It seems you didn't read the article. It is the way he conducted his business that is at issue. It isn't a measure of his ability to gain personal wealth.
Frankly, I would take Romney's "way of conducting business" over the tactics of the left. Tactics like those of George Soros. Do a little research into how HE made his billions as a hedge fund manager, and currency trader. You've heard of Soros surely. He's the guy who single handedly keeps liberal radio afloat, as well as all these little fringe people and their little anarchist groups.
Yes, but it's natural for you to attack a man who utilizes the capitalistic system to make money. Which sometimes means knowing how to make a profit off of someone else's loss. George Soros has perfected the art. Obama's pal Warren Buffett. Do a little back ground check on how he made his billions as another hedge fund manager. What does Buffett do today? He buys companies. Sometimes he wins, sometimes a company goes bankrupt. I don't hear you castigating Obama's pal Warren. Why? Because Warren is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He goes out, AFTER he's made his billions, and declares that the rich should pay higher taxes. Pretty easy to say when you've already amassed billions of your own through the capitalistic system.
You wanna question Romney's manner of making money? Be my guest. Obama doesn't know how to make money, that's one of his many problems. So his tactics don't matter anyway, because he doesn't even have the fundamental understanding of how to make money in the first place! He doesn't understand our system. Either that, or he hates our system so much, that he works from within to change it. THAT'S what I think he does. He views the American, free market system, as biased and unfair. No secret there, he's said so himself many many times.
If your argument is that Romney profitted more when a company went bankrupt than when a company turned around, you are completely clueless. You are still trying to hold him to an IMPOSSIBLE standard. No investment firm in the world has a 100% success rate. But you chastise Romney when only 15% of Bain's investments went south.
How trivial are you that you ignore an 85% success rate, and focus on a 15% failure rate? You think an NFL coach would like an 85% Touchdown rate on the offenses' possessions? You think a basketball coach would take an 85% free throw percentage from each of his players? You think hedge fund managers would take an 85% success rate on each dollar invested? You think a professional poker player is going to bet or fold when he knows his hand has an 85% chance of winning?
But you go ahead and quibble over numbers. It does nothing but marginalize you in a forum where people understand success, they understand statistics, and they understand that liberal politics and ideology trump EVERYTHING, even results. I would prefer you simply tell the truth. You wan't the rich to pay more because you espouse the principles of Karl Marx. You are about social engineering, not doing what is actually "fair". You are about wealth redistribution. You are about punishing one class of Americans to give handouts to other classes, and not even for the purpose of helping them, but for the purpose of buying their votes.
You, like other progressive liberals, view the poor as a vehicle to political power. They are like Obama described them, a unified voting bloc. You guys exploit poverty for votes. Then you turn around and lie through your teeth and accuse Conservatives of wanting poor people to die and crap like that.
I'de rather you just tell the truth about what you truly believe. Because your policies are the antithesis of "smart" in the context of what's good economic policy.