Venture Capitalist or Vulture Capitalist: What category does Bain Capital fall into?

Keywords or terms: Venture Capitalism; Vulture Capitalist; Bain Capital; Mitt Romney; Rick Perry; Job loss; Unemployment line; DDi Corporation; Heartless and Brutal Candidate; Unfounded job's creation number; Private Equity Firm; Financial Regulations Exploitation



In the current Republication nomination race for the November 2012 contest, we are in confusion at best. Many Republican voters are paying attention to what the candidates are saying, how they say it, who is saying what, where it is being said, and which of the candidates we cannot afford to ignore. Remember Rick Perry? The candidate that cannot remember all the three federal agencies he is going to eradicate if he ever became the President of the United States? Yes, that Governor from the lone star state introduced two lexicons to the vocabulary of political gurus who have been tracking what the candidates are saying. This time, the lexicons are Venture Capitalism or Vulture Capitalism. These lexicons would have been a mouthful for a Democrat; but here again, the Republicans are doing the dirty job for us. Bravo!

It is the difference between the two differential lexicons used to describe the front runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, which continues to bemuse many of us: Is the governor of the lone star state describing his opponent as a vulture? Wow, One ready to dismember companies, turn a huge load of employees to the Unemployment line, make a quick profit and move on to the next? Is the governor of the lone star state cautioning the voters that Mitt Romney is in the business of destroying jobs and not creating any? What about that branding of: I am the job creator and President Obama is killing jobs? Is that brand tainted? Is that brand completely worthless by now? What must Republican voters be thinking at this time: Are we about to nominate a cold hearted, probable heartless and brutal candidate, who enjoys firing workers to represent us in the coming November contest? Are we about to open the oval office to a man that drove miles with his family dog on the roof of a car, to suffer the pains and pangs of the adversities of weather? Are Republicans so desperate to the extent that they will choose a candidate that would rather look out for his pocket and his venture capitalist partners than the larger interest of the nation’s workforce?

I once talked with a CEO of a private equity firm and all he says he is in the business of, is: how to hunt down another failing or about to fail firm, restructure it or pay someone to restructure it; and if impossible, tear the damn thing down and sell it in pieces. He talks about the essence of making companies work efficiently and if they don’t, so be it; we’ll take our money and head out to the next company. “Our job is not solely to make all companies turn out profit to their investors or employees; rather, it is to satisfy our interest to make a quick one, even at the expense of employees.” The business demands dedicated CEO’s with a pennant for turning companies around, off-loading workforce where and when necessary; and, occasionally, if expedient, to look out for making more or the hugest returns or profit for the private equity firm. This is probably what many Americans may find despicable, as they determine that these venture capitalist firms are hardly interested in the total package except for one thing: Making a quick buck under high pressure, and where possible, which is often, blasting off with millions into their bank accounts, without caring whose loin is being gutted.

It isn’t the successes of capitalism that many observers are against or frown on; rather, it is the brutal consequences of these equity firms practices as they go about marauding firms, destroying lives by terminating companies’ employees and damaging the communities they leave behind. It isn’t the huge profits that the equity firms enjoy that the public denounce; or the expansive nature of the unusual restructuring once an equity firm takes over a company’s management; rather, it is how cold hardheartedly each of these marauding equity firms damage our communities, our states and our beloved America. There is nothing wrong in making an inefficient firm work better. Unfortunately, there is a lot to loose, when the private equity firm fails to have the patience to understand what exactly are the problems leading to a company's inefficiency; and making effort to resolve them and or getting the troubled firm back on its feet. The private equity firms are torch and go, and this is probably what Governor Rick Perry and many fair minded people find unacceptable in the way, an equity firm once led by Mitt Romney, go about its business. To Governor Perry and other Republican contestants: Romney and his ilk are hardly Venture Capitalist, but Vulture Capitalist! This depiction is damning to say the least; however, it may be irrelevant regarding Republican voters' choice of a candidate to represent their interest in the November, 2012 contest.

At this time in the race, Governor Romney has described his critical opponents, as frustrated and offering their criticisms out of desperation. Romney's assessment may have some credence; however, the opponents' criticisms are not without merit. How can Governor Romney explain away how he still retains over 1.3 million shares of DDi Corporation, a corporation that was restructured by Bain Capital, decade after he was away from Bain’s management? Romney has been calculated to have netted millions from DDi restructuring and massive employees layoff, even years after he had left the management of Bain Capital? Has Romney reflected over how many jobs were lost, lives destroyed and wealth amassed in his multiple acquisitions, management and demises of many American corporations? Will Governor Romney agree that he did not create 100,000 jobs as recently claimed after being exposed that he once said he created 10,000 jobs in an earlier campaign run for Senate against Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts? The more the governor continues to make inconsistent statements or statements that look more like falsification of record, the more people find him as incredible and a flip flopper! This type behavior does not auger well for any candidate seeking the highest office in the land.

Will the evidence of slash and burn practices engaged by Romney and Bain Capital absolve him of thriving at the expense of the working class? Can a leader who has been associated with ruthless business practices worthy of the office of the Presidency? Can Romney’s devious, untruthful, two-faced behavior and practices be triggered off when elected into the office of the Presidency? What does the future hold for American workers, if their elected President chooses to practice the profit first and people last doctrine that has netted him and his cohorts millions at the expenses of workers? Can Governor Romney get before a crowd of Mormons and or all Americans and testify that he has not assuage the rights of employees in many of the companies he has been involved in restructuring? Even worse, can the Governor attest that he has not done one of the current contestants for the Republican nomination wrong in Iowa through his PAC advertisements? These are unavoidable questions that need answers from the potential Republican nominee and flag bearer in the November 2012 contest for the White House's oval office.
  
In campaign politics, voters expect high integrity of the candidate seeking their support. Voters expect that candidates do not embellish their past records of claims. Further, voters frown over candidate's claims that weaken their credibility; or, position the candidate in poor light towards the contest. In addition, whether voters increase their financial contributions or not to a candidate's campaign chest, depends on how credibly they perceive the candidate's message. It is perhaps feasible, that once voters notice that a candidate is untruthful, has credibility issues, they begin to shy away from him or her and instantly withhold further monetary contributions. When you are in a campaign mode, everything a candidate says must not be found in a gossip fodder. Many of the claims made by Romney and many of the candidates on the Republican campaign trail are being vetted by some independent organizations who are now serving as the people's watchdog. A few of the vetting organizations have even introduced credibility index measure that makes some of the candidate’s claim laughable. Candidates must realize that voters will hardly offer their support or money, when words coming out of the candidate’s mouth are hardly substantiated and or, looks more like embellishments.

Many voters hardly put stock in a politician seeking office with incredible and devious claims. When devious records or unsubstantial claims are flagged, candidate had better correct the records or they become laughing stock to the voters and public. For example, a candidate that is part of a religion that castigates the black race as evil cast of Cain, who hold firm to this belief and broadcasted the same in France and any other places he was engaged in missionary work for his religion, lacks the upper moral grounds to claim that he is a changed person and hardly subscribes to this religious bigotry. A candidate must avoid operating in a vacuum or assume that he can easily paper over his past, simply because he is a front runner. For Governor Romney to claim that his Mormon religion hardly has a bearing on his way of life or how he directs the affairs of his political office seems somehow unreal, especially when people are circumspect regarding what his religion is all about? To be truly upfront with the voters, a candidate must endeavor to make clear his stand, even on issues of corporate corruption and immigration. Candidate Obama gave a speech regarding the views of his past pastor while he was seeking the office of the Presidency in 2008; and, did not shy away from voters' reservation regarding the issues of race relation in America. Romney may want to borrow a leaf from candidate Obama on this one; and, some other issues regarding his candidacy, even within his political party.

Making inconsistent or incorrect statements that make the candidate seem like a fair-weather friend or a flip flopper, hardly portrays the candidate as honest, dependent and reliable in the position of political authority. Many observers suspect that Mitt Romney has taken time to probe all the skeletons in his cupboard regarding his claims or assertions regarding his candidacy for the office of the President. It is not enough to be a Republican Party front runner; or, touted as most likely to beat President Obama come November 2012 contest for the White House? A promising candidate’s past endeavors or engagement in the position of authority may be frowned upon; especially, when they are perceived to be on the wrong side of the welfare of ordinary people. No one wants a heartless and in-compassionate leader in the oval office. There are zillion of candidates who want to occupy the office of the Presidency; however, very few of them can qualify based on past or previous leadership activities and or experience. It is not that voters, especially Republicans, cannot appreciate previous efforts by Romney to turn around failing companies or the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City; it is the fact that there are other leadership and religious issues that continue to dog his candidacy, especially when and where he offers dubious explanations like corporations are people and he enjoys firing people?

For whatever reasons, many Republicans are still attuned to another candidate but Mitt Romney. If the Governor is very logical and objective, he must ask himself, why are his party's members not completely or truly embracing his candidacy? Why has his candidacy not muster a threshold of support of more than thirty percent or so, among Republicans? Why are conservative Christian groups considering his candidacy as a sham as his religion is suspected to be a cult? Answers to these questions, will enable him re-write or burnish the script for his candidature. For now, being a venture capitalist at Bain Capital may not be working for him, based on what is being reported as his activities and experience as the CEO of that equity firm. He may choose to ignore the current criticisms regarding his stewardship at Bain Capital; however, in a national contest, he can be rest assured that more information regarding his behavior, personality and religion would be dogged out by the Democrats; and, more questions asked of the wonder boy of Vulture Capitalism; oh, excuse me, Venture Capitalism!
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

President Barack Obama: Farewell Address as he rode to sunset!