Newt tried it in the GOP primary process. Now, Obama parrot's Newt's efforts and the Washington Post seems to have the final word.

<<<< The puppet image of Pinocchio was chosen because of Obama's lack of originality in making his Bain Capital accusations against Romney.  

From what I can see,  Romney's role as "America's businessman" in rescuing the 2002 winter Olympics from certain financial disaster, was nothing short of heroic,  and all the headlines of the day (from the Left and the Right) celebrated Romney's success in this matter.  Understand that the 2002 Olympic effort found itself in deep financial trouble after just a year of planning.  Romney was called to the rescue in 1999.  His accomplishment was the stuff from which legends are made.   More than this,  his work at Bain Capital, rather than being a black mark on his record,  was/is a testament, I believe,  to the financial genius of the man with regard to his innovations in the use of private equity in lifting up failing American businesses.  

As we all know,  Newt Gingrich tried his best to cast Romney as a corporate raider,  a man who used destructive organizational tactics to put money in his back pocket.  The  Washington Post  ran an investigative story on the charges, and gave Newt "four Pinocchios."  

Now,  the Obama campaign has decided to "go personal" against Romney,  about 4 months early,  and its first line of attack is to parrot the Gingrich campaign's charges.  Since the Obama attack has no new information added to the charges,  we assume the WaPost story to be an important rebuttal.  Here is the lead-in prologue to the Post findings.  You will want to read the full article for the "rest of the story,"  

The Washington Post Rebuttal to Obama's Charges

Text:

First of all, it is a stretch to portray Romney as some sort of corporate raider, akin to Carl Icahn (whose image is briefly seen).  Bain Capital initially was in the business of providing venture capital — seed money — for start-ups, such as Staples. Then it moved to the more lucrative business of private equity, in which Bain won control of firms, reorganized them and then sold them for profit. (Our colleague Suzy Khimm earlier this week did an excellent job of explaining the two sides of Bain Capital.)  

Private equity deals, such as leveraged buyouts in which the company borrows lots of debt, can be more rewarding but also more risky. Some of those deals went bad for Bain, which sometimes happens in finance, though the company usually made money anyway. New York magazine, which the film cites as a source, recently ran an excellent profile of Romney in which it explored Romney’s pioneering role in the then-emerging field of private equity. Private equity revolutionized American business, demanding efficiencies (which can mean layoffs) and helping place much more emphasis on increasing shareholder value.

The movie pejoratively claims that the “Bain Way” was shorthand for being able to “turn the misfortunes of others into their enormous financial gains.” Bain Capital was actually an offshoot of Bain & Company, a consulting firm, and the “Bain Way” refers to its heavily analytical and data-driven approach to problems.

 It’s beyond the scope of this column to assess whether the changes in American capitalism brought about by private equity ultimately are good or bad for the American economy. (Here’s a good primer.) But we can assess whether the four specific deals highlighted by the film are depicted with accuracy. . . . . end of text   (read the full story here).