By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 16 July 2012
Edit Thread
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
Train wreck said:
It'll just continue the narrative that this administration is anti business and in the end that will hurt him.

If people want to spin a narrative that way.  So the opposite is being pro-business?  So the campaign is going to come down to whether you are pro-worker, and want the playing field more level, or you are pro-business and want to give the wealthy even more breaks?

The focus on Mitt and Bain capital is that Mitt got rich while his company oversaw the dismantling of businesses, saddling them with debt, and ended up costing workers jobs.  Part of the narrative, if you want to say "pro business" is that one view is that, if you cut breaks for business, they will suddenly do what is right, hire people and so on.  Economic laws mandate that, so long as people do what they can to line their own pockets, everyone else will benefit.  Well, everyone who is merits it of course.  Those who fall behind, OBVIOUSLY fall behind because they are parasite losers who only want a free handout anyhow.


The problem with the whole bain narrative is that democrats are trying to cherry pick what is actually a really good record on job creation. This is the big problem with politics, nobody looks like at the big picture. Personally, the bain attacks fall flat for me. I just wish people werent dumb enough to listen to these cherry picked attacks. Unfortunately, people will listen, especially people that are already biased against either side.

The Bain narrative, because Bain is going to be used by Romney as justification for him being able to do job creation, is to look at exactly what the job creation was, and if such happened on purpose or was just an accidental byproduct.  When you try to look at Romney and job creation at Bain, you find it hard to nail anything down: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303292204577519293959381060.html

The different methods of counting underscore what many experts say is the futility of trying to pin a number on something that is essentially unquantifiable. Creating jobs also wasn't the aim of Bain or other private-equity firms, which measure success by returns produced for investors.

Reason why?  Bain capital has NO thought to job creation.  It was trying to maximize return on investment.  Bain didn't track jobs created or lost.  Job creation was a byproduct of some things that went right.  But, it wasn't the byproduct.  So, how exactly then can Romney use what Bain did as evidence of him knowing how to create jobs, when his company didn't set out to do this at all?  

And this is the deeper narrative.  The line of attack here has the goal of making Bain irrelevant to Romney discussing his qualifications to be able to create jobs.  He can't bring it up without it being seen as a negative.  With that off the table, then you have Romney as governor of Mass. and that wasn't good either for Romney.  Attacks on Obama regarding job creation get thrown into Boston harbor, along with attacks of Reagan on environmental issues.