“It costs a lot of money to die comfortably.” - A Luxurious Death, Samuel Butler
Who is Bain Capital? Visit the site and see for yourself. I have excerpted two quotes from the site to get things going:
In and of themselves, these descriptions seem quite innocuous. So why all of the controversy and hype about this political attack on Romney? Can he not explain himself and come out smelling like a rose? If he does, will the bloom be off the rose? How has Mitt Romney been allowed to make assertions about himself without giving details. We already have one such visionary in America, but he is not in the GOP and “shall remain nameless.”
Well, not long after the start of the debates, the reader will recall that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry fell victim to a trademark campaign tactic, sophistry. Sophistry is the use of subtle, fallacious reasoning or argumentation to tarnish another’s position or reputation. Mr. Romney may have chosen to destroy Perry and Gingrich simply because he determined that Paul, Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann posed no serious threat to him.
Mr. Newt began his campaign in a most positive fashion. He admirably stated that any candidate in the GOP debates would make a better President than “he who shall go nameless.” Newt always speaks with aplomb and alacrity in any discussion or debate. Newt is a visionary who sometimes misspeaks or goes off track, but he is also quick to own up to or correct his mistakes. His quick wit and ability to think on his feet is second to no one in debates, even “he who shall go nameless.”
Rick Perry, the longest serving and arguably the most consistently successful governor in the history of Texas, initially cast a giant contrasting shadow over Mitt Romney’s timidity and compromise of promises and principles while Governor of Massachusetts. Perry, unlike Romney, admits his mistakes readily and is very comfortable inside his own skin. He is down to earth and communicates well with the folks. He has worked well with Texas Republicans and Democrats alike without compromising his principles.
Methinks that such men are dangerous to the Romney Campaign. Romney saw both Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry as potentially serious candidates, who if given the opportunity, would gain popularity and soon eclipse his own lackluster style, and flip-floppy past. With all that going against him, Romney decided that the best defense was to go on the offensive. When not making his own snide and backhanded remarks about his opponents, Romney’s PACs are quick to turn out an abundance of negative images and “suggestions” about these opponents.
[Note: Speaking of flip-floppy, I direct anyone interested to Amy Contrada's website for a very complete explanation, a case study about the “Romney governing style.” My sister’s book provides a very complete example of Romney’s apologetics regarding marriage. See for yourself how this squares with his public pronouncements. I doubt seriously that many Social Conservatives will like what they read. They may, thereafter, want to challenge Romney’s claim to be a Conservative. I believe that this case study alone gives a reliable imprint of the Romney style of governance. As you might surmise, my sister has come under great personal attack for her in-depth and well-documented study.]
So back to our storyline: Why are Gingrich and Perry [and Santorum to a lesser degree] going after Romney and his time at Bain Capital? Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and others reflexively see this challenge to Romney as an almost heretical attack on the Capitalist system. They are all but apoplectic. I challenge the assumptions of these pundits. For Rush to equate Capitalism to political Freedom is a stretch. To assume that questioning how much and in what way Romney’s participation and results at Bain are off-limits is to fail. Ironically, these pundits are applying the Hegelian Dialectic used by Marx. They assert that somehow the thesis of Capitalism bumping up against an assertion of greed and unethical behavior will yield the death of Free Markets and the synthesis of Progressivism. This is fuzzy thinking. Both Gingrich and Perry have fully clarified their positions, but to no avail. To the pundits, that Gingrich and Perry would challenge Romney to explain himself, his methods decisions and his actions at Bain Capital to the “We the People” would ensure the re-election of “he who shall remain nameless” and thrust America into a new Dark Ages.
And let’s be honest, no one is asserting that Romney, himself, did anything wrong. But if Romney wishes to tout his vast business experiences without challenge then he ought not to have thrown stones at others while living in his own glass house. Frankly, I think that it is well to argue this out now among friends in the GOP. It is certainly and infinitely better than allowing it to be brought up by “he who will remain nameless.”
In Newt Gingrich’s case, this may be a bit of payback for Mitt Romney’s hyperbolic attacks on Newt’s work at Freddie Mac. Newt has explained time and again about his time as an advisor, historian, lobbyist … whatever you want to call it. It cost Newt Iowa and put him in a hole, like Perry, where neither may be able to recover. In Rick Perry’s case, Romney straightaway launched outrageous attacks against Perry, misrepresenting Perry’s statements about the Social Security System, and criticizing Governor Perry’s handling of the Illegal Alien problems as if it is a State issue. It is a Federal Enforcement Issue. Perry and Texas have handled the illegal problem in Texas admirably, with human compassion and respect for Texas and Federal law. As for Social Security, Rick Perry was and is 100% correct. It is a Ponzi Scheme and must be changed now so that an old age insurance pension will be there for my Children and their Children.
A few more points and then I am finished:
I have always been perplexed how some view making lots of money in the private sector as evil. People who make lots of money enjoy it and want to make more. They expand and hire more people. They look for and improve markets. This is Free Enterprise, that grand manufacturing system foreseen by that Founding Father and Federalist Republican, Alexander Hamilton. I like Free Enterprise. I hate the term “Capitalist.” It is an elemental concept, the bad guy straw man used by Marx to advocate Socialism. Calling ourselves Capitalists is incorrect and only invites rude accusations, smears and lies from Progressive-Socialist foes on the Left!
I have also seen another odd thing under the sun. How do Liberals intend to squeeze the turnip for that last drop of blood once their regulations and high taxation rates have destroyed the incentives to begin a business on the one hand, or to keep one ongoing on the other hand? As a retired soldier with a pension, I am also constantly amazed when these same Liberal people suggest that military retirement benefits are too generous. These same people did not think this when the wars were raging and we were overseas. Then, we were keeping the peace or fighting the good fight so that they could be secure and make money and build America in the process. They loved soldiers then. Now, ‘he who shall remain nameless” says the wars are over, when they are not, and designates soldiers and their families for down-sizing and elimination. Hmmmm … sounds familiar and not unlike the subject at hand.
Yet one more anachronism plagues our country currently and perhaps unto the death of Freedom in America. We must understand and destroy this unholy, growing cancer called “crony Capitalism.” Simply put, this is a “happy Fizzies party” headquartered in the White House where certain Businesses, Large Banks, Unions, Special Interests, and Government Leaders form a special inner circle with the Administration of “he who shall go nameless.“ They simply sell the same stuff back and forth to each other, and have a good time for an inner clique with designs of making this a ruling clique. All the while, these Apparatchiks cajole, regulate, force bankruptcies through regulation and increasingly tell the small businesses, credit unions, savings and loans, and citizens to either join up, pound sand, or die. [I think it is darkly amusing that there was, in 2009, a Halloween “Mad Hatters Tea Party” at the Whitehouse with Tim Burton decorating, and Johnny Depp in costume as the Mad Hatter.]
I know, I know… this is all just so much populist clap-trap to some of you. But I have this sneaking hunch that Romney is not all that different than some of the boys in the aforementioned clique. They are, after all, legion. These are the men and women in the big firms like Lehmann Brothers, AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc., part of that clique, have run this country into the ground making bad loans, highly speculative investments, leveraged buyouts, and creating Ponzi schemes using derivative investments … all the time with someone else’s money and at someone else’s expense. Their parachutes are ready and their private island awaits. Is this any different from Republicans and Democrats in Congress who have spent money in denial of economic realities and the economic collapse that is coming if they don’t stop? These people look down their nose at you and me. They are special people, especially “him, who shall remain nameless.”
So do I think Mitt Romney has some ‘splainin’ to do? Yes indeed. This is Mitt’s chance to tell us what went right and what went wrong, specifically, in his career as a “job creator” and one who “signs checks on the front” as well as on the back. If he cannot at least do that, then he is not the guy to lead our Party and our Nation. In that case, many in the GOP would be backing the wrong horse… they all might need to be over in the other circle, in that clique led by “him who shall remain nameless.”
