Will Bain Capital turn into Romney's Swift Boat?

[Joe Biden 2020]

It seems President Obama is taking a page out of President Bush's 2004 playbook.  In 2004, President Bush and his allies attacked Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) relentlessly and it worked.  Right now, President Obama and his allies are trying to do the same to Gov. Mitt Romney.  Polls seem to suggest that it is working, but then again we're still 3 1/2 months out, and polls are still pretty meaningless at this point.

My vote is too early to tell.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think it won't have as direct a role in sinking his prospects. But I think the Obama people are trying to hard to define Romney early, since Romney either can't or won't define himself. It isn't working across the board or even helpful everywhere, but it seems to be helping in the areas where it's chiefly supposed to help.

Romney could change the game, but he's so by-the-book that I'm starting to really doubt it. Essentially, I don't think Romney can win, but Obama can still lose.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney's problem is that the businessmen that have the greatest approval are generally the ones who start up innovative companies, not the venture capitalists who make it possible.  Worse, Bain didn't stick to venture capitalism, but to a degree went into vulture capitalism.

[Jay20]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

[Jay20]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

[Yank2133]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

But all those cases there was a legit alternative to the incumbent.

This logic is faulty IMO. "The economy sucks, so lets vote for Mitt." it doesn't work like that, Romney has to make case for people to vote for him. If 2004 is a lesson, people just won't vote for crap.

[pbrower2a]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

The taxes may still be the least of it. If Mitt Romney is seen making huge money by rescuing failing companies he will do fine. If he is seen making huge money by draining assets from going concerns (that includes saddling them with huge debts), then that is a different matter.

Mitt Romney is much more clever than John Kerry was.   

[WhyteRain]

A key difference between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital non-veterans that everyone seems to keep missing:  The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts.  The BC accusers are all people who were not at Bain Capital with Romney; they can't give eyewitness accounts and so are less credible.

What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

A key difference between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital non-veterans that everyone seems to keep missing:  The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts.  The BC accusers are all people who were not at Bain Capital with Romney; they can't give eyewitness accounts and so are less credible.

What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.

No, the KEY DIFFERENCE between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital attacks, are the Baim attacks are based in truth, the SBVs were based on BS. In fact, one of the SBVs early supporters, Steve Hayes, broke with the group and voted for Kerry because he said they were twisting Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' it became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."
                                            -Steve Hayes

[pbrower2a]

A key difference between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital non-veterans that everyone seems to keep missing:  The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts.  The BC accusers are all people who were not at Bain Capital with Romney; they can't give eyewitness accounts and so are less credible.

What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.

The difference is that Mitt Romney's behavior will appear, if at all, through dry financial records. Don't fool yourself; if there is any truth behind the attacks of Bain Capital it will come from disgruntled former employees who saw assets transferred. Employees can tell you if real estate was sold to book a profit that largely went to Bain Capital.

Conservatives are not the only ones who can do financial analysis. No, this is not Enron, so blatant that a bright high-school student could understand it, but there may be plenty of people who know where the skeletons are buried. Mitt Romney may have been even more a 'job destroyer' than a job-creator.

[WhyteRain]

A key difference between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital non-veterans that everyone seems to keep missing:  The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts.  The BC accusers are all people who were not at Bain Capital with Romney; they can't give eyewitness accounts and so are less credible.

What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.

The difference is that Mitt Romney's behavior will appear, if at all, through dry financial records. Don't fool yourself; if there is any truth behind the attacks of Bain Capital it will come from disgruntled former employees who saw assets transferred. Employees can tell you if real estate was sold to book a profit that largely went to Bain Capital.

Conservatives are not the only ones who can do financial analysis. No, this is not Enron, so blatant that a bright high-school student could understand it, but there may be plenty of people who know where the skeletons are buried. Mitt Romney may have been even more a 'job destroyer' than a job-creator.

It could happen that way.  But as I've been saying, with the economy and the rest in the terrible shape they are today, I don't think many voters will give a damn what Romney did or didn't do at Bain Capital 15 years ago.  (Exception:  If what he did at Bain turns out to be completely the opposite of what's been portrayed by him and his allies thus far.  It can't be just one or two companies that may have been "vultured"; it would have to be a LOT of them.)

[7,052,770]

The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts.
...
What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.

Um, false? Did you even pay attention in 2004? Kerry's entire unit supported him. The SBV people were Vietnam veterans who barely or never met Kerry.

[Jay20]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

But all those cases there was a legit alternative to the incumbent.

This logic is faulty IMO. "The economy sucks, so lets vote for Mitt." it doesn't work like that, Romney has to make case for people to vote for him. If 2004 is a lesson, people just won't vote for crap.

The economy was not the focus of the 2004 race: national security was. The economy was seen as "alright," or "good," whereas in the election years I mentioned and this one, its seen as "bad," or "poor." No one thought we were in recession in 2004 although many did not see it as great compared to the Clinton/Reagan years, now they call the economy part of "The Great Recession." Bush II's term is, and is seen, as largely responsible, but now that a vulnerable incumbent is in office, this is why 2012 is a toss up.

[Yank2133]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

But all those cases there was a legit alternative to the incumbent.

This logic is faulty IMO. "The economy sucks, so lets vote for Mitt." it doesn't work like that, Romney has to make case for people to vote for him. If 2004 is a lesson, people just won't vote for crap.

The economy was not the focus of the 2004 race: national security was. The economy was seen as "alright," or "good," whereas in the election years I mentioned and this one, its seen as "bad," or "poor." No one thought we were in recession in 2004 although many did not see it as great compared to the Clinton/Reagan years, now they call the economy part of "The Great Recession." Bush II's term is, and is seen, as largely responsible, but now that a vulnerable incumbent is in office, this is why 2012 is a toss up.

2012 isn't even comparable to 1992.

The four candidates are completely different. Obama isn't like Bush Sr. and Romney isn't Bill Clinton. Obama is masterfully campaigner, something Bush Sr.  wasn't. While Clinton was a great campaigner and knew how to relate to voters hit by the economy, Mitt is the opposite of that. The candidates are different and the circumstances surrounding the economy is different.

This election is closer to 2004 or 1996, then it is to 1992.

[opebo]

Does anyone really entertain the possibility that a Republican can be 'Swift Boated'? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Swift Boat Veterans were not people who were with Kerry, they were just people who were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry and had no interaction with him.

[Jay20]

this ain't 1996 where a Clinton landslide was assured the entire year. Its somewhere between 2004 and 1992, rather. Like 2004 in the candidates strength's and weaknesses, but like 1992 and 1980 in the terrible economic sentiment. Tho you're right, that Obama is in a MUCH better position than Bush Sr. in 1992, who was dead http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush%20%28G.H.W.%29#.UAh0T6NmMud for most of 1992.

Its kinda like 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

But all those cases there was a legit alternative to the incumbent.

This logic is faulty IMO. "The economy sucks, so lets vote for Mitt." it doesn't work like that, Romney has to make case for people to vote for him. If 2004 is a lesson, people just won't vote for crap.

The economy was not the focus of the 2004 race: national security was. The economy was seen as "alright," or "good," whereas in the election years I mentioned and this one, its seen as "bad," or "poor." No one thought we were in recession in 2004 although many did not see it as great compared to the Clinton/Reagan years, now they call the economy part of "The Great Recession." Bush II's term is, and is seen, as largely responsible, but now that a vulnerable incumbent is in office, this is why 2012 is a toss up.

Bush had a net loss in jobs as of election day, and there's a decent chance that Obama won't.

[WhyteRain]

The Swift Boat Veterans were not people who were with Kerry, they were just people who were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry and had no interaction with him.

Untrue.

At least one of the SBVfT was standing right beside Kerry when he wounded himself.