Skip to main content

View Diary: Karl Rove explains what went wrong (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What they did to Senator Kerry give the Dems cover (20+ / 0-) forever define the GOP candidate as they wish, forever and ever.

    I want the GOP to admit, explicitly, that they lied about Senator Kerry.

    I want Bush to explicitly admit that he fooled the American people.

    Once he does so, we can sit down and draw up a code of conduct during elections.

    Until then, everything goes.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:22:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But nothing that the Democrats said (36+ / 0-)

      about Romney was untrue!  

      It was all completely factually accurate.

      Romney is a billionaire because he was a corporate raider (and because of his Daddy's money).

      Romney isn't suited to run government.  Take a close look at what he did when he was Governor in MA.  He sucked at it on really fundamental levels.

      Romney isn't a warm and fuzzy guy who has even the slightest bit of ability to understand what it is like to be a working person in this country.  No clue what it's like to graduate from college with debt and to not be able to borrow money from your parents to start your life much less start a damn business.

      What Rove did to John Kerry was slanderous and shameful.

      What people did in discussing Romney's record was COMPLETELY FACTUAL AND ACCURATE.

      We did NOT need to lie about Romney.

      AND I'll add that many of Romney's wounds were completely self-inflicted - shaking head.

      •  Yes, Romney was a corporate raider, but that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ..."raiding" enabled many state and city workers to keep their jobs and benefits.

        Even as many big city mayors were supporting the President, they were telling their pension fund managers to increase the allocation to private equity, as that's the only way to, perhaps, achieve the 8.0% annual returns targeted.

        If one glances at the most recent CALPERS filing, one realizes that, were it not for private equity (specifically, buyout firms like Bain, not VC firms like Sequoia), returns would have lower than the 1% it returned (again, the target is 8%).

        State and local officials can agree that their pensions funds should refrain from investing in the Bain's of the world.  But the moment they do this, they would need to accept much lower annual returns.  And that would mean layoffs and pension cuts at the state and local level.

        Plouffe did the right thing in demonizing Romney's tenure at Bain, as it led (more than the ground game, in my opinion) to the President's victory.  But that doesn't mean that many state and city public sector workers don't owe their jobs to the investment returns generated by the Bain's of the world.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

        by PatriciaVa on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:00:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what about all the private sector workers (5+ / 0-)

          that lost their jobs, health insurance and their pensions?

          what about the $400 million bailout that Bain got from the federal government, the hundreds of millions of dollars pension guarantees cost the federal government? what about the lost revenue from the companies Bain took overseas?

          I think we all know that private equity comes in many forms, companies that actually lend money to others to build businesses, grow companies which lead to job growth and additional revenue for the federal government.

          Bain started as a private equity company but then became a company whose expertise is in leveraged buyout which has nothing to do with growing companies and creating jobs.

          The two are not equal. Bain was/is about building investor wealth not job creation.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:09:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am getting tired of the argument that private (8+ / 0-)

          equity is OK because pensions.

          Something that is, in total, destructive to the American economy does not become a net winner because I like some of the beneficiaries.

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:14:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's a mischaracterization (8+ / 0-)

          The issue wasn't that private equity is EEEVIL and has no legitimate place in the business world.

          The issue was that someone who thinks like a corporate raider is not fit to serve as president.  Corporate raiders have a place in the economy by doing what they do best -- working in the private sector and streamlining failing businesses.  But someone of that mindset, who doesn't blanch at the thought of laying off thousands of workers, can't possibly be sufficiently sympathetic to the human costs of the displacement they cause (even if one assumes that this displacement is short-term and ultimately beneficial).  Therefore, such a person can't run a government that serves over 300 million people and manages many vital services that either break even or run at a loss.

          Anyone who feels a tinge of guilt while doing the ugly work of private equity will never be successful in that industry.  Consequently, anyone successful in that industry can never be president.

          This was a valid issue and Obama was right to make it the centerpiece of his argument against Romney.  It's completely different from the wholly dishonest and irrelevant swiftboating of John Kerry.

        •  not necessarily (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, sethtriggs

          While not all private equity is evil- Bain was.

          Look at Dade Medical-  they "loaded it up with debt"- ie bonds, bought by pension funds.  then they took their 200 million profit out, adn left the company to go bankrupt.  Not only 3500 workers lost their jobs and pensions, the pension funds which bought the bonds of a company whose balance sheet had previously shown profits, they lost all their invetments too.

          Only Bain profited. not the workers, not the pension funds.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:49:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site