There are some pretty intense factchecking fights over what is true and not true about the Obama campaign’s claims about Romney’s record at Bain Capital. Media outlets are struggling with how to render a verdict; most seem to think Obama has exaggerated.
But one outlet has found a voice willing to deliver a judgment. CNN has published a column (7/16/12) by veteran pundit David Gergen headlined:
Facts don’t support Obama’s charges against Romney
This is, for Gergen, pretty strong stuff; he’s a talking head whose head mostly talks about campaign strategy and the like. He’s not one usually to call balls and strikes on political claims.
But you don’t have to read too far into Gergen’s piece to realize that you can stop reading it:
Let me acknowledge upfront what I have said several times on CNN: I have a past relationship with the top partners at Bain that is both personal and financial. I have worked with them in support of nonprofit organizations such as City Year. I have given a couple of paid speeches for Bain dinners, as I have for many other groups. I was on the board of a for-profit child care company, Bright Horizons, that was purchased by Bain Capital. It was a transaction with financial benefits for all board members and shareholders, including me.
So, yes, I have a bias. But let me also add how that bias plays out: I have come to admire and like the leaders of Bain Capital because I have learned firsthand that in a private equity industry, where there are obviously some predatory companies, Bain stands out for the respect in which it is generally held and for the generous philanthropy of some of its partners. Nothing I have seen so far has shaken that view.
So CNN wanted someone who’s financially benefited from his ties to Bain Capital to fact check Obama’s claims about Bain Capital. Wow, I can’t wait to see what he finds!
And check out Gergen’s style of factchecking:
When the story first broke Thursday in the Boston Globe suggesting that Romney and Bain had fudged, CNN asked if I would do some reporting. I reached two of the top people whom I know in the company and, on background, they told me the same story that Bain sources told CNN‘s John King….
So he called his friends at the company. On background. What a concept.
Note Gergen’s strategy. By openly stating that he has benefited financially from Bain, he is trying to buy our confidence . By simply stating that he has a conflict of interest doesn’t negate it. The way it’s supposed to work is, if someone has a conflict of interest, either he or she recuses him/herself or, in this case, CNN shouldn’t solicit his opinion.
Wow! Another multimillionaire filthy rich by doing God’s work on the back of those so unfavored by God as to have to worry about pensions and outsourced jobs.
What do we expect, the weasels are in charge of the hen house the counting of the eggs.
They make money the old fashioned way – they talk the rest of us out of it.
And in mainstream discourse, gergen is often passed off as the “liberal” view.
Notice that Gergen tells us that the child care company increased the profits for the investers et al. No mention of how the child care company did for the children. Bigger, richer and greater profits doesn’t always mean better care. Note that better care isn’t one of Gergen’s claims.
Also, I’m trying to connect this to whether or not Romney was actually making decisions at Bain or whether or not his retroactive resignation absolves him of any and all actions taken “after” he resigned.
Maybe they should ask the wait staff at his fund raiser what their perception is.
Given Gergen’s infamous dozens of affairs while being a married man yet introducing his speeches by talking about the shameful pecadillos of high level politicians, this follows the pattern nicely.
Those airline magazine ads for Bright Horizons franchises give me chills, anyway. The basically read like, “bored with your job? Want to work less and rake in money while pretending you’re doing something good for kids”? I’ve done just enough teaching to know that it is grueling (though emotionally rewarding) work.
I don’t follow this gentleman .But if you are trying to point out that he is the only one who has found little validity in Obamas attacks on Mitt concerning Bain you are misleading people.I would say the great preponderance of fact checkers on both sides of the isle are finding this is all unfounded mud slinging.And this is where America looses out.We have two candidates with very different views of where this country should be heading.Instead we argue about Mitt having a dog on top of his car,and Obama eating them.I think we can take it for granted that both men are family oriented good people.So lets get out of the sand trap.Bain capital absolutely should be looked at as a hint of how Mitt does business.All his companies.His education.His Olympic work.His work as Gov .But Obama should rein his team in and try to get their facts straight.So far he is getting a failing F from just about everyone.In the end Obama has to run and stand on his record.Mitt has not cost you a cent yet.Obama has run up a tab of trillions.He can not be re elected unless he can tell you how we are better off.Period
Why are we running in circles on this? The fundamental principle of business is to earn money for their investors. It has never been nor never will be the creation of jobs. They will use the lest amount of people paying the lest they can to hand the bucks over to their wealthy investors. Period! If Romney is now inspired by his presidential ambitions to find jobs for Americans, it will be a new addition to his repertoire and he can get on with it by admitting that what he did in the past, as ALL capitalists do , has nothing to do with this new aspiration of his.
Carol remember Bain was only one job he held.Why we never talk about his governorship im not sure….Or any of his other endeavors.He has been pretty successful across the board.We don’t know of course how his theory of getting government as far away from the workplace as possible will work to help create jobs.We do know that Obamas idea of having the government so close that they are up your butt with a rubber glove- is not working.Taking government pressure off will obviously create the expansion of business ,and the creation of jobs.It will then lead to a higher tax base and less government support programs.The alternative is bleak.Government redistribution of the ever shrinking crumbs.Mitt is simply on the right side of history….of this issue,and of business.
carol ann crown has it right — gov’t xhould be about “service” not profits. 2nd, business are run by managers, not necessarily leaders who wish to serve others. In fact, business is a military style organization and government cannot direct others as business does.
Geoffrey
I think you are not seeing this in the correct way.The main “service”government can give, is to let Business flourish by getting out of its way- and by allowing them to keep their profits.It is not governments job to “direct” business at all.Unless you mean by enforcing existing laws.Only someone who has suffered under the heavy handed Government yoke while running businesses would understand that dynamic.And that is Mitt Romney. Remember Reagan saying the best government- is the least government?Mitt would have no problem seeing the truth in that statement.
As far as the president building jobs????The president does not find even one job for anyone.Unless you mean government jobs(nothing more than a shuffling of the wealth).Real jobs…. a real rising of the tax base, are those created by arobust entrepreneurial spirit .And that is the private sectors job.Have we not proven that for all eternity?Trillions spent and not one job formed?Mitt understands creating jobs is not paying one man to dig a hole, and the next to fill it.It is by allowing creativity, and profit motive to drive people forward all on their own initiatives, toward the recreation of wealth.Obama does not have a clue how any of that works.His experience is academia and the gov tit.And spending other folks money down a rat hole
I wish michael e would give an example or two showing the alleged consensus that O is wrong about Romney’s record at Bain. I also would like him to explain why probably the most business-friendly administration since Hoover (W’s) created zero new jobs, and why the greatest prosperity in American history was in 1947-1970, when corporate taxes ranged from 90-70%. Also why is it that in the tax-and-regulation-elimination frenzy of the last thirty years produced unprecedented wealth for the 1% and economic catastrophe for the rest of us? The contrast speaks volumes. While we’re at it, why do right wingnuts always repeat the same litany of giving more to the haves and taking more from the have-nots and have-littles, with little or –usually no– evidence to support it? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Michael e said, “Remember Reagan saying the best government- is the least government? Mitt would have no problem seeing the truth in that statement.
Once upon a time, Mitt said, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Maybe he would have a problem seeing the truth in that statement.
Michael e also said, “Trillions spent and not one job formed?”
That’s just plain wrong. After the stimulus was implemented in the last quarters of 2009, over 4 million private-sector jobs have been created. Bush did beat Obama in public-sector jobs. Those government jobs that you complain about so much are down over 600,000 under Obama.
John I say again …The president does not “create’ even one job.The most he can do is get out of the way and let the private sector create jobs.The stym when added up -had some ridiculous return of like a couple hundred grand per job.Only two ways of looking at that.Gov subsidized throwing gold to the starving masses.Or money down a rat hole.And please for the love of God don’t try to prove anything good about the job situation under Obama.
As far as Reagan and Mitt…..No Mitt is not as good as Reagan.But he understands basic facts.Mitt does not “get”all the things Reagan did to achieve what he did.But on the good side …he disagrees with almost everything Obama believes in.
I guess CNN is going to call only the friends of targets to factcheck assertions? “Now, I am a long-time friend of the Amin family, so I called some of Idi’s buddies and asked them if it was true all those horrible things those Zionist stooges said about him…” Objectivity?
Hey, m.e., the next time the postman delivers your mail, be sure to tell him or her that their job isn’t real, while the kid down at the 7-11 has a real job. Don’t forget to tell the FBI and the folks in the military and the people who pave your street and the cops and the firefighters that they have lousy, worthless, “unreal” jobs working for the mean old diabolical government.
Tim n I am not making any statement concerning the need for , or the philosophical value of working for the government.I am simply stating a fact that it does NOT create any wealth for the government coffers.It is a reshuffling of the money around the room.It does not only not pay for itself……….It is almost totally subsidized by those who are creating the real wealth.75% of the real wealth is created by new -start up businesses or expansion going forward.That is where socialism fails.Sooner or later you do in fact….run out of other folks money!
Anyone who works for the govt adds to the economy and to the tax base. The money from the govt flows to the govt worker then it moves through the economy keeping it going and eventually returns to the govt as taxes.