A number of commentators have been remarking on how rarely Mitt Romney gets attacked by his opponents in the GOP debates. What’s even more remarkable is what the other candidates are attacking Romney for. Instead of calling Romney to account for his health-policy mistakes, they’re going after him for his . . . successful business career?
Romneycare, by far the largest problem with Romney’s record, was barely discussed in the last two debates. Perhaps this is because both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have previously supported the individual mandate — Santorum in the 1990s, and Gingrich as recently as May 2011 — neutralizing their effectiveness as anti-Romneycare crusaders. But this problem has led Santorum and Gingrich to attack Romney for the things conservatives should most appreciate about him.
Advertisement
First, Santorum and Gingrich knocked Romney for his “pious baloney” about having a career in the private sector. Romney declined to run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts in 2006, clearly because his poll numbers were bad. He was, after all, a pro-life, budget-cutting Republican governor in one of the country’s most liberal states, in a terrible year for Republicans. (Before you shout, “But Romneycare!” remember that Romneycare was Romney’s most popular achievement in Massachusetts. It’s the rest of his record that liberal Bay Staters didn’t like.)
Santorum makes the point that he himself ran for reelection despite poor poll numbers. But what else was Santorum going to do, given that he was a career politician? And let’s not forget that, if Santorum had won reelection, Democrats would not have controlled 60 Senate seats in 2009, and would not have been able to pass Obamacare. It’s not as significant a contribution to Obamacare as Romney’s signature health-care legislation, but it certainly was a factor.
Santorum and Gingrich then went on to attack Romney for his record at Bain Capital. Various conservative commentators have expressed glee at these criticisms. We might even call it Romney derangement syndrome: conservatives disliking Romney so much that they delight in Republican attacks upon free enterprise.
Saturday night, Santorum accused Romney of being a “manager,” pointing out that political leaders can lead only by persuasion, because “you can’t direct, you know, members of Congress and members of the Senate as to how you do things.”
However, as Romney pointed out, anybody who has had to try to persuade an investor to support a startup business, or a customer to use his product, or a star employee to stick around — even if that employee has a better offer somewhere else — has had to master the arts of persuasion and leadership. Santorum served only to reinforce Romney’s argument: that Santorum and other career politicians don’t understand how the private sector works.
Then, in the coup de grâce, Newt Gingrich spoke of the imminent “27-and-a-half-minute movie” coming from a pro-Newt PAC regarding Bain Capital’s economic crimes, sourced from “establishment newspapers, like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Barron’s, [and] Bloomberg News.”
Bain Capital has grown accustomed to these critiques, as they have been going on since 1994, when Ted Kennedy waged war on the firm in an effort to regain the lead against Romney in their battle for Kennedy’s Senate seat. The most recent, from today’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Bain’s investments had a higher rate of failure, but also a higher rate of spectacular success, than those of Bain’s peers.
So let’s review what it is that leveraged-buyout firms actually do. (In the interests of disclosure, I must point out that I worked for Bain Capital from 2001 to 2004, though not in the leveraged-buyout division.)
It is disgusting that candidates go as low as to attack the basics of capitalist economy to try to bring down Romney. Just show a complete lack of principles.
Mittbot Avik Roy starts off his article by telling us that Romney has not really been attacked very much, but concludes with stating how any attack on his beloved Mr. RomneyCare is irrational and unfair.
Except he said the opposite - that criticizing him on health care IS fair, but that it's shameful that supposed conservatives are critiquing Romney for participating in the free market.
The river of tears we should cry is real: The results of mourning how so-called conservatives like Newt & Perry are launching attacks that undermine support for the free market.
Hank Rearden would mourn a bunch of politicos giving Mitt a hard time earning what is rightfully is and moving the market forward in the process!
I thought his comments on Santorum were a bit of a stretch. I don't think Santorum was criticizing Romney's right or anyone's right to make money in a free market. Right or wrong he was pointing out that being a CEO doesn't always translate into being a good President. It's a reasonable point and hardly one that is anti-capitalist.
I think Perry and Gingrich are off the mark trying to beat up Romney in this fashion. However, it is a bit of a taste of his own medicine - or at least a part of the medicine that points out that Romney is the most electable. If Romney has put this notion out there it is subject to cross examination so to speak. Thus, this minor preview to what's in store is worth seeing. I don't think Perry and Gingrich have argued this is why he is not the most electable, but the merit of the attack is worth only slightly less than the merit of the original argument. I want a conservative president - the most conservative possible in a year where we should win. I don't want to go with Romney simply because he is the most electable Republican - which is hogwash anyway.
If you're going to make asinine comments like that and not realize the irony with respect of your moniker, I sugget you stop posting as John Galt. Good.day.sir.
I like Mitt as a candidate but like many Republicans don't love him as a candidate. Here's the problem, we need an eloquent, energetic, and vigorous defender of liberty and free enterprise in the war of philosophies what will occur during this election. Romney either hasn't proven he can play that role or been pushed to demonstrate it. What he has demonstrated are the skills that made a great investor: lots of smarts and capital. He's been great at understanding the mechanics needed to be a formidable candidate to win a party nomination and use his own and supporters' money to fund the effort.
From my experience, investors come in two flavors: financial experts (investment bankers, analysts, etc. & people who have come into money and hire the former) or operators (entrepreneurs who have created companies or visionary managers who have grown existing companies into stars). Romney definitely is in the first flavor. He had his own smarts and access to the best and brightest that Bain had to offer and the capital raised from investors and clients. He and his Bain partners placed the right chips on the right spots and make more good decisions than bad ones including finding and attracting the right managerial talent and shedding employees. That's great and I take nothing away from his success.
What he didn't do was start with an idea in his garage, make a big bet with his own or "friends and family" capital, sometimes have to decide to pay himself or his employees, and struggle through the day-to-day rollercoaster ride that is starting a company and/or growing a small company into a world beater. The great entrepreneurs and operators are those people who can articulate the vision that they have and defend and sell that vision to others... because they must to succeed.
Our country has historically been a great place to create wealth because of our founding principles not the other way around. I speculate that the leftists are salivating at the prospect of facing Romney. They will tar him as a one trick pony (cold hearted business guy). If the economy struggles to come back and it will in spite of the current administration, they'll say Romney doesn't matter because BHO has led us back. And if it doesn't they'll paint him as the greedy, modern day robber baron who laid waste to workers personified by the manufactured "Occupy" movement.
If Romney can't articulate a defense of the founding principles (personal liberty, free enterprise, risk taking, thrift, etc.) we're in for a long election cycle.
Roy and many of Romney's defenders make the same mistake that the left does regarding the free market. Leftists say, The free market is a lie because you conservatives claims that business welcomes competition, when in fact we see big corporations stifling competition.
Of course, this entirely inverts things, and the whole point of backing free enterprise is that we can safely assume that the big companies on top won't welcome competition once they're up there, to the detriment of the rest of us.
Similarly, Roy and other Romneyites might be reading from leftist cue cards when they exclaim that if you attack a capitalist, you are attacking the capitalist system itself and therefore must be a closet commie. Nonesense. The point of competition is that there are good, average, and poor businesses. There are effective managers and ineffective ones. Competition allows the good a chance to triumph over the bad. A respect for capitalism as a system does not require one to genuflect when each and every venture capitalist strolls by. On the contrary, it requires one to exercise specific judgment in each particular case.
The election "market," meaning the campaign and not Intrade, is the field of competition for the business of politics. It is the Romneyites who are in fact displaying an aversion to competition here. They want their present poll lead to be treated as the inviolable status quo and frozen into place, much as Verizon wants theirs to be. And each rejects the idea of competition from below and regards it as an illegitimate challenge to their divine rights.
Back the free market of ideas - attack Romney's record at Bain.
Where the competition comes from is not the problem in politics. The problem is whether the competition has done its homework. Unfortunately, several of the not Romneys hadn't moved beyond their pet issue or had not demonstrated an ability to sell their ideas to a wider group. Their supporters should have toughened them up a bit tougher in the beginning.
"A respect for capitalism as a system does not require one to genuflect when each and every venture capitalist strolls by. On the contrary, it requires one to exercise specific judgment in each particular case."
One of the best statements ever made about the arrogance of those who care only about making themselves and rich clients richer without regard to the overall social impact. The notion that "success" is determined by how many unions you bust, how many small competitors you drive out of business, how many jobs your send overseas, how many low-pay or temp jobs you generate in lieu of long-term stable employment, and how much of the tax code you can buy on the congressional black market is the big flaw at the heart of the Romney campaign.
Why does one have to doff one's cap to Bain because it makes lots of money for the few people who can buy into its ventures? The collateral economic damage of Bain-style capitalism is a very salient topic for political debate. Some like this writer will embrace it as they count up their offshore simoleons. Many will look at it as a disgraceful and destructive use of free markets and bought-up politicians to enrich the select over those who simply want a stable job and pay that does not stagnate for 20 to 30 years. The presumption that because it is capitalistic it is therefore "good" is the heart of the matter. Not all of us who embrace free enterprise embrace Darwinomics. The US system has been skewed for too long and in favor of too many special interests to suggest that what Bain does is not the product of policies and politics aimed at making what Bain does easier. Voters have the right to challenge the repercussions of Romney-ism, just as they must challenge the pluses and minuses of social contracts such as Medicare. To lazily intone that Bain-style business is an absolute good because it is capitalistic misses the point, and is just another self-interested dodge.
Even as a conservative, I don't think that Romenycare is the albatross it's made out to be. Unlike Obamacare and US population, the people of Massachusetts wanted, and want Romneycare. Romney provided a service that his constituents wanted even though it's anathema to conservatives.
The travesty of Obamacare was that it was passed against the will of the populace. Romney served his constituents and Obama serviced his.
What Roy and most NRO pundits and posters are missing is that the vast majority of Americans (Dem, GOP & independents) are NOT politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, bankers, investors, corporate executives or Wall Street traders. For the most part, most Americans are either employees or small business employers.
To be certain, politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, bankers, investors, corporate executives and Wall Street traders (or for shorthand, the Establishment) are all vital and necessary to perpetuate the American economy. But that doesn't mean the rest of the country likes or even respects that group of people.
Employees worry about keeping their jobs. Even if employees work hard and to the best of their ability, their jobs are still in jeopardy and subject to the "whims" of the faceless Establishment.
Small business employers share in that sentiment. Even worse, most small business owners have a personal relationship with and an attachment to their employees and often their employees' families. If times are bad, small business owners directly face their conscience and employees when cutting hours or jobs.
The Establishment has no direct contact with the American labor force or small business owners and cares little about the human costs of Establishment financial decisions and actions. The Establishment's sole focus is on profitability and potential for income. In a closed environment, these actions are neither moral nor immoral.
But the rest of us don't live in a closed environment. Whether it is wealth/social class envy or self-preservation, it's easy to villify the Establishment and the individuals within as heartless, greedy, slimy or dishonorable. It fuels populist anger. That's why the concepts of the Tea Parties and Occupy movement initially struck a chord. Where the Tea Party & Occupy movements differ is that Tea Partiers & Conservatives just want to be in control of their own financial destinies, while Occupiers & the Welfare state just want a (continued) handout.
But the anger is there - justified or not. And a candidate from the Establishment needs to find a way to overcome the anger. In good financial times, the anger is less and can be overcome rather easily. In poor economic times like today, it's difficult. And when liberal Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - can fan the flames of populist anger, it's nearly impossible.
On this basis alone, Mitt Romney is unelectable. He so far shown that he is incapable of crafting a message that will overcome the real and/or feigned anger of populist America or unfair media treatment. On top of that, many conservatives have other policy issue differences with Mitt.
In the end, while it is not Mitt's fault, he's the wrong man with the message at the wrong time.
"In the end, while it is not Mitt's fault, he's the wrong man with the message at the wrong time."
So may I ask, is President Obama's message of division, suspicion, class warfare, us vs. them, 99% vs. the 1% the right message at the right time, or is it the desperate attempt of a marxist failure to deflect attention from his miserable economic record?
You may say that Obama's laying out this type of message because he's anticipating running against Romney, I submit that Obama's doing this because it's all he has left and his only option is to try to divide people as much as he can.
If Obama's message is wrong and must be countered, which of the other candidates can step up to the plate and debunk it for the disingenuous sophistry that it is? Perry? Gingrich? Santorum?
McCain lost the election last time because when the economy started crashing, he didn't have a clue how to talk about the economy. When asked about it, he grasped at earmarks like a lifeline (clueless!!). In contrast, President Obama sounded at least like he understood why the markets were crashing, and since he had no experience to grade him on, people went for the "hope and change".
This time around is different and yet the same. The economy is still the center issue (unless Gingrich comes through and as the Republican nominee makes his own character the central issue). In the end, with Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul, President Obama has the ability to caricaturize them and change the subject at the same time. With Romney he really can't. To attack Romney is to maintain the attention of the country on a rotten economy. And where's your evidence that Romney's unelectable? National polls in a heads up match against Obama don't support your conclusion.
Steve,
When the general election rolls around Obama will DESTROY Romney with the Bain "vulture capitalism" message.
And the Romney rebuttals of "Obama hates capitalism" and "Obama is un-American" will not resonate the same way with liberals and independents as the Romney rebuttals do with RINOs. Republicans and some conservatives. In fact, they will have the opposite effect.
Any dispirited Democrat who is frustrated with Obama's lack of success at turning the economy around and might not vote this fall will now refocus their anger on a more natural target (for them) - those "evil, rich Republicans." Their anger at "evil, rich Republicans" getting even more rich as venture capitalists buy up struggling companies, saddle the companies with additional debt and then fire all of the employees and squeeze every last penny of aseets from the struggling company before liquidating and declaring bankruptcy will be HUGH and SERIES. And liberal Democrat will fall for this class welfare demagoguery simply because this is what they truly believe.
Moderates and independents - who are either too stupid or lazy to actually have a strong opinion on anything - will be conditioned to latch on to Obama's Bain/vulture capitalism message after hearing that message 157 times a day from the mainstream media.
In addition, Obama will play the race card and claim that any GOP accusation of Obama as being anti-capitalist or anti-American is actually a racist slur because Republicans hate the poor, Hispanics and black people. And the media will regurgitate this message eleventy billion times until even the most rabid David Duke devotee believes it to be true.
If it is widely known in advance that class warfare and populist anger at the establishment will be the ONLY issues pushed by the Democrats as a presidential campaign strategy, why is the Establishment GOP pushing the ONLY candidate who is the living breathing embodiment of the Democrats' warped Republican caricature?
"On this basis alone, Mitt Romney is unelectable. He so far shown that he is incapable of crafting a message that will overcome the real and/or feigned anger of populist America or unfair media treatment. On top of that, many conservatives have other policy issue differences with Mitt.
In the end, while it is not Mitt's fault, he's the wrong man with the message at the wrong time."
Beautifully put, Bob.
The closer this guy is to being the nominee, the scarier the outcome of the general election gets.
One huge problem, though - how in the world, with a looming election this important and a President this ripe to be taken out, could we be stuck with a group of candidates this incredibly pathetic and beatable?
"We might even call it Romney derangement syndrome: conservatives disliking Romney so much that they delight in Republican attacks upon free enterprise."
Well said - excellent offering.
Ironically, those lost in the "derangement" are not aware their voice is very small in number. They mistakenly believe this is popular fashion, but it isn't. Some 80% sampled in a major poll reveal Romney is considered a positive offering with GOP voters.
Seeing Public Sector Products like the very spoiled Gingrich Celebrity slam capitalism is the ugliest of all. As Ryan accurately stated, Newt Gingrich is no healthy ally. Newt is all about Newt - the most self serving destructive force, which was such a failure in the 90's, he helped reelect the dreadful Clinton.
We all know ugly religious bias, resentment for a wealthy success, even geographical prejudice, etc., is involved with some of the misguided inspiration which tries to debase Romney.
Of course, many Democrats pretend to be something they aren't, intending to diminish Our best Candidate as well. They will do anything to save the disastrous Democratic Partisan offering.
The growing realization the slant against Romney from a few is dysfunctional, will only further reduce these voices from focus. So many so-called conservative sideline pundits have lost their credibility offering pure sophistry already.
Romney is the best offering without question, a proven outsider with an excellent executive record, with enormous economic credentials, and an amazing ability to turn around failure.
All I can say is that conservative used to stand for small government. Ann Coulter and her ilk really think like Democrats, only they think they can run things better. Quoting that blow-hole as a conservative is like quoting Obama as a mainstream Blue-dog Democrat. She literally will say anything to get attention.
A "proven outsider"? Mitt Romney is an outsider like George W. Bush or Al Gore were outsiders. His dad was a Republican governor and Presidential candidate. He's been running for office for most of the last two decades. The only reason he has any claim to being "an outsider" is because he couldn't get elected for most of that time. Heck, Gingrich has a better claim to being an "outsider" than Romney. Yes, he's spent a lot of time in government, but he got there himself, he didn't have a well connected father to smooth the way. Support Romney all you want, but at least be honest about what you have.
Follow
