May 09, 2008
Here's To Great Salesmen
In the latest heated exhange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Romney, who has been stumping for John McCain, said of the IL Sen.:
"He seems like a charming guy who's very well spoken. But in terms of actually having led, actually having accomplished something ... he's untested and unproven."
During the GOP primary contest, Romney pitched his executive experience -- as MA governor, head of the '02 Winter Olympics and co-founder of Bain Capital -- as a key selling point. Solid bona fides, by anyone's measure. But as he slams Obama for lacking comparable leadership experience, shouldn't he consider the deftness with which Obama has run his presidential campaign, the largest in modern history?
Let's compare the magnitude of Obama's campaign with Romney's first business, his private equity firm, Bain Capital:
--In Bain's first year, Romney persuaded investors to give him $36M.
--In Obama's first year as a candidate, he persuaded voters to invest $100M (which has since ballooned to $235M).
Meanwhile, Eric Kriss, a former partner at Bain and a MA cabinet member under Gov. Romney, said this of his former boss' credentials:
"Mitt ran a private equity firm, not a cement company. He was not a businessman in the sense of running a company. He was a great presenter, a great spokesman and a great salesman. ... In private equity and in consulting, a lot of what you rely on is trust and confidence and persuasion."
Trust. Confidence. Persuasion. Traits also inspired by and attributable to ... Obama.
(Hotline staff writer CHRIS BODENNER)
Posted at 04:49 PM
Comments
Business people usually don't give any more than they think you need to finance the business operation. So you analogy doesn't work. Bain Capitol was also founded in 1984 so do some inflationary figures and I am going to bet you Chuck Todd's old desk at Hotline that you get more than 100 million in 1984 dollars.
Mark Johnson | 05.09.08 07:19 PM
 |
Bain is worth billions today. They rarely lose money. An investment in Barak F. Obama will certainly leave you with less money in your pocket.
flyover | 05.09.08 09:15 PM
|
According to an inflation calculator, $36M would be $74M today -- still lower than $100M.
And I believe that $36M was the amount Bain raised from investors to buy and sell companies, not the amount of money used to run to the day-to-day operations of Bain. In fact, Bain Capital was formed out of a preexisting consulting firm, Bain & Company, so most of its infrastructure/operations seemed to be in place already.
cbodenner | 05.10.08 10:30 AM
|
(The broader point is not that Obama is somehow of the same caliber as a leader; Romney clearly has far more executive experience, both in the private sector and public sector. The point is to illustrate the irony with which Romney so completely dismisses Obama's multi-million dollar campaign, when the nature of leading that campaign has many striking similarities to Romney's early success as a businessman -- success that Romney built his own candidacy upon.)
cbodenner | 05.10.08 12:57 PM
|
The broader point is there is a big difference between investing for a return and buying protection
flyover | 05.10.08 01:14 PM
|
Great point, flyover. I agree that the return on investment for Bain is much different than the ROI for the Obama campaign. (Though what precisely do you mean by "buying protection"?)
However, I would offer that investing in the Obama campaign, if he ends up becoming president, does provide a ROI for Obama supporters. For big donors, that ROI may be the ability to curry favor within the administration. For small donors, the ROI is much less direct -- having a leader who embodies your values, background, policy outlook, etc. -- but still somewhat tangible.
In fact, if you're an Obama supporter who opposes the Iraq War and has family serving in the military, the ROI becomes quite tangible (assuming Obama is able to deliver on his campaign promise, of course).
But, on the other hand, because McCain is less likely to raise taxes on wealthier Americans, a wealthy Obama supporter might actually lose money under the Obama administration.
cbodenner | 05.10.08 01:57 PM
|
I love how creative you are with the assignment of words:
Romney 'persuaded investors to GIVE him $36M'
Obama 'persuaded voters to INVEST $100M'
Giving start-up money to a business is investing, giving money to a campaign is donating.
Oh and do you think that Obama is the mastermind behind his electoral strategy? What a joke!
Romney's strength seems to be creating jobs. Obama's strength seems to be electing . . . Obama. Very noble.
I don't recall you dragging this explanation out when Bush raised record amounts of cash and won two terms.
Ryan | 05.11.08 12:14 PM
|
Ryan: Yes, it was a play on words, as part of a thought exercise to examine the similarities/differences between an investment firm and a political campaign.
As far as using the word "give," it wasn't meant to imply that Romney's investors were simply handing the money over for Romney's benefit. It was more semantic, for the sake of sentence structure. But you're right, perhaps I could have used a better word than "give."
But I think the broader point still stands: investment firms and presidential campaigns have much more in common than most people think. And don't take my word for it, take Romney's:
Running Bain Capital, he said, has more in common with being a candidate, governor or even president than many people realize. The job of a chief executive also involves persuading fractious constituencies -- investors, bankers and even 'people who want your job' -- to pull together, he said.
In fact, "persuading fractious constituencies to pull together" goes right to the heart of the Obama campaign (whether he can actually deliver on that promise as president, of course, is yet to be seen.)
As far as Obama being the mastermind behind his electoral strategy, most of that credit goes to David Axelrod (his message guy) and David Plouffe (his delegates guy). But Obama has long ties to both men, and he hired them to run his '04 Senate campaign. Isn't that similar to what a CEO does: hire the best people who share the same vision and goals and then closely work with them to achieve those goals? The buck always stops with the candidate, just as it does with a CEO, no?
As far as Romney's strength in creating jobs, here's some further food for thought:
But Mr. Romney's Bain career ... also exposes him to criticism that he enriched himself excessively, sometimes by cutting jobs to increase profits. He made his money mainly through leveraged buyouts -- essentially, mortgaging companies to take them over in the hope of reselling them at big profits in just a few years. ... Mr. Romney, in an interview, acknowledged that Bain Capital's acquisitions had sometimes led to layoffs but said that he could explain them to voters. "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient," he said.
Romney's goal as governor was to create jobs, but the goal of a private equity firm -- for better or worse -- is to create profit for its investors, not jobs (though job creation and/or saving jobs is certainly a result of many private-equity deals, I'm sure).
cbodenner | 05.11.08 05:34 PM
|
Buying political protection is as old as politics. You pay money to get access to ensure you are not injured by the new administration. Why else would Wall Street firms donate so much to Dems? They know the taxes are going up which will make the market go down, but they hope to work the margins of policies which might give them an edge. That's one reason a flat tax would be so valuable to our society. I was once visiting a very famous mutal fund manager in '92 who knew I had known Billy C. way back when and asked me what advice I would give him on his first day in office. My advice was "resign". He said that was the correct answer of course, but he told me something important. He said you can make money even under Dems, you just need a lot more lawyers to wade through the increased regulations. He was right, of course. This country needs to somehow figure out how to eliminate this influence peddling which would focus Congress on important issues instead of the protection racket that is our current system.
flyover | 05.11.08 06:11 PM
|
Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...
feeba | 05.12.08 07:29 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
