"Mitt Romney, American Parasite" is the headline the Seattle Weekly put on its article about Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital. It quotes an author who describes Mr. Romney as "a parasitic capitalist." The complaint seems to be that some jobs and benefits were cut at some companies Mr. Romney or Bain took over, while Mr. Romney and Bain made money. But the article doesn't seem to consider the possibility that without Mr. Romney or Bain, even more jobs and benefits would have been lost. Nor does it consider the voluntary nature of the transactions between the sellers of the companies and Bain Capital, or between Bain and its investors. Earlier posts here have focused on the sordid history of this "parasitic" accusation. If a businessman who makes money by turning around companies is a parasite, what does that make a reporter who makes money by writing about the businessman? If Mr. Romney can counter these sorts of assaults by successfully explaining why these transactions are good rather than parasitical, he'll do the country a great service even if he doesn't manage to win the election.