Skip to comments.Are You Sitting Down? (Shortened Title
Posted on 01/11/2012 12:07:16 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me find this. This is from TheHill.com. You are not going to like this. Let me just read it to you. It is by an Jonathan Easley (I always like to put the journalist's name to the story), and we're gonna assume that it's true. We don't know if it is or not. It's in the mainstream media. "On the heels of his decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney took the attacks on his private sector record used by GOP rivals and turned them against President Obama. Romney's critics have accused him of destroying jobs in order to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, but speaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said..." Are you sitting down? "Romney said that what he did" running Bain Capital was...
Are you sitting down? If you're driving, you might want to pull off to the side of the road here. "[S]peaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different..." Are you sitting down? Are you paying very close attention? Look at me. Do I have you here? According to TheHill.com and Jonathan Easley. Today on CBS, "Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different" Dadelut dadelut dadelut! from what Barack Obama did bailing out the auto industry. Thud! Kerplunk! You've got to be kidding me. The next paragraph is a quote from Romney. Are you still sitting down?
"In the general election I'll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler -- closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers -- he did it to try to save the business." So TheHill.com is reporting that Romney on CBS today said that what he did with Bain Capital is no different than what Obama did in taking over the auto companies. Obama had to lay people off; Obama had to streamline the place to make them profitable. So he's accepting the premise that Newt and Perry have put out there, apparently, that he has gone into these companies with a chainsaw -- and now he is using Obama and what he did at General Motors and Chrysler as: Hey, the president did it! Now, General Motors and Chrysler are not profitable, and... (sigh)
You just don't, if you are the leader in the race for the Republican nomination, come out and give tacit approval to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler and then compound that by saying: Hey, what I did is no different. I was trying to save the businesses. (interruption) I did leave the possibility that this is not accurate. Yes. It's in TheHill.com. I've not seen it anywhere else. So, yes, I've held out the possibility that this is inaccurate. For example, there was a story all day yesterday on Drudge that Newt is gonna go into South Carolina and meet with the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucasians (Clyburn, James Clyburn, whose daughter is named Mignon Clyburn) and gonna have a joint press conference, appearance about the housing industry, that Newt is gonna meet with a Democrat -- a ranking Democrat -- member of the Congressional Black Caucasians. So I fired that off to some people I know who are dyed-in-the-wool, Newt-can't-do-anything-wrong supporters, and I said, "Can you explain this to me?" and a few hours later I had a reply. "Newt says this isn't true. He thinks Romney people are spreading this rumor. He's not got a meeting with Clyburn," but it's in The State newspaper in South Carolina. So I share with you this Hill.com story with the proviso that it might not be true, but there it is. Okay.
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, to be clear, Romney has said this before. He was on Bill O'Reilly's show (that's on the Fox News Channel, eight o'clock) on December the 20th and Romney said on that show, "'The president has had one experience overseeing an enterprise, a couple of enterprises: General Motors and Chrysler. What did he do? He closed factories and he laid off people. He didn't do it personally but his people did. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to save the enterprise. He wants to make it profitable so it can survive.' Romney's comments came as scrutiny intensified over company's controlled by based upon the company." That's back on December 20th.
So he said this and his point is, obviously: Well, look, Obama's taxpayer dollars; I was using private sector dollars and so forth. The problem with it is (and the AP, by the way, is saying that the new line of defense "is part of an effort by Romney to shield himself against criticism that as a partner in the equity firm Bain Capital, that they slashed tens of thousands of jobs." So I know what the thinking is. The thinking is, "Hey, look at me! I'm no different than what Obama did, and you love Obama. You don't criticize Obama for doing this, so you can't criticize me for doing it. We did the same thing." Uh, sorry. That... I'm not a politician, and I don't measure things I say in a political context. I just don't. That's why I don't run for office: I couldn't do it what these people do.
I don't know how you say this. You've just accepted the premise of the Newt and Perry criticism! You just accepted the premise with this comment to CBS today, and you're trying to blunt the criticism and saying, 'Well, I'm no different than Obama." Mitt, would you take over General Motors and Chrysler if you're president, is that what you're saying? And, by the way, who the hell says that Obama's trying to save the companies? Who the hell says that Obama cares about profitability? That's not why Obama took over those companies! If anybody remembers, it was the Romneys that owned those companies that got the shaft: The bondholders.
The bondholders -- who had the first dibs on any bankruptcy or payoff or payback, anything that was made whole to General Motors -- who have more say so than stocking were told by Obama (summarized): "Get the hell outta here! You're greedy! It's people like you that have caused this country to end up being so unfair. I'm giving this company to the unions, and the reason that I'm saving this company is to save pensions and health care benefits -- and so I can market a stupid-ass car that nobody wants. I don't care about profit!" Folks, I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this. Why in the world would anybody seeking the Republican presidential nomination try to shield themselves from criticism by hiding behind Obama?
Now, this is where I don't get it politically -- and maybe the political experts have looked at this and said, "Okay, this is the best way to handle it," and maybe the consultants are saying, "They love Obama. They've not ripped Obama for taking over General Motors. They've not ripped Obama for people lost their jobs they've not ripped President Obama for people who lost their investments so they're not gonna rip you." Really? Ooookay. Anyway, the idea that Barack Obama took over General Motors and Chrysler for any benevolent reasons or any capitalistic reasons is simply absurd, ladies and gentlemen. Obama wanted to save the UAW's pension fund! I'll tell you what else he wanted to do -- and let us never forget this.
Barack Obama thinks this country has been inherently unfair since its founding. Barack Obama thinks that this is a country that was assembled by and governed by the 1% white power brokers from the get-go, and they have had stewardship over this country and they have slanted everything. They have built everything, they have scheduled everything, they have arranged everything so that they are the primary financial beneficiaries of the United States of America. The 1%! Barack Obama believes that the Founders and the white majority of this country, since its founding, have been inherently unfair, have screwed everybody else, have taken everything for themselves -- and then sent our own sons and daughters around the world to war to protect their own personal spoils.
This is what he believes. So when General Motors is going belly up, he looks at General Motors as not something to save profitability. "Saving" General Motors and Chrysler is not saving General Motors and Chrysler. It's turning it over to the people who should rightly have it because they made it. It's Elizabeth Warren (summarized): "The workers should own General Motors. They're the ones that made it, the people who have been fired and laid off and subject to puny little union contracts." No, Obama, it's exactly what he did at General Motors (summarized): "I'm gonna see to it that the rightful owners -- the 99%, the schlubs who have been raped and taking advantage of -- that this their company now! I'm giving it to 'em. I'm bailing 'em out! I don't care about profitability," and to run around and to compare your own private sector business to that? Lord help us!
RUSH: Romney gave what may be the best speech ever last night, his acceptance speech, victory speech. It may have been the best speech he's ever given. Somebody needs to put a pair of comforting hands on the shoulders, and a gentle shake, and say, "Let me remind you who Obama is. Let me tell you who your opponent is and what he's doing and how you are nothing like him, and you don't want to be seen as anything like him."
But that's not my job, man. (interruption) Yeah, I know. Obama's not just a nice guy who's in over his head. Obama has a plan. Obama's plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it's about time that the scales were made even. That's what's going on here, and that's why the president is lawless, and that's why there is no prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation because it's not possible for a minority to intimidate the white majority. It's not possible.
It's always been the other way around. This is just payback. This is just "how does it feel?" time. That's how he sees himself, pure and simple. He doesn't see himself as a capitalist reformer saving a stupid automobile company. He sees an opportunity to take it away from the people who founded it and give it to the people he thinks have a moral right to it because somehow they have been taken advantage of, used, exploited, paid unfairly, what have you.
RUSH: Duluth, Minnesota. Chad, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, thanks, Rush. Mega dittos from the liberal bastion of northern Minnesota.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: You know, I was listening, and, you know, you told me to pull over when Romney made his little comment about Obama bailing out GM, same thing he was doing with Bain. You know, I started thinking about it, and, you know, to read in between the lines, I think he already thinks he has the nomination. I think he is kind of doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him.
RUSH: Well, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You think that Romney is doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him?
RUSH: Okay. Pretty much what I said. Maybe the political advisers are saying, "Mitt, go ahead and say you're no different than Obama, because the press is not ripping Obama. The press is praising Obama for every aspect of General Motors, taking it over, laying people off, making it profitable. So how can they criticize you for doing exactly what they praised Obama for?" And the answer is they are the media, that's how they can do it.
CALLER: Makes sense.
RUSH: Since when did we ever neuter the media? And what the hell is this playing defense stuff? Sorry, don't get me started here. Here's the bite. Chad, I only hope you're right. I've got the bite now. The Hill got it right, TheHill.com. So here it is. Are you sitting down? CBS morning show, Charlie Rose interviewing Mitt Romney. Charlie Rose said, "Clearly, you know the outlines of what they want to say about your tenure at Bain Capital are clear. You were a destructive force. Will they be able to make that stick? Can you defend that, not only in the primaries but in the general election?" Can they make it stick that you're a destructive force?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, they tried the same line here in New Hampshire and it fell extraordinarily flat. People here in the state know that in the work that I had, we started a number of businesses, invested in many others and that overall, created tens of thousands of jobs. So I'm pretty proud of that record. By the way, in the general election, Ill be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers. He did it to try and save the business. We also have had on occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business. Like, I'm going to go to Washington and cut it down to size. Washington is simply too big.
RUSH: Okay, so said it there. Going to do exactly what Obama did, taking over General Motors and Chrysler. I'm sure the thinking -- there's no doubt -- I think Chad here, Chadley from Duluth is exactly rightly. I think that they think they're inoculating themselves, this is how to blunt the criticism. Obama did it. See, it's based on the fact that the media loves Obama, will never criticize Obama for this, and to criticize Romney makes 'em hypocrites. That's obviously what the thinking here is.
RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. Just to clarify (sigh), my angst or my disquietedness here with Romney is not that he seeks to defend himself from getting rid of losing propositions at companies in order to save them. I know that's gotta happen. My concern here is that capitalism's under assault; Barack Obama's not a capitalist. Barack Obama and Romney did not do what they did for the same reasons -- for the same objective, same things -- and I just think if you're going to wade into this pool of defending the way you save a business, you're not government. I don't know. I just think there's a better way of doing this educationally, informatively than tying yourself to Obama. It's not that I think Romney's gonna take over car companies as president.
That's not what my fear here is. I just think in order to win this, Obama is gonna have to be properly defined as what he is and what he intends for this country, and his takeover of General Motors was not benevolent. There was nothing about the takeover of General Motors that was oriented toward saving it. He doesn't care whether it runs at a profit. Government does not have to make a profit running anything. I give you the Volt. They don't care! The Volt ends up costing $250,000 per car when you account for all the subsidies and everything else. They don't care. They don't have to show a profit.
RUSH: I'm still struggling with this here, folks. What Romney should have said is, "You call what I did layoffs? I was trying to save jobs! I was trying to save companies. Look at what Obama did with General Motors: Those jobs went overseas to the ChiComs. Look at how he's laying off 80,000 soldiers," and this is the point: Is Obama trying to save the Pentagon by laying off 80,000 soldiers? No, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. There's nothing -- there's not a single thing -- that is common between we as conservatives and Barack Obama.
Not a single thing. In the areas of economics and substance there's not a single thing. Now, the Democrats may talk about the fact, "Yeah, we need to streamline the Pentagon! Lean and mean. So we're gonna lay off 80,000 soldiers." That's not why they're laying off 80,000 soldiers. They are cutting that money to spend it elsewhere to buy more votes. They're doing it to cut the military down to size because they think the US military has been the focus of evil in this world. The colonialism and imperialism are rooted in the US military. And it's not just Obama; that's the Democrats from as long as I've been alive. Well, since JFK.
I dont think Rush wants Romney either...
The entire title is: Are You Sitting Down? Romney Compares His Career at Bain Capital to Obama's Takeover of the Auto Industry!Yes, so all of you who defend Romney's anti-capitalist tenure at Bain Capital by conflating it "capitalism" or "free enterprise" can now pour yourselves a tall cool glass of STFU--this includes Rush himself who earlier attacked Gingrich for issuing the same criticisms against the former corporate raider and the one-term former governor who delivered RomneyCare. Romney himself now admits that his private equity firm socialized the costs of his operations onto taxpayers in the form of e.g. bailouts to pension funds that his firm plundered or the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs in favour of low-wage retail jobs at Staples or Dominos.
Rush’s response is in the exact same spirit as mine. He compares his Bain action to something that us conservatives despise.
Not even close when it comes to making comparisons. One is capitalism and the other is fascism or marxism, if you like.
Oops, comes so naturally for Mitt to show his liberal side of things. The DNC is loving this along with the Mitt vs. Mitt video should keep a lot of the GOP voters away from the polls. I work with the grass roots. We are not seeing much excitement for Mitt. Some of the people who identify as moderates feel ok with him. I hope the convention is a knock down to get the party on the limited government track.
I wonderedhow Rush was going to ease his way out of the huge hole he dug for himself yesterday. tomney madei teasy for him.
AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology. I would compare romney much more to soros.
1. Actually, there’s a huge difference. Shareholders have a great deal more freedom in where they invest and who they support for a company CEO than taxpayers do. The difference between the two situations is enormous.
2. To say that what you did was no different than what Obama did when you’re trying to position yourself to run against him is just plain stupid.
AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology. I would compare romney much more to soros.ftw!
There is a reasonable probability that if the GOP nominates Romney, Traitorbama will be reelected.
This is so depressing. How did we get here.
Santorum’s my choice but I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Candidate ABO. Anyone But Obama. I would vote for Debbie Wasserman Shultz over Obama if I had to. Al Sharpton. Spongebob. Anyone.
You wrote: “I wonderedhow Rush was going to ease his way out of the huge hole he dug for himself yesterday. tomney madei teasy for him. AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology.”
You must have been listening to a different program than I was YESTERDAY. Tell me where the “huge hole” is that he supposedly dug:
....September 25th, 2008, Gingrich appeared on Fox News and said that the TARP legislation was socialism. He said that it should be defeated. Thats September 25th. On September 28th, Gingrich was on This Week on ABC. He said the question was not whether something needed to be done but whether needed to be TARP, whether needed to be done the next 48 hours. He then stated that he probably would reluctantly vote for it but... So everybody got captured by it. Then on October 1st of 2008 Gingrich wrote in Human Events that his solution would be to get rid of Secretary Paulson and to suspend the market to market rule, which would give Congress the breathing room to develop a plan to replace TARP and to reestablish trust with the American people.
So Gingrich was opposed to TARP.
Romney everybody was for it.
TARP is not capitalism! Romney, were being told, is the big capitalist. He supported the biggest bailout of banks and sovereign wealth funds.
So my point is all of these allegations going back and forth about whos a capitalist and who isnt and whos willing to defend it, the way its manifested itself now, is the establishments candidate is under assault for being a capitalist.
His opponents are running around using the language of the left to attack him as a capitalist, and what are they gonna do? Are they gonna defend capitalism? Somebody better.
Because whatevers happening to Romney now, whoever our nominee is, you can quadruple this in terms of the allegations, what a Republican is: A conservative is, mean-spirited, loves big profits, loves big business, takes money from the poor and gives it to the bankers! All of that crap, its gonna be magnified twice what it is in the Republican primary right now.
Meanwhile, in the Oval Office, we have a genuine redistributionist Marxist and our establishment will not get anywhere near properly characterizing him that way.
RUSH: I do not want to be misunderstood here. You know my job is to communicate, to make the complex understandable. I just want you to understand, Im not defending Bain. Im not defending Romney. Im not defending Newt. Im not defending Santorum.
I am defending capitalism and conservatism.
And we are seeing, because this has happened, we are seeing in microcosm form the Obama campaign against our nominee in one regard. This is going to be and its gonna be much more amplified than this is, for all the language Newts using and whoever the others are attacking Romney for profits and firing people, so forth, wait til the Democrats get hold of this. This is mild compared to what its gonna be, so its a good proving ground.
Now, why is this happening on the Republican side? Ill tell you exactly why its happening. This is how Romney hopes to win. This is the end result of a strategy.
Mitt Romney has spent a fortune in two election cycles attacking the records of people who are more conservative than he is, by claiming they are not conservative, and hes attacking them from the right.
Now, what outrages Newt and the others in the past, the people back in 2008, is that Romney is not Mr. Conservative, but hes positioning himself that way and attacking others for not being.
Newt, I guarantee you, if you ask him, Newt thinks hes twice the conservative Romney is. So heres Newt being hit up and ripped for not being conservative by a guy he doesnt think is anywhere as big a conservative as he is.
Imagine if you were on the end of millions of dollars of attack ads and opposition research, and you think all of its a bunch of lies, what are you gonna do? Youre gonna try to retaliate. So thats where we are.
This campaign is where it is because decisions were made by certain candidates to take it here. So it has to be dealt with as is.
RUSH: Now, speaking of TARP, Newt, he really nailed it in his Human Events piece 2008, October 1st.
Let me give you a brief excerpt of what Newt wrote then. He said, The TARP plan that relies on the former chairman of Goldman Sachs that would be Paulson presiding over disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of if not the actual existence of corruption.
Well, that happened. Thats exactly what TARP was.
Wait, I don’t get it - the phrase “(Shortened Title” is not in the full title?!
The GOP is dead....and just does not know it yet.
Romney's stupid analogy gave Rush the perfect distraction he needed to get out of the hole today that he dug himself into yesterday.
Gotta hand it to the Mahatma....he did it smoothly and seamlessly.
Well, almost. He walked back a little on both Newt and Mitt today...but I haven't forgotten his emotional outbursts yesterday....and he DOES owe Newt an apology. Rush did immeasurable harm to the Gingrich campaign yesterday...and the harm was not based on well-thought-out logic.
Yesterday was NOT one of Rush's better days.
(Disclaimer: I am not a Newt supporter....I'm a Rush supporter and have listened to him consistently for 22 years. But I'm also an equal-opportunity critiquer.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.