[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-18, 16:17, said:

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):
[.....]
Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

Just my uninformed opinion (I don't know anything about Romney other than what is in that article):

THB I can't see anything remotely wrong. He got an opportunity to earn some money in a safe and completely legal (and, AFAICS, morally acceptable) way. He took the offer after first having used his good negotiation skills to squeeze the lemon as far as he could.

Most people would have done the same in his shoes. Being a succesful businessman may create envy but I don't think it should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. You have to be rich to run a campaign so his money has to come from somewhere. Would it have been better if he had inherited them or won the in the lottery? I don't think so.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-19, 06:03, said:

I don't think this is so. I think there is a distinction between creating personal wealth and job creation, though. Romney has more in common IMO with T. Boone Pickens than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

This much I can agree with. Bain was not a business that built things, mined things, or in general created anything at all. Essentially, Romney made his fortune reorganizing assets without actually producing much of anything, as far as I can tell.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2012-July-19, 02:11, said:

this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

A lot of people seem to think anyone who's rich (but especially politicians) are so as a result of lack of moral fiber. Personally, I put that down to envy.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2012-July-19, 08:23, said:

Just my uninformed opinion (I don't know anything about Romney other than what is in that article):

THB I can't see anything remotely wrong. He got an opportunity to earn some money in a safe and completely legal (and, AFAICS, morally acceptable) way. He took the offer after first having used his good negotiation skills to squeeze the lemon as far as he could.

Most people would have done the same in his shoes. Being a succesful businessman may create envy but I don't think it should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. You have to be rich to run a campaign so his money has to come from somewhere. Would it have been better if he had inherited them or won the in the lottery? I don't think so.

Agreed. I have no problem with how Romeny made his money or his choice to reduce his personal risk. But to hold that time out as making him a better candidate to create jobs and run a country is silly. Presidents are not CEOs - they have checks and balances to a degree.

And if Bain Capital did make the determination to liquidate jobs in order to boost shareholder earnings, that is not illegal. But try selling that to the masses in the voting booth.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-19, 09:39, said:

But to hold that time out as making him a better candidate to create jobs and run a country is silly.

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2012-July-19, 15:37, said:

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

It wouldn't take many, actually, but it cannot happen because Romney would have to change his basic positions to accomplish that task. It won't happen.

[kenberg]

For me, the number of jobs created by Bain, destroyed by Bain, or off-shored by Bain, is not likely to affect my vote at all. A somewhat related, and perhaps more useful, question might ask if success in business is a good predictor of a successful presidency.. Jimmy Carter was a successful peanut farmer. GWB had an MBA from Harvard. Both left office with the economy in a pretty serious mess. Carter seemed not at all up to handling the Iran hostage situation, Bush totally misjudged the course of events in Iraq. I do not regard myself as anti-business or anti-capitalist or any such thing, but this idea that "Hey, I have been in business, I know how to really do things right" does not resonate with me.

Success at any endeavor is somewhat predictive of success in future endeavors, but I think that's about all I would grant on this issue.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-19, 15:37, said:

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

Comment 1: The chance that I would ever vote for Romney range between slim and none...
Comment 2: The number of jobs that Romney created at Bain isn't salient to my decision making process.

Romney's "job" at Bain was to generate shareholder value which has little or nothing to do with creating jobs. Romney has a fiduciary duty to increase share prices. Increasing or decreasing employment in the US was coincident to that goal.

[luke warm]

i'm not saying there's any causation here, but certainly everyone can agree there's a strong correlation, between the timing of the bain attack ads and obama's fall in the favorability poll numbers (according to the cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are - poll the week of july 11th)... in april, obama was 42 favorable, 45 unfavorable (a negative 3)... the july poll showed 36 and 48 (a negative 12)... it's even worse with independents... coincidence? who knows

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-20, 12:38, said:

i'm not saying there's any causation here, but certainly everyone can agree there's a strong correlation, between the timing of the bain attack ads and obama's fall in the favorability poll numbers (according to the cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are - poll the week of july 11th)... in april, obama was 42 favorable, 45 unfavorable (a negative 3)... the july poll showed 36 and 48 (a negative 12)... it's even worse with independents... coincidence? who knows

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.
It seems reasonable to assume that the job numbers might be correlated with a decrease in Obama's numbers.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-20, 12:55, said:

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.
It seems reasonable to assume that the job numbers might be correlated with a decrease in Obama's numbers.

Sure. The purpose of attack ads is to undermine a candidate's perceived areas of strength. Romney puts forward his business experience, so that's the first thing to attack. The accuracy of the attacks is secondary. Republicans have long been masters of this (Nixon vs. Douglas, Lee Atwater vs. everyone, swift-boating vs. Kerry, etc.), and the democrats are following suit. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Ah, politics!

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-20, 12:55, said:

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.

do you think obama's negative spread may have even been higher w/out the bain ads? if so, he may be in more trouble than anyone presently believes

[Winstonm]

What should be disheartening for Republicans is how close this race seemingly is with the economy in the state it is. Most of the time a sitting President in this situation would be easy pickings.

Unfortunately, Romney must appeal to the Republican base, and by doing so he looks so out-of-touch with reality that independents seem to be wary of his leadership.

The Republicans need to moderate their act and get the whackos like Santorum and Bachman out of the limelight. No one wants to see Barry Goldwater start a world war with the Soviets, and no sane person wants to see Bachman, et al anywhere in positions of power and authority.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-20, 16:40, said:

What should be disheartening for Republicans is how close this race seemingly is with the economy in the state it is. Most of the time a sitting President in this situation would be easy pickings.

Unfortunately, Romney must appeal to the Republican base, and by doing so he looks so out-of-touch with reality that independents seem to be wary of his leadership.

The Republicans need to moderate their act and get the whackos like Santorum and Bachman out of the limelight. No one wants to see Barry Goldwater start a world war with the Soviets, and no sane person wants to see Bachman, et al anywhere in positions of power and authority.

well said. esp the Bachman...

[Vampyr]

luke warm, on 2012-July-20, 12:38, said:

cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are

Luke, not everyone here will be familiar with the organizations above and will not know that your comment is facetious, so I just want to point out for those who might not know that the New York Times does not have a conservative bone in its body, and I suspect that the same is true for CBS TV.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-20, 20:23, said:

Luke, not everyone here will be familiar with the organizations above and will not know that your comment is facetious, so I just want to point out for those who might not know that the New York Times does not have a conservative bone in its body, and I suspect that the same is true for CBS TV.

Unless you want to go to war, in which case the NYT will lead the conservative band.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-20, 20:42, said:

Unless you want to go to war, in which case the NYT will lead the conservative band.

Winston cannot the liberal band go to war: lead to war?
--


can we back up...what is liberal///.what is conservative?

[luke warm]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-20, 20:23, said:

Luke, not everyone here will be familiar with the organizations above and will not know that your comment is facetious, so I just want to point out for those who might not know that the New York Times does not have a conservative bone in its body, and I suspect that the same is true for CBS TV.

point taken... yes, it was facetious

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2012-July-20, 20:58, said:

Winston cannot the liberal band go to war: lead to war?
--


can we back up...what is liberal///.what is conservative?

Sorry, Mike, but that was my point. When it comes to war and the defense budget, there are no conservatives or liberals. There is just the war party.

Btw, did you see that General McChrystal (sp?) endorsed a return to a draft and an elimination (to a degree) of the all-volunteer army? He made the point that when the U.S. goes to war, the entire country should involve itself.

[blackshoe]

In WWII, as I understand it, the purpose of the draft was basically to allow the gummint to control the inflow of volunteers to avoid overloading the training pipeline. Sometime after WWII, maybe Korea but certainly by Vietnam, the purpose of the draft shifted to allowing the gummint to force people into uniform who did not want to go. So far as I know, that remains its purpose. I don't think that's a good idea, honestly. Rather, if few are willing to volunteer, maybe we as a nation shouldn't be doing whatever it is the gummint wants us to be doing.