Mayor Booker who said that these attacks against Bain and free enterprise are nauseating. I think people deserve better from president, after all he promised that if he didn't get this economy turned around in three-and-a-half years, he would be a one term president and Mitt Romney is here to collect on that.”
While Obama and Democrats may have been on defense after Cory Booker’s comments calling the attacks on Bain “nauseating” and “very uncomfortable” on Meet the Press, AP points out: “The core of his presidential candidacy under attack, Mitt Romney has yet to shape a playbook to defend a quarter-century in the business world that created great riches for himself and great hardship, at times, for some American workers. Romney and his aides have struggled to respond consistently to intensifying criticism about his tenure at Bain Capital and how it would be reflected in his presidency. The lack of a cohesive message stems, in part, from Romney's fundamental belief that any debate that puts the economy front and center is a win for Republicans.”
Leave a Comment:
Yes, they will work.
As President Obama says if that is Mittens calling card (which btw is the only thing he has) then he must show the numbers.
I don't understand why Romney can't defend himself against the Bain attacks, instead of just protesting they are unfair.
I thought Romney wanted this election to be about jobs and the joys of an unregulated free market? Why can't he defend his business record or the efficacy of venture capitalism? Isn't that knowledge supposed to be why we elect him President?
Mitt the Barber is invoking a political statue of limitations.
Mitt Romney has pivoted on SO many issues since he was MA Governor, that he is running on his Bain experience. He cannot blame the Democratic party for that.
Making profits for shareholders is not the Business of the President of the United States. Fixing the economy the way Bain Capital did under Romney is not part of the job of President.
The President has to look out for ALL Americans.
That's the way of the tea people Koch republicans. Wine and cry you're picking on me. All the tea people Koch republicans can do is talk about wanting to talk about the economy, while saying nothing about what they'd do about it. They just want to talk about talking about it, and the media never says you've got the stage tell us what you would do to help the economy, instead they go on the what they call the next "attack I guess that gets better ratings than actually doing something. How are the American people supposed to be informed when all the media wants to do is rub the two candidates noses together.
Okay....
How many jobs in their subsidiaries were lost during Willard's tenure at Bain? How many families of the laid off employees got in a better economic situation from having their position terminated? ("I like to fire people.")
Good idea Mittens ---- lets talk about jobs and the economy as applied to the people whose lives you ruined while at Bain.
The leadership of the gop has painted themselves into a corner over the last decade (rank and file are not intelligent enough to replace them). Now...they're desperate. That makes them dangerous. We should fully expect the level of their shame and dishonor to increase until the election. Be wary. Very wary. Dysfunction will continue to be their agenda. Lies will continue to flow. Romney should scare the hell out of ANY american unless you have allowed yourself to be polarized to the point of stupid.
Lets separate Bain from the man, Bain has one purpose, to make money for its investors nothing more. It can buy and sell companies but it is to make money, it is not about creating jobs, concern for employees or product, it is about profit. At that is was good for those investing in Bain (free enterprise). The man Romney was good at his job of creating profit at any cost. Companies, employees, product were not his main concern but profit was and to that end he did well. In the process of making money somethings can just be in the way of profit and employees are number one on that list, unions, healthcare benefits, vacations, raises all get in the way of profit so if you can increase profit by loosing some employees whats the issue. In Business that is just the way it is done. So when it comes to Romney his background and experience is about a single objective Profit, now how do you translate that ability into running a Government which is not a business, it is not about profit, it is about the one thing business is not and that is people other than investors. Look at what the right wants to do with Social Security and Medicare, move all the money into the private sector for one purpose create profit but for whom, in this case the investment companies not the investors, their profit is secondary. Privatize education again so companies can profit. Governments are not in business to make a profit and nothing Romney has as experience prepairs him for a non profit non investor operations. The goal is to turn this Government into a for profit business, why just how much money is involved with Government operations and what kind of profit can be made from that kind of money. Bain is a good company for its investors which is not the issue. Is Mitt Romney fit to run a non profit Government, no he has no experience at it but if he can change it into a for profit operations for his investors then he becomes a good fit, the down side is once again the people side drop off the map in place of profits. What kind of Government do you want a Coporation for profit or a Government that works for its citizens. That is the choice we have today. Choose carefully.
This is a great post. Too bad it is not more visible. If you have an opportunity, post it again where more people will see it.
This is one of the more cogently expressed Romney discrediting narrative formulations that I have seen so far. I think most of it has been implied, but their exists several logical stretches that make this a losing argument. How is excelling in private business spectacularly a bad thing? The dem line is that they're not against private equity in general but against Romney particularly, the only problem is that they describe the behavior of private equity in general and try to spin it as a personal Romney character flaw. That tension makes this strategy relatively weak in the current economic conditions.
Another flaw with this narrative is that you try to conflate Romney's Bain experience and assume that he will run the county exactly the same. This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning. Excelling in private business or in anything worth while implies great capacity and intelligence and leadership qualities. Nobody assumed that Potus would run the country like a community organizer exactly. Instead people said that he would use his prior experience to empathize with the common man. Similarly, voters will give Romney credit for being a successful businessman, Governor who introduced healthcare, savior of the Winter Olympics (utilizing the skills that made him successful at Bain..) and conclude he is a competent alternative to the current occupant of the white house whose economic policies have left independents more likely to vote anti incumbent.
Thirdly, Cory Booker's utter deconstruction of the Obama campaigns main attack against Romney was devastating. He single handily gave the Romney campaign the perfect shield against this line of attack and a very credible, reasonable defender of private enterprise. And the chorus of dems including Rendell, Ratner, Ford Jr. enable the Romney campaign to define Obama as beholded to the more liberal anti-business dem faction, alienating independents.
What you said, Tis the Season! The Republicans still seem to have no clue what a mistake they are making nominating Romney. Of course, their alternatives are all mistakes, too. But think about the debates that the President and Romney will have. Romney will make his unfounded accusations, make his unsupported and vague claims, whine on about being hit below the belt even as he tries to hit below the belt (Does he actually have anything to hit below the belt?) ... But I digress. The point is, Romney has nothing to run on. All he has is his stint as governor of MA, where his only successes were progressive, and Bain, where his successes do NOT translate into what you want in a President, as Tis the S points out. Once voters start to see what Romney is really all about--just getting elected, at "best" recycling Dubya Bush ideas and at worst caving to the ultra-Right wingnuts--he won't have a chance.
Well, let me amend that a little: In a normal election campaign, that would be the case. With all the SuperPac $$$ the conservative wingnuts will be pouring into Romney's coffers, there could be a lot more lies obscuring the Romney reality. The ultra-right could just be planning to buy the Presidency.