Different Day, Same Shit.

Look, Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs. Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to make profits for his investors, most of whom were pension funds, endowments, and foundations. and it did it superbly, acting within the rules and very responsibly and was a leading firm.

Sometimes you have to stand back and carefully read between the lines. If Think Progress hadn't brought up the following, I never would have noticed:

Technically, of course, Ratter is right — companies’ only legal obligation is to create value for their owners. But as Rattner notes, Romney has built his campaign on claiming that Bain was actually some kind of altruistic job creation machine. Just this morning, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said, “Mitt Romney helped create more jobs in his private sector experience and more jobs as Governor of Massachusetts than President Obama has for the entire nation.”

By acknowledging that “Bain Capital’s responsibility was never to create…jobs,” Ratter is unwittingly endorsing the entire message of the Obama campaign ads, which is that Bain prioritized profits for it wealthy owners over jobs and pensions for its middle-class employees.

Unwittingly? I don't think guys like Rattner got where they are by making gaffes. Then again, how does that explain guys like Romney, Santorum and the junior Shrub? If it was intentional, the message may have been a bit too subtle for the low information set. Think about it: if the venture capital firm's goal was only to make investors money, then how can Mitt Romney stand on his claim of creating 100,000 jobs? At least that's what's being subtly hinted.

Conservatives will counter that by stating how CEOs are just as responsible for job gains as they are for returns on the investment. Romney has as much claim to those 100,000 jobs as he does to his $100 million gain from loading a $5 million investment with $400 million in debt. I wonder if that means he's just as culpable for those job losses...

Apparently not, as conservatives already found a patsy they could use to redirect the heat from Romney:

Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.

Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has already raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign this election, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Lavine started working for Bain in 1993. He was one of three Bain executives who served on the board of directors of Ampad for several years, a post he held until 1999. Here’s a news release announcing his departure from the company in April 1999.

Lavine’s placement on the board of Ampad suggests he had a more direct role than Romney in the series of events surrounding the layoffs, labor disputes and eventual bankruptcy of the Marion, Ind., factory featured in the Obama campaign video.

Asked about Mr. Lavine’s role, Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt put the focus back on Romney.

“No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for president highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation,” Labolt said. “The president has support from business leaders across industries who have seen him pull the economy back from the brink of another depression”.

And, Labolt argued, Romney, as the CEO of Bain, would have been the one ultimately responsible for what happened with Ampad.

“He made profit at any cost for himself and his partners by outsourcing jobs and bankrupting companies,” Labolt said. “From buyout to bankruptcy, Mitt Romney was CEO and sole owner of Bain. The managing director working on Ampad reported directly to him and has said Romney could have ordered him to settle with the union but didn’t.”

The CEO is ultimately responsible for the operations of the entire company. In other words, the buck stops with him. Except if said CEO wants to pass the buck to an unwitting subordinate. Mitt can't fire Lavine at this point, but he can try to have him stand in for the tarring and feathering. Quite a few people have already taken the bait.

"If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses," he added. "And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable."

"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides," Booker said. "It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues."

The above quoted came courtesy of Cory Booker. Although he still lends support to President Obama's re-election campaign, he doesn't like how his campaign pushed around poor Bain Capital. In fact, he equates such attacks on the private equity firm with those from the GOP on Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Don't ask. Perhaps it has something to do with Booker looking towards the future and how he will have to utilize his connections with financial big hitters for his future political aspirations. In that case, it was smart of him to springboard himself a considerable distance away from President Obama, in the event the president ends up tarred and feathered for being "anti-business."

The focus of Booker's (and many other's) discontent is a video focusing on Bain's acquisition of GST Steel in 1993 and the company's subsequent bankruptcy years later:


Not said in the current consternation swirling around the news outlets and Twitter is how Bain Capital managed a $40 million takeaway before directing the scraps to the garbage can. At the cost of thousands of jobs, of course. Even the authenticity of that "100,000 jobs" claim is suspect:

The claim that Romney helped create more than 100,000 jobs is difficult to prove. The campaign has said the figure comes from current statistics on three companies that Romney helped start or expand -- Staples (89,000 jobs), Sports Authority (15,000 jobs) and Domino's (7,900 jobs). However, the companies themselves, as opposed to Romney and Bain, may be responsible for the actual job creation since Bain's initial investment. The figure also does not include companies -- like GST Steel, which the Obama campaign and super PAC are highlighting -- where jobs were lost.

For some odd reason, private equity is sacrosanct, along with the rest of corporate America and the "job creators." At least that's the message I get from Booker and many others, including former auto czar Steve Rattner:

I think the ad is unfair. Look, Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs. Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to make profits for his investors, most of whom were pension funds, endowments, and foundations. and it did it superbly, acting within the rules and very responsibly and was a leading firm. So, yeah, I do think to pick out an example of somebody who lost their job unfortunately, this is part of capitalism. This is part of life. And I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.

Mitt Romney shouldn't be "embarrassed" about partaking in vulture capitalism, an exclusive pastime that's becoming as American as baseball and apple pie.

Could this all be a rather subtle way of telling Obama he should lay off the "job creators," lest he find his re-election chances that much dicier come November? Considering how the Citizens United case opened the floodgates for corporate participation in elections, it's easy to see his supporters on Wall Street get a bit uncomfortable if he starts attacking them just a wee bit too much. And it's also easy to see said supporters send a subtle signal for him to knock it off before they drown Mitt Romney in millions of campaign funds in retaliation.

And with those attacks off the table, it's assumed that the Obama campaign will scramble to whup on some other aspect of Mitt Romney, preferably one that not only doesn't matter in the realm of electoral chances, but could also result in fierce backlash for Obama and Democrats. Religion? Nah, they made it clear they wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole:

Mr. Axelrod also said that the Obama campaign had no intention of focusing on Mr. Romney’s religion.

“We’ve said that’s not fair game,’’ Mr. Axelrod said, when asked if he believes Mr. Romney’s Mormonism is an issue in the campaign.

Neutering the Obama campaign while pushing for certain types of Democrats to provide cover by denouncing strong criticism of certain issues surrounding Mitt Romney's campaign is something the GOP wouldn't mind happening. From the talk on Twitter, there are more people attempting to defend Booker's rationale for his statements than those who want to put the focus back where it belongs: on Bain Capital and its practices. It's a far-gone conclusion that the GOP will point to people in Obama's own party urging him to lay off Bain, Romney and the "job creators" when his campaign attempts to focus on this and other economic issues.

The man has plenty of cool points, but not nearly enough to cash in for throwing the GOP a nice, juicy bone.