Yes, the best political jujitsu is showing that Romney was solely out to make a buck or three, and didn’t give a damn what happened to the people who lost their jobs due to Bain’s practices. He wasn’t trying to create jobs; he was trying to profit from high-level corporate wheeling and dealing. He made money if workers at the targeted companies kept their jobs; he made money if they lost their jobs. He didn’t (as far as I know) donate any of his big bonuses to worker retraining nonprofits, soup kitchens or whatever. And as President, he would have no particular skill in creating jobs himself.
That may sound logical according to amoral Logic, so let’s try it with a slight change, where the moral question is up front: “One may disagree with what the hordes of Hell did, but it’s difficult to say that, in performing that job, Satan was bad at it. Attacking Hell does at least as much harm to God’s campaign as it does good.” This is not to suggest that Romney is Satan, but to remind people who think about this issue from a purely logical point of view that all our actions affect society and there is no place for indifferent amorality. We usually call poorer people like that sociopaths but being rich should not shelter Romney from the accusation. Through his actions he showed he was not living up to his noblesse oblige.
And Bubba can stuff it. He doesn’t speak for me or anybody but himself.
Unless somebody put a gun to Romney’s head and made him run Bain, I don’t see how that signifies. High-profile criminal defense attorneys never even bother running for office, because they know their campaigns will be drowned in “Candidate X defended a child molester! Is this the man you want representing you?”
I doubt you’ll hear much along these lines from the Democrats because it sounds kinda like “class warfare” and they hate looking like they’re in favor of that, but I think you could easily make the connection that both Bain Capital and Republican economic plans put the gains for the rich way up front, and let the risks fall on the rest of us in the future. So, we get tax breaks now, “entitlement reform” so we can afford them in the future. If the plan doesn’t work, the guys that got the tax breaks aren’t the ones who are going to take the hit. Much like the dynamic between Bain’s investors and the people at the companies they loaded up with debt.
If Democrats were aware of class, they would utterly reject terms and concepts such as “job creator”. It implies a beneficent overseer granting permission to use the means of production rather than an expropriator of surplus labour. As it happens, I don’t think the guy earning $100k+ a speech 20 years after signing NAFTA is too concerned.