Replies

Would probably help the author if they'd actually listened to Newt's explanation. It's unfortunate many Republicans don't seem to understand it.

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 willful blind eye towards ethical repercussions in the realm of private enterprise, aren't doing capitalism any favors. Quite the contrary, they're validating the usual Leftist demagoguery directed against capitalism.

Yes, Gingrich wasn’t calling capitalism evil but was pointing out Romney’s hypocrisy and dubious ethics.

Romney goes around talking about himself as having built businesses, presenting himself as a captain of industry (probably hoping people will confuse him with his father), but he was actually involved in a particularly cut-throat part of the investment business that is focused on fast, short-term profits. While some companies that are bought up and picked apart may then later go on to survive and be profitable in another form, that’s not the main objective. And while it is not necessarily immoral or unethical, it is very easy for it to go in that direction.

IIRC, this was a problem back in the 1980s, when certain investors (Buffet?) were buying companies, stripping out their pension plans, and dumping the remains. It is indeed the kind of thing that gives both capitalism and the financial industry a bad name.

It does sound as if Gingrich needs to refocus or clarify the ads, however, because the message that seems to be going out all of a sudden is that Gingrich is opposed to capitalism, which of course is ridiculous and a complete distortion of his position.

"these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's completely goofy that some would construe it that way."

You are correct and unfortunately the herd mentality of establishment republicans is winning the day in their trashing of Newt. These practices of Bain (A.K.A. Romney) are not representative of capitalism may have been bordering on fraud but are without a doubt definitely "predatory," "unconscionable" and he has "unclean hands in these takeovers." Does anyone for one-second believe the rat party wasn't aware of this? If so, then conservative and establishment republicans are really being ignorant here! See:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYx19temU8">

The establishment republicans are doing to Newt what they pulled with every potential successful person or candidate that threatened their boy Mitt Romney: they did it with Sarah Palin, she's "dumb" as a post; they did it with Cain, he's a serial "sexual harasser"; they did it with Perry, a bumbling speaker and "can't think"; and they are doing it now with Newt Gingrich, he's anti-capitalist. Mitt Romney started all this in Iowa when he was loosing in the arena of ideas and started trashing Newt's personal life and now that Newt has struck back with a vengeance, which he absolutely should have, Mitt and the establishment republicans are squealing like the pigs they are!

Again unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh appears has failed to see this tactic and given his support to this circus by failing to emphasize the facts of Bain Capital. It's my understanding, unless I'm mistaken, that Bain did this to 22% of their acquisitions and not just 2 as Rush stipulated. If the 22% is correct, then there is credible evidence of Bain being a predatory firm with Mitt Romney as the main man heading that type of practice. The democrats already knew this and were going to use it! As Rush says all the time ...... "Don't doubt me on this!"

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 willful blind eye towards ethical repercussions in the realm of private enterprise, aren't doing capitalism any favors.

If an investment company buys another company that makes steel and decides, it is in their best interests to lay off all the union slugs, and sell the equipment and take whatever profit they can, ethics has nothing to do with it.

It is not a moral judgment, it is a business decision based on profit.

If you want moral "fairness" join a Monastery where every one is treated the same {or move to cuba}, business is only about profit.

There are two choices, capitalism or communism and every thing else is just a distortion of these two polar opposites.

Oh, but looking out for the poor workers sounds so nice and good and capitalism is so bad and evil and just a bunch of...vultures.

Get a grip you twit.