There’s nothing to look at! Move on! Bill Clinton appeared on Piers Morgan last night.
Morgan was in an undisclosed location. In his absence, movie mogul Harvey Weinstein sat in for the fatuous host.
Eventually, Weinstein raised the question of Bain Capital. We were quite struck by Clinton’s response:
WEINSTEIN (5/31/12): Governor Romney keeps talking about his experience at Bain Capital as a producer of jobs and that he had 25 years in the private sector. It seems to play with a certain group. But do you think that really will affect people and think that he can produce jobs that the president can't?That statement by Clinton is very strange. It's also very revealing.
CLINTON: I think it will affect some people who relate well to businessmen. And I think he had a good business career. The— There’s a lot of controversy about that.
But if you go in and you try to save a failing company—and you and I have friends here who invest in companies—you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them.
Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. And when you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. Not every movie you made was a smash hit.
WEINSTEIN: That's for sure.
CLINTON: So I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. I think, however, the real issue ought to be, what has Governor Romney advocated in the campaign that he will do as president? What has President Obama done and what does he propose to do? How do these things stack up against each other? That's the most relevant thing.
There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, the man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold. But they have dramatically different proposals. And it's my opinion, anyway, that the Obama proposals and the Obama record will be far better for the American economy and most Americans than those that Governor Romney has laid out. And that's what the election ought to be about.
According to Clinton, people can “invest in companies” two different ways:
On the one hand, they “can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them.”
(They can loot the company, Bill Clinton said! Loot it! Those were his words!)
On the other hand, people who invest in companies “can have cut-backs, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it.”
No one would criticize the second approach. But what about that first approach? What about people who “loot a company, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement?” Is that an honorable way to do business?
Next question: Is that the way Mitt Romney behaved at various times at Bain Capital?
It has become amazingly clear—our major elites simply refuse to answer that second question! Clinton slithered right past it last night, even as he acknowledged that private equity firms sometimes “loot” the companies they acquire, making everyone lose their retirements. Having described this process of looting, he was soon saying this:
“So I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work.”
Really? If people loot a business and make everyone lose their pensions, we shouldn’t say that is bad work?
Is that the way Mitt Romney behaved? That’s what Reuters reported, five months ago, concerning that steel mill in Kansas City. That same week, David Cay Johnston said there may be other such skeletons in Romney’s business closet.
But from that day right up to this, major elites from the New York Times down have refused to explore this question. It isn’t just the slimy Cory Booker, best pal to the slimy Rachel Maddow. Almost all our major elites are taking a pass on this question.
Have you seen Maddow explore that question? No! And you never will!
Did Romney “loot” those workers’ pensions? (That’s the word Clinton used.) The New York Times has totally ducked this question—but so have the fiery folk at Salon! This includes the increasingly ludicrous Joan Walsh, last seen hotly defending the Times for its inane front-page "news report" about Ann Romney’s dressage.
The Times devoted 2300 words to the lady’s dressage—but it has barely said a word about the way her husband looted those pensions! Yesterday, Walsh defended the Times on dressage. But she refuses to note the way the Times has ducked the question of looting.
Gaze on the way our elites do their business! None of these folk will challenge the people who loot the pensions of working-class people! As we have told you, year after year:
Darlings! It just isn't done!
Your country is ruled by horrid elites—and slithering climbers want to get theirs. Cory Booker is part of that class, but so is the increasingly ludicrous Walsh. As for Clinton, he talked about the looting of pensions, then quickly said this: Let’s move on!
Let’s move on, the president said. There’s nothing to look at! Move on!
The key locution in this fandango: "And you and I have friends here who invest in companies."