Google+

Tags: Bain Capital

Obama: $34,250 in Donations from Bain Employees This Cycle



Text  



Each time an Obama apologist tells you that Bain Capital is the root of all evil in the economy, remind them that President Obama has accepted $34,250 from employees of Bain Capital so far this cycle.

Most of the donors are senior executives who were with Bain when it made all of those allegedly controversial decisions from 1999 to 2002 that the Obama campaign is so focused upon.

Obama’s donors include managing director Joshua Bekenstein (at Bain since it began, including the Romney years); chief compliance officer Alan Halfenger; managing director & chief investment officer Jonathan Lavine (an Obama “bundler” of large donations from multiple donors), who has been with Bain since 1993; managing director Seth Meisel (began in 1999); managing director Mark Nunnelly (began in 1993); managing director Stephen Pagliuca (began in 1989); deputy general counsel Ranesh Ramanathan; and managing director Ted Berk (joined in 1997).

Of the above, Halfenger, Lavine, Meisel, Nunnelly, Pagliuca, and Ramanathan have donated the legal maximum of $5,000; two separate payments of $2,500 to Obama’s primary and general-election campaigns.

In other words, the Obama campaign asserts that the decisions made by Bain Capital from 1999 to 2002 — when Romney was off fixing ski jumps and such over in Salt Lake City — disqualify him from the presidency, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with accepting donations from everyone else in Bain Capital’s leadership at that time.

Uh-huh.

Oh, and in the 2008 cycle, Obama accepted $58,270 from employees of Bain Capital.

Tags: Bain Capital , Barack Obama , Mitt Romney

The Obama Campaign, Only Worried About 1994’s Layoffs



Text  



Summing up the below post, 22 million Americans are currently unemployed or underemployed, and the Obama campaign wants to talk about 350 workers laid off in 1994.

For perspective, in 1994, Barack Obama had not even been elected to any office, and he had not even launched his political career in the home of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers yet.

For perspective, those 350 workers are roughly one-third the number of workers laid off when Solyndra went belly up, costing taxpayers $535 million for their loan guarantee.

Oh, and now two other Senate Democrats are expressing discomfort with the Obama campaign’s criticism of Bain:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a widely respected member of Congress, stopped short of criticizing the president, but made it clear that the campaign should pivot.

“It’s done,” she said. “Go on to other things now.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told The Hill, “I think the average American … hopes that this campaign will focus on competing visions for how to strengthen our economy, help create jobs and move the country forward.”

Pressed on whether he thought Obama’s campaign had operated within those guidelines, Coons paused.

“I’m not going to comment on President Obama’s ad,” he said, shaking his head vigorously.

Tags: Bain Capital , Barack Obama , Layoffs , Mitt Romney , Solyndra

How Much Do America’s Unemployed Want to Hear About Bain?



Text  



As noted in the Jolt, an increasing number of prominent Democrats are publicly doubt the wisdom of demonizing Bain Capital for doing what it did best – attempting to turn around struggling companies, prospering when the turnaround succeeds, moving to bankruptcy when the turnaround efforts fail: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former Obama car czar Steven Rattner, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and most infamously, Newark Mayor Cory Booker.

Is Romney’s management at Bain fair game for public scrutiny? Absolutely, but the Obama campaign is making its arguments in a ludicrously ham-fisted and inaccurate way.

One can argue that investment and business experience are not perfect training for the Oval Office. (Of course, that’s not all Mitt Romney’s done in his life, looking at his experience as a governor, turning around a scandal-ridden, calamitously mismanaged Olympics, etc.) But what man goes into the office perfectly prepared for the duties of the presidency? Does haberdashery (Truman), Hollywood (Reagan), peanut farming (Carter), the CIA (George H. W. Bush) or baseball team ownership (George W. Bush) prepare a man for the presidency? Or are they best perceived as achievements and a career path from an earlier stage in life that may or may not shape how they approach the presidency? Does the Obama campaign truly want to argue that community organizing is better preparation for the presidency than corporate management? (And a pretty ineffective community organizer at that.) The man who was in the Senate for about ten minutes – okay, two years – before running for president wants to argue that Romney doesn’t have enough government experience to handle the job?

The argument of the Obama camp is that somehow Romney’s work at Bain means he won’t be able to enact policies that will build prosperity. That assertion remains unproven, and we know what we get with another four years:

America has tried a president (and a cabinet!) with exceptionally little private sector experience… and we’ve seen the results.

The man who ran up more than $5 trillion in debt in less than four years tells us we dare not elect Romney, because he’s too focused on the bottom line.

UPDATE: The editors of the Washington Post examine Obama’s insistence that he doesn’t want to demonize all private equity investors – certainly not all of the ones that donate to him! – with the rhetoric in his ad:

What we’re left with is a president who seems content to present an even-handed view of private equity at his news conferences while propounding a much more tendentious one in his campaign advertising.

The president’s tendency to blame his staff appears once again.

Tags: Bain Capital , Barack Obama , Mitt Romney

You Cannot Undo Liberal Policies by Echoing Liberal Rhetoric



Text  



If you’re not listening to the Three Martini Lunch daily podcast — found on NRO’s home page — with Greg Corombus and myself, you’re missing the occasional rant like this one today:

Greg: The sad thing here, Jim, is that yes, Romney could have phrased that a little more artfully, but it was clear the point he was making there is that people like to have choices — I think he was talking about health insurance at the time — people should have the ability to pursue the service and the people who provide the service that do the best job.

Now there are folks like Huntsman and to some extent Gingirich, although he’s backed off a little bit on that one, and some of the others up in New Hampshire saying that Mitt Romney just gleefully likes to fire people who are relying on him and his company for their jobs, and that’s clearly not what he was saying.

Me: Not only is what Mitt Romney saying perfectly fine and not objectionable, it is at its heart a big chunk of the conservative worldview, which is that government tends to give crappy services because it doesn’t have competition.

What are we trying to do in education? Create school choice. Give parents options. Why do we hate going to the DMV? Because there’s no ‘other leading brand’ DMV that we can go to that’s giving competition. They can provide crappy service because you have no place else to go.

Ninety percent of government services are like this. There is no private competition to Social Security, other than individual retirement accounts . . .

One of the basic fundamental concepts of the free-market worldview — which we now see that almost no one in the Republican presidential field has — is that competition is good. One of the problems of government is that in many of the services it provides, it has a monopoly. Because there is no competition, you end up eroding the work ethic and end up eroding the desire to provide something better.

There is no rival Department of Commerce. There is no rival Internal Revenue Service. There is nobody else doing the same things, saying “Boy, if we don’t do a good job, we won’t have our jobs for long.” The same way Radio America faces other radio syndicates, National Review faces other conservative publications . . . All of us in the private sector have some sort of competition that we have to stay on our toes to compete against.

This is the entire concept of what Mitt Romney is saying, and because it sounds like he enjoys the suffering of others, every single one of these desperate losers in the rest of this campaign are grabbing onto it, trying to persuade people that there’s something wrong with it.

Just go ahead and just poop on a police car, guys, because most of the Republican field has just gone and hugged the entire mentality of the Occupy Wall Street movement. They basically deep down are arguing that there is no such thing as a good layoff, there’s no such thing as a necessary layoff. Layoffs are ipso facto immoral, the profits of Bain Capital are immoral . . . and Greg, if this is the mentality that the Republican nominee is going to take . . . You cannot undo liberal economic policies by echoing liberal economic rhetoric. And that’s what Perry, Gingrich and Huntsman have all done. Santorum has been a fairly noble guy, not jumping on the Bain criticism bandwagon . . .

This has been an appalling turn in the Republican debate. I go from having beefs with these guys to basically arguing that these guys will tear down the entire concept of free-market economics if they think it will get them a few extra points in New Hampshire. This tells us everything we need to know about Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman.

Tags: Bain Capital , Jon Huntsman , Mitt Romney , Newt Gingrich , Rick Perry

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review