First, he holds up Romney's experience at Bain Capital as the primary reason that Romney could turn around the ailing U.S. economy (that has posted 25 straight months of job growth and 13 straight quarters of GDP growth, incidentally, after losing jobs for 25 straight months from February 2008.) In October, Ronald Reagan's budget director, a private equity guy himself, destroyed Romney's Bain qual's better than anybody. As he described in meticulous detail, deal by deal, Romney's experience at Bain of buying ailing companies, loading them up with debt, laying off workers and/or exporting jobs overseas, and making questionable mergers to achieve questionable "synergies" that never panned out but temporarily pumped up stock prices, all the while collecting huge fees for himself and his buddies before this businesses went bust, is the exact opposite of what America's economy needs right now.
Here's how David Stockman summed up his analysis:
The Bain Capital investments here reviewed accounted for $1.4 billion or 60 percent of the fund’s profits over 15 years, by my calculations. Four of them ended in bankruptcy; one was an inside job and fast flip; one was essentially a massive M&A brokerage fee; and the seventh and largest gain—the Italian Job—amounted to a veritable freak of financial nature.
Only trouble is, there is nobody to whom Romney can pawn off this hot potato we call America in 4 years. We can't take a 57 percent chance that America won't be a going concern post-Romney.
Next, Bill Bennett cites Romney's experience turning around the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. OK, sure, he deserves some credit for that. But so does Big Government, which bailed out Salt Lake City at Romney's request:
"The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1.5 times the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic Games held in the U.S. since 1904 —combined," Donald Barlett and James Steele reported for Sports Illustrated in 2001.
But let's give Romney credit -- back then -- for giving Big Government credit where credit was due:
In his own 2004 book, Turnaround, Romney acknowledged the central role of the federal government in making the Olympics possible. "No matter how well we did cutting costs and raising revenue, we couldn't have Games without the support of the federal government."
Next, Bennett cites Romney's success as governor of Massachusetts. Yet he curiously leaves out Romney's signature accomplishment: Romneycare. That he alternately praises and disowns. A health care plan based on plans by the Heritage Foundation and endorsed by Newt Gingrinch no less -- twice. Can you say, "Media bias?"
Next, Bennett cites Romney's moral character. I don't need to dispute whether Romney cares about his friends and family, or humanity in the abstract. He's not a monster. But then again, neither is Obama, who is by all indications an extremely nice person with a lovely family, a guy who -- to his own detriment -- refuses to say bad things about his political opponents.
Finally, Bennett cites Romney's "plans" if he is elected. This gets back to the moral character issue. How can we trust anything Romney says if he has flip-flopped so many times, from his $5 trillion tax cut plan (that he publicly disowned in the first 15 minutes of the first presidential debate when Obama challenged him on it) to Obama's saving the U.S. auto industry? The guy simply cannot be honest about his own record. "Etch A Sketch" will forever be etched into our political discourse thanks to Romney. Some moral character!
So this is the best Romney's most eloquent spokesman could come up with. Too bad.
In conclusion, I leave you with some of my favorite lines from Kingsley Amis's Lucky Jim, something I remember when I'm hiring somebody:
However. I think you'll do the job all right, Dixon. It's not that you've got the qualifications, for this or any other work, but there are plenty who have. You haven't got the disqualifications, though, and that's much rarer.
You may find that truth insufficiently inspiring. I don't. Any number of Democrats would make a better POTUS than Obama. But those guys didn't make it this far. Romney and Obama did. Obama ain't perfect, not by a long shot. He's not nearly liberal enough; or, at least, he doesn't have the courage of his liberal convictions. But his lack of disqualifications makes him the clear choice.
(I suppose this quote could be turned on Obama if you think caring about the general welfare and believing "we're all in this together" is a disqualification. Vote your conscience.)
By William J. Bennett
November 5, 2012 | CNN
No comments:
Post a Comment