Tuesday, May 22, 2012


it's funny how attacking attacking romney by citing his record at bain capital is suddenly out of bounds. it was a pretty common line of attack during the primaries. but i guess david brooks wasn't paying attention back then.

i also think the brooksian defense of bain completely misses the point. you can certainly argue that private equity firms make the market more efficient. but that's not what mitt romney does when he brings up his experience at bain. romney cites bain as proof that he has experience creating jobs. he's not claiming he made the market more efficient (which often involves eliminating jobs). he's talking about jobs, with the implication that the lessons he learned at bain he can use to as president to create jobs in the overall economy.

so if he brings up the job creating miracle that is bain capital, why can't the obama folks point out that the firm destroyed a lot more jobs than it created? and why, when they do bring it up, do people wag their finger and talk about how important private equity firms are at doing other things other than creating jobs. if romney brings up a bullshit job creation story, what is wrong with pointing out that it's bullshit?