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?