Palmetto State poised for pragmatic pick over preening vulture anti-capitalists

South Carolinians have seen too many shuttered textile plants never visited by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital to fall for Newt-Perry slurs that blame the buyers of companies already failing due to the internal policies of the sellers or external policies of governments.

Vultures eat the dead. Bain, under Romney, saved jobs worth saving in the private sector (unlike the now government motors taxpayer -funded welfare “jobs” saved by President Barack Obama at a loss) by salvaging the identifiable living and the profits earned saved and created jobs, sight unseen:

The problem with the entire discussion is that jobs are being used as the only measure of the “good” done by Romney. Profits are also good as they allow companies to grow and as they return capital to investors who can then fund the creation or growth of other companies. Indeed, despite our being surrounded by Keynesian-thinking politicians who believe that nothing is as important as consumers having spending money, the indirect benefits to society of profits to investors are arguably at least as large as the indirect benefits of employment.

We have to assume that conservative movement leaders like the former Speaker of the House and a twice re-elected governor of the Lone (jobs-producing in the 21st Century so far) Star State are familiar with the the economic fundamentals that define free market capitalism and that constitutes the foundation of modern day American conservatism. Hence this2000 conservative epiphany-defined gamecock’s disdain for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they launched their respective efforts in my native home state by hurling the “vulture capitalist” epithet at the successful former CEO of Bain Capital and related companies, savior of the post-911 Salt Lake City olympics, and balancer of Bay State budgets.

Mitt Romney turned Bains around three times. His job was to make a profit. He did. Profits are good. This is fundamental to conservative principles. Disparaging the buyers of troubled companies as “vultures” is anathema to conservative values and principles and must not be rewarded with the historically dispositive prize that is the SC Republican Primary.

Conservatives want Reagan (or Coolidge). We find none.

We thought Perry was the closest facsimili thereof, and while he seemed the most reliable conservative in the field before his desperation-driven avian mis-sighting, but his debate-gaffe driven microscopic caucus and primary showings prompted a second look a decidedly non-reliable Gingrich. Then he devolves into vulture anti-capitalism after being forced to defend accepting hush money from Freddie Mac. What would you expect from a guy so concerned with Air Force One plane seat accommodations. And for those that cried Huntsman when we eenie-meenie-minie-moed between Romney and Santorum, Jon dropped out today.

Evangelicals, and any conservative concerned about life, marriage, Iran, and manufacturing jobs are naturally drawn to the Roman Catholic son of a coal miner and father of enough future conservatives to swing future Iowa caucii or man a basketball team with players to spare on the bench. Good job Daddy Santorum!

We forgave Rick Santorum his support of Arlen Specter when we learned of the loyalty angle, are impressed with his arguments for tripling the child tax credit and manufacturing tax incentives, and will always respect his denunciation of the Newt/Perry vulturism when he was arguably poised to benefit the most from disingenuous, anathem-to-conservative appeals to supposed class envy-starved South Carolinians. Then we sought counsel from our fellow Southern Baptist, Richard Land:

Will evangelicals support Mr. Romney if he is the nominee? Yes, and by substantial percentages. Never underestimate the unique ability of President Obama to unify social conservatives, of every faith tradition, around his eventual opponent.

Will Mr. Romney’s Mormonism be a negative factor for evangelicals? It will for some, but remember that in Iowa the 60% of voters who identified themselves as evangelicals gave 42% of their votes to a Mormon (Mr. Romney) or a Catholic (Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich), while giving only 38% of their vote to fellow Protestants (Messrs. Perry and Paul and Mrs. Bachmann). So much for narrow denominational prejudices.

One should note also that several prominent evangelicals, such as former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, are enthusiastically supporting Mr. Romney.

Even Pastor Robert Jeffress, who may be Mr. Romney’s most vocal evangelical critic and last fall referred to Mormonism as a “cult,” has stated: “If it comes down to Romney versus Obama I’m voting for Romney.” I’ve heard the same sentiment from hundreds of evangelical pastors over the past two months.

This USC Gamecock knew as much even before he made his roost atop Stone Mountain of Georgia, supported Mitt early on in 2007 before Fred Thompson teased us, and after Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Newt imploded.

Santorum would make us proud as President. So would Mitt. They both exude American Exceptionalism and would either’s election as president would inspire the re-entry of billions if not trillions of currently sidelined dollars into the economy.

I recently made my executive experience-driven choice in Mitt Romney. But what is most important about this stage of the GOP nomination contest is that conservatives not reward vulture slurs against economic liberty.

I am confident that home of the winner of the last two College World Series will not let me down.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Thank goodness for Newt! It literally amazes me how everyone and I mean everyone (yes, even all of them on Fox News) are attacking and criticizing Newt like he is the devil or something. The establishment wants who they want (Romney) and like democrats they will do anything to get their person the nomination. Pretty sad what has become of the GOP.

At first glance I also cringed when I heard Newt’s attacks on Romney and Bain Capital but in his defense Newt has made it VERY clear he is not attacking free enterprise in anyway. When you actually listen to Newt and not just the spin on what he said it makes sense. He is just questioning Mitt’s judgment and decisions not free enterprise or capitalism despite what the media keeps saying he is doing. Also, remember Newt did not start this plus it is better that it all comes out now instead of next fall. At least Romney has a chance to practice his response now because Obama WILL bring it up again.

Again, Newt has made it very clear that this is not an attack on capitalism but no one seems to be listening. He says it is about questioning Romney’s tactics in some situations. Not all, but some. Of course, no one on Fox or anywhere else will make clear what Newt is saying. Instead they just bash him and call him names like ‘Angry Newt’, ‘Road Rage Newt’, ‘Crazy Newt’, etc. I watch Newt all the time and I never see ‘Angry Newt’. I only see someone who is serious and makes solid points in a professional “matter of fact” manner. I like that! I want that in a President!

I get so sick of seeing Romney constantly smiling like a fake beauty pageant contestant and standing there with his hands in his pockets. I was in the Navy and standing around with your hands in your pocket was not a professional thing to do and not allowed.

Fox has really been disappointing me lately. It seemed to start back when Glenn Beck left the network. Does anyone else see them trying hard to be much more “middle of the road?” It is like listening to Michael Smerconish the way Fox is now. As if being a ‘moderate’ is the answer. Republicans falling for the trap of being a ‘moderate’ is why the country is in the shape it is now! Bi-partisanship and the phony notion that being a moderate is a ‘good’ thing are bringing our country to its knees and must stop. We need strong conservative leaders or there is no chance of fixing things.

The way Fox is attacking Newt makes me hope he succeeds if only to tic them off even more. Newt is not my first choice but I defend him on this one. I have a long history of being in business myself. I have dealt with venture capitalists before and while they do some good they can also do some bad. It is not like a regular business. Newt wants an explanation of Bain’s tactics in certain situations. This is a legitimate challenge! Mitt has hammered Newt over ‘certain’ situations in his past. This is no different.

People who are criticizing Newt so much saying he is attacking free enterprise are wrong. He is not. I love business and free enterprise more than anyone and will defend it to my death but I also realize that sometimes people do things in business that are wrong. Newt is asking the question of Romney to explain something in his past just like Romney challenged Newt on his past. Romney brought this up by bragging about how many jobs Bain Capital had created. If he had never brought that up this would be probably not be a topic of conversation right now.

Sure, Mitt had every right to do what he did. No one is saying he did anything illegal. I have no problem with what he did but the greater point here is that his VC background makes him the PERFECT opponent for Obama.

The Democrats have long been suggesting it will be Mitt Romney they will face. As Rush told us before, they always tell us who they want to go against and who they don’t. They have been telling us they want Romney for a long time. Now why in the world would they want Romney as the Republican nominee? The Occupy Wall Street movement did not just come about for any reason. It was not simply a spontaneous outcry. There is a reason it happened and helping Obama defeat Mitt Romney is one of them.

I can see it vividly…20,000 Occupy protesters camping out and rioting at the Republican convention this summer…Protesting Mitt Romney and his Wall Street pedigree. Is that what Republicans really want? That is coming if we nominate Mitt Romney. I would rather take my chances with Perry or Newt. I think their ‘issues’ are less damming than Mitt’s. Also, there is no doubt they are much more conservative than Romney.

I just don’t agree with the narrative that Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. CNN, MSNBC and the Republican establishment telling me that everyday confirms my belief it is not true.

Read more Conservative News and Views at http://www.RightFace.us

Ok, so now the debate is on, it time to weigh in on the Baingate, yea I understand the whole gate thing is way over used, but I couldn’t’ t think of anything that sounds better. In all fairness to the Romney supporter who may read this, I have your candidate third on my list of who I would support. Even though I feel Rick Perry is the most conservative and most likely to defeat President Obama this November (Part-time Congress), I want a governor and I do not see Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich being any more conservative than Romney; most would not agree, and that is fine, that is what America is all about. 

 I thought this would be the outcome if conservatives had failed to rally around Perry, who has a record that is hard to attack in the way that can be done with Gingrich and Santorum, who both can be said to have made over a million dollars working with lobbyist, or lobbying themselves, if you find their explanation to be weak like I do. I would enjoy seeing Gingrich and Obama debate, both are very smart, one is right, but the other will get the media backing their version. Gingrich has a lot of baggage, like shutting down the government in 1995, which cost the Republican Party dearly then , and it would be a tough thing to defend in the general election. Lets remember the almost shutdown last year damaged the approval ratings of congress, Gallup stated in mid December that a “record-low 11% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest single rating in Gallup’s history of asking this question since 1974.”

Newt went even further that the 112th, and it cost the party, it is at tipping point now, but reminding voters about this would not be hard for Obama and the Chicago machine to do. It had been hard enough in Iowa and New Hampshire defending this record to Republicans; and Newt has not defended the record well at all, and now he is going on the attack, which brings us back to the Bain question. Even though I see Romney as the better candidate to face Obama and win than Gingrich would be, I still feel that the attacks by the establishment against Newt for bringing up Romney’s time at Bain are wrong; but that is to be expected from the people who see temselves as a fourth branch of government.

So I write this not to attack Romney and stick up for Newt and Perry, I think both of these candidates are within the right when attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital. In fact, this is something that should have been brought up much sooner, the damage will be real.

The question – does it mean you area attacking capitalism if you attack how certain businesses make money, or does the free market mean that one has to except shady practices, even if you think they are wrong. This is a very interesting question, but one that I do not feel is that hard to answer. I am not really saying I think what Bain did was harmful, but I respect Gingrich and Perry’s right to say they do. It does not make for a good story for Romney.

Ok, lets define capitalism; Dictionary.com define it as “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” and I think this is a fair definition.

Read More →

Wall Street Vampire? Or Just Another False Caricature?

Mitt Romney has been depicted as a blood-sucking, Wall Street Vampire. If only that were the simple truth. Having an iniquitous personality would be better than the public persona he exudes right now. It would add a certain cache to his otherwise soporific blandwagon of a campaign.

Newt Gingrich represents the anti-Romney persecution with a 28 minute political ad entitled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” The ad could be a Michael Moore “documentary” about E-VIL, Greeeee-dy, Rethuglicans snorting fine, Columbian Cocaine off the succulent rear-end of a hooker through rolled up $100 bills. Cicero was more fair and balanced in his indictments during The Cataline Conspiracy.

Read More →

Wall Street Vampire? Or Just Another False Caricature?

Mitt Romney has been depicted as a blood-sucking, Wall Street Vampire. If only that were the simple truth. Having an iniquitous personality would be better than the public persona he exudes right now. It would add a certain cache to his otherwise soporific blandwagon of a campaign.

Newt Gingrich represents the anti-Romney persecution with a 28 minute political ad entitled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” The ad could be a Michael Moore “documentary” about E-VIL, Greeeee-dy, Rethuglicans snorting fine, Columbian Cocaine off the succulent rear-end of a hooker through rolled up $100 bills. Cicero was more fair and balanced in his indictments during The Cataline Conspiracy.

Read More →

Wall Street Vampire? Or Just Another False Caricature?

Mitt Romney has been depicted as a blood-sucking, Wall Street Vampire. If only that were the simple truth. Having an iniquitous personality would be better than the public persona he exudes right now. It would add a certain cache to his otherwise soporific blandwagon of a campaign.

Newt Gingrich represents the anti-Romney persecution with a 28 minute political ad entitled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” The ad could be a Michael Moore “documentary” about E-VIL, Greeeee-dy, Rethuglicans snorting fine, Columbian Cocaine off the succulent rear-end of a hooker through rolled up $100 bills. Cicero was more fair and balanced in his indictments during The Cataline Conspiracy.

Read More →

Consider this latest ad from the Newt Gingrich campaign.

How low can Obama go in his Presidential run for 2012? He resembles a lost soul who’s out at sea without a home to call his own. His latest smooth selling snake oil pitch is on “Insourcing” jobs – CNN as usual has a big problem comparing apples to apples.

They actually have egg on their face comparing Mitt Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital to Obama’s not so new “Insourcing” idea. They’re trying to throw Romney under the bus for doing what America has done for many moons and it’s called Venture Capitalism.

Venture Capitalism comes with inherent risks – some struggling companies actually get a new face lift and exceed all expectations in growth and profit. Some companies need more than a face lift; they need a total restructuring which often times requires firing the founder and founding teams.

Then there’s Obama who didn’t invest in our Country – he uses 787 billion dollars to pay off his many bundlers, Unions, Special Interest groups, defunct car companies and corrupt lenders. He misused our money! Not one of his schemes have created jobs or contributed to a healthy work environment.

Furthermore he hamstrung businesses insuring that they would not have the luxury of steady growth and hiring. He did this by slamming Obamacare down everyone’s throats and with the help of EPA placed such idiotic regulations on businesses that they are being held hostage by the Obama Administration.

Obama didn’t give our Nation a face lift; he performed a debilitating plastic surgery on us that has rendered our once beautiful America unrecognizable. He extracted jobs from our Country via deals like Telsa, using over a billion dollars of taxpayer’s money for a company located in Finland giving the Finish our jobs.

Look at money and jobs lost at Solyndra and Obama. Obama and the DOE gave 1.2 billion dollars to Sunpower a company a solar energy company that might offer 10 to 15 jobs in the future.

America’s corporate tax system is remains an octopus gobbling monster and is very anti-competitive. Mitt Romney used lower tax jurisdictions, which is what hundreds of American companies have had to do in order to survive.

Many Democrats are doing and have done the same thing that Mitt Romey did with Bain Capital. If you do your homework, you’ll be amazed that President Clinton, Peter Orszag, Richard Blumenthal just to mention a few used similar methods to avoid our disgraceful corporate tax system.

So this new “insourcing” tactic that Obama is starting to use in his speeches remains totally lifeless, because three years have passed since his inauguration and not once did he should any honest concern about businesses (big or small.) Never once in three years did he work proactively for any business on or off our turf.

He’s run out of ideas for the 2012 Presidential Campaign because he doesn’t have a track record worth “tidally.” So now we’re hearing about “Insourcing”, which isn’t unique or a new idea; just study the Chinese they have a monopoly on “insourcing.”

Donald Trump, Steve Wynn, Howard Schultz and other professional business people have told the Obama Administration why businesses are stagnant. It’s not a mystery, it’s easily fixed, but Obama doesn’t want our Nation to thrive. Here are three of the reasons; (1) EPA excessive regulations, (2) Obamacare, and (3) Taxes. All of these problems could be taken care of immediately, but Obama refuses to lead our Country; instead he opts to destroy our Nation.

Ten to twenty thousand Americans could be working today on the Keystone Pipeline. Thousands could be on the cost drilling for oil – instead he denies Americans what is rightfully theirs (jobs.)

If and when CNN stops pandering to the Radical left and until they learn how to compare “Apples to Apples” their political news remains pretty insignificant and lifeless.

May God Bless our Nation
As Always,
Little Tboca

If I understand this right, Bain Capital profited from the creative destruction of capital. It went in, found the unappreciated or hidden value in companies, restructured and/or chopped up companies, and returned the valuable parts to health.

It did it across the board.

And if I understand it right, attacking Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for what Bain did is unacceptable as an attack on capitalism. Now, this bit may be a bit over broad as I suspect there are things Bain did that conservative might attack, including itself taking government money in the past.

But that’s the gist, right?

Bain participated in capitalism, revitalized defunct companies, spun off as needed, and from the ashes of creative destruction of capital made a profit, saved or created companies, and saved or created jobs therefore let’s not attack Romney for his time there.

If I have that right (and I largely agree with it), I have a question.

Read More →

If I understand this right, Bain Capital profited from the creative destruction of capital. It went in, found the unappreciated or hidden value in companies, restructured and/or chopped up companies, and returned the valuable parts to health.

It did it across the board.

And if I understand it right, attacking Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for what Bain did is unacceptable as an attack on capitalism. Now, this bit may be a bit over broad as I suspect there are things Bain did that conservative might attack, including itself taking government money in the past.

But that’s the gist, right?

Bain participated in capitalism, revitalized defunct companies, spun off as needed, and from the ashes of creative destruction of capital made a profit, saved or created companies, and saved or created jobs therefore let’s not attack Romney for his time there.

If I have that right (and I largely agree with it), I have a question.

Read More →