Dispatch from the Battle of Gaffney

In the battle of Gaffney SC--pitting a whole bunch of other Republicans against Mitt Romney over the alleged malfeasance in job creation/destruction at Bain Capital--I'd say the score at the moment lies "advantage  Romney."  Those Chardonnay-sipping lefties at the New York Times appear to have demonstrated that the Gaffney plant-closing was a non-event, long since swept up in a turmoil of creative destruction; in short, precisely the sort of thing that makes Bain's (Ronmney's) role appear on the whole pretty good.

Yet there are oddities about the Times account that leave me puzzled.  Example: here's Tom Higgins, "who operates a lawn service company with five employees," according to the Times. Evidently he "finds all of it a distraction"--"it" being, I take it, the question whether Bain gutted a local employer. Fine, but then:  “There’s too many other things that concern us,”  the Times quotes him as saying.  And the Times adds: "noting the loss of jobs to Mexico and Asia."  Huh?  But the Bain story is a story about job loss, yes? If you are concerned about job loss, how could you not care about Bain?

And more: "'We’ve sort of been in a standstill for years, especially since Obama took over,' Mr. Higgins said."  My italics, and  I have to say, this one has me baffled.  Faithful UB groupies will recognize that your proprietor is more than a bit underwhelmed with the performance of our incumbent president. But for the life of me I can't put my finger on what Mr. Higgins is thinking about when he blames his current woes on Obama.    I suppose you could say--no, I would say--that Obama hasn't done nearly enough to try to improve the economy.  But these are sins of omission: if Mr. Higgins had said "especially since Obama failed to take over," I might have understood. But what, exactly, are the positive complaints?