Face it. Romney’s single qualification to be President is that his business background will enable him to create jobs.
So, much like Kerry was done in by the Swift Boat gang in 2004 Romney presents himself an easy target for a counterattack. Kerry was no solution to the mess Bush had created just as Romney can’t articulate a job creation plan. Bain is as worthless as Kerry’s ribbons and medals were in 2004.
Swiftboat away.
Well, the distinction is that the Swiftboat campaign was largely based on an untruth. Romney’s business record is fair game, unless the President’s ads lie about it, which I haven’t seen (no more than the usual distortion that is part and parcel of any campaign ad, anyway).
I wouldn’t say his Bain Capital experience is his sole qualification to run for POTUS. Mitt was governor of MA for four years too. That is four year more of executive experience in government than Obama had when he was elected.
Swiftboat felt much more ad hominem to me. Bain Capital is a part of Romney’s record that is arguably relevant.
Like Bricker, I am not sure I understand the context in which you are using “Swiftboat” here, and without that, I don’t see the debate here.
Uh uh…
That seems to be the main argument Romney is making, but no, that’s not his “sole qualification.” The only qualifications for being president are right there in the Constitution.
Although you would hardly know it from his campaign. 
I think the similarities are strong. When national security was the big issue (historically a weak issue for the Dems), the Dems put forward a politician with a decorated military career and tried to put the focus on that rather then his political service. The GOP responded by focusing attacks on that same military service, ostensibly Kerry’s strong point.
Now the economy is the big issue (historically a weak issue for the GOP), the GOP puts forward a “safe” candidate with a successful business career and have tried to put focus on that rather then his political service. The Dems are responding by attacking that same business career.
But of course, the difference is as bricker said. The swiftboat stuff was false. I don’t really agree with much of the negative spin Obama puts on Romney’s time at Bain, but I haven’t seen him approach the kind of falsehoods that were part of the Swiftboat thing.
Romney and Kerry are reminiscent of each other in a lot of ways, actually. (hopefully a new similarity will be added in the fall).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He routinely emphasizes his 3 major accomplishments:
Business Career
Governor of MA
Running the Olympics (don’t know what his official title was)
I think it’s entirely reasonable that Romney would have been the GOP candidate regardless of the economic situation.
Other than those gross inaccuracies, what the hell are you debating? Where is the “Switftboating” form Obama? You offer not an iota of evidence. Then you encourage some ill defined group to "Swiftboat away’.
Can’t figure out what the hell you’re talking about here.
Yes, but Gov of Mass is easily trumped by four years of POTUS and running the WINTER Olympics is nothing compared to tangling with Congress on the budget.
Romney uniquely had a business career.
On every other facet of running the country Obama has Romney bested - especially in foreign policy and defense.
Count me in with the people who don’t understand how this is “swiftboating”. I associate swiftboating with the Big Lie - ie., torpedoing a candidacy by getting a whole bunch of people to repeat something damaging you made up.
He’s not Swiftboating Romney. He’s merely looking at his Bain years through the Super High-Velocity Negative Twist Prism found in the Adam West’s Bat Cave. I think Obama is terribly wrong here, but I don’t think he’s doing anything wrong, here, as long as he doesn’t lie about what Romney did and didn’t do. As someone who can’t wait to get Obama out of office, I welcome putting a magnifying glass on Romney’s Bain years. True the stupid will hear, “he fired someone…he outsourced some work” and start foaming at the mouth, never bothering to look at the whole picture of jobs created vs jobs lost—in companies that were largely going out of business any way. But stupid people are allowed to vote, too.
Oh, and as far as Kerry. He was sank by his own behavior, his own record…nothing more.
Very important to Romney’s campaign is claiming he will create jobs. He has to use his Bain experience for that.
His record as governor of MA would be terrible for this message MA’s job creation numbers under Romney’s governorship were some of the worst in the nation for that time period.
Besides that being completely different from what you said in the OP, it’s only true if you are looking at experience. Maybe people don’t like Obama’s policies, in which case all the experience in the world means nothing. Romney uniquely has the Republican outlook on things. You may not like that, and I may not like that, but some people do. Romney uniquely doesn’t have to be asked why he hasn’t gotten the economy turned around in 3 1/2 years and why the unemployment rates is stuck at > 8%.
I agree with this, but there’s one thing about Obama’s approach that puzzles me. There was an article in The New Yorker a few months back documenting how Bain had benefited immensely from government handouts. Bain’s approach, after taking over a company, often had a lot less to do with making the company more efficient and productive, and more to do with arranging the company to get specialized tax breaks and subsidies. Obama’s campaign should bring that to the public’s attention and make Romney answer for his hypocrisy.
And Bain Capital sounds like the name of a cartoon villian’s HQ.
And yet, Romney has been strangely reticent to crow about his record as governor.
No, he hasn’t.
You’re right, he’s been *wisely *reticent about it.
I think attacking Romney’s business career is both fair game and good politics. Obama’s attacks seem to be factual for the most part and the latest numbers seem to indicate they are working. What is impressive is that the Bain attacks were seriously undercut by Democrats like Booker and Clinton some weeks back. Obama hasn’t backed off and his persistence now seems to be paying dividends.
I should add that I don’t think there is anything wrong with outsourcing/offshoring for the most part. It’s a form of trade and like most trade it may hurt specific groups but helps the economy as a whole. Gregory Mankiw, who was an economist under Bush and IIRC is a Romney advisor, made this point some years back to widespread condemnation but he was right.
W. had a business background. How’d that work out for the economy?
I thought Mitt Romney was trying to be the next Ronald Reagan!