I think the hard work against Romney has already been done--unaired Kennedy attack ad:

Via Politico.  Oh, and the story that goes with it is pretty effective stuff, too:

“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”



The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to avert the company’s collapse.

This has already been sort of brought up by fellow GOP primary candidate Newt Gingrich, who has challenged Mitt Romney to "give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain".  I'm not sure how effective that challenge will be in the GOP primary, but it will no doubt be used against Romney if he wins the nomination--which leads me to wonder if that was something of a long-range calculation on Gingrich's part.  The two good charges Gingrich has levelled at Romney: that he would have been a career politician if Kennedy hadn't beaten him and that his business involved "vulture capitalism" at its most predatory, are effective swipes at Romney's pose as an experienced businessperson and outsider to government whose private sector know-how will improve the economy.  They work for Gingrich in the short run by undermining what Romney is pitching as his strength--but they also work as a time bomb against Romney in the general election where public sentiment will not favor a person who displayed a talent at profiting off of firing people and bankrupting companies. That undercuts the claim that has been made all along that Romney is simply more electable.
I can't resist suggesting that the claim re: electability has been....Newtralized? (If I believed in Hell....yeah, I'd be going to Hell for that one....)  With an assist from Ted Kennedy. (Politics....bedfellows....strangeness.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.)