I will say there is a multiple level attack against Romney, regarding Bain capital, that is based on a lot of factors.  I believe that the current line of attack seen in the news, that has Romney denying involvement with Bain past 1999, is exactly what the Democrats and Obama are setting him up for.  Given Romney's tendency to change views, they are looking to get him to position himself as not involved with any decisions at Bain, to nail him on something else.

What I see is going to be the fallout is the attack will change.  Romney's own words of not being involved in Bain will be what gets echoed.  He is quite clear regarding this now.  The line of the attack will be that Romney was still paid by Bain when he was gone.  He made money involved in owning Bain, while things went bad.  While Bain was involved in layoffs, Romney did absolutely nothing to try to reverse the course, and help Americans keep their jobs.  Romney got rich off his company that fired workers and did nothing to step in and be involved to stop it.  He got richer while Americans suffered and did nothing to stop it.  

Of course, if the old line of attack sticks, that can be a problem, but this is the new line.  And the end result is that a strength of Romney is turned into a weakness for him, and Romney won't be able to argue that he is more suited than the current administration to address the unemployment issue being faced.  It can be argued to be right out of the Rove playbook.

I'd say nowhere.

I don't get why Obama is pushing it so hard... it doesn't seem to be pushing the numbers at all, and if anything is hurting his campaign.

I mean, the new line of attack your talking about is ridiculous, he was still getting paid because they were still negotiating his buyout, but he had already lost any decision making power he had as a part of the negotiations...

and I mean, an arguement about outsourcing isn't really safe ground for Obama.

 

The midwest is still smarting over all the backtracking he made on promises to Ohio/Michigian etc about halting NAFTA for renogiations and stopping other free trade deals.

Attacks like this will only highlight his own betrayels in that regard.

Kasz216 said: I'd say nowhere. I don't get why Obama is pushing it so hard... it doesn't seem to be pushing the numbers at all, and if anything is hurting his campaign. I mean, the new line of attack your talking about is ridiculous, he was still getting paid because they were still negotiating his buyout, but he had already lost any decision making power he had as a part of the negotiations... and I mean, an arguement about outsourcing isn't really safe ground for Obama.   The midwest is still smarting over all the backtracking he made on promises to Ohio/Michigian etc about halting NAFTA for renogiations and stopping other free trade deals. Attacks like this will only highlight his own betrayels in that regard.

I don't think people are really sweating the details on the attacks, here (or if they are, it's irrelevent to the point). This isn't like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, where they are trying to prove or disprove something specific about the candidate's past. What the Obama campaign/associated SuperPACs are doing here is just generating noise about the predatory nature of private equity and the moneymen that have no regard for Americans' livelihood (the people whom we are supposed to trust ourselves to if the right-wing narrative is to be believed), which is why the details have been inconsistent: they're unimportant. Examples are just to demonstrate things.

It'll just continue the narrative that this administration is anti business and in the end that will hurt him.

Mr Khan said: Kasz216 said: I'd say nowhere. I don't get why Obama is pushing it so hard... it doesn't seem to be pushing the numbers at all, and if anything is hurting his campaign. I mean, the new line of attack your talking about is ridiculous, he was still getting paid because they were still negotiating his buyout, but he had already lost any decision making power he had as a part of the negotiations... and I mean, an arguement about outsourcing isn't really safe ground for Obama.   The midwest is still smarting over all the backtracking he made on promises to Ohio/Michigian etc about halting NAFTA for renogiations and stopping other free trade deals. Attacks like this will only highlight his own betrayels in that regard. I don't think people are really sweating the details on the attacks, here (or if they are, it's irrelevent to the point). This isn't like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, where they are trying to prove or disprove something specific about the candidate's past. What the Obama campaign/associated SuperPACs are doing here is just generating noise about the predatory nature of private equity and the moneymen that have no regard for Americans' livelihood (the people whom we are supposed to trust ourselves to if the right-wing narrative is to be believed), which is why the details have been inconsistent: they're unimportant. Examples are just to demonstrate things.

Even the middle including many middle left democrats have gone out against the attacks against Bain though.  I can't see how this isn't hurting more then helping.

It has a risk of becoming Obama's own "birther" event except... one directly started by him that he can't distance himself from.

 

He's risking the allegiance of practically every "Clinton" democrat... and those are the most popular democrats!

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.

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.

honestly the root of it all comes down to trying to stimulate more class envy with American society. Which is one of the few good things Obama and his administration are good at doing.

Basically, "He got rich, because they got screwed!"

Allfreedom99 said: honestly the root of it all comes down to trying to stimulate more class envy with American society. Which is one of the few good things Obama and his administration are good at doing. Basically, "He got rich, because they got screwed!"

Romney will be open to this line of attack, if he discusses how he is qualified to create jobs and brings up what happened at Bain.  He can be pressed, and rightly so, for him to show how many jobs he set out to create, and how close he came to it.  When one is suffering, and falling further behind, why the heck would they suddenly look positive at those doing a lot better?  

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.