aznew Posts

FiveThirtyEight put up its analysis of Virginia tonight in a piece entitled, In Virginia, It's Tradition versus Change .
I'm not sure there is much in there that any regular reader of this blog doesn't know already -- basically, NOVA is growing, the Richmond area is competitive, the urban areas are more Democratic, and the rural areas are solid red. Presidential ele...

Mitt Romney's campaign is looking increasingly desperate as the final leg of the election approaches, and it is not pretty.
One piece of evidence is, as The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn has discussed, the fact that Romney has ramped up his level of lying (if such a thing is even possible) defending his position on the a...

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the Boss did an appearance last week in Ohio with the Big Dog (or did the Big Dog do an appearance with the Boss? That's a tough call determining who was topping that bill!).
In any event, since Bruce was going to be here in Charlottesville for a concert Tuesday night at the JPJ (a concert that, unfortunately, I was unable to attend), there was hope we might see a similar rally here. Hey, the Boss was here, and w...

Paul Ryan's acceptance speech at the GOP convention was so brazenly and comprehensively dishonest that even a national media corps that is typically loath to personally call out politicians on either side for their mendacity felt compelled to address the matter, if only to maintain the tiny shred of credibility they still have with the American public.

Needless to say, that brought out an immediate and full-frontal assault on the media from the typical corners of the Wingnut movement, primarily based on the now debunked and shopworn charges of liberal media bias. Heck, this time even Faux News called out Ryan on the speech.

But Ryan and his Wingnut defenders also argued (sometimes with merit, sometimes without, in my view) that everything in Ryan's speech was technically true. They cited Ryan's story about the closing of the Janesville GM plant as an example. Ryan never actually asserted, they point out, that the plant closed while Obama was president (which is true). Rather, they say, Ryan recited a set of technically accurate, albeit incomplete facts, to advance their argument that Obama's presidency is one of unfulfilled promises, and, well, if they created the false impression that the plant closed under Obama, that was incidental and unintentional.

That's right. Ryan's defense is I may deceive you, but I don't lie!

Okay, that's pathetic.

But then there is this, even more pathetic news that emerged yesterday.

(more on the flip)
In an interview with Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt published on Aug 22, Ryan spoke about the "marathons" he has run:

HH: Are you still running?

PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or [less].

HH: But you did run marathons at some point?

PR: Yeah, but I can't do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.

HH: I've just gotta ask, what's your personal best?

PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two-hour and fifty-something.

HH: Holy smokes.

PR: I was fast when I was younger, yeah.

Hey, good stuff. A sub-three-hour marathon is impressive in anyone's book, and would, among other things, more than likely qualify you for a spot in the Boston Marathon.

Runners' World magazine took note, reporting that Ryan's time would make him the fastest marathoner on a national ticket, compared to John Edwards 3:30, Dubya's 3:44, Sarah Palin's 3:59 and Al Gore's 4:58.

Only one thing.  Ryan never ran a sub-three-hour marathon. In fact, Ryan never ran a sub-four-hour marathon. According to Runner's World, it could find only a single record of Ryan finishing a marathon -- the 1990 Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minn., where Ryan, then 20, finished in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds.

And when they confronted Ryan, he had to come clean.

Initially, a Ryan spokesperson told Runner's World, "His [Ryan's] comments were to the best of his recollection."

Then, last night an embarrassed Ryan responded to Runner's World with this:

"The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin-who ran Boston last year-reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight."

Look, not to put too fine a point on this defense, but this is bull. Even confronted with the facts that he took more than four hours, Ryan still weasels his way to suggesting a time better than he actually ran by asserting his time would be four hours "if I were to do any rounding," maintaining the fiction that his time may have been between 3:30 - 3:59, when he knows it was not.

But beyond that response (a typical Ryan tactic of defending one lie with another cheesy assertion that is more difficult to nail him on), there is simply no way he misremembers his time so badly, especially in light of the significance of a sub-three-hour marathon. I ran two marathons in my younger days (the Marine Corps Marathons in 1989 and 1991). I ran them just to finish, and came in somewhere around 4:30 each time. I'm proud of myself for completing two marathons in my life, albeit slowly. But your marathon time is simply not the kind of thing you misremember so badly. Sure, if you've run a dozen-plus marathons, you may get confused in recounting a specific time you ran in a race, but even in that instance would still never misremember your single best time. And when you have only run one or two marathons in your life, like me or Ryan it is a highlight, and your time tends to stick in your memory.

Now, I suspect that Ryan has been telling this particular fib for a while now in an attempt to make himself seem more impressive than he really is in the physical fitness department, so when it came up with Hewitt, I assume, Ryan just told the same old tale he's been telling for years. It simply never occurred to him that anyone would check it out, because, really, who would care?

Indeed, all else being equal, this is not a significant matter. To me, it seems on par with lying about a golf shot ("Two inches from the hole, I tell ya") or score, or the proverbial big fish that got away. Pretty trivial stuff.

But that, of course, was before the smorgasbord of lies, half-truths and deceptions Ryan served up to America Wednesday night in his quest for the vice presidency, putting his personal credibility into question.

In the context of Ryan's lying - er, misleading -- speech, his heretofore trivial lies deserve to be viewed in a more critical light as to what they might reveal about Ryan's character.  Now that Ryan has acknowledged, at best, a casual acquaintance with the truth, what are we to make of the defenses he has advanced to the alleged lies of his acceptance speech.

This particular exchange with Scott Pelley of CBS regarding Ryan's hilariously inept attempt to defend his claim about the reason behind the S&P downgrade of the U.S. during last summer's debt ceiling debacle really stood out for me in this regard:

Scott Pelley: One Final point on the speech last night. You also suggested that it was the president's fault that the nation's credit rating was downgraded...

Paul Ryan: Yeah.

SP: ...but when Standard & Poor's issued that credit rating downgrade, it said it was the Republican Congress that was at fault.

PR: That's not true. That's not correct. Standard & Poor's also said ....

SP: I can read it to you.

PR: I know the team. I've met with the Standard & Poor's team. What they said was if our Republican budget would have passed, it would have prevented the downgrade. They basically said because of the lack of leadership in Washington, political leadership, that's the downgrade. I would argue strenuously that it comes from the fact that the Senate didn't pass a budget for three years and the president didn't bother trying to put a solution on the table to get us to avoiding a debt crisis while the House passed our reforms.

SP:  For the record, what Standard & Poor's said was, quote, "We have changed our assumptions on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

PR:  That's not...

SP: They're saying you refused to raise taxes and they downgraded the American debt.

PR: I see it in a different way. That's not my understanding from talking to them.

Hmmm. Well, that's a horse of a different color. Perhaps Ryan doesn't realize he actually took four hours to run that marathon. We have to allow for the possibility, one supposes, that similar to the S&P downgrade, he just sees time in a different way than the rest of us.

As I noted up top, pathetic.

As the national media today confronts the avalanche of lies served up last night by Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan, there is some evidence that the Romney campaign might be pushing the lie envelope a little too far. As an industry, the political media appears to be pushing back a bit against the lies -- more than we have seen in the past.

It will be interesting to see how the Romney-Ryan campaign responds. So far, they seem nonplussed.

As widely reported, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse, when asked about the near-unanimous fact-check condemnation of the campaign's false charge regarding Welfare work waivers, said earlier this week, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."

In other words, we don't care about the truth.

Chuck Todd, meanwhile, is reporting this evening that the Romney campaign is generally unconcerned about today's uproar over the dishonesty of Ryan's speech. According to Todd, as the Romney campaign sees it, media criticism doesn't matter because the media's credibility is extremely low, and the public perceives the media as partisan and biased in any event.

Todd is also saying, however, that the campaign is pushing back a bit on the Janesville plant lie. Apparently, that particular lie, blaming Obama for something that occurred before he took office, might be a bit much, even for Mitt Romney.

But that pushback consists of their arguing that the Janesville lie is true, not stepping back from their assertions.

(more on the flip)
Indeed, I just saw Wolf Blitzer on CNN interviewing Ryan himself, who wasn't giving an inch on any of this, including the Janesville BS. To his credit, Wolf confronted Ryan, but in defending his lies, Ryan just hit wolf with more lying. No way could Wolf keep up.

In short, as long as Romney and Ryan are willing to pile lie upon lie, and as long as they are unconcerned about the shame of being called out as liars by fact-checker after fact-checker, the media won't be able to stop this. It is really breathtaking.

Still, the fact is that mainstream journalists tend to be herd animals, and the larger the herd becomes the more comfortable more journalists will be joining the herd.

In this regard (as well as many others, obviously), tonight's Romney speech will be the tell about what the campaign really thinks about this veracity issue. If Romney's speech is as factually challenged as Ryan's speech, the journalist herd will almost certainly grow tomorrow, and at some point potentially reach a critical mass that could become problematic and prevent Romney and Ryan from making their case to the independent voters Romney will need to win this election.

If, on the other hand, Romney's speech stays away from the lies his campaign has been promoting, and Romney is still able to deliver a successful speech (i.e., delivering an effective critique of the Obama Administration and a rationale for his own election), then the lying issue will go away.

Romney's problem, of course, is that he has so far been unable to make the case either against Obama or for himself without lying.

More specifically, the key Romney lies to look for are whether he repeats the discredited charges that Obama is "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare, and that Obama has ended work rules for Welfare. If Romney fails to mention these things, it means they are nervous about possible blowback.

If Romney doubles down on the lying strategy, however, it signals he believes he is losing the election, and will need to resort to dishonesty and race-baiting in order to win ugly.

The early excepts of the acceptance speech released this evening by the Romney campaign seems to stay away from the lies, but it is only a short excerpt, and it remains to be seen whether Romney himself is defiant in the face of the fact-checkers.

President Obama brought his college town mini-tour to Charlottesville this afternoon. He was in fine form speaking to a fired-up crowd of about 8,000 at the nTelos Pavillion on the Downtown Mall.

According to local weekly The Hook, the line to get into today's rally was longer than the Downtown Mall itself, which runs for 10-12 city blocks.

I'm not here to write a news story for Blue Virginia covering the rally. There will be plenty of newspaper articles that will do that. But I did want to present a few highlights and takeaways of the rally for me, and, of course, provide some pictures.

Main Takeaway: "It all depends on you"

These days, it is easy to become discouraged with politics. Mitt Romney is running the most despicable, racist, dishonest campaign in modern American history.  It is a campaign fueled by hatred and fear. It is the kind of campaign I would expect from a fringe candidate, not from the nominee of a major political party.

Even worse, it is a campaign that is secure in the knowledge that the national political press in this country will, with a few lonely exceptions here and there, likely prove either incapable of or unwilling to challenge its lies and the immoral underpinnings implicit in its strategy.

In the face of this, it is easy to become cynical and lose hope.

Today, President Obama reminded me that this is what Mitt Romney is counting on. That is his strategy. If he cannot win your vote, he wants to make you fed up with the entire system so that you don't vote at all.

For America to be the country we want it to be, a country of true freedom, a country where people are free to control their own health care decisions, where people are free to choose whom they will love, where people know that when they hit hard times their fellow citizens will look out for them - if we want THAT country, we're going to have to fight for it.

(more on the flip)
Here is what President Obama said:

[T]hose who oppose change have always bet on your cynicism; they've always bet on a lack of hope...

But ...

... throughout American history, they have lost that bet. And they're going to lose that bet this time too. ... I need you.  America needs you to close the gap between what is and what might be. ... It all depends on you. Don't worry about letting me down. Don't let America down.

Best Line

The best line of the rally belonged to Tom Perriello, who noting that Paul Ryan is routinely touted as an intellectual force behind the Republican congress, said, "Only Mitt Romney could look at this Congress and say, 'I want the brains behind this operation.'"

Second- best line

President Obama gets this one. About Romney:

He calls my health care law Obamacare; I call his plan "Romney Doesn't Care."  

Another Romney lie debunked: Obama is not running a negative campaign.

Take a look at President Obama's speech from today. Sure, he criticizes Romney and the Republicans - it's a election, for goodness sakes. But neither the overall tone nor substance of the speech is negative or divisive. In fact, the vast majority of the speech was positive and forward looking, and the jibes directed at Romney were relatively gentle, especially so given the deceitful and hateful campaign Romney himself is waging.

Yet another Romney lie debunked: Contrary to Romney assertions, President Obama is running on his record.

Again, take a look at the speech. This idea that the President is seeking to distract attention from his record is pure hogwash.

Here's a few examples:

On student loans:

So we created a college tax credit that's saving middle-class families up to $10,000 on college tuition.  We fixed the student loan system that was giving billions of dollars to banks as middlemen.  We said let's use that money to double grant aid for millions of students.  We won the fight to prevent student loan rates from doubling for more than 7 million students.

On energy:

Four years ago, we talked about how we could use less foreign oil, reduce the carbon footprint that threatens our planet.  And in just four years, we have doubled the generation of clean, renewable energy like wind and solar.  We've created thousands of good American jobs because of it.  Today, we're less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly 20 years.  We're on track to emit fewer greenhouse gases this year than we have in nearly 20 years.  We can keep those trends going.  And that is all happening because of you.

* * *

One of the things that we've done is develop new fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, your cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon. That's double what they are now.  That means you've only got to dig into your pocket to fill up your tank half as often.  But not only does it save you money at the pump, it moves us closer to energy independence.  It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by as much as all the cars in the world emit each year combined.  This is a smart thing to do.  It's the right thing to do.

On healthcare:

Four years ago, you believed that nobody in America should go broke because they get sick.  Today, because of the new health care law, affectionately known as Obamacare - because of that law, nearly 7 million young people are able to stay on their parent's health insurance plans.   Your grandparents are saving money on their prescription drugs.  Women have gained access to free preventive care like mammograms and contraception.  Thirty million Americans will be able to finally have the security of health care coverage. You can't be barred because of a preexisting condition.  You made that happen.  That's because of you.

On the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

And so what I have said not just to you but, most importantly, to those young men and women in uniform who are serving us every single day is that -- (applause) -- you will know where I stand.  When I say I will end the war in Iraq, I will end it.  When I say that we will go after bin Laden, we'll go after him.  And when I said that as we bring our troops home, first from Iraq, now from Afghanistan, that as long as I am Commander-in-Chief, we will serve our veterans as well as they've served us -- I mean it.

Pics follow:

Tom Perriello

President Obama

The crowd

Recording the President's speech

President Obama and Gov. Kaine

President Obama in the crowd

The crowd on the Mall after the rally

Well, here is one of those developments that just leaves you shaking your head in wonder. From today's Daily Telegraph comes this comment about US-UK relations from an unidentified Romney aide, just as Romney is about to land in England:

We [the U.S. and England] are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have.

In classic understatement, the reporter on the story idly observes the comment "may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity."

(more on the flip)
It's impossible to tell whether this is just a simple gaffe by an aide eager to tout his candidate to the English press and people (but who is apparently unaware of the global reach of the Internet), or whether it represents some kind of super-id breakout from the Romney camp resulting from early panic, perhaps based on concern (perhaps poll numbers we have yet to see or interpret correctly, or focus groups) suggesting the narrative of Romney's problems -- tax returns, Bain, secrecy, incompetence -- is beginning to take hold over the electorate.

The campaign's reaction could prove instructive. If the Romney camp attempts to defend the aide and statement, keeping it in the news, it would suggest the campaign wants the race/he's not one of us issue more explicit (albeit not too official) for whatever reason it has.

On the other hand, if the Romney staff reaches into their desks for the Etch-a-Sketches that must surely constitute standard campaign equipment issue for them by now, it will suggest that, at least for the time being, there does remain a shred of decency with the Romney crowd.

I honestly am not sure how this one will go, but I suspect the Romney camp will want to tamp this one down. For now. Before this one is over, I am fairly certain Romney and his crew will leave no muck unexplored.

It must have, because I just read something in the National Review that made sense.

The Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient). But he's a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won't be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions. The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later - after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits. There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July.

I'm just back from today's UVA rally on the Lawn.

I'd say there were between 1,500 to 2,000 people there (the rally organizer's official count is 1,500). It was very hot. The crowd seemed to be quite a mix - a fair number of students, many older people, some of whom I know are either faculty or alumni of UVA, and at least two dozen dogs that I counted that, to a mutt, appeared to back Teresa Sullivan's reinstatement.

First, here is the text of the organizers' official statement (some observations and commentary about the rally, along with some photographs, follow the text of the statement):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Rally for Honor Reaches 8,000 University of Virginia Supporters

More than 30 faculty and friends of U.Va. speak at demonstration for reinstatement of ousted President Teresa Sullivan

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (June 24, 2012) - The University of Virginia Lawn filled with more than 1,800 friends of the university seeking the reinstatement of ousted U.Va. President Teresa Sullivan, representation by U.Va. faculty as voting members on the Board of Visitors, and the resignation of Rector Dragas. An additional 6,500 tuned in to watch live video of the rally online. Thirty speakers addressed the midday crowd in support of the reinstatement of Sullivan, in advance of Tuesday's Board of Visitors meeting to review her contract.

"The truth of the matter is that all of us regret the forced resignation of Terry Sullivan, all of us respectfully ask the board to atone for its action, and all of us are prepared to respond with gratitude, forgiveness, and renewed enthusiasm to be part of U.Va," said speaker Kenneth Elzinga, Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics at the University.

The rally was organized primarily through a Facebook group, United for Honor: Students, Family and Friends United to Reinstate President Sullivan, which has grown to more than 15,750 members in just 11 days.

Supporters will convene again on Tuesday, June 26 at 2:30 p.m. on the Lawn for a silent vigil during the meeting of the Board of Visitors at the Rotunda.

(continued on the flip)
The news release continues below:

Speakers at the rally included Kenneth G. Elzinga, Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics; David W. Breneman, University Professor and former Dean of the Curry School and Director of the Batten School; and Dorothy K. Fontaine, Sadie Heath Cabaniss Professor Nursing and Dean, School of Nursing. Vice Mayor of Charlottesville Kristin Szakos spoke and read comments from Senator Creigh Deeds and Delegate David Toscano.

Full remarks for select speakers can be viewed on the Faculty Senate Blog.

"Today we gathered as a united community to rally behind our core principle-honor. We expect it of ourselves and we expect it of those who govern us," said Suzie McCarthy, the rally's organizer. "The crowd was enthusiastic, passionate, and most importantly, honorable in their actions. Our hope is that the Board of Visitors heard us, and that on Tuesday, Terry Sullivan comes out of the doors of the Rotunda reinstated as our President."

About United for Honor:

United for Honor is a Facebook group that was created on June 13 by University of Virginia graduate student, Suzie McCormack.  In just eleven days, the group of U.Va. students, faculty, staff, alumni, friends and family mushroomed to more than 15,750 members. The page has been a rallying point for those who support the reinstatement of Teresa Sullivan.

As rallies go, I thought this one was a bit long - made longer by the heat - but that said, it never got boring. As you can see from the statement, above, there were a lot of speakers - mostly faculty, three students, and one politician -- but no one droned on too long. And most of the professors were, unsurprisingly, engaging public speakers.

I'll leave the substance of the rally to other news sources to describe (you've heard all the arguments about transparency, the need for consultation, the lack of explanation for the firing, etc., all before), beyond noting that many faculty members took the opportunity to defend the value of a classical liberal arts education, something with which I strongly agree. It was also interesting to listen to Elizabeth Powell, the sole Darden professor to speak, defend the role of Darden in the entire matter (Darden is UVA's business school, and the anti-Sullivan cabal, at least its active members, seemed to be centered among Darden alum. Among other things, the matter has certainly put a focus on the validity of business school management principles, at least as applied to academia.) Powell asserted that Darden, like the rest of the university community, supported Sullivan's reinstatement and did not approve of the BoV's actions in this matter. She got a lukewarm reception from the crowd, I thought, though she deserves points for appearing and making the case.

Beyond that, I have little to add in the way of analysis of the situation. Anything I might have to say would pale in comparison to Paul Goldman's coverage over the past two weeks.

But listening to speeches this afternoon, talking with students and alumni at today's rally, and seeing 2,000 people willing to spend their Sunday sweltering on the Lawn because they are genuinely disturbed by events of the last several weeks and care deeply about the University, it is clear that any resolution of this issue now must begin with Sullivan's reinstatement. Anything less will leave Grounds in a state of rebellion, at least through the summer, certainly into the fall semester when students return, and possibly beyond.

And that prospect would run contrary to the Governor's edict in this matter.

The fact is that this sort of non-transparent, top-down approach to management is certainly common and even arguably effective in the corporate world of Rector Helen Dragas and her key co-conspirators in this whole affair. It might even be defensible in a private university setting, but in the end it can't be either justified or sustained in the face of popular opposition in the context of a public university.

The resolution of other issues and grievances, such as representation on the BoV by faculty and university staff workers, and the negotiation of terms that let Dragas save face (does Sullivan really need to make Dragas' resignation a condition of her return, for example?), all flow from that.

But will the BoV do both the smart and the right thing? That is hard to say, mainly because of the fact that the BoV as led by Dragas has shown itself to be, if nothing else, inept and oblivious, or perhaps simply indifferent, to the unique environment in which they operate.

Hopefully, however, the BoV will take to heart the following words of Thomas Jefferson contained on a flyer handed out by organizers of the rally:

It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it.

Some pics of the rally are below:

The crowd, as seen from the Rotunda

Speakers get ready up on the Rotunda before the Rally

Two UVA faculty members make last minute speech revisions

Signing a petition supporting Pres. Sullivan

Thunderstorms threatened, but didn't come, although a few stray drops fell

Beta Bridge. Despite this expression of student sentiment, today's rally was focused on reinstating Sullivan, not retribution against Dragas.

Efforts by some of our friends from the other side to characterize Sen. Mark Warner's comments this morning on MSNBC as akin to those of Newark Mayor Cory Booker, in the sense that they allegedly suggest that discussion of Romney's experience at Bain Capital ought to be off limits, are way off-base.

Sure, if you cherry-pick Warner's words, you can distort what he had to say as "taking issue with the Obama campaign's ad assault on Bain Capital." But if you look at Warner's entire comment, it is clear that Warner was making the same exact argument President Obama made yesterday in Chicago:

Bain Capital was a very successful business. I think they got a good return for their investors. That is what they were supposed to do. I think when you're in public life, though, what you've got is a different time horizon. The notion that everything in government is exactly the same way that it is in business, they're different time horizons when you've got to invest for the long haul, when you actually do the kind of early stage investing, whether in preschool, whether it's in K-12, whether infrastructure, that doesn't pay back quarter to quarter.

(See here for the entire interview.)

I think it is worth stressing the point being made in these comments and those by the President, is entirely correct.

Importantly, the issue in this matter is not Bain or private equity.

(more on the flip)
Bain was, and is, a very successful PE firm. As far as I know, Bain enjoys a good reputation on Wall Street. Nor is there anything immoral or unethical about the business in which Bain is engaged (provided they act in a lawful manner, of course, and as far as I know, they do so). They are in the business of making money for investors, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

Sometimes Bain (and other PE firms) can maximize returns for investors by growing a business, which will typically lead to job creation, and sometimes they maximize returns by breaking up businesses, selling valuable assets and closing down what doesn't make money. That often leads to job losses.

But those instances of job creation, or job loss, were incidental to Bain's goals. It has nothing to do with the actions Romney took or the decisions he reached at Bain, where his goal - profits for his investors -- was something else entirely.

Indeed, it is not useful to discuss whether Mitt Romney presided over the net creation or destruction of jobs while at Bain, beyond the fact that Romney has claimed to have created more than 100,000 jobs, and it is certainly fair to put that claim (or any claim by any seeker of political office) to the test. But the point that the President, and now Warner, is seeking to make is more significant, and that point is examining Romney's Bain record to determine whether, as Romney claims, it qualifies him to be President of the United States.

Obama and Warner argue (and it makes sense to me) that the responsibilities of a President are quite different than those of the head of a PE firm. A private equity CEO need not be concerned with how their pursuit of profit affects either individual workers or a community at large - they should only be worrying about the return for their investors -- but a president does have to understand, empathize with and act on such concerns.

Romney was a fool to bring Bain into this campaign, and now I suspect he is sorry to have done so. At best, the experience Romney had at Bain was irrelevant to the skill set and knowledge required for the Presidency; at worst, that experience, which is directed solely at maximizing profits and nothing else, is antithetical to the position of President.

In typical fashion, Romney is seeking to weasel out of the box he built for himself by maintaining that any discussion of Bain is off limits, either as an attack on free enterprise or a personal attack on Romney himself. (Indeed, in the Romney campaign's hilarious effort to distort Warner's quote, they reduce it to 16 seconds of Warner saying "Bain was a very successful business," as if whether Romney was "successful" at Bain was the issue. This guy just does not get it.)

Of course, discussion of Romney's role at Bain is perfectly appropriate, if not essential.

I agree with Romney supporter John Sununu on this issue. "I think the Bain record, as a whole, is fair game," Sununu said earlier today. "What you have to do is an honest evaluation."

Romney brought his Bain experience into the campaign. We should now examine that whole record, fairly and honestly.