Charles C. Johnson recently discussed the facts behind the union boss who led to workers at the Ampad plant in Marion, Indiana losing their jobs. He blamed Randy Johnson, the DNC/MSNBC poster boy, for the layoffs, not Bain Capital and certainly not Mitt Romney, who was on leave from Bain when the strike began.
Now we find that Dan Primack of Fortune has already looked at the three other companies–UniMac, DDI Corp., and KB Toys– profiled by Gingrich’s Super PAC film.
Primack thoroughly eviscerates the anti-Bain argument by pointing to the facts. Primack writes:
We’ve been keeping regular track of claims made about Mitt Romney’s business history over at our Mitt Meter, but today’s video “documentary” from the Gingrich-affiliated Winning Our Future PAC requires its own post. The ominous music, deep-voiced narrator and tales of worker woe were all to be expected. But I also thought that the video would get most of its basic facts correct (and then cover them in innuendo). I was wrong.
The video titled When Mitt Romney Came to Town discusses several Bain Capital companies that eventually went bankrupt or were shut down. What follows is a series of errors…
Read more here.
*Editor’s note: Dan Primack was earlier identified as being with Finance.com and not Fortune. We regret the error.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
28 Comments
The attack was wrong on several levels.
I will still vote fro Newt.
I don't get it. Even if Bain (Romney) did close down unprofitable companies, how is this a bad thing? Sure, people lost their jobs but, I submit, it would have been inevitable anyway. They were not profitable, remember?
Don't we want him to take the same stance once in the White House (assuming he is the job chopper he's made out to be)? Won't there then be a lot of people out of work, let go from non-performing and useless agencies?
I thought that's what we wanted, smaller government. You can't have smaller government without somebody being let go!
Get a grip folks. This attacking of Bain (Romney) is nothing but a tempest in a tea pot.
I am not a fan of Romney, though I would vote for him if he was the candidate, however, this line of attack is downright stupid for a conservative!
Not another cut and paste docudrama, heavy on the drama where factoids are confused and reality rewritten to fit a changing climate, think a 14 year old lie on the fly.
I think Newt realized what a mistake his attack on Bain was. He seems to have called off the anti-capitalist dogs, and is again surging in the polls.
This should be a lesson that during primaries, don't attack fellow candidates. However, in the general, LET BHO HAVE IT WITH BOTH BARRELS!!!!! The best part is that our candidate won't have to spin any facts to make BHO look like the mental midget that he is………
Get it thru your thick skull, PJ Salvatore
Winning the Future is not part of Gingrich's campaign, In fact, by law they can not have any connection.
As for the Forutne analysis, they do not know what the details are , because BAIN has not released any information, They can only see the public moves , not the back door deals and illusions
Lastly, ALL conservatives are NOT for crony capitialism, they are for free market capitalism
Romney's Bain are crony capitalists, their actions are legal ONLY because bought-and-paid-for -polticians have made them legal….It's not free market capitalism because the laws have been gamed for the top brass against their own smaller investors and bond holders
That's why loading debt onto a company to force it into Chap 11 banruptcy ,is a big profit for the heads and a big loss for the average stockholders.
You must see this! Fox Friends' Epic Smack Down on Debbie Wasserman Schultz
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debbie-wasserman-schul...
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
No fan of Mittens here by a long shot, but. the fact is companies succeed or fail. Ampad took a typewriter company and lets be real at that time the typewriter was already history. It never stood a chance, perhaps if the company had jumped onboard the tech revolution drawing on it's experience it could have turned out to possibly be a major player in the printer market. But that was not the case so it failed, although not all companies with Bain as controlling investors failed, a steel mill is mentioned that was closed, well mills had been using the same turn of the century process and lost competitiveness. ( not to mention union wages) but again they invested in one with modern processes and it is thriving.
Venture capital is akin to picking the winning pony in a race, how good does he run and who is he up against. Sometimes you get it right and more than not you get it wrong.
On a different note whats up with Mittens income taxes? he sure gets all "Elmer Fudd" when that comes up…
To be honest, Romey's PAC started it first…..
and PACs just do the dirtywork, so that the candidate can have clean hands….
Therein lies the rub, Romeny is Obama lite (See John McCain), Gingrich is a conservative….if you fail to see difference expect 4 more years of socialism…like we have had for last 24 years (both Bushes, Clinton And Osama)
When reflecting back to the negative and false ads Romney initiated in Iowa (breaking the 11th Commandment), I'ld say Newt's PAC is mostly justified no matter what they said.
Gingrich has been involved with a venture capital company (Forsam) for many years. His charge was that the Bain deals with those specific 4 companies looked fishy and Romney should be asked about them, that's all he said. One deal showed Bain investing only a couple million and then later pulling out around $160 million just before it went bankrupt. Somebody sane would even pretend to say that doesn't look fishy??
Gingrich explains charge on Bain http://bit.ly/xa4jXe
For biased and agenda driven pundits who went off their nut to scream and cry like little girls that Newt was attacking capitalism is just shameless politics and they should be thrown an attitude adjustment. Yeah, that's Rush and every other sniveling twit.
What the hell are you talking about, Jack?
Did you not understand a word I said?
I am a Newt fan even though he's not the most conservative in the room either! What I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to attack the man, or the company, for doing things we expect them to do once in office.
You want to shrink government, right? How do you think that will be accomplished? Hiring shorter people?
Agreed. My hope is that the situaution doesn't escalate.
I caught that this morning, Wash. It was really funny, Waterstain-Shultz doing her damnedest to get her talking points out. She's been on Fox a lot lately. Something may be afoot! No, not Fox swinging towards the Dims! That is obviously not the case in the video!
I'll tell you one thing: What's done in private business is not how it's done in government. Only Newt knows how to go about it. Mittens doesn't have a clue and doesn't stand a chance of success.
It wasn't a wise move and has backfired on him. During last night debate it was one of Newts weakest moments.
This is something you hardly see in the state run media, and when I found it I knew others would get a kick out of it as I did. Thank you for commenting on it!
Why don't you give me an example of how business is different from government when it comes to downsizing, Wing?
Government is a business. The only difference is that they have unlimited money and are practically immune from market forces and public scrutiny.
Newt may or may not shrink the government (remember, I'm a Newt fan!). I think he will make every effort to balance the budget but, that doesn't necessarily mean he will shrink government. That may well be an impossible task. In reality, bureaucrats rule the government, not the elected representatives, not even the president, and those people will fight like hell to keep their fiefdoms!
I am not defending Mittens! I am saying, attacking him on his time at Bain, particularly when the examples Newt uses are demonstrably false, do not do Newt any service. Mittens has enough stuff to go after him for without attacking capitalism!
I believe that there are Progressive agent provocateurs in the PACs….
Government is not a business. If it were it would show a profit, not a $15 Trillion dollar deficit.
You mentioned the one big hurdle, "and those people will fight like hell to keep their fiefdoms!" So, why are you asking me for an example?
Bureaucrats would not rule the government if we can put in the same amount (or more) of people as we did in 2010.
And for the last GD time;
Gingrich has been involved with a venture capital company (Forsam) for many years. His charge was that the Bain deals with those specific 4 companies looked fishy and Romney should be asked about them, that's all he said. One deal showed Bain investing only a couple million and then later pulling out around $160 million just before it went bankrupt. Somebody sane would even pretend to say that doesn't look fishy??
Gingrich explains charge on Bain http://bit.ly/xa4jXe
For biased and agenda driven pundits who went off their nut to scream and cry like little girls that Newt was attacking capitalism is just shameless politics and they should be thrown an attitude adjustment. Yeah, that's Rush and every other sniveling twit.
Self-defense is an Affirmative defense. Look up the definition.
Could be. Paulbots did:
Mischief Voters Push Paul To Front Of GOP Race http://bit.ly/soNidH
No surprise…
I didn't say government was good business, Wing. I know lots of businesses that are run at a loss. Some for tax purposes and some for other reasons. It happens.
Besides, I said, why are they different when it comes to "downsizing".
If you really think the bureaucrats don't run things, you should think again. Even after the Nazis were defeated, they were still in government in Germany. Asked to stay, in fact. They are still there in many cases.
If you clicked the link to this article, you would find some pretty convincing reasons why Mittens can't be held accountable for at least three company closures.
To pick one company that he made an obscene amount of money from, proves nothing. I made an obscene amount of money from one of my inventions (a cheap trinket!) and people accused me of being some kind of crook. It happens!
I went to your link. It proved nothing.
Again, I'm a Newt fan.
Check out the recently posted audio from "The Laura Ingrahm Show" earlier today. Mitt does a good job on the tax question. As far as Venture Capitalism goes it's like the old Jerry Reed Song "When you're hot you're hot when you're no you're not." It's why they call it Venture.
Hey Chad I forgot that song, and you're right it fits like a glove. Imma go check that audio on Ingrahm's site, but still have my doubts to his tax status. All I will say is, I know and have been on an intimate basis with Mormon, and he has quite a bit of assets in there. (dare I say protectionists)
And back to the song, "venture", like the ABBA song "take a chance on me" or Startrek the voyage home when McCoy looks at Spock, when Spock has no NAV data, McCoy says, to paraphrase "your best guess is better than out best answer" oops slipped in my Trekker bit.
The way I see it this election needs to be all about the economy, and the worst thing they can dig up on Romney is that he's a successful businessman / evil capitalist?!? Perry and Gingrich committed heresy in my book by going after "vulture capitalism". If Gingrich wins the nomination he'd better pick a good running mate so I can at least hold my nose, pull the lever and hope his ticker gives out. Otherwise I may stay home this November.
"Fortune.com"….Now where did they come up with that name from, by which they validate their claims!!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.