[Utmost Certainty]

Rush misunderstands big time what Newt is really saying. It's an unfortunate reflection on many Republicans that they don't seem to understand it either.

Newt's case is simple:

1) Romney's vaunted "private sector experience", is of a particular kind that's going to represent a huge liability in the general election. Nobody's asserting that Bain Capital's actions were necessarily illegitimate nor unlawful, but it's obvious that Romney was no white knight of heroic, entrepreneurial capitalism.

2) Questions on business ethics are legitimate inquiries that one should have to answer for, especially if they're running for public office—these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's completely goofy that some would construe it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors.

[xzins]

I agree.

I believe Romney’s actions in certain cases were illegal. He intentionally drove companies to bankruptcy by overborrowing against their assets while his company siphoned off a huge share of the BORROWED money.

He took advantage of both bankruptcy law and corporate law to achieve his end.

Has no one asked why, if Bain Capital owned, for example, AMPAD, why Bain Capital did not have ITS assets seized in the Ampad bankruptcy in order to satisfy AMPAD’s creditors?

[Pelham]

” Romney’s vaunted “private sector experience”, is of a particular kind “

Bill Gross of PIMCO and Eric Janszen of iTulip, neither of whom could be accused of being anti-capitalist, both have written of a distinction between the finance sector and the productive sector of the economy. Bain Capital belongs to the finance sector.

The productive sector of the economy grows as more things are produced. The standard of living of the middle class historically rose along with the productive economy.

The finance sector grows as asset prices increase. Its growth doesn’t always correspond to an improved life for the middle class. The finance sector used to support the productive economy, but in recent decades their interests often diverged. Instead of fueling the growth of the productive economy the finance sector could make money dismantling American manufacturing or shipping it overseas.

[Yosemitest]

I don't think Rush "misunderstands big time what Newt is really saying".

To really get a thorough view and understanding of what Rush is complaining about, you need to read:

• "Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism", and
  
• "Newt Sounds Just Like Obama".

Rush's main point is

Bottom line is this, folks.
The Republican nominee, whoever it is, is only going to win the general election
by being conservative.
You know it and I know it.
The Republican establishment does not know it.
The Republican establishment is going to have to be pushed to the right.
Whoever the Republican nominee is, is going to have to be pushed to the right in the campaign, if we are to win.
We are not going to win when we say things about ourselves that the Democrats are also saying.
There will be no difference.
Since when do Republicans hate capitalism?
We don't.
And we're not gonna start now. Not on my watch.

IF Newt's case is as you stated, I'm inclined to agree with you,
BUT, listen closer to Newt's answer to Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends.

GINGRICH: I don't think I'm using the language of the left.
I'm using the language of classic American populism.
Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street.
Small businesses have always worried about big businesses.
People have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town,
take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed behind.
There's a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail,
if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships,
if they're out there with the workers doing it together, that's one thing.
But if somebody who's very wealthy comes in,
takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment,
I think that's not a model we want to advocate
and I don't think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.

Now read Rush's response.

RUSH: Well, but that's not the model. That's not what happens.
See, this is why my old buddy Jay Nordlinger in Impromptus at National Review is pulling his hair out, because that is language of the left.
You could say that Newt actually compounded this and made it worse with these comments on Fox this morning.
Small business have always worried about big business.
Main Street's always been suspicious of Wall Street.
People have a natural concern, they see financiers coming from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits and leave unemployment behind?
My gosh, that's what the people who indict capitalism say.
So it continues to make me uncomfortable.

There's a lot more to read, but it's better to go to Rush's article and read it there,
for it will provide Rush's reasons for not liking the way Newt has stated his position.

Rush is right, and this is not good. This is not conservative. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/newt_sounds_just_like_obama