Bain, Booker and backtracking

The story of the day originates once again from Meet The Press. Yesterday, Newark mayor Cory Booker criticized the Obama campaign for their ads attacking Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital. Almost immediately after, the rising-star in the Democratic party put out a YouTube video to reaffirm his support for Obama and clarify his comments. Thus arrived a made-for-cable-news story of how the media powerhouse that is Cory Booker drew outside of the party lines and had likely his knuckles rapped across by the Obama camp.

The YouTube video has an unequivocal title, “Mayor Booker Expands on his Support for President Obama.” Contrived enough that it made me a little uncomfortable. Not Booker’s typical politics. While a different interpretation could be had, its playing in the media like a massive flip. This morning Scarborough called it a hostage video.

The Obama camp wants to get rid of this story. They sent Axelrod out to comment and he essentially dodged the question of whether it was the campaign who instigated the backtrack. His calculus is that this will be a 1-2 day story, so he doesn’t have to explicitly state that the Obama camp asked Booker to backtrack. I agree with this, as there is more meat to the original story of Booker contradicting the anti-Bain narrative.

The anti-Bain ads in questionattack Romney as a robber baron. The accuracy of the characterization of Bain capital and Romney’s tenure there is questionable, but the effectiveness of this line of attack is solid. There is a pre-existing narrative established by Newt Gingrich and the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama’s team is utilizing and adapting for presidential politics. Without a big media story that provides widespread clarification (and inoculation) as to the exact nature of Bain Capital’s operations, this narrative is the one that will stick. This is a huge problem for Romney in his attempt to capture middle-to-low income independents in states like New Hampshire. But this message has limited persuasive ability. Moderate conservatives, including Reagan Democrats, will see the nuanced point Booker was trying to make, which is that an attack on all of private equity is not fair. In fact, that is precisely what the Republican statement in response to all of this said, along with the continuously laughable claim that Obama wants destroy the free market economy.

Some might say Romney needs to provide a palatable message about what he did at Bain Capital. A far better strategy has Romney waiting until the country starts paying attention and moving to the middle to make a simple yet salient argument about the role of government in helping those left behind by efficient capitalism. But, in all likelihood, precisely what Booker was criticizing will happen – the GOP will take this as support for their message that Obama is attacking the free market.

Negative, ham-handed, perhaps even nauseating.

EDIT: GOP rapid response video. Unclear if they continue to run with this. 

Comments

  1. Mark says:

    I’m curious, what specifically about the Obama ad did you find questionable.

  2. Nathan says:

    There’s no doubt that Mayor Booker caused a headache for the Obama campaign, especially when you take into account that Booker is known for his pragmatic and tame approach to policy and politics. Nevertheless, attacking Romney’s record at Bain is in no way equivalent to the republicans attempts to attack Obama over guilt-by-association to Jeremiah Wright. Booker was wrong in that analysis. It’s akin to a Republican politician saying that it’s ‘nauseating’ to take shots at Obama over his record in politics.

    I also agree with Mark in wondering what was ‘questionable’ in the Obama ads?

  3. jay says:

    I think Booker had a point when he said that you can’t demonize all of private equity and that the Obama ads tend to do that. The reverse robin hood metaphor implies stealing. The notion that an investor can’t make money on investment even if the company fails is sophomorish and feigning ignorance. Other people are jumping on the bandwagon, with Rep. Clyburn saying that Bain “rapes” companies. These characterizations are questionable if not unfair, hence why people like Booker and Deval Patrick are coming out in support of private equity and Bain. Obama’s spokespeople and Obama himself say they do not want to chastise this kind of business, but that they want to examine Romney’s record…but that isn’t the messaging of the ad.

    However, while the characterization of Bain as corporate raiders and a “bad company” is pretty iffy, hitting Romney’s dubious claim as a “job creator” is definitely not.

  4. nathan says:

    Let’s not forget that it was the Republican primary candidates who initiated the Bain-as-destroyer-of-communities attacks. Gingrich’s SuperPAC released a damning 30 minute documentary entitled “king of bain”, and Rick Perry wasn’t to shy either about labeling Bain, and even the general practice of private equity, as “vulture capitalism”. Compared to those characterizations, Obama’s line of attack is rather mild.

    Any stigmatization that arises against private equity is simply the nature of Mitt Romney running on his private equity experience at Bain Capital. For a similar reason that a Loan Shark wouldn’t have the easiest time running for office, Romney is going to have to address the fact that some of his success came from screwing over workers.

  5. thomas says:

    The question of the absolute value of financiers to capitalism seems sort of academic and beside the point. The point of political advertising is to make powerful associations. It’s advertising. If Booker were with an ad agency and then appeared on TV to say, “You know, buying that car isn’t really going to make women attracted to you. That’s an unrealistic and irresponsible claim.” Of course everybody is going to look at you like you’re a complete idiot working against your own team. What he did, making the competition’s argument, is crazy crazy crazy.