Newt the Sellout

Chris Gallardo

Few things in the political arena are as damaging to the conservative cause as the Bush administration's coining of and frequent use of the term "compassionate conservatism".  Rather than explaining that conservatism is *more* compassionate than liberalism on its own merits, which takes more work, but is vital to the long-term cause, they took the easy road and sold out the cause for their own short-term political benefit.   

Newt's attacks on Bain Capital are akin to this sellout of the cause by the Bush administration. 

Private equity firms at times purchase companies, split them up, sell off the parts and, in the process, layoff the employees associated with that company.  In that process, they make a profit for themselves.  What happens then?  The profit that they make is now money that they have to invest in a new company, which is the other role of private equity.  The end result is that they are moving capital from a lower valued resource to a higher valued one.  This may sound very sterile and academic; what about the people who lost their jobs at the company that was broken up?

If Bain Capital were to purchase a dying mom-and-pop office supply company and sell off the parts for a profit and then invest those profits in a growing company, for example, Staples, that is creating jobs, a net positive of jobs is created.  Furthermore, the jobs are *better* jobs and provide more opportunity to the employees given the nature of working for a growing company where investment and capital is flowing.  This is what private equity firms like Bain Capital do.

If Newt Gingrich is not for allowing capital to flow to its highest valued source (ie. Capitalism), creating more and better jobs in the process, then what exactly is he for?

We all know that Romney is far from the ideal conservative candidate. He appears to be a career, ambitious, self-serving, triangulating politician.  He is marketing himself as a moderate politician to manage the country from the middle.  At least we know what we've got.
 

Newt is marketing himself as the 'true conservative'.  He's not and by marketing himself that way, then attacking capitalism for his own political gain, he does far more harm than good for the future of the country and conservative cause.

I'll take a pass on 'friends' like Newt.  If given the choice between two, ah-hem, sandwiches, I will hold my nose and eat a Romney one.  At least I know what I am getting.

Few things in the political arena are as damaging to the conservative cause as the Bush administration's coining of and frequent use of the term "compassionate conservatism".  Rather than explaining that conservatism is *more* compassionate than liberalism on its own merits, which takes more work, but is vital to the long-term cause, they took the easy road and sold out the cause for their own short-term political benefit.   

Newt's attacks on Bain Capital are akin to this sellout of the cause by the Bush administration. 

Private equity firms at times purchase companies, split them up, sell off the parts and, in the process, layoff the employees associated with that company.  In that process, they make a profit for themselves.  What happens then?  The profit that they make is now money that they have to invest in a new company, which is the other role of private equity.  The end result is that they are moving capital from a lower valued resource to a higher valued one.  This may sound very sterile and academic; what about the people who lost their jobs at the company that was broken up?

If Bain Capital were to purchase a dying mom-and-pop office supply company and sell off the parts for a profit and then invest those profits in a growing company, for example, Staples, that is creating jobs, a net positive of jobs is created.  Furthermore, the jobs are *better* jobs and provide more opportunity to the employees given the nature of working for a growing company where investment and capital is flowing.  This is what private equity firms like Bain Capital do.

If Newt Gingrich is not for allowing capital to flow to its highest valued source (ie. Capitalism), creating more and better jobs in the process, then what exactly is he for?

We all know that Romney is far from the ideal conservative candidate. He appears to be a career, ambitious, self-serving, triangulating politician.  He is marketing himself as a moderate politician to manage the country from the middle.  At least we know what we've got.
 

Newt is marketing himself as the 'true conservative'.  He's not and by marketing himself that way, then attacking capitalism for his own political gain, he does far more harm than good for the future of the country and conservative cause.

I'll take a pass on 'friends' like Newt.  If given the choice between two, ah-hem, sandwiches, I will hold my nose and eat a Romney one.  At least I know what I am getting.