Romney Visits Solyndra

What’s worse, a private equity firm that invests millions of dollars for sophisticated private investors in a company that ultimately fails, or a government program that allocates tax payer dollars along with investors who are also major campaign donors to a company that eventually goes bankrupt?

The answer is fairly obvious, but until today, the media has focused almost exclusively on the “horrors” of Mitt Romney’s “insidious” brand of “vulture capitalism,” rather than on Obama’s own bureaucratic brand of private equity, which awards campaign donors with money from the public treasury.

Today, Mitt Romney overturned the media narrative by attacking the administration’s own private equity record with a surprise visit to Solyndra’s Fremont, California headquarters. Whether or not Romney’s publicity stunt is ultimately successful remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the point was one that he had to make, and he made it in a big way.

As I noted in previous posts, the Romney campaign’s best and probably only profitable line of attack is on the President’s mismanagement of the American economy. While it is often difficult and unfair to blame America’s economic stagnation solely on President Obama’s policies, Solyndra presents a clear-cut case of managerial incompetence and bureaucratic cronyism.

Well done, Mr. Romney. Well done.

Advertisements

About Sean Patrick Hazlett

Conservative clean energy crusader, national security hawk, financial analyst, engineer, and former military officer.
This entry was posted in Business, California, Clean Energy, Clean Tech, Finance and Economics, Investing, Leadership, Media, Policy, Politics, Solar and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Romney Visits Solyndra

  1. lbwoodgate says:

    “What’s worse, a private equity firm that invests millions of dollars for sophisticated private investors in a company that ultimately fails, or a government program that allocates tax payer dollars along with investors who are also major campaign donors to a company that eventually goes bankrupt? The answer is fairly obvious …”

    Wait. What?? You might not want to be too ready to jump on this bandwagon Sean. If you think about it, Romney is only continuing to keep his failures at Bain in the spotlight and perhaps prompting voters to simply stay home come November. I mean, what’s the real message here from Mitt? “Vote for me. I’m not the only one who can spend other people’s money on losers.”

    Well done, Mr. Romney? Looks like another campaign faux pas to me.

    • “Wait. What?? You might not want to be too ready to jump on this bandwagon Sean. If you think about it, Romney is only continuing to keep his failures at Bain in the spotlight and perhaps prompting voters to simply stay home come November. I mean, what’s the real message here from Mitt? “Vote for me. I’m not the only one who can spend other people’s money on losers.”

      LB,

      Mitt Romney has a lot more successes than he has failures at Bain. Take Staples, for instance. Moreover, the more the President’s cronies talk about Bain, the fewer campaign donations they collect, and the more spot light they shine on the President’s abysmal economic record. I say, “bring it on.” The President cannot win based only on his economic record. The best thing he can do, is distract the public with his foreign policy record, which is actually quite good. The problem is that voters don’t care so much about that when most of them have seen their paychecks shrink and their jobs lost.

      • lbwoodgate says:

        “Mitt Romney has a lot more successes than he has failures at Bain.”

        That may be true but still of the nearly 25% failures during his tenure he never walked away without earning millions. How is it that you can create a failure and still get extremely wealthy from it? Besides, I think it’s safe to say that Obama has had more overall successes than failures too, yet Republicans seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that.

        “Moreover, the more the President’s cronies talk about Bain, the fewer campaign donations they collect, and the more spot light they shine on the President’s abysmal economic record.”

        I’m not sure that is anything other than a hyped up, right-wing talking point Sean. Personally many Progressives like myself have been unwilling to donate to his campaign until he did start talking more about the abuses of some wealthy interests.

        “The problem is that voters don’t care so much about that when most of them have seen their paychecks shrink and their jobs lost.”

        That’s true but the public isn’t really ready to lay the entire economic fisaco at Obama’s feet. According to a recent WaPo/ABC News poll, “A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country”.

  2. krob says:

    While I agree that Obama’s dealings with Solyndra are hideous, I think that you might be over simplifying what happened at Bain just a little bit…
    http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/

    • “While I agree that Obama’s dealings with Solyndra are hideous, I think that you might be over simplifying what happened at Bain just a little bit…”

      Not really. This article only highlights companies where Romney cut union jobs, which is frankly a good thing for any business that ever hopes to be competitive. He also created a massive number of non-union jobs at Staples and Dominos, but no one in the press seems to be focused on his successes.

      • I think you have your view on unions a little backwards…if unions were the norm then they would have positive impact on competition by leveling the playing field and increasing the quality of life and take home pay of the average worker. The average worker has more money, thus he/she spends it and the economy grows.

        The fact that so few people are members of unions allows them to be viewed with jealousy, and since all media is now Business and there is no Labor any longer the only focus is on union excesses and one-off exceptions of people abusing the system.

        This is one of those times where I think if there is 10,000 union members that are taking advantage of the system and getting paid to take naps on the job, etc, etc — that probably adds up to millions of dollars. Then I think for a moment about Exxon/Mobil, Bank of America, and GE and I think ‘Good for the union guy!’ 🙂

        This election is going to be interesting because on one side you have brilliant marketing tactics, nearly unlimited money, newly enacted laws designed to suppress the opposition vote, and a GIGANTIC echo chamber that has grown so profitable Fox News now leads the way and ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN seem to follow their lead. If common wisdom plays out Romney should be able to secure 60% of the vote.

  3. Jeff Fordham says:

    Sean says: “Solyndra presents a clear-cut case of managerial incompetence and bureaucratic cronyism”

    Sean, I thought this website had to do with rational thought? Once again It seems like you bit into the flavor of the day extruded right from the right wing echo chamber. Have you even looked into Solyndra and the history behind the company?

    Solyndra was invited to apply for a government-guaranteed loan under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 — a law backed by a huge majority of Republicans in the house and Senate which was designed to “combat growing energy problems by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types”. A full application for the loans came in 2008, and the Department of Energy began a review. Over 50 of the 85 Senate yes votes to pass this bill were from Republicans.

    So, apparently, the GOP was in favor of loans guarantees to companies like Solyndra before they were against them??? The Obama administration in the midst of the worst economic meltdown yet seen in the last 75 years, had only been at the helm 60 days…….. 60 days! on March 20th,2009 when the DOE had issued its “conditional commitment” to a $535 million loan guarantee to support Solyndra’s construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant for its proprietary solar photovoltaic panels. Unfortunately, at the time, several Chinese companies… who already were in a clean energy mode… had established 2 plants that could manufacture the Silicon based panels at 65% less than anyone else in the world had been doing and flood the market. Perhaps someone had not done their due diligence in trying to find out if there was any competition abroad….Was it the DOE in their review? Was it Solyndra? how about both of them? How exactly is this a clear cut case for Obama’s managerial incompetence when it was the DOE who had reviewed the applications for a year prior to the approval ? Yes, the handling of the mess after the shit hit the fan was no good, but I think Solyndra in the Spring of 2009 was small potatoes as compared to giant cluster fuck that was at hand with our nations finances.

    To bang the drum and spout nonsense that this is an example of Obama’s colossal failures is a tad mellow dramatic and wholly disingenuous. This program was put into place in 2005 by a MAJORITY of Republicans and signed by GWB to do the very same thing they are now decrying. ………Helping private industry by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees. So the start up failed…..Solyndra went under……..shit happens……perhaps I should take the day off tomorrow provide a 3 page list of the same kind of mismanagement and cronyism when it comes to defense contractors and administrations, and a dozen other industries propped up by the fed that Republican members vote for? How about the runaway farm subsidy bill which will pay Americans to NOT produce, or to make even more money when a crop crashes from a drought? Yeah thats OK I guess? Republican sponsored socialism…….right………..but its not……eh?

    Link to the DOE loan programs page so you can see what it is that Republicans voted for that guarantees these loans ….

    “Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks.”

    https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=39

    A link to the vote record on the 2005 Energy Act so you can see how many Republicans dig socialistic goverment help for private industry. and voted YES, but get elected by telling our citizens how they are only for the free market, and that all government intervention or assitance………BAD !

    Such Bullshit

    House link : http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8054?s=vote

    Senate Link : http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7764

    • Jeff,

      I know more about Solyndra than I can publicly comment here, and I certainly know more about it than you do. For one reason or another, I reviewed the company’s S-1 (public filing) several years ago, before the company received money from the government. For anyone but a buffoon or a self-interested government crony, the company was among the least competitive solar companies on the planet. It’s cost per Watt was 8x the industry leader’s. Its gross margins were at -70%. It was an obvious “No” from an investment perspective. In Silicon Valley, it was a running joke.

      Yes, the loan guarantee programs did exist in 2005, and yes, the Bush administration did begin a review. However, the Bush administration did not decide to give this company a loan, the Obama administration did, under Secretary of Energy Chu, whom President Obama appointed.

      “So, apparently, the GOP was in favor of loans guarantees to companies like Solyndra before they were against them???”

      My argument is specifically about Solyndra being an atrociously bad investment. I said nothing either way about loan guarantees, so I’m not sure how this comment weakens my argument.

      “Unfortunately, at the time, several Chinese companies… who already were in a clean energy mode… had established 2 plants that could manufacture the Silicon based panels at 65% less than anyone else in the world had been doing and flood the market.”

      Hell, First Solar, an American company, made solar panels that were 1/8th Solyndra’s cost. Yes, Chinese companies did dump panels, but Solyndra was already a bad investment long before that.

      The decision to back Solyndra was based on complete managerial incompetence, government cronyism, or both. My argument has nothing to do about the loan guarantee program whatsoever, it is about how incompetently it was applied.

      • Jeff Fordham says:

        Why don’t you identify the real 800 llb gorilla behind the Solyndra hype…………the fossil fuel industry….. Sure, if Romney can get a tiny bit of traction with a soundbite to throw to the masses, and the fossil fuel industry can bang another nail into the coffin of alternative energy..(they hope)…….then why not ? And btw…..”the Solyndra narrative” or the subtext of that narrative is indeed about the DOE loan program, and the question of government offering loans to private industry. It is in fact the main thesis of Romney’s rant about Obama who ..”doesn’t understand how capitalism works” .,,,,,,,,as if the program which provides this money through the DOE was the brainchild of Obama. Need I remind you of the the majority (as mentioned above) of Republicans who voted for this program and are now acting as if this is a clear cut example of government meddling into private industry. They Hypocrisy is so thick is makes me nauseous. There has been little mention of Romney picking his own winners and losers with the tax payer’s checkbook as Governor of Mass. in the energy and biotech industry:

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-usa-campaign-romney-insight-idUSBRE84T05F20120530

        Or how about Republican David Vitter ( you remember the senator who likes high priced call girls?)

        Solyndra Hypocrisy: David Vitter Sought Energy Loans He Now Seeks to Scrutinize:
        http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/19/solyndra-hypocrisy-david-vitter-sought-energy-loans-he-now-seeks-to-scrutinize/#ixzz1YPzTpZKm

      • Stat Babe says:

        Sean, Jeff is correct–you are flogging a dead horse. Look here: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/19/american-energy-alliance/did-obama-policies-alaska-solyndra-and-keystone-co/ No matter how you cut it, Romney waded into a REPUBLICAN clusterf&*k when he tried to hang Solyndra on Obama, and you lose credibility when you flog this same dead horse.
        As to your claim of knowing more about Solyndra and having some special information that makes your claim more valid than what Politifact has provided from its team of fact checkers and investigators, I put that level of debate into the same category as those who try to claim intellectual and/or educational superiority as evidence of the soundness of their argument. Either provide the facts and statistics to support your claims about Solyndra or accept that you missed the boat on this one—particularly in your misrepresentation of the funding of Solyndra as an example of political cronyism. Politifact, among others, have been all over that claim and thoroughly debunked it.
        In reality, criminal investigation into Solyndra has shown that the Obama administration, if anything, was trying to put the brakes on funding Solyndra. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation In particular, note the following quote from that section out of Wikipedia: “On October 7, 2011, newly revealed emails showed that the Obama administration had concerns about the legality of the Energy Department’s loan restructuring plan and warned OMB director Jeffrey D. Zients that the plan should be cleared with the Justice Department first, which the Energy Department had not done. The emails also revealed that as early as August 2009, an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked an Energy Department official if he could discuss any concerns among the investment community about Solyndra but that the official dismissed the idea that Solyndra had financial problems.

        • Stat Babe,

          My argument stands on the facts. Do you think the government should provide funding for a company whose solar panels cost 8x the industry leader’s? I don’t deny that some officials in the administration tried to put the brakes on the investment, but the fact still remains: the DOE (during the Obama administration), despite these concerns, still funded a colossally bad investment and wiped out $535 million of tax payer money. Moreover, some investors got back their money first, which is the opposite way debt agreements are supposed to work. The priority of captial is supposed to go to debtholders than equity holders. Moreover, those equity holders just so happened to be campaign contributors to Obama.

          Moreover, your citation of Pontifact makes no sense in the context of my argument. The article you cited debunks the claim that the Solyndra investment lead to high gas prices. The claim is an absurd one and an argument I never remotely made in any comment on this blog, because the claim is self-evidently ridiculous. Yet you use it to debunk earlier comments that I made regarding Solyndra being a bad investment.

          “Politifact has provided from its team of fact checkers and investigators, I put that level of debate into the same category as those who try to claim intellectual and/or educational superiority as evidence of the soundness of their argument. Either provide the facts and statistics to support your claims about Solyndra or accept that you missed the boat on this one—particularly in your misrepresentation of the funding of Solyndra as an example of political cronyism. Politifact, among others, have been all over that claim and thoroughly debunked it.”

          I think you need to do the same as the article you cited has zero to do with my argument.

          • Stat Babe says:

            Sean, you clearly did not bother to read the Politifact article, which was the latest piece from Politifact on Solyndra, which was why I posted a link to it instead of one with a title which would have obviously linked to your erroneous claim about Obama and Solyndra. Look at this link (which was embedded in the article that I provided, if you had taken half a minute to READ the article instead of immediately “assuming” that it was not related): http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/ But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of making a vacuous argument.

            As to your claim of “knowing more” than you can post here, this is why I criticized that particular comment–it reeks of the “I know better” form of debate, where the person tries to claim intellectual/educational superiority as justification for his line of argument. Yes, you provided some facts without context to try and support your position. But if you are going to bash Obama for the half a billion dollars that went to Solyndra, you need to show that there was some sort of quid pro quo or that the Obama administration was somehow involved in pushing the loan or making the final decision concerning the loan. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite of such a contention with members of the Obama administration trying to put the brakes on the Solyndra loan. The reason that the Politifact investigation is on point is because Politifact demonstrates that there is no evidence of any sort of quid pro quo, and in fact, if anything, members of the Obama administration tried to stop the loan. It is really quite ludicrous to try to hang a bad federal loan on any president simply because he was president when it happened. If you were really honest with yourself, Sean, I think that you would admit this and move on to other issues where Obama is actually vulnerable.

            As to Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, like the financial sector that made hundreds of billions of dollars off of financial products that they knew were flawed, Bain Capital always managed to make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars off of the companies that they purchased, even if that entailed breaking up and cannibalizing the companies into God-knows-what while firing thousands of employees or retaining employees at substantially lower salaries without benefits, etc. Like the financial sector, Mitt Romney is not the solution–he’s part of the problem!

            Romney does himself no favors by trying to run on his acumen as a businessman since the last two businessmen to be president were George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover–neither of which had exactly a stellar record as president–quite the contrary! As to Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts, I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was governor, which is why I will not be voting for Romney. Romney simply was not a very good governor for the limited time that he actually bothered to be in the state since Romney spent a great deal of time running around the country giving speeches to right-wing groups trying to prove that he was not really the moderate governor that he claimed he would be when he ran for governor. But hey, no one has ever accused Romney of being truthful about much of anything–especially if it involves advancing himself for political office. I do not even care much for Obama, but given the “choices”, there really is no choice–not if you actually bother to look at Romney’s record as governor and the records of those he has chosen to surround himself with.

            • The key question is whether you are bothering to read the Pontifact articles you are posting. Pontifact clearly states that the Obama administration “rushed” the Solyndra loan so it could tout the stimulus plan. Moreover, while the article does show that Obama fundraiser George Kaiser did maintain an arms-length distance from his foundation, Mr. Kaiser did meet with Obama on multiple occasions to discuss clean energy policies. It is a bit naive to suggest that there was never a discussion about Solyndra given the size of the loan and the company’s media profile. Was there a quid pro quo? Who knows? It is unprovable. Did Obama rush the investment in a colossally bad company. Absolutely. There are emails to prove it. How colossally bad was Solyndra? Well it’s cost per Watt was $6.29 when the industry leader (an American company called First Solar) could produce panels for about $1 a Watt. If you Google “Solyndra S-1” you should be able to find the filing yourself should you attempt to debunk my “vacuous” argument, which you cannot because it relies on data and facts. To find First Solar’s cost per Watt, simply go to the Investor Relations section and take a look at the company’s 10k.

              Moreover, the article, which you cited, also acknowledges that many other Solyndra employees and investor were campaign contributors.

              In regards to Romney, why is it that liberals lambast him for doing his job extremely well. Romney made a ton of money doing something very well, which is about the opposite case for President Obama. 3.5 years into his presidency, the unemployment rate is nearly half a percentage point higher than when he started, the percentage of people employed over the total US population has cratered, and GDP growth is well below its trend line.

              If you think Romney would run the US like a private equity fund, you have some serious ideological blinders on. Everything Romney has ever touched has turned to gold. Look at his private equity career which created long-lasting franchises like Staples along with hundreds of thousands of job. He turned around the Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a man of real substance. Obama simply gives good speeches, but has economic policies that have stifled economic growth. Is your healthcare any cheaper? Are you optimistic about your future? Has your income grown under Obama?

              Hope is not a method as Obama’s economic policies have clearly indicated. It’s time for another Romney turnaround.

  4. VR Kaine says:

    “How is it that you can create a failure and still get extremely wealthy from it?”
    Romney didn’t “create a failure” unless one wants to start believing Obama tanked the economy. Business is risk, and people seem to forget the fact that VC’s are largely lenders of last resort. Some primarily target startups, some target distressed companies, some target relatively successful companies looking to scale up. As I understand Bain, they seek out high potential and/or currently undervalued companies and try to make them a go.

    As for him getting paid even if a company goes under or people get canned, then one might as well get rid of the idea of paychecks altogether. The management of a baseball team still gets paid even if the team doesn’t win 100% of their games, and a worker still gets their paycheck even though the company they work for may be actually losing money the past three years.

    An investor may have an immediate goal of breaking up a company and selling off the pieces, but that’s not what I’ve seen from Bain. They seem more the kind to try and knock the ball out of the park, but at the same time they’re not going to keep some already sinking company afloat just for the sake of some bloated union, so when they have to cut and run, they do. That’s life, and their prerogative. If a company is already in trouble before VC’s or investors get in there, then its workers should just thank their lucky starts that they’ve been given a little more lifeline and either cut and run themselves, or take their lumps and try and see it through.

    VC’s aren’t saints, but they’re not the evil sinners unaware citizens want to make them out to be just to justify to themselves why they’re not rich.

    • lbwoodgate says:

      “Romney didn’t create a failure unless one wants to start believing Obama tanked the economy.”

      Well first off VR, thanks for debunking the notion that Obama is responsible for “tanking the economy” as many on the right would have us believe. Clearly he inherited this mess and has done somewhat of remarkable job of seeeing not continue on its downward slide.

      “Business is risk, and people seem to forget the fact that VC’s are largely lenders of last resort. Some primarily target startups, some target distressed companies, some target relatively successful companies looking to scale up. As I understand Bain, they seek out high potential and/or currently undervalued companies and try to make them a go.”

      Okay. I’ll give you this.

      “As for him getting paid even if a company goes under or people get canned, then one might as well get rid of the idea of paychecks altogether. The management of a baseball team still gets paid even if the team doesn’t win 100% of their games, and a worker still gets their paycheck even though the company they work for may be actually losing money the past three years.”

      Nice try but we aren’t talking about paychecks here and we’re not talking about companies not doing a 100%. We are talking about financial ruin for 1 in 4 companies that Romney was party to while at Bain and people totally losing their livlihoods. It’s amplified when we’re in a down job market like we are now and there is no one out there hiring to replace these job loses.

      When companies go under not evertyone gets a final paycheck and they sure as hell don’t get any bonuses they may have earned. Some investors too will be lucky if they collect any of their investment after a company files for bankruptcy. Besides, a paycheck is for productive work one has achieved. Are you presuming that the RISK Romney and other took with other people’s money that became unproductive, in fact lost jobs for hundreds and sometimes thousands of people, should get a paid for this?

      A more apt comparison here is that a fairly successful gambler gets people to pay him to win at high stakes games, knowing the risk involved if he loses. They can make a fortune if he’s successful but if he’s not they not only lose their gamblings (investments, future salaries) but they have to pay the man who played the cards for them. He not only loses nothing but actually gets a paycheck for his failure, risk that it was.

      “VC’s aren’t saints, but they’re not the evil sinners unaware citizens want to make them out to be just to justify to themselves why they’re not rich.”

      This is an imagery some want to create to condemn any legitimate criticism of excessive wealth and the means by which much of it has been obtained. I never thought Bain or Romney were sinners or that they were wrong for trying to make some money while promoting weak businnesses with the hope and intent of making them better. But let’s be clear here. VC’s are in it strictly for the profits and any secondary effect of job creation are an added bonus.

      Going back to my original response to Sean’s root post, Romney may want to criticize Obama for the failure that occurred at Solyndra but he must accept responsibility for is 1 in 4 failures while at Bain. This hardly makes him a better job creator than Obama, because as you pointed out, Obama was not responsible for the job lossses that resulted from risk taking in the private financial sector, which Romney was a big part of. The best that can be said for Romney as a VC is that he knows how to make a profit but that alone hardly qualifes him to run the country or even be considered a real job creator.

      • VR Kaine says:

        Hi LB,

        Enjoying the dialogue. I can easily concede two points here:
        1) To a capital company, profits are first, jobs are secondary
        2) I don’t buy into the “job creator” mantra with Romney so easily as others may, reason being is my reason #1 above.

        It’s not Bain Jobs, it’s Bain Capital. Their “job” is to create capital. Their vehicle are companies, and jobs are just one of the tools they have to succeed at their job of achieving a capital return. If the jobs produce output, then they’re an effective tool and if they don’t, they’re a waste plain and simple. Perhaps an overbloated staff was one of the reasons why these companies got themselves in trouble in the first place.

        The title of “Job Creator” is one that I typically reserve for SME’s, however if Romney does have a 75% success track record, then we should consider that against the stat that over 75% of small businesses fail within 3 years. This means these small business have to can everybody 75% of the time, yet in Romney’s case 75% of the time they don’t. I’d say that’s not too bad.

        If he was bringing in profits for Bain, which was his job, he should get paid. If to do that he had to cut and run on a company that was already in trouble and at risk of tanking anyways, so be it. If he took a perfectly healthy company and deliberately ran them into the ground, however, then I’d say his ethics are in question but not his right to his paycheck – but as I say I don’t see anything so far that makes me question either his ethics or whether or not he has a level head for business.

        Does a great business guy make a great President? I can’t say. I do think Solyndra vs. Bain’s 75% success rate at picking winners is more apples to apples, however, than Romney’s job gains vs. the country’s job losses. I think that’s apples to oranges. There’s the matter of who can pick better winners, and then there’s the matter of how much should government be doing anyways – especially when the only criteria seems to be who bundled the most for someone’s campaign.

        It’s an interesting dilemma I see the country faced with – do you trust government MORE to get the country out of a hole, or do you trust it LESS? My vote would be less, but we’ll see. All I can hope for is a campaign from both sides that speaks more to the economy for weeks on end rather than who’s crating or eating dogs. 🙂

        On the gambling analogy, you lost me. From my perspective Bain “bet” their own money, and Romney got paid salary + bonus based on the success of those bets having a very respectful net gain at the end of the day. The “house” is there to make him lose, including the person laying down the cards.

        If one can argue that Obama got a bad deck of cards (the economy), then one could easily argue that Bain got a bad deck of cards in likely either the economy or some crap union package they were forced to contend with in trying to turn around and resell the company. Why aren’t people giving Romney a free pass on those 25% he lost when they’re giving Obama a free pass on 100% of the economy?

        Lastly, whether he got paid when jobs were lost or not, to me, is an unfair attack. Romney shouldn’t be judged on or held accountable for the job of a union boss, because he wasn’t one, same way a union boss shouldn’t be held accountable for where management decided to steer the company.

  5. Roi says:

    I’m pretty sure that if Solyndra blew up in the face of a Republican president, he wouldn’t be holding the office very long.

    Oh, well, that’s the mainstream media. They could probably justify the president assassinating Americans if Obama did it…

    Oh, wait.

  6. Pingback: Principled Burkean Restraint | Poison Your Mind

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s