Rush drops nuclear bomb on Newt’s Bain Capital argument

This morning Newt went on Fox and Friends and continued to attack Romney via Bain Capital, suggesting they didn’t have to take as much money as they did on a failed company. Rush decided to translate Newt’s argument using an audio clip of none other than Barack Obama himself:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

250 thoughts on “Rush drops nuclear bomb on Newt’s Bain Capital argument

  1. It won’t take a liberal media outlet like Current TV to paint Romney as an over the top, unapologetic, amoral (yes, worse than immoral) greed monger with no soul. Romney hardly misses a chance to make the case for himself: “I like to be able to fire people that provide services for me.” Outflanking Ted Kennedy on the left as to gay rights and abortion in Massachusetts, then outflanking Santorum to the right in a GOP primary, etc. The only hope for Mitt is the apathy and intellectual laziness of the voters.

  2. FYI Mitt Romney. Terms you should become aware of:

    1. Karma;
    2. Reap what you sow; and
    3. Payback is a b**ch

  3. In the Gingrich clip (played at the beginning) what Gingrich is basically advocating is that businesses operate like charities, so that even if they can make greater profits by buying, improving and then eventually closing a business, they should instead sacrifice themselves for the sake of the workers.

    Let me tell you now: Businesses are NOT charities. Businessmen are out to make a profit, not a loss. The kind of business that Gingrich is advocating would mean that such companies as Bain Capital wouldn’t exist, because there’d be no profit in it. I can only begin to imagine the utter devastation that would result in the economy from a multitude of unintended consequences.

    The profit motive is the primary driving force behind the economy – without it the whole economy would collapse.

    1. That would be ok if Bain was a company and actually created something. They are financial engineers that use a huge amount of leverage to generate returns, strip assets and go on their merry way. BTW, I’m a banker and part of a not so noble class a I’ve empowered people like this. Unfettered “we only serve the shareholders” is great in the ivory tower but is not practicable in the real world. There is a reason why HBS, Wharton, Kellogg, and Stanford all have a required classes in business ethics.

      1. I don’t have a problem with them using “a huge amount of leverage to generate returns, strip assets and then go on their merry way”, since they are merely reallocating unproductive entities of their assets/resources, and then investing them in more productive entities. Think of it like buying and breaking down an old and inefficient car, and then using the scrap to produce new and efficient cars. Sure, it means there’s no old car for people to ride in, but its demise will go onward to produce a new car for people to have a much better ride in. I find this to be a completely healthy practice in the business world.

        1. Only true if your underlying premise is that the company is inefficient The PEGS, including Bain take perfectly good profitable companies and bust them up.I’ve seen this time and again. Throw a bunch of leveraged loans or not investment grade bonds, ship the jobs, and sell assets in order to increase cash flow then re-lever. The real culprit in all this is the tax code which makes it impossible for families to tranfer wealth from one generation to another due to estate taxes. This opens the door to unscrpulous financial sponsors (PEGs) like Bain to come in and wreck many great privately/family owned companies. The families have no other choice but to monetize the asset in order to pay these taxes and the Bains of the world know this. The only PEG that ‘ve ever worked with that doesn’t have this MO is the Carlyle Group. They build businesses instead of trashing them.I believe that’s why they are so long lived and succesful.

        2. Yep the money would be used effectively all right sitting in off shore accounts for the benefit of a very select few…..

          1. Even if that were the case, which it wasn’t, the money would still get used productively because it would be lent out to entrepreneurs to start businesses and to businesses which want to expand or innovate. The only way that money does nothing is if you put it under your mattress, or something to the equivalent of that.

            From what I have read, Bain Capital would use its profits to invest in other businesses, continue their own business operations, and to justly reward themselves for their productive efforts.

            You have to get away from the absurd notion that businessmen who make profits go and spend all of their profits on private mansions, yachts, private aeroplanes and so on, if that’s what you think. The truth is that the overwhelming vast majority of businessmen who make profits end up investing those profits back into their businesses. Only a very small percentage actually do what I described, and they tend to be the people (minus cronies) who most deserve to do it.

    1. A significant amount of thought and reason put into your comment. I respect differences of opinion debated aggressively on this page but not name calling.

      Perhaps you should go back to watching the latest episode of Barney on PBS or do a little better on your posts.

  4. But didn’t 80% of the struggling companies Bain invested in go on to become viable in the marketplace? Not that I’m a Romney fan, I like Santorum. I think this type attack mischaracterizes Bain and most of their business.

    1. Common sense should tell you that they re-invested the money they made from that company into other ones to make more money. The model is: First, you “steal” heavily from a suffering company, and then put the money up somewhere else to make more money. Is that too hard to understand?

  5. On today’s show, it was Rush who sounded like a left winger! He went on and on about how they should “help to push the candidate to the right”. What? Who should push WHAT “candidate” to the right. Those men are ALL CAMPAIGNING FOR THE SAME POSITION! NONE OF THEM have ANY REASON to push any of the others “to the right”. They are THERE to show America that THEY ARE MORE RIGHT than the other guys, and to point out how LEFT Romney IS. Listening to him repeat that statement about “pushing romney to the right” just infuriated me. Romney SLANDERED Newt and nobody complained about that, but when Newt and the others called Romney on HIS actions in business (which he is using to campaign with! and is free game!) Even Limbaugh is speaking out the side of his neck about it. What part of 75% of republicans aren’t voting for Romney don’t you people get? WE DON’T WANT YOU TO PUSH ROMNEY TO THE RIGHT! WE WANT YOU TO PUSH HIS LEFTIST RINO ASS OFF THE STAGE. We are TIRED of the voting being messed up because the democrats are voting for ron paul (bite me bots!) and the idiots who are listening to the media and afraid to vote who they actually like are voting for the guy that NONE OF US WHO DO know what’s going on, wants in office! Rush, stop being an asshole!

    1. GREAT POST!!!!

      This is nothing more that the GOP establishment trying to foist another RINO presidential candidate on conservatives (see McCain and Romney). Newt does know that this doen’t help him but he IS helpng the conservating cause. Newt is throwing himself on his own sword for a purpose…..getting a true conservative elected. I will vote for conservative local, state and congessional conservatives BUT, I REFUSE to vote for Romney. The GOP has lost me once and for all!! Check the box independent for me!!

      As far as Rush, the blowhard has a right to is opinion and I have my own. I’m not one of his blind minions.

  6. I agree with Rush, but I hope the attacks work because I’m not voting for Mitt – I’ll be sitting at home, kissing my ass goodbye when you all vote for the new communist (light)- Mitt Romney – the US will never recover, Obama will be a smilin’ all the way to the bank and George Soros’ office of puppets.

    1. At least we can agree on one thing; the GOP will get a drubbing at the hands of Obama if Roney is nominated.

      Frankly, I’m suspect of the entire field right now with the exception of Santorum (although not completely convinced by his creds). I don’t know if it’s better for me to sit this one out, have the country wrecked collectively by the GOP and Dems then form a political movement that hasn’t sold itself out.

  7. Rick Perry is the only one who has gone to and spoken with the people in SC who lost jobs because of Bain Capital and according to him they are not happy; I guess not! The problem with Bain is not that they made money it is that they took millions of dollars in profit, invested none of it back into the company and everyone lost their job. Doesn’t look like job creation experience to me.

    This is a losing argument for the GOP because people want jobs and are looking for a jobs creator, not a job killer. If the Republicans think they can put Mitt at the top and win after this then they seriously misguided.

  8. Newt IS a “Frugal Socialist.” Thank you Bachman. Thank you Beck. And thank you everybody that did their homework and stood up and spoke truth while Gingrich was surging.

    1. He’s got a bias against Gingrich and he just can’t hide it. I can’t listen to him anymore but will probably go back after we get our nominee which I hope is Newt.

  9. It’s pathetic how the so-called conservative pundits tout their conservatism for three out of four years then tell us we have to choke dow on RINO’s like McCain and Romney. I guess they will be pushing Olympia Snow for the VP slot now. Hypocrite list: Rush, Coulter, Beck, Levin etc. etc. etc. Traitors to the cause. All are now on board with the annointed one of the GOP. Look to lose big in November.

  10. Does anyone remember the push for quality in the eighties and early nineties? Six-Sigma, ISO-9000, the book “In Search of Excellence” and other ways business was trying to recognize a way to profitability through having an excellent public image?

    Anyone, Bueller?

    Well, a lot of lessons were learned. Some of them are still practiced as a matter of course (quality manufacturing is almost a given these days).

    But the “Excellent Public Image” part didn’t stick. Neither did the “First Class Customer Service” angle. The businesses that tried to lead in that area at the time were IBM, Hewlett Packard, Home Depot, and American Express. They’ve all pretty much dropped the bulk of that effort because it was killing them in the marketplace.

    People want the most they can get, for the least money.

    Say that to yourself a few times.

    It’s why WalMart became what it is, despite all the grievances levelled against them.

    Business is not a charity. Neither is protecting your own family.

    Here’s the deal: Be the best you can be, and treat people as fairly as possible, but don’t be a sap.

    That’s it. Sometimes you have to foreclose. Sometimes you have to put a lien on a struggling carpenter. Sometimes you have to shoot at people who are coming through your door in the middle of the night.

    This is life. This is business. You can try to play nice, but you’d better be prepared to be a tough, mean SOB if you want to survive.

    The government’s job is to fight against fraud and deception wherever it can. When a drug company sells garbage that kills people, the prosecution should be swift and merciless. But government should stay away from trying to make everyone play like an angel. It won’t happen. And making up more and more rules to attempt it damages the fair and moral businessmen more than it does the predators.

    It’s very much like gun laws.

    Rush is correct. You don’t win the argument by whining about the actions of capitalists. That’s the way the left operates. You win by talking about how people can achieve prosperity. You win by telling them what you will do to remove obstacles from their path. You show them the obstacles put there by big government legislators and bureaucrats.

    We should all strive to be honorable, fair-minded men. But the government cannot make us into honorable, fair-minded men.

    1. Gee, why don’t we go for a Darwinian style of government as a whole. Perhaps we can implement an objectivist society and have all the smart guys like Romney live in an undetectable valley in the Rocky’s and let the world go to hell in a handbasket. Laissez faire economics taken to an extreme leaves us lawless with no cohesive society.

      In addition to being a conservative AND Christian and believe that man is basically good and shouldn’t have to look over my shoulder constantly.

      1. Obviously, taking things to extreme is usually a bad idea. Your sarcasm is your own concept here, not mine. I wrote what I meant, and I did not mean anything more.

        You’re right about that last part, but even Jesus recognized the reality of things. Turning the other cheek is that recognition.

        This is no utopia. And those who want to make it so are usually to be found among the left.

        1. Selective about turning the other cheek but I prefer the Golden Rule. Perhaps LDS desn’t teach this concept.

          1. Well, you only have to turn it once. After that, it’s wide open how you proceed!

            Golden Rule is not only a very moral way to behave, but it’s far less complicated to maintain. I suspect that’s why it works so well in every aspect of life.

              1. Yep. But you only have two cheeks. So you only have to turn it once (by my reckoning… I don’t think Jesus meant for us to do a Three Stooges thing with back-and forth slappin’, but maybe he had a sense of humor.)

                1. AP,

                  I’m impressed and thank you for clearing that up for me. I don’t believe Christianity and Objectivism can co-exist. Rand is purely law of the jungle/survival of the fittest. This is the biggest gripe I have as I believe man is much better than that. We cannot have people act purely as predators and have a cohesive judeo/christian society. And by the way, I don’t ascribe the Catholic liberation theology.

                  Great post!

          2. Speaking as LDS, the thousands murdered by the US government, left us one choice, run for the hills, which we did. We burned all the crops between the USA and Utah. Until the USA accepted our right to exist, we were not USA. Still, I see the same old bunch, straining at the leash. I will not vote for Mitt, but not because of religion. If you knew more, I would tell you more. GBeck, feels a kinship with Israel, as I do. We have had simulair experiences. Focus on the election, please, and stop the religious hatred, please.

            1. I apologize if you felt as I took slap at LDS. ALL LDS members who I have ever met lead moral lives and have an overwhelming desire to help their common man. The slap was at Romney as I believe he has a HUGE moral blind spot.

  11. Where were all of the patriots of capitalism when every candidate was bashing Newt for making a PROFIT from consulting? … claiming he made 1.6 million advising Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac?

    Oh defenders of capitalism, where were you then?

  12. Rush got it WRONG, Newt never said to redistribute any money, just that it’s more ethical to create jobs than to kill jobs.

  13. …Newt G. as Glenn Beck has so succinctly established with Newt’s own words is deep down inside is a PROGRESSIVE RINO . Finally it is coming to the surface and once RUSH gets in on the NEWS . LOOK OUT NEWT YOUR DAYS ARE #.”

    1. I’m sure that the folks in central and upstate SC will love Romney given the way Bain gutted two companies there. Newt doesn’t care about being elected, he wants to bring Romney down and I thank him for it. It wil leave Santorum to go at it cleanly against Romney as Newt does the hachet job.

      If there ever was a RINO, it’s Romney. Reminds me of the old country club republicans like Rockefeller.

      Or……we could take the lead from the dope smoking anti-war crowd that backs Ron Paul OMG!

  14. Romney is being defended by everyone from Rush to Ron Paul because that is how foolish Newt sounds right now. Fannie/Freddie association, laughing with Pelosi on a couch for a global warming commercial… and now this from Newt? He (unfortunately) destroyed himself.

  15. Newt is using class warfare against Romney, in a Republican Primary race. Is Newt in the wrong party?

    1. not class warfare..classless as in romney.

      why do people insist on drinking the limbaugh koolaid. not all conservatives march to his tune. the question is, has rush become part of the gop establishment?

      1. Rush is not the issue here. Newt is. And I am really angry having to defend Romney. Newt is making me do it. I do not even like Romney.

        Maybe is it just me, but Newt appears to be refining Obama’s campaign for him, should Romney eventually be the GOP nominee. Newt’s attack, is predictably the precise leftist attack that Obama would use against a Romney nominee.

        1. If you think that Obama hasn’t torn this page out of Teddy Kennedy’s playbook already, you are naive. This is neither a left or right issue as I and others have repeatedly stated. We can’t have a guy running against Obama that can be taken apart by anti-populist rhetoric. Next fall, Obama will tar Roney with the same brush as Wall Street. Let’s hope Santorum will emerge after the SC primary and Newt and Perry will drop.

  16. Sorry, but rush is just as scared of the populous learning about Mitt’s financing tactics (and definition of capitalism) as Mitt Romney is. How do you think Rush was going to buy that football team, with cash from his savings account? No, he was going to leverage himself into the pro-sports racket just like Romney’s Bain capital tried to buy all 30 NHL teams.
    The wealthy Republicans are in a quandry right now, because the peons (or pawns) are learning the ugly but legal side of the unaccountable lending system…..and their lifestyles will be changed forever!

  17. The problem I see with this particular line of attack against Romney is the fact that they are ready-made campaign ads for Obama – he will not have to drop a dime to create these himself. And it doesn’t matter that Newt’s purpose is to expose the ruthless, opportunistic character of a deeply unprincipled corporate raider – that message will be completely perverted by Obama and the Dems as validation of the “anti-capitalist/anti-business” message Obama has been propagandizing since 2007. The left is notorious for distortion, lies and propaganda and all will use Newt’s words to full effect to promote the Occupy 1% meme.

    One more thing: Romney absolutely deserves to be attacked in the same aggressive manner he instructs to his SuperPac. But why the hell are these attacks occurring NOW?! These campaigns began in earnest in Sept with the first debate – yet not a single candidate laid a glove on Romney in all of 14+ debates which have occurred since that time. Instead, conservatives attacked fellow conservatives, winnowing each other out of the political mix while Romney remained unscathed – their misguided tactics allowing him to coast through to a close victory in Iowa (where Romney himself never campaigned, assuming he WOULDN’T win) and where he is about to mop up NH – thereby establishing nearly unstoppable momentum for South Carolina and Florida. IMHO, had these attacks begun in Sept (and were more focused on his appeasement and alignment with Dems, his shameless political opportunism, and anti-conservative/GOP policies and beliefs), we would have had our desired field with conservative candidates filling all three slots in the top-tier placement. A damn shame this didn’t occur.

  18. But what if those jobs he created weren’t all American jobs?

    The theory that Romney’s campaign is counting outsourced jobs among the 100,000 has been pushed privately by some of his critics. Bain & Company doesn’t disguise the fact that outsourcing is part of its consulting portfolio.

    Currently on its website, Bain has a section about strategies behind the outsourcing of information technology work.

    We help clients ensure that IT offshoring and outsourcing decisions are based on business strategy and help set up deal structures, capability networks and sourcing agreements to deliver enduring results — lower costs now and flexibility for the future.
    Strategic sourcing is the process by which organizations determine how to access the right IT and business capability at the right cost. Sourcing must be managed effectively across the four key dimensions of management, resources, services and business processes.

    Outsourcing of IT or business processes is just one option of sourcing strategies, often unleashing tremendous value.

  19. Rush is the one who is using language of the left here, by saying: You can’t say that!!!!! It’s called political correctness. Who knew Rush would use Marxist tactics one day. Sad.

  20. I’m a Limbaugh fan. However, he should know better. Newt is not attacking capitalism. Newt loves Capitalism and has always defended it. Since last night Newt has been explaining his point of view on the above issue, and it was clear to me. Obviously, Mr Limbaugh and others don’t see or understand Newt’s point.

  21. Those people didn’t need to work for this company. It was their choice. There are plenty of small business or they can start their own business and then be a different kind of boss.

    The bottom line is that the gap is not in income, the gap is in capabilities and the people at the bottom don’t have a clue how the business operated. And so they don’t get the same benefits as the smart guys. Now they could ask to be babied and treated like children that need to be cared for. But who needs perpetual children when running any business?

    1. Spare me the Ayn Rand garbage. It has nothing to do with brains or lack therof. It has to do with his methodology and lack of ethics. It’s like you’re missing the whole argument. PEGS use large amounts of leverage to purchase companies to minmize equity capital as the cost of debt is less that the cost of equity. Try reading about weighted average cost of capital. As the PEGS have so little skin in the game or as I learned in credit training AFC(actual *#@?? cash). It’s pretty easy to take all your equity off the table when you have vey little in and rip off creditors and pension beneficiaries. The Romney/Bain got caught here and now they have to explain their actions

  22. Newt isn’t trying to “do Romney a favor” by bringing this stuff up now; he’s not even claiming to. Newt is trying to become president, and he knows he can’t do that while he’s got a heavyweight like Romney standing in his way. If he’d run in 2008, or even 2000, then he might have won. But this is the year of the job creators, and Newt happens to be facing the best job creator the GOP has ever run for president, so the only way he can win is if he convinces Republicans that Romney doesn’t create jobs. And, as Rush points out, that’s the only way Democrats can win, too.

    1. Are you kidding me?? You make it sound like Romney is Andrew Carnegie or J.P. Morgan. I’m not buying that crap. They said that ’43 was a job creator and he and the Dems sat by while Rome burned. Let me tell you something about the guys at Bain, BCG and McKinsey. They come into companies as insurance policies for CEO’s to ratify his/her strategy in case anything goes wrong. They provide a report on how to “re-engineer” a company but don’t sitck around for the implementation. In the end, that’s what it’s all about. I’ve seen too many GF’s/FUBARs by these guys that I can’t count them with both hands. Don’t be impressed by the Bain brand as I don’t consider them the most brilliant guys in the room.

  23. First Romney bought Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn, and now he’s bought Rush too. Language of the left is pious baloney. Where was Rush when Newt was being attacked for making $1.7 million revenue off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Isn’t that capitalism too, just like Bain purchasing companies and then gutting them? Oh no wait, that’s different. Sure Rush, I hope you’ve received a nice sum from Romney’s warchest $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    1. Rush is no fan of Romney. He went on for most of the day (and most days, in fact) about this particular issue is not the right issue to attack Mittens on. He’s got plenty of weaknesses. There’s no reason to enter this quagmire & have to dig yourself out of this ditch. He just wants the other guys to attack Mittens on the obviously Moderate issues that he has.

    2. He actually only made about $35,000 a year. Newt said on Hannity that the 1.6 million was an outright lie … one of many spouted by the Romney camp.

      But I guess, that a lie from the “right” is ok while a fact from the “left” is “uncomfortable”.

      I am so utterly pissed because just about every single one of my favorite commentators has been making silly statements. There are only a handful left who have remained pretty neutral, like Hannity and Greta and Megan.

      When I have to watch Geraldo of all people to get neutral analysis of the primaries, the whole world has turned upside down.

  24. This is one of the few times I disagree with Rush.

    “Language of the left” is a meaningless phrase. It assumes that every utterance the left makes if wrong headed … thinking like that is tribalism and has no place in the brain of a thinking person.

    Furthermore, Rush did not respond to the context in which the attacks are being leveled by Newt and others; neither does he recognize that the issue is not “language” of the left, but rather electability. Rush, in his hatred of the left, did a knee jerk, and ended up blurting out a weak argument … rare for Rush.

    Capitalism is not a single easy concept … it’s an incredibly complex concept with many diverse facets … and some just aren’t pretty nor are they consistent with the founding nature of America.

      1. Another logical explanation: Rush got paid by Mitt Romney to defend him. After all, Mitt’s the rich one out there.

  25. That just can’t be good for Newt. At some point he has to get tired of his own voice. He would have had my vote about a month ago.

    Back to Perry.

    1. I ‘mthankful Newt is bomb throwing. Let’s cut Romney down to size. Paul needs to go away with his crackpot foreign policy ideas and Romney needs to be defeated. I don’t care if it’s Perry Santorum or Newt. I will guaranty that Obama
      will be spending another 4 years in the WH with a stiff like Romney!

      1. Oh, please BankGuy…………….say it isn’t so!  Like Mark Levin said, I’d vote for a juice can over Obama.

        1. Not a juice can but a can of “something” that a grocer sells occasionally that has no label. I view Romney as that unmarked can; you don’t know what you’re getting. I will not compromise my principals again and again so that the GOP establishment can put their guy in office. No, Romney doesn’t get my vote merely because he’s POSSIBLY a better choice that Obama. I will cast my votes and efforts in local, state and possibly congressional election but I will not tick off the box for Romney. Maybe the country has to crash and burn before people all realize that they’ve created a monster that bears no resemblance to what the founding fathers had in mind. If you believe that anything will really change with Romney as opposed to Obama, you are unfortunately naive. The GOP and Dems are two different sides of the same coin. It’s all about money and power; not some altruistic concept of being a citizen in public service…serve and go home.

          1. Just for the record, I am not and never was a Romney fan.  Willard is NOT my man.  The juice can keeps looking better all the time.

  26. i am confused… profits are made when a company does well and yet romney made profits even when the company failed…i guess i am anti capitalist for questioning the anointed one???

    1. It’s alway easy for the PEGS to take their fees and equity out. The MO is that they reclaim their original investment withing 3-5 years and then re-lever the firm to the hilt, take more cash out and let the company crash and burn. It’s easy to do this as they’ve made their profits and don’t have skin thin the game.

      The following get burned:
      1. Trade creditors/suppliers
      2. Senior unsecured shareholders
      3. Pension beneficiaries

      It’s one thing to make a profit based on risk/reward and entirely another to be a PIG at the expense of others. We’re talking ethics here, not an attack on capitalism

      1. Capitalism is like an ecosystem. It will have predators. No one can expect a setup that’s generating money to last. It has to be fought for daily (the Bill Gates style of entrepreneur). If you believe in a free market, then you expect and “believe” in the predators that come with it. Predation isn’t polite, it isn’t nice, but I’m not willing to say it isn’t ethical.

        As I often say, the oceans would be in serious trouble if the sharks suddenly vanished.

        1. That’s philosophy textbook stuff. I’ve personally been through Drexel, the ’92 real estate bust, the dot com bubble, Enron, and the mortgage crisis (not as a spectator). All had common elements…. too much greed, too much debt, too little equity and ethics. If we don’t learn through history, we are condemned to repeat it.

          It has nothing to do with an ecosystem, it has to do about whether we can look at ourselves in the mirror.

          1. The flaw of leftist thinking is the search for some ideal state where men are all kind to each other. Sadly that’s exactly what leads to immoral, deadly totalitarian government. We don’t live there, and we never will. So screw the textbook stuff, and face reality.

            Business isn’t some cushy set of problem solving. You have to watch your back, even from those closest to you. It doesn’t mean you can’t trust anyone, but it does mean you still have to be eternally vigilant.

            1. That’s what has led to repeated financial scams/bubbles that have been all too common. You don’t have to tell me about watching my back as I had to negotiate junk bonds on an ESOP across the table from Drexel guys and get repaid on a loan I made to LJM (Enron), and call in restricted stock loans on bubble tech stocks. All were unsavory, unethical underpinned by pure greed. Don’t lay on the leftist totalitarian stuff on me as I’ve been in the trenches and know about the wreckage these guys leave in their wake. I’m a conservative but I’m calling a spade a spade and guys like Romney are as unsavory as the guys above. I’m not asking for regulation as you seem to think.

              1. Fine. But there’s little to be gained from complaining about the sharks. You just prepare for them as best as you can.

                That’s what’s behind Rush’s thinking, as he says several times during the year. You keep plugging away despite the bad actors.

              2. As to the specifics, here, I believe there are whole markets for stuff that I find unethical. a lot of it is simply legalized gambling.

              1. Yep. Lawyers will have you worrying about trusting your own children. Especially if you run a business.

              2. You can’t even trust legal documents. I’m sure you know AP that the senior creditors got screwed in the GM bankruptcy. The lawyers representing the unions and the bankruptcy judge decided the case in legal parlance as “equity” and not the law. I wonder why the entire financial world didn’t crow about this!

          2. Hope you learned. I knew, and avoided all your peril. It took 5 crooked doctors, and a paid off Federal judge, to remove all the zeros, from my assets. Please pass it on, although I doubt you will get any more attention, than I got. Just look to the past to see the future.

          1. People like the image of a Lion, Hawk or Eagle for a reason. They don’t usually use the image of a cow on their family crest.

            I can live with Romney’s capitalism. I just don’t trust his statism.

          1. What, like he was he born with full ownership of the dominant software company? No.

            He wasn’t always “a monopoly.” He had to fight like hell, every step of the way. He didn’t take any defeat lying down, and he pushed his employees to be the same way. He’s a very good example of the kind of entrepreneur I’m talking about.

            I’m not talking about really nice people, I’m talking about good business mentality. The lefties love Apple, but Steve Jobs was a real jerk to his people and folks he had business deals with. A lot of real superstars turn out to be very difficult people to be around.

    2. It’s very easy to destroy a company by taking out all the assets. It happens all the time. And there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that people who do that are like vultures. For the first time ever I have the feeling that Rush is trying to deceive me.

    3. Bain is an investment company. They invest in businesses with the intention of the business doing better and then Bain making some profit from it. Similar to what every bank does with every loan to a business. Companies that go to Bain wouldn’t be given money by the banks. Too high a risk. But Bain takes more risks than banks. 30% of the time Bain lost EVERY DIME they invested in companies. Venture Capitalist firms only invest in companies that they think are going to win big but it doesn’t always work out that way. When they lose they lose everything and when they win they win big.

      1. Are you kidding me or have you had no experience in banking and finance? Bain does not come into these companies with 100% equity. The capital stack is the following:

        1. Small sliver of equity by Bain;
        2. Asset based lender fully secured by assets; and
        3. Mezz/subordinated lender.

        The MO on a lot of these deals is to purchase the debt on the front end (gaining some level of control) or negotiate concessions from creditors and/or workers. If the negotiation fails, you drag the company into BK and sell assets for a profit or gain equity on the backs of the unsecureds. Bain also takes a good slug of equity through management and other fees reducing their investment exposure.

        After, they wait a year or two, because they’ve shafted the creditors, they recap the company again pulling every nickel out and then some rendering the concern in a totally over-levered position such that the company can’t possibly survive.

        If you take a look at the stats, the PEGS (private equity groups) have made money through leverage, not by reinventing companies.

        Tour distinction between PEGs and VC’s are completely correct but your contention that banks don’t participate alongside the Bain’s of the world is completely incorrect.

        I was told by a manager of mine early in my career at Citibank (old Citi) that you should never do anything/deal that either you or your family would read about in the Sunday Times business section. I have adhered to this principal ever since. Clearly, Mr. Romney never never got this counselling.

        There is a significant difference between doing things right and doing the right things. Making money and capitalism is the essence of freedom in our economy. Being an asset stripper, shafting vendors, product/service providers and wrecking companies to line your pockets is ethically and morally wrong.

  27. It seems tha bbitter is in effect that the ends justify the means. No one is asking for government intervention here. What I am saying is that it comes back to business ethics (which they teach at Harvard Business School where Romney graduated). Taking your argument to the extreme, you’re saying that it was ok for the mbs and CDS guys to make the money they did prior to the mortgage crisis. As such, your argument seems to break down. Finally, it is Romney that touts his business experience and as such, a critique of the way he went about it is fair game.

    I’m tired of choking down on the GOP’s establishment candidates and not true conservatives. Romney fits this mold as Romney is for one thing…Romney himself. IMO, let Newt continue with his Colonel Kilgore Strategy (I love the smell of napalm in the morning). Perhapse, we can get this race down to a one on one between a true conservative and a stealth conservative.

  28. Sorry folks, but Newt dropped his own bomb. El Rushbo just shined the light on it. Think I’ll sit back & watch the implosion with a glass of wine & just shake my head. How on earth did we get here?

  29. Interesting perspective, quoted from the RickPerryReport:

    Romney’s net worth was earned on the back of American entrepreneurs and workers. I was the victim of venture capitalists in 2004. I had a thriving business with multiple streams of revenue. One day a VC appeared on my doorstep, told me how great my company was, and offered to buy it through a fancy four stage financing scheme. I didn’t think the plan was too bad at the time. It allowed me to leverage the business operation I had and expand into new markets. What’s more, I would be working for the larger, more powerful entity. I fell for the trap.

    After the deal was signed, my former business, which employed 15 great employees, and fed 15 families including my own, was loaded up with too much debt, and I was given a revenue growth plan that was unrealistic. As soon as I failed to meet those revenue targets, all hell broke lose. I was blamed for every failure that was coming. I bailed, leaving a $250,000 liability with my name attached to the horror. What was really happening was that the VC was attempting to use my company’s cash flow to finance other acquisitions. In the process, the debt, and the pressure to meet unrealistic obligations to service that debt, broke my back. And I have a very sturdy back!

    It is six years hence, and I have finally recovered from the ordeal. I went through a financial crisis, a marriage crisis and a career crisis. Luckily, and by the grace of God, I survived.

    Every once and a while, a VC will get lucky and find a business and a business owner desperate enough to accept VC funding, and have that company thrive. Staples, in Romney’s case, may be one of those. But in the meantime, there are probably hundreds of orphan companies that run well enough on their own, but cannot grow fast enough to meet VC expectations, or rise to VC-imposed debt obligations. A VC like Romney will gut them, fail the company, and everyone except Romney loses.

    That’s how Romney created $250 million in net worth for himself: By breaking the backs of otherwise hard-working, honest American workers and entrepreneurs. I hate people like that.

    If you have a good business, stay away from vultures like Romney and grow your company, and provide for your employees. That’s the American Dream!

    The Chicago Tribune has a great explanation of the Romney modus operandi at Bain Capital:

    Private equity firms operate through leveraged buyouts. They create limited partnerships to buy companies, usually pretty healthy ones since it’s the only way to attract financing, and then they burden the companies with debt while trying to make the balance sheets look good, often by cutting costs such as workers or their benefits, to flip the companies within five years for a profit.

    Private equity firms put a relatively small amount down, say, 20 percent, and the companies they are buying borrow the rest from banks making them responsible for repayment. Suddenly, a company that had a reasonable debt load, if any, is subjected to crushing repayment obligations.

    (Source: Chicago Tribune: “How Romney Grew Rich”)

    When my former company was foreclosed upon, it was no more than a shell and employed no one. The customers still needed the service, but the company under VC management after I left had treated its customers so poorly that there wasn’t any goodwill remaining in the name.

    I don’t care what Rush Limbaugh says. As the Chicago Tribune notes, the actions of “spend little, borrow big, evade taxes and get control of a lucrative asset” is not entrepreneurship at all; it is theft.

    VC theft is how folks like Romney get filthy rich, not by adding value, but by flipping businesses like they are condos. In the process Romeny’s types are destroying the value of everyone else’s American Dream.

    Romney is using his hundreds of millions to “connect” with voters in a way that he could not connect with anyone at all without that horde of cash. The sad part is that much of that net worth was made on the backs of Americans pursuing the American Dream. They just didn’t know the rules of the game changed. Nor did they know that Romney and his colleagues created the new rules.

    And that, Mr. Limbaugh, is un-American. It’s evil.

    1. I am reading the source article now and upset to hear about how the debate audience was filled. The tickets cost money, and Romney bought those seats.

      Those tickets should be given out by a random lottery!

    2. Great points above and I feel for you. Bain isn’t a VC. Those are the guys on Sandhill Rd. in Palo Alto who really take risks on new/greenfield technology companies. Bain is a PEG. Also, leverage is typically greater than 20% as financing is based on EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes depreciation and amortization). Back in the days when your and other deals were being done, Banks would put in 3.5 turns (senior), Mezzanine would be another 2 turns and equity might be less that. This assumes the company was purchased at 6 times EBITDA.

    3. The same things happen through the government. The SBA is supposed to help small business. But when they decide you aren’t doing as well as they’d like, THEY get to decide when you are done (even if you have finally broken even, and are starting to gain market share). There’s no real appeal, either. And when they sell your assets, they sell very low (not needing the money), to get your problem off of their books, leaving you with even more debt than when you started. I speak from experience.

      Never borrow money from the government.

      Look, business is a tough game. There are so many ways to get legally screwed by banks, customers, government, and employees that no one can plan properly for all events. Not even with the best team of lawyers. But you do your best, and keep plugging away.

      I don’t call it evil at all. I call it the natural predation inherent in the system. You’ll find it at every level, and the idea they have is always to stick it to the successful guy so you can get a piece of him. It’s the Chicago way.

      In a free market, it’s very difficult to remove that sort of player. However government is responsible for making whole new categories of predator, thanks to EEO action, the EPA, the massive regulations in lending and loans, and the seriously negative effect of “government aid.” The “politics of pull” makes business far more difficult today.

      I’ve lived through exactly what you are talking about, and it sucked. But there’s no crying in baseball, and you don’t win by arguing about bad calls.

      That’s enough metaphor crammed into one comment, so I’m through.

      1. Very true about baseball. And certainly a person won’t win by ‘crying about bad calls’, as you write.

        But I would say that, as regards politics–not baseball, the Tea party, and conservatives in general, are realizing that if you don’t cry out about the bad calls, you WILL lose. (Whether its excessive spending and taxes, or vulture capitalists–we really need an ongoing public airing of some of the current problems within the system. Much better if conservatives come forward to decry the abuses and set out to fix them than if O***a exploits them or demogogues them till doomsday. Most Americans want them fixed.)

        1. Negative campaigning doesn’t work. Going negative on your opponents does.

          What does that mean?

          It means the candidate cannot win by pointing out bad stuff. He has to articulate how he can make good things happen. It’s tricky. you don’t just say “I’m going to lower taxes.” You have to say how you plan to remove obstacles to prosperity from the path of the average Joe. You have to make it positive, and make the actions positive. For example, a list of “I’m not gonna do’s” doesn’t stick in anyone’s mind. You need a list of “Here’s what we do’s.” This is why Herman Cain got the traction he had. He knew this trick, and played it well enough to attract a lot of attention.

          It also means you can tell the people bad things about your opponent (as long as they are–mostly–true). I hate that aspect of politics, but that’s the way it works.

          Business is the same way. You cannot win at business by complaining and lawsuit (although some gain minor profits via lawsuit, and lawyers live on them). You win by providing the best product or service possible, for the least cost. You win by taking advantage of your opponents’ weaknesses. You win by having a good public image–but only to a certain extent. The trick is to put as little effort into that public image as you can, while punishing people inside the business for unethical decisions that damage your efforts there. This allows a lot of grey area, and that is where the dancing happens. The truly unethical dance poorly. Like with ENRON. And this usually comes out in the open. But you play hard to win.

          Wanting the government to “fix” things is how the mess only gets worse.

          When I closed on my first house, the “closing packet” was only about an eighth of an inch thick. Nowdays, thanks to massive regulation, it’s two packets, each about 3/4 to 1 inch thick. And we still had the (inevitable) mortgage mess. Government never makes things better without making them worse in several other ways.

          I want a candidate who will stop demonizing Wall Street, and just get on with removing obstacles to prosperity.

          1. As voters involved in….politics…, we have shout out the bad calls (laws, practices, regulations, abuses, etc.)

            The type of ‘capitalism’ practiced by Romney/Bain looks like one of those abuses–I don’t agree with financiers taking a 300+% profit, up front, out of a struggling company by loading it up with new debt primarily to pay themselves a huge ‘fee’ and then bankrupting the company….leaving all the working men without their pensions as well as their jobs.

            If that’s essential capitalism (and its not), who the hell would want it?

            1. It takes all kinds. As soon as you set up an “honor system” to pay for snacks, someone is going to cheat. It’s just human nature. That’s also why “cells” are usually limited to three people in any conspiracy. You plan for human nature, you don’t expect purity in people.

              (Honor systems work well in very small groups)

              Everyone I’ve ever met who accepted this fact has usually been a happy, well-adjusted person. I’d bet that most successful people in small business are the ones who know you can’t expect folks to always play fair.

  30. It really is about character and choices not corporate raiding. There is no doubt that Romney enjoyed being a mini Milken like many others of the day.

    Ronald Reagan’s Goal in his policies were not material gain; but to renew the American dream

    In 1982, President Ronald Reagan, at the Conservative Political Action Conference declared, “Higher productivity, a larger gross national product, a healthy Dow Jones average–they are our goals and are worthy ones. ***But our real concerns are not statistical goals or material gain.**** We want to expand personal freedom, to renew the American dream for every American. We seek to restore opportunity and reward, to value again personal achievement and individual excellence. We seek to rely on the ingenuity and energy of the American people to better their own lives and those of millions of others around the world.”

    Romney, like it or not, was a corporate raider. But can he be faulted for taking advantage of new legislation that made corporate raiding aka leveraged buyouts appealing? (Kemp-Roth bill, officially known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, into law, lowering of the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and making high risk investments even more attractive.)……….

    October 27, 1997
    (FORTUNE Magazine) – It’s breakfast on the second day of the Montgomery Securities Investment Conference. The money manager seated to the right of me strikes up a conversation with the chief financial officer to my left. “What’s your market cap?” the investor asks the executive. It’s only well into the conversation that he finally pops that other question: “What does your company do?”

    Ask not what a company does; ask what it can do for you. That’s what investing is about these days.

    1. Please please don’t post anything about Reagan in a blog where Newt’s name is mentioned. Newt talks about Reagan, but in reality he said HORRIBLE things about him.

      When Newt went to the House floor during the Reagan’s second White House term and declared the president’s Soviet policy a “failure.” Here is what Gingrich said: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. … The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan.”

      And, at the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how “I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president.” And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan’s, added, “We helped defeat the Soviet empire.” Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.”

  31. Rush is right, as usual. When I heard Newt say that (about leaving a certain amount of money behind) the first thing I thought of was the clip Rush played of Obama saying “you’ve made enough money”. The only difference is that Newt sounds like an angry bully when he says it. He actually makes Obama sound reasonable.

    Newt is just validating everything his critics have said about him. He’s out for revenge. He doesn’t care about winning anymore, he just wants to make sure Romney doesn’t win. The worst part is that if anyone deserves Newt’s wrath it’s Ron Paul. Yeah, Romney’s PAC ran negative ads too, but it was the Ron Paul campaign that ran the most nasty ads. I know that just from reading blogs.

    My support for Newt is hanging by one thread: Islam. And it’s about to snap.

  32. I hate the liberal Romney but.

    70% of the firms Bain took over ended up better off oft times much better off Staples being just one of them.

    8% Bain lost money when they went Bankrupt.
    22% Bain made money and they eventually went Bankrupt.

    Seem’s Gingrich is ignoring the successes. I give him a F for accuracy. This is just as bad as Rommneys attack on Newt’s 1.6 million from Freddie.

  33. Does this mean that the conservatives will now start attacking Rush for pointing out Newt’s progressive big government philosophy?

  34. Rush is wrong on this. No one is “deciding” how much is too much. Newt is saying that it would be better to try to leave a business operating than to simply close it down and take the money *because you can*.

  35. I had to go outside and check to see if the moon was full last night, after I heard Todd Palin endorse Newt. Today, I am convinced that there is a huge disruption in the “Force”, when I hear Rush support Romneyobamalite, who he just yesterday agreed was the Democratic choice to run against and beat. Please excuse me while I go “Tebow” and pray for all the lunatics as well as the sane! I am no longer sure, which bunch are my friends. YIKES!

    1. Insanity: To repeat the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

      Welcome to America, land of the quasi-free, home of the insane.

  36. Ok people, all together now…Ann Coulter was right about Newt and this whole presidential primary. She’s probably the most astute commentator of the political scene today.

      1. I thought McCain had his nose there. Maybe they are taking turns. Don’t you love it when the kids get along? 😉

  37. Possibly a bit of a stretch. Lots of holes in both arguments, but Mr. Gingrich gets paid for talking around holes and Mr. Limbaugh gets paid for talking around talking arounders.


  38. I just now watched the video.

    Hearing Rush refer to Gingrich/left-wing social engineering seems to make the point from a couple of weeks ago by Glenn Beck regarding Newt being a socialist.
    Seems like we all need to do a little more research on Newt. We have one socialist in the White House. Do we really want to take a chance on having another one revealed after he takes office?

    This is too important of an election for each of us.
    We all need to listen to, read, watch, analyse every thing on each candidate.
    See who changed on what issues. Find out why they changed.
    Vote for the one with the least amount of flaws.

    So far none of them floats my boat so I will support the last one standing.
    I am still praying for a miracle from Alaska.

      1. I just saw on Cavuto that there is a write in campaign for Sarah in NH.
        Did you happen to see if she got any in Iowa?

        Also for Hillary in NH by some guy in CA …..arrrrrrrrgh!!!!!
        Expect Hillary to ride in on her white steed to save the day to continue O’s agenda.
        Don’t be surprised if Bill Daley isn’t part of Obama’s demise.

        I predict:
        1. Obama will not be the democratic candidate or
        2. The election will not happen

        Keep your eye on the week of May 15.

        1. Very astute observation, in my opinion. Media has been ignoring this large tremor. It is a very significant sign which I have been waiting for. They are turning on Barrack from within the ranks. The puppet masters play for keeps. They have billions at stake in their New World Order. Wait till they drop the bomb on their boy. They have the insurance policy of all the “sealed records”. Wish I knew why you said May 15.

          1. May 15 could be nothing.
            But the OWS have not gone away even though many in the media think they have. This is reorganization time. What we saw was just the dress rehearsal.

            The week of May 15 will be the NATO and G-8 summits in Chicago.

            If you are not familiar with their protests, just youtube them for Seattle, Pittsburg or a number of places in the EU and Canada. What happened in Oakland, Greece and London last fall and after the 2008 meltdown in Europe is coming to a neighborhood near you most likely unless things here turn around big time.
            Also youtube or google Black Bloc. They always show up at the summits and they were in Oakland. Get a good look so you will know what to look for this summer.

            I am guessing they will be the new kick-off to hurl us into the summer and right through the elections. Depending on how they turn out as to what happens in November.

            Not sure if there is a word limit so this will be continued….

          2. Part 2
            The next big event is Occupy the Courts on January 20. Click on the link and you will see that it looks very professional. They have big money now. Millions.
            It could be a bust but perhaps not.

            Here is the link for their google map. A few dozen listings.
            Everybody can look to see if your courts are among those to be occupied.

            The economy/99% vs 1% has little to do with the end game. That was just the appetizer.

            Also pay attention to the Islamists or whatever your preferred name for them would be.

            Midland, Texas airport.
            Gainesville this weekend – 2 Egyptian students land plane and tear up runway
            Tampa/St Pete this weekend – would be bomber, but don’t worry the CAIR bears are standing with him.
            MD – former US military, convert to islam, money to Al-shabab, went over to train – got caught, sent back here for trial. Kenyans are a funny thing. They don’t take too kindly to jihadists and especially Al-shababs.
            Multiple used car dealerships involved in cars and money laundering for Hezbollah.
            Al qaeda, hezbollah, and many other groups are within our borders.
            Dozens of training camps, especially in GA and NY, teaching men, women, kids.

            To all the Beck haters…..all the socialists/marxists/communists/islamists are coming together to destroy capitalism and the western way of life. When????
            But, of course, he’s crazy.

            There are only a few present/former politicians that understand the threat to our homeland. Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Steve King, Peter King, Sue Myrick and perhaps a dozen more. In other words these people are outnumbered.

            Be watchful. Keep your guard up. Prepare for whatever may come.

      2. God bless you , Mike, but even a marine needs a squad, to really do business. A rebel marine is s dead marine. You know where lone heros end up.

        1. True, we work more effeciently in groups of 4 or more but to borrow a quote from retired Marine General Peter Pace. “If you think that a Marine by himself is outnumbered, you are mistaken.”

    1. You’re kidding right? You’re drinking Glenn Becks kool-aid too? Why don’t you go and do research on Newt. In fact, here’s one bit of information that might help you.


      They are both around an hour long each – but very informative. Oh, just so you know he is lecturing at Tulane University along with James Carville. I know that most people who have blinders will think “what is he doing lecturing with James Carville, isn’t he a liberal?”. You know, how they questioned him for sitting on the sofa with Pelota – I guess that makes him a liberal. *eyes rolling* Well, yes James is a Clintonian liberal. However, this should let you think outside the box for once.

      Please don’t get offended for what I’m about to say. If you haven’t already figured it out already, Glenn Beck is a narcissistic pathological liar. He has already taken my $100 bucks, but not my integrity or intelligence. Wake up! By the way, in the video you will see where he discusses Teddy Roosevelt and FDR; and why he likes both of them in it’s entirety – not a butchered up method that Glenn Beck loves to spin.

      As for Newt moving Mittens to the left – he isn’t because Mittens is a liberal! Can you folks not see this? There isn’t a conservative bone in Mittens. Why do you think MSM/pundits, GOP establishments, etc want him? The guy reeks it. The problem with our economy is the government! Poor decisions and Keynesian policies.

      Can you honestly disagree with Newt in pointing out business man who walks away with millions of dollars by destroying companies and the lives affected by them? It boggles the mind that anyone could think Newt is against capitalism and everyone else who disagrees with him. This is cronyism, pure and simple.

      If Mittens elected – don’t be surprised that he walks away with millions while continuing the same monetary policies of this administration. Oh, and further destroying our economy and moving us more into socialism.

      P.S. Don’t believe all this crap that Mittens is electable, he isn’t.

      1. What part of ‘each’ candidate do you not understand.
        Don’t have to answer. I think you just wanted to interpret what
        you wanted not what I said. Sort of like the candidates and the media.
        You made my point.

        1. “Hearing Rush refer to Gingrich/left-wing social engineering seems to make the point from a couple of weeks ago by Glenn Beck regarding Newt being a socialist. Seems like we all need to do a little more research on Newt.”

          It looks like you did?

      2. Great post but you forgot the point that Mittens lives under the spectre of a pink slip every day and feels our pain

      1. Thanks for your posts TrustiTG. I am at the end of my 4th decade guess I am a toddler. I agree with your posts above and yes “Can you tell I’m angry???”

  39. During the great depression, this was the same argument that was used to keep FDR in power; corporations are greedy and bad, corporations are not people, and corporate fat cats are not human, they’re corporations.

    Newt, Newt, Newt… ‘populist’ language? That’s the same language that got Hilter in power, which stormed Russia in the red revolution, and which has been used by every single dictator or politician who is trying to justify their actions.

    Step one: Pick something the people don’t like.
    Step two: Make that thing the ‘enemy’. Demonize it.
    Step three: characterize your political opponent as the embodiment of that thing. (if you have no political enemies, make one up.)
    Step four: Rally people behind you to attack that new enemy.
    Step five: Justify all actions afterwards using this enemy.

    It is a tried and true political strategy used the world over. Whether it is communism, (for us here in the 80s and during the entire cold war), or if your name is Hugo Chavez and your enemy is the USA, or if you are Hitler and use/hate the jews… It has been used all over.

    Here, Newt is attacking the free market system in his haste to get at Romeny. For this rant to have any teeth, Gingrich would have to put regulations in place as to what any owner could do with their own company.

    1. The old saying is that you can’t legislate a conscience or morality…and even GOD’s Commandments are voluntary, but not without consequences.

      However, there should be some limits and some sacred line for legislators, businesses and unions.

      Reading blackbird’s post linked above brings a different perspective than yours.

      Personally, I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned Bain Capital’s methods or means (leaving the taxpayer to pay workers retirements) when they thought of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

      1. Good post.

        I only addressed the political theory and tactics. I didn’t talk about the company or Romney’s dealings at all. I don’t agree with them, but I do support his right to do as he did.

        As for your statement that we cannot legislate morality… Amen. Jefferson stated that our constitution was wholly inappropriate for governing anything but a moral people. Simply because we can’t legislate a conscience doesn’t mean that we haven’t tried: that’s why we have so much regulation.

        I’d rather not go down the route of government regulation… which is where this political tactic leads.

        I don’t agree with either of them, but I do stand behind rights of property ownership and the rule of law. Neither of which indict Romney here… and as such, I am left with my own moral views, and the political leverage and tactics.

        I don’t like what Romney did, but I don’t like what Newt is doing either.

  40. I am only giving this link because Mr. Gingrich referenced the words of the NY Times in his attack on Mr. Romney during the debate in NH and in the ads he apparently is running in SC. This is just to show that when you sleep with the NY Times they come back to bite you.

    This is not new news. I have already read/heard it during this election cycle from a few sources.

    Plus commenting on this gave me a chance to introduce you all to this kid.
    I hope the primary lasts two or three more months just so I can hear more from him.

  41. I’m with Newt – I’m working on my 7th decade – old enough to have seen many rounds of friendly, vulnerable and hostile takeovers and buyouts GUT a town’s economy and put lots of folks out of work and on the dole. Lots of hometown US mills and factories closed, to take advantage of cheaper (near slave) labor overseas or just for the H$E$L$L$ of it and because it’s legal and profitable.

    As for the so-called ‘language of the left’- – – Language is language, no one has a franchise on words. The left, however, likes to take words, mis-appropriate them, then redefine our words, make up idiomatic expressions to suit their ungodly agendas, ie, ‘gay’ ‘gender’ ‘phobia’ etc.

    Corporate greed and limiting profit-taking, and company managment loyalty to its workers are socialist/leftist concepts??? To me, that’s not leftist but old-fashioned and honorable. But what do I know about business and capitalism. I guess that’s a matter of conscience as is any other way folks do business.

    Personally, I have a phobia of the new-found practice of big companies gutting employees pensions to fund big executives big severance packages in their bankruptcy deals. In my book, that’s just plain damnable. I nearly vomited when the left and right decided to bail out and pay off incompetent already over-paid executives – rewarding their corruption and incompetence at the taxpayer’s expense, running up the debt astronomically.

    If I were able, I’d love to fill every empty factory space left by Bain and other such profiteers with Bain-proof (and Obama-proof) worker-owned companies producing good things with a USA label which is something no slave (primarily females in muslim countries (shame on those muslm so-called men and their imams) labor could not produce or replicate.

    I’d also love to send many executives and legislators on a one-way permanent repatriation trip to the corrupt socialist nation of their choice… but Obama goes to Pakistan not Indonesia.

    Can you tell I’m angry???

    1. Can you tell I’m angry???

      I can tell you are passionate, honest and probably not as much in the minority as you may think.

  42. For the first time in my life I disagree with Rush. First of all, it’s not language of the left. Second of all, who cares!!! There’s a war out there, and you do what you have to do to win. I LIKE NEWT!!!!!

  43. If taking down Newt, and right now Rush is putting Rick Perry in the same boat with Newt, would redound to the benefit of Rick Santorum GOOD, but this is elevating Romney and Rush knows it.

    1. Not necessarily. But Rush has been hitting Mr. Newt pretty hard from day one. Rush wants a conservative to win, and he’s not very happy with Newt as the potential nominee. But with Romney, Rush is more fatalistic. He does not want Romney, but he thinks we’re going to get him, deep, wide, and continuous.

      All you have to remember about Rush is his mantra that “Conservatism Wins, Every Time.” He gets totally disgusted whenever Republicans use the imagery or language of the left to win points in a campaign, because he knows it’s a loser tactic. You simply can’t beat a Dem at their own game.

  44. Today Rush says WE are finding out things about Gingrich WE didn’t know before. Well, Rush, if that WE includes ME sorry but…. Is it the part about Newt being a vicious little Sh*t?? Because ME knew that and ME told US about it but WE didn’t want to listen. Are you going to be surprised next when he takes his bat and ball and goes home AGAIN??? Listen this time. Newt Gingrich is a total and absolute jerk dirt bag CREEP with a capital EEP. OK?? I don’t like Romney but I would DATE Mitt Romney before I would vote for Newt for President. GET IT????

    1. I am personally opposed to capitalism and capitalists without limits, without honor, without concern for the little people who made them wealthy and without conscience.

      I am also opposed to big powerful labor unions without restrictions that turn into a mob without honor, conscience and genuine concern for their workers who made them wealthy…and their accompaniment violence.

      I am also vehemently opposed to what has happened to some companies and some bosses who are honorable and compassionate and whose businesses have survived for a century or more because of their goodness and value – only – to be threatened by Obama’s socialist and EPA thugs and the labor unions. (GIBSON Guitars comes to mind)

      May all these rotten-hearted, self-aggrandizing, self-interested political-minded $OB$ get the ‘justice’ they richly deserve.

        1. This is illustrating the danger Newt is posing. Newt was criticizing Romney because he made money rather than concern himself with the worker’s jobs first.

          When capitalism works best, people make money so that they feel free to hire people. They don’t risk their capital as charity.

          No one is going to want to invest in this economy with people like this who villianize the very people who are now being criticized for keeping their money on the sidelines.

  45. Company in question was operated 6 years before going bankrupt!!! Why would anyone be stupid enough to buy a failing company…knowing it was going to continue to fail? THANK YOU RUSH for FINALLY seeing the kind of Person Newt Gingrich is….ANYTHING TO GET HIS WAY…anything!!!

    1. Funny for Newt to be saying anything, he’s just mad cause Romney exposed him for being Mr Washington!!

  46. 75% of Republicans don’t want Mitt as our candidate, that’s not inevitable or electable. I’m surprised that you Rush would support such a moderate. Sorta loses your street cred. Obama has crafted his entire campaign to position himself against the 1% and Mitt. Newt is the strongest candidate.

    1. I don’t think Rush is supporting Romney, I think he is challenging the language Newt is using to attack Romney.

      And I agree with you about Mitt Romney fitting perfectly into Obama’s campaign strategy.

          1. I’m conservative, and I want Romney. Not because he is the Uber conservative in the race, but because he can actually win, and has strong fundamentals on business, that he has proven time and time again.

            1. Romney has the worst chance to “actually win” of the serious candidates.

              Why? Two Words: Because of Obamacare.

              Obama desperately wants to run against Mitt for that reason. Even crazy uncle Ron would get more votes against Obama than Romney. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum would all have a smoother time, despite their flaws, because they are running against Obama. Mitt wouldn’t be running “against” Obama, because Mitt was the midwife of Obamacare, and he can’t and won’t denounce it.

  47. Rush has lost his objectivity on this one. Newt is not attacking capitalism. Conflating Newt’s and Obama’s statements is grossly misleading. I guess Rush feels guilty for his excessive wealth, so he’s willing to defend profits at any cost, by any means. His personal weakness here is de facto support for Romney. Very disappointing.

      1. Yeah, you’re probably right. But something is odd about his reaction today. Several of his callers said so to him.

        Perhaps instead Rush has simply conceded that Romney will be the nominee and so Rush is just trying to get positioned to start supporting him for the general. Whatever the case, his comments today are a net benefit to Romney whether he intended it or not. I think he intended it based on what I heard, but I could be missing something.

  48. Romney started the mudslinging with his lies about Newt. Too bad Mitt can’t take a punch. Hey, if he can’t handle the heat from Newt… he certainly will crumble from $1 Billion in attacks from Obama.

    1. I don’t really think this has anything to do with whether Mitt can take a punch. He is irrelevant to me.

      On the other hand, what Newt and Perry and Huntsman have been doing is going to undermine pulling this country back from the ledge of socialism.

    2. Romney didn’t “lie” or “sling mud” about anything. What both you and Newt seem unwilling to accept is that Romney has and CAN HAVE no control over what SuperPACs do, no matter how many Romney allies are part of the PAC. And I notice it didn’t really take Newt all that long to break his “positivity” pledge; just the amount of time it took for Romney to pass him in the polls.

  49. Meanwhile, just yesterday Rush said Obama will make Bain the Halliburton of 2012. Should we let Obama vet our candidates, or should we do it?

    1. Romney is under FBI investigation as we type, for his off-shore accounts and other Bain-related dealings.

  50. I take back some of my criticism of Rush….he’s coming along in stating how sleezy Newt is acting …”populism”, his wrinkled history professor a#@.
    Ironic that this is completely backfiring on nasty Newt.

    1. It’s not going to backfire at all. This argument has legs and won’t be going away soon. Better that he be vetted with the public now than by Obama and his Billion in negative ads.

      1. You’re right about the vetting….how many times can people hear this before other issues move to the fore?
        I’m still confident when the focus is Obama voters will remember what a flop he’s been.

  51. Newt was a board member of a venture capital firm as well. That’s what makes these attacks on Romney even MORE dishonest!

    1. Gingrich: ‘Forsman was about improving the companies they bought up, not cutting and running with the money to let the company go bankrupt’ via Megyn Kelly on FOX

    1. Perry is stupid. No shocker there, he’s been my governor for 10 years. Bain has saved many a company. Staples and Dominoes Pizza come to mind.

      1. Calling a conservative is stupid is a line from the left. Can I put you in the Newt penalty box?

        He’s been my governor for 11 years, and he’s been great. Just do an intelligent comparison of the Texas economy to others. And, Texas just had a court ruling in favor of the legislation Perry signed, the sonogram law requiring those getting abortions to be informed about their decision. Excellent news.

        Perry is not chastising the companies Bain saved, just questioning the ones potentially viable and closed.

        1. Perry’s obviously right on this issue and this isn’t his only correct position, however, he has a couple that lost my support;

          * Lied to our faces about his support for TARP.

          * Pushed his plan to build a US-Mexican Highway on stolen eminent domain land!

          * Called Tom Tancredo a racist for supporting the enforcement of our own immigration laws.

          * Publicly ridiculed Gov. Jan Brewer for SB1070 in trying to protect her state from being overrun by illegal aliens.

          * Signed a totally unsupervised DREAM Act in Texas and had the audacity of a dope to call Americans ‘heartless’!

          Rick Perry not a true conservative by Tancredo

          The Phony Right-Wing, Part 5: James Richard ‘Rick’ Perry

          Rick Perry’s dangerous Muslim compromise:

          Rick Perry AGREES with Obama: Open Borders for America

          1. Perry’s letter simply requested a solution to the problem. A letter requesting a solution is not an endorsement of TARP as the solution. Ditto for the letter about health care reform and Hillarycare.

            To meeting Texas’ rapid growing needs, Perry and TxDOT commissioned for a plan to be drawn up to meeting its transportation needs. The plan was put the public for debate. Perry listened to the other side and pulled the plan. Number of acres seized by TTC: 0.

            As the web site BigGovernment, no fan of government overreach, put it…
            “Thus, conservatives who criticize Gov. Perry over the proposed use of eminent domain to build a road aren’t just wrong – they’re actually advocating a position that is unconstitutional it its core. A further irony: such populist-minded conservatives are actually using one of the same arguments that the Sierra Club and other environmental left, anti-growth groups, have used against Perry.”

            Please provide a source and quote of Perry say Tancredo is a racist. Here’s one news organizations find on it.
            “This would seem awfully easy to check, but I couldn’t find a story about Perry calling Tancredo a “racist” after some searching. I’ve asked his office what the source of the story, and the tiff, actually is, because Tancredo wants to use it to crowbar back into a national conversation he influenced plenty when he was a national candidate.”

            Tancredo just has an ax to grind.

            About SB1070, Perry said there are portions that concern him. He did not object to Arizona having the right to enact the law. He just felt portions were not for Texas. Did I mention Sherrif Joe has endorsed, campaign with, and is on the Rick Perry campaign staff?

            Please provide a quote where Perry “ridiculed” Brewer or stop spreading FUD.

            Your quote is incorrect. He did not use the word “heartless.” That is a more abrasive form of what he actually said and you know it.

            Thanks for the copy/paste job though. Yea, I use Google. 🙂

    2. Exactly kamiller42. As conservatives, I believe we should be uncomfortable with the vulture captalism model expemplified by Mitt Romney–the majority of Americans will never accept that predatory stripping of assets and dept-loading to pay oneself a profit, then bankrupting companies and workers’ pensions, is an acceptable or virtuous form of capitalism. If we, and conservative leaders, don’t publicly reject that contemporary Wall St./Romney model, a lot of Americans will reasonably take offense and harden their attitudes against conservative principles–as if Romney’s predatory actions were an accepted example of those principles.

      1. Conservatives have no problem vetting a candidate by examining their decisions and actions in big government. Is there really a problem doing the same for those participating in big business?

        If Bernie Madoff was a Republican candidate for president, is evaluating his business record off limits because it was all in the private market? Is doing so a slight on capitalism?

        Why is Newt’s work at a GSE, i.e. Freddie, fair game but there’s silence when it comes to Santorum’s $550 million request for a GOE and money pit called Amtrak? I, as a tax payer, have much less of a problem giving Newt $1.3 million for consulting than giving the financial toilet called Amtrak over half a billion dollars.

        I think there is a bit of knee jerk reaction from conservatives on this Bain issue and some double standards floating around.

        1. You’re on a roll! The double standard you mention really constitutes a severe weakness for the Republican party–credibility on the economy? If a Romney/Bain type approach to the economy and society is supposed to be a positive part of the basis for that credibility,…the vast majority of independent voters, and potential converts to conservatism, would say, ‘No, thanks!’

          This really highlights a major division, and a paucity of clear and comprehensive elucidation of principle, within the Repbulican party. If we can’t be clear about the vices seen in capitalism, as well as the virtues, there are a lot of well-intentioned Americans (not the hardcore leftists) who just won’t ever fully trust us or take us seriously–and thus won’t be persuadeable, when they otherwise might.

          1. Ditto on the post kudo to you, especially that last paragraph. Exactly!

            If we don’t nominate a true limited government guy, I will not listen to an argument from a conservative or Republican about a need for limited government. It was too much to stomach in GB’s years, and I can’t take another 4 or 8. To me, the GOP will be the Gutless Old Party.

  52. As a 24/7 Rush member, this particular attack on Newt is what most people are going to take away from his whole show today. Rush is an honest purveyor of the truth and this truth is going to hurt Newt bad. He was actually taking delight in bringing up Obama’s quote about “There is a point where you have enough money”. On the other hand Newt should never have taken that route in regards to answering the charges Romney brought up against him.

    1. Seems you neither believe in the USA, nor basic economy. You have so much to learn. I suggest you read, not on the net, of basic economy. So simple, you can get it. FYI you cannot never have enough money.

  53. Rush is correct.

    Also, I’m tired of hearing about losing jobs going to other countries. Most large corporations are worldwide and and owned by foreign conglomerates. They wouldn’t think twice about closing a plant in Illinois and send the work to China.

    1. Newt is doing Mitt a favor. Letting him be vetted about Bain by friendly fire will take away much of the sting from Obama’s argument. And it’s a test to see how much traction the argument will get. I think Mitt is unelectable precisely because of the groundwork already laid by Obama and the Occupy movement. Sad but true, it won’t be about the economy, but about the “ultra greedy rich.”

      1. Hopefully, it will give Mitt time to formulate his defense (if he becomes the nominee), thanks in part to all the great work done by conservative opinion journalists who are bewildered by the attacks coming from the other candidates.

        If Mitt is smart, he will incorporate a lot of what is being written in defense of Bain today. And then put this issue to bed so that it is old news by the election.

        I haven’t noticed that Mitt is doing a banner job articulating his own defense.

      2. AH come on.Give me a break.I have a question for you,and please be honest,forget about being honest I already know what your answer should be.
        If you were fortunate enough to be in their shoes would you do the same thing?
        Of course you would and if your answer was any different then remind me never to ask you to join me in any investments. Wise up.

        1. NO, I would not. And a lot of US people are just like me. You, sir, are the reason we have an Obama, and a bad government. And, if you invest against the USA, please leave it.

      3. Good post, but I think you might overestimate America’s ‘love’ of the occupy movement. At this point, I think you are nearly right, but only because of the candidates we currently have. I don’t like any of them right now.

        However, the occupy movement has shown themselves to be completely depraved and unable to hold the sympathies of the general public, even with the MSM totally fawning over them. IF the movement cleans up and gets some real arguments… You are right and we’re in serious trouble.

    1. Been in banking 25 years and ran a corpfin team at a major bank. This is pretty typical for TPG, Bain, Goldman and others. They lever up the company to the gills as they know they have the existing shareholders/creditors over a barrel. They go and strip assets out of the company taking BIG up-front fees in addition to doing repeated leveraged recaps to take money out of the company. What happens in the end is that the company implodes on itself as there is nothing left.

      Rush needs an education in the private equity/corporate finance world. World’s smartest guys use leverage to gin up returns instead of actually building companies. Their own little piggy bank!!

    2. Agreed.

      Newt isn’t saying Romney made enough money. He’s criticizing the way he went about making tons of money. This isn’t an either/or thing. There’s a right and a wrong way to go about restructuring a company, and unfortunately, well, this isn’t really the right way. It’s about right and wrong. What basically Rush seems to be saying is that any way one makes money in the economy for good or bad is “business” and or capitalism and shouldn’t be criticized. That’s crap.

      1. You’re getting into dangerous territory. Ive seen things like that happen with people in my life but we don’t want government involved. Trust me.

        1. Where in my post above did I say the government should get involved? I’m just saying that it’s a valid question because of what it may reflect about his honesty and character. Some of you guys seem to be arguing the political debate should NOT be free to include any criticism of Romney’s career at Bain because such criticism might somehow help Obama, as well as be a criticism of capitalism. I think that’s BS.

          1. Right… funny I was just saying the same thing… see my reply to Dax. Hopefully we can all see there is a third choice…. capitalism in the hands of capitalists that have morality… generosity…. golden rule… whatever you want to call it and who know when profit at some tipping point (individually decided) becomes greed. I always love what I call “the third door”. Usually door number two (in this case socialism… which is destructive) is in response to the first door…. which is equally destructive… the freedom to be capitalist WITHOUT the accompanying responsibility of morality/generosity/golden rule/etc).
            Typically…. we hear this phrase.. (usually in the training of young people)… with the FREEDOM… comes the RESPONSIBILITY.
            This applies to adult capitalists as well as young people being groomed to become responsible adults.
            With FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY….

            1. Don’t you see what Newt is doing – rightly or wrongly, deliberately or not. HE IS ATTACKING ROMNEY IN THE WAY THAT OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS WILL GO AFTER HIM. Don’t you see how they will paint Romney? Newt is going easy on Romney compared to the liberal media on this meme of corporate greed. He (Newt) is doing all of us a favor, and I think it’s possible he’s doing it on purpose. Hint…. says Newt… here’s a preveiw of how Obama and the liberal press will take out Romney. Hint… says Newt …. independents and undecideds will stay home rather than vote for the poster boy of “corporate greed” and you can count on the liberal press successfully painting Romney as just that.

              p.s. I agree there’s ways to make money and then there’s ways of making money that make me feel a little creeped out. I’ve been in business, and I know those choices. I can’t see that Newt is attacking capitalism per say.

        2. I agree with RockNRolla and Winghunter completely. Dax, we actually aren’t getting into dangerous territory if we, the marketplace communicators…go on to communicate the next level of discussion needed in our marketplace about capitalism….. This isn’t an “either/or” thing either…. It’s not capitalism vs socialism…. as our only choices. There is a 3rd door here…. it is freedom of a capitalistic economy WITH morality…. integrity…. golden rule…. whatever you want to call it. This will keep away the attraction to socialism and Nanny states because we will have capitalism in the hands of moral, generous, thoughtful people who will WILLINGLY limit their profits and move some of the 180 million back to the community that gave Bain Capital this opportunity…. Morality NEEDS to come back into the marketplace…. and people need to be encouraged/inspired/whatever by influential leaders and public figures to bring morality/generosity/integrity/willingly charitable character into capitalism. In this respect… I, as a capitalist… totally agree with the OWS group. Greed, as well as victimization (meaning…I want a hand out and I want redistribution of wealth) needs to LEAVE our society… willingly… by our own choices…. NOT LEGISLATED (aka socialism; Nanny State).

          So… Dax, be encouraged…. there is a third door here. Let’s start communicating the need for us capitalists and us OWS’ers to get this thing right.

          1. No, I think the right ‘3rd door’ would have been if OWS was camping out on steps of their local courthouse, because that is where the blame belongs.

            And the media? The job of the media used to be keeping capitalism, AND government honest by doing their homework and putting up redflags to DAs when it was needed.

            You can’t have honest authority without accountability.

      2. Criticizing the way people make money, especially in politics, IS the argument of the Left. Or haven’t you noticed?

        No one criticizes George Soros, even though he speculates and manipulates markets and currencies, yet they go after businesses that employ thousands of people and create products, and small businessmen.

        We don’t get to pick winners and losers in the market from a politics standpoint, and stay ‘free’. (That’s called “crony capitalism” – look up the definition and you’ll find the Obama Admin.) If you don’t like someone’s methods or their business, don’t patronize it. But don’t you dare get into a political ring and say they don’t have a right to do what they want with their property, unless you are willing to give up those same rights yourself.

        I am not willing to give up those rights.

        1. Plenty of people have criticized him. If I remember correctly (and I think that I do), Glenn Beck spent a month on him back when he was at Fox.

          Somebody else that made an s-load of money and was pretty successful in some aspects of business – Jon Corzine. Was he engaged in capitalism? And how well did that experience work out for New Jersey? Why will Romney be any different? Because he has an R next to his name?

          People should be able to challenge his record without being called anti-capitalist.

          1. Criticizing his political record is fine. His political record is not being challenged here. This is an ad hominem attack on his character. I don’t like Romney’s political career nor his candidacy. But he IS a good businessman. Whether you agree with him or not is up in the air. Newt, however, is calling him unprincipled, greedy, and unethical in his treatment of his owned businesses.

            Look at the record, expose it, vet the candidates, I like that. Name calling doesn’t vet anyone. Does Newt want to open his private life for political name-calling scrutiny? that’s coming in the general too… And, frankly, he’d lose that battle with Romney. Dropping into character judgements and arguments on the personal mistakes people have made in their lives doesn’t help anyone.

          2. And dear old “pig sucking” Newt used his cache as a former speaker, and became what we all should despise for the amoralness of it, A LOBBYIST. How many millions did you make old Gas Bag Newter? Hmmmmm? What slime to you spew crap for? Hmmmmm? Newter. Oooooops that’s right the Macs, health care. Seems the filth shouldn’t be slinging the filth in my book.

        2. Hello bbitter,
          I agree with you COMPLETELY. I too do not want to give up those rights. I, too, am a capitalist. But from the point of influencing and encouraging and inspiring and challenging people to be MORAL capitalists… is not to be ignored. This conversation we are all having is simply giving us opportunity to think about “WHAT KIND OF CAPITALISTS” are we? If we are capitalists that do not have any fabric of the “golden rule” inside of us…willingly…. by our own choice. then our “out of control, take ALL the profit for ourselves no matter what waste we leave behind, without thought of leaving some of the profit for those that were squashed by my money making techniques” will DEFINITELY invite a backlash of socialism! It is so easy to see, if we just stop to think about it.
          I think Newt is …in a very clumsy way… or maybe not so clumsy but just daring to tread on ground… that on first hearing… is easily misunderstood and people jump all over him and criticize him and totally and completely miss what he is saying. Once you get this concept, you completely hear him saying just exactly what I have said here.
          He very clearly stood up against the very first big bail out… TARP and called is socialist. He IS a capitalist and is trying to get people to think about WHAT KIND OF CAPITALISTS ARE WE? We have to add some responsibility to our FREEDOMS! Capitalism works for all…. in the hands of morally responsible people. But we CAN NOT legislate morality. We have to be ENCOURAGED or CHALLENGED or INSPIRED to see that morality is the missing ingredient and then we as a group…. as a movement… as a society start speaking to each other LOUD and CLEAR about the logic of MORALITY… and it’s presence will protect our freedom to be capitalists. Awesome concept.

          1. ROFL. I loved your post. Our point of view on Newt is obviously different, however. WHich is fine. I just had to laugh when I read your post and understood it as: “I completely agree with you, except you’re completely wrong!” lol I hope I understood your statement correctly, ‘cuz I’m too amused now to look at it another way. Loved it.

            1. Hey bbitter…. glad you found my post amusing… but it is quite easy to say I agree with you because I do; and at the same time ask that we look at this conversation a little more closely. I’ve pasted below your comments that I completely agree with.

              “We don’t get to pick winners and losers in the market from a politics standpoint, and stay ‘free’. (That’s called “crony capitalism” – look up the definition and you’ll find the Obama Admin.) If you don’t like someone’s methods or their business, don’t patronize it. But don’t you dare get into a political ring and say they don’t have a right to do what they want with their property, unless you are willing to give up those same rights yourself.

              I am not willing to give up those rights. ”

              This is true and right…. And I DIDN”T SAY… that you are completely wrong! LoL… as you stated I did. I am just saying to look at this whole conversation on another level… a little deeper. We MUST protect our freedom for capitalism by adding WILLING moral responsibility TO the freedom (not to have it legislated). Otherwise… we will lose our freedom for capitalism because of the very human reaction/psychology (that we are now seeing) of jealousy… victimization… which will then lead immoral political leaders to stump on class warfare…etc, etc, etc. socialism… nanny states.
              It’s all very easy to follow.
              We DO have a responsibility to encourage all of us to add RESPONSIBILITY to our capitalistic profit taking. At some point, profits made that leave a trail of waste and loss for others is wrong. We must change it willingly. This is an awesome conversation. Thank you for posting.

              1. Perspective determines a lot. I didn’t say your point of view was wrong, but I don’t see this ‘issue’ as much of the problem that others do. Bain has saved many companies that no one is talking about, and they are only bringing up this nebulous example without real facts or insight into the entire process.

                Whether it was negligence or unethical, is all according to perspective. I do not disagree with you at all that it is crucial that ethics be returned to capitalism, and that the system is used for complete good. I fully and wholly agree with that. I am not a Romney supporter, please don’t mistake me for that… My issues with Romney do not reside in his business ethics or his private life – I don’t like his politics. But Romney is not getting a fair shake here, and I feel compelled to point that out.

                I only took that interpretation because my family has used a phrase like that before when I talk with them, (Exactly, except completely different…), and it is usually used as a humorous way to push a perspective on an issue to one side.

                Most Americans agree with each other on all sorts of things, if not most everything. The difference is that we are all arguing and viewing things from different angles and points of view. Someday we’ll all have a moment of dawning comprehension and realize that we all agree with each other. It’ll be an awesome day.

        3. Bain had the right to do what they did but here’s the problem for Mitt; people are looking for someone to create jobs. What happened at Bain nullifies that argument for him and the GOP if he is the nominee. It plays right into Obama’s hands. This is about winning.

      3. This is the first time I’ve ever seen Rush have a blind spot about someone but he has one about Gingrich. Personally I think it’s because they’re so much alike.
        If you watch one of Gingrich’s speeches while he was speaker and compare it to how Rush talks you’ll be amazed how similar they are. Not the voice per se but the content of the speeches. I love Rush but he doesn’t take the place of my own research and opinion. No one does.

    3. Unless Newt is insinuating that Romney intending to bankrupt America and give the ‘investors’ a huge return, his argument has no teeth.

      Sure, Newt doesn’t agree with how Romney ran his business. I don’t agree with Newt’s “consulting firm” in Washington DC. (If it isn’t lobbying or insider trading, what the heck were you ‘consulting’ for in DC, Newt?) Newt doesn’t need to agree with Romney, (I don’t either), but this attack is shameless and self-serving.

      At what point does “I don’t agree with how they run their business” translate to regulations?

      If you sell your company to an investment firm for 6 times less the value of the company, that makes you stupid. And if you then expect the investment firm to not break it up and sell it for a quick 6X ROI, you are also stupid. While I don’t agree with that, it is the owner’s right to do with their stuff as they please, and I am not willing to criticize their ‘right’ to property, as I know it will also mean I am criticizing my own right with my own property.

      1. These two statements are in conflict with one another…

        “Criticizing the way people make money, especially in politics, IS the argument of the Left. Or haven’t you noticed? ”

        “I don’t agree with Newt’s “consulting firm” in Washington DC.”

        So, are you arguing from the left with how Newt made his money?

        The argument “I don’t care how you make your money” goes only so far. Just because a business has a right to conduct business a certain way does not make it right… to borrower a phrase from Santorum who refused to take a stand on this. I guess making calls on personal ethics is okay, but business ethics it out of the politician’s expertise.

        1. The reason why I stated that I don’t agree with Newt’s “consulting” business is simply because I don’t think it was consulting in any normal sense of the word. (Hence the quote marks – see previous post for very short explanation.) I don’t have to agree with it, but I didn’t criticize it from a political point of view.
          If you want me to, I can… but I wasn’t making that point. I offered that statement simply to prove that I am not a Romney shill, nor do I like his policies or stances. However, attacking him politically for private business actions that are not only legal, but can also be seen as completely beneficial. Even Ron Paul is defending Romney’s actions to ‘fire’ people… which is what this argument is all about. Not about making money, but about who we think he hurt.

          I don’t agree with Paul either, btw, that’s just a corroborating point of view.

          Newt’s attack is shameless because he doesn’t translate his criticism to anything real as far as political ideology. My opening statement points that out: Is Newt saying that Romney doesn’t know how to run a business? Is he saying that Romney is unsuccessful as an executive? Is he saying that Romney doesn’t know how to save a viable business? No, of course not, but he is insinuating that Romney is the devil because Newt doesn’t agree with one of many business choices. Rush is right that Newt sets up a straw man and is using the arguments of the left.

          Do you honestly believe that Bain Capital would’ve milked the company for all it was worth if after their review, they thought that the company had growth potential or would continue to be successful and make more money for them?

          1. “The reason why I stated that I don’t agree with Newt’s “consulting” business is simply because I don’t think it was consulting in any normal sense of the word.”

            By your first quote, why does it matter? Why do you care? Two parties came into a private agreement. One party received services; the other received compensation. They didn’t do anything illegal. Isn’t this how capitalism works? That’s what I am hearing today.

            Newt’s political angle is we are nominating someone for president, an office that requires a pro-growth attitude and selfless decision making. Raising the Bain issue puts into question Romney’s qualifications IF it is shown he participated in corporate raiding.

            “Do you honestly believe that Bain Capital would’ve milked the company for all it was worth if after their review, they thought that the company had growth potential or would continue to be successful and make more money for them? ”

            I don’t know. And if no one opens the discussion on Bain, I will never know.

            1. “By you’re first quote, why does it matter?” He can run his business anyway he wants to, that’s not my problem. My problem, simply put, because I believe he is lying about his company and his dealings. Honesty is the first qualification for a politician in my book. (Yes, that is a major reason why I am disgusted with all our candidates: I have nowhere to go.)

              Open the discussion on Bain, absolutely. Look at more than just one point of view as well. Look at Newt’s. Look at others. I disagree with Newt’s point of view on the situation and agree with Rush that it is a leftist argument. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, but please don’t lose sight of the associations and implications that Newt is tying into it.

              “Newt’s political angle is we are nominating someone for president, an office that requires a pro-growth attitude and selfless decision making.”

              Hehehehe… well, that rules Newt out. In fact, the selfless decision making comment rules out all our candidates.

              As pertaining to ‘corporate raiding’… Do you believe that Romney is tied to Wall Street, and would only serve their interests, or would serve their interests first? And Second, from your point of view, how would that damage his qualifications?

              I am honestly curious.

              1. These two are not necessarily connected:
                “As pertaining to ‘corporate raiding’… ”
                “Do you believe that Romney is tied to Wall Street, and would only serve their interests, or would serve their interests first?”

                Newt is concerned with the first, not so much the second.

                To answer the questions —
                If it was discovered that Romney was buying ailing but viable companies simply to robs its bank account and leave the clean up tab of the remaining carcass to someone else, that would bug me. It would upset me if that tab was picked up the tax payer.

                Yes, I think it would compromise his qualifications. It says something about his character. He’s opportunistic and looking to win no matter the costs. Don’t people say that about him now? Says whatever he needs to take advantage of an opportunity, even if it costs having a solid set of principles. Do I want a president like that? No!

                So, if the Bain story is true, it’s not hard to see it fitting the image of a Romney, the weather vane candidate.

                1. Thank you for being fair and insightful.

                  I don’t know if I agree with your estimation of what Newt is or isn’t concerned with, but that could be my misunderstanding.

                  Two thoughts to leave you with:
                  “It would upset me if that tab was picked up the tax payer.” If that is the case, how do you view Newt’s acceptance of 1.6 million dollars from the GSE’s fanny and freddie – which were already underwater and the taxpayers are on tab for?

                  I don’t think you fully answered my question. I asked whether you felt Romney was tied to wall street. You answered, I think, that Newt wasn’t concerned with that. You’ve proven you can think well, so I assume you just omitted that answer.

                  To make myself clear, this is not a gotcha, but more a question of whether you believe Romney would be controlled by a monetary interest other than the taxpayer. If the answer is affirmative, I’d be curious for any evidence. If it is simply a ‘gut-feeling’, that’s still valid in my book.

                2. I don’t care about Romney’s connection to Wall St. I love Wall St. even though a majority of the people there voted for Obama.

                  I think Pres Romney would be tempted to compromise conservative principles if it helps him save face. (It’s the application of a behavior pattern applied to the Romney as occupier of the oval office.) While not a monetary profit, saving face is profitable. And, he would more than likely given into that temptation.

                  There’s already evidence of this behavior. Here’s a nice collection of opportunistic, weather vane Romney at work for the expediency of profit.

                  Nice chatting with you too!

                3. I largely agree with you on ‘weather vane Romney’, that wasn’t what I was interested in. Thanks for your answers.

                4. This whole thread sounds like a bunch of big bankers aguing. Okay to foreclose, but must be nice about it. I know a great guy, a billionare. He farms out factories to poor countries to lower cost. Okay. but, when he hires illegals in the USA, he is wrong. If Mitt does this, he needs to be harsely reminded. Mitt is a socialist also. You want him elect him, Olay, but do not try to make him a patriot, he is a bad candidate.

          2. Totally disagreed with your comment. In Iowa, Romney’s pals ran ads putting Newt as a lobbyst who got money from Fanny & Freddy. In this case Newt is just criticizing the way or methods that Romeny used to make millions and then took those millions leaving the Co at a mercy of an IMMINET FAILURE. In other words, by taking such a big amount of money $180M, left the Co without guts to continue doing business & people lost their jobs.

            1. You are free to disagree, and I won’t criticize it. But I am curious what you think Newt was “consulting” on in Washington DC? (He entered politics in the 70’s, had no business creds or history for 20 years before entering the ‘consulting’ business… if it isn’t lobbying or insider information, what would make companies come to him for, when there are heaps of other business consulting firms with contemporary, successful business portfolios?) And yes, he DID get money from Freddie and Fanny. He’s admitted that, but did not state what he was given money for. Just ‘consulting’.

              You can disagree with Romney’s treatment all you like. that’s fine. I’ve said enough and I refuse to defend the man any further than property ownership rights. Romney can defend himself and his record if he likes.

              1. In a way, I’m not defending Newt either. I’m simply trying to explain a point of view. Regarding Newt’s money from F&F, yes he has explained that a few times. He said that he got paid as a consultant and said that they didn’t follow his recommendation regarding the way they were handling the mortgage issue. True or false, who knows. To me the main issue “must” be Obama, and that is what the candidates should concentrate.

              2. BB, lobbyist do not want liberty. Any money changing hands, has strings attached. Ask obama. $170,000 is enough for anybody, today. The USA used to hang those people. Long long ago,and far away.

                1. No argument here.

                  But then again, I don’t think any of our candidates are going to change anything that needs to be changed anyway.

  54. Heard it a little while ago and luuuuuuuved it !
    I knew I could count on TRS to showcase it so fast.
    Thanx a hugzillion 😀

    1. Newt IS a “Frugal Socialist.” Thank you Bachman. Thank you Beck. And thank you everybody that did their homework and stood up and spoke truth while Gingrich was surging.

Comments are closed.