Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Todd ·
January 10, 2012 at 12:00am
Here is Mitt Romney making a comment about how he likes being able to fire people (and replace them with someone else...)
He should not back down on this. Let's have this argument.
- Comment (90)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Romney's statement wasn't a gaffe. It was exactly correct, and well said. He didn't say "I like firing people." He said, "I like being ABLE to fire people." The opposite point of view is that people have a right to the job they are in, that firing people who are non-productive is bad, and that the job of a corporation is to act as a social welfare agency for its employees.
That's a point of view closer to Nancy Pelosi than Ronald Reagan. I never thought I'd hear Newt Gingrich's name associated with such populist drivel.
'Corporate raiders' fill a valuable function. They look for companies that are using their capital inefficiently, or whose profitability has dropped below the value of the capital tied up in them. These 'raiders' buy them, and either reform them and make them profitable again (often by laying off non-produtive people), or strip their capital and make it available for re-investment in areas that can make better use of it. This makes capital allocation more efficient, and it keeps companies lean and on their toes.
Would you rather have these companies bailed out when they fail?
Feb '11
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
wmartin
Can you point to a long list of gaffes that make him more toxic than the Perry, Santorum, the walking gaffe machine Newt Gingrich, etc?
The difference is that Romney is the establishment-blessed front runner and chosen GOP standard bearer. More should be expected of him, and more is.
Considering that Rick Perry destroyed his campaign- and possibly his career- with his remarkable ability to not communicate in English listing him in your list is a stretch, or perhaps just cruel. Plus the others also suffered because of their gaffes, including Newt.
But Romney? Nope. It's somehow beyond the pale to notice his remarkable ability to misspeak. Such as the time he said his children were serving their country by working on his campaign, or the time he said corporations are people too, or...this time.
And about Gingrich- I recognize at least one those gaffes from the time he was speaker. That is, in the last century.
What will turn up about Romney when we get to hear more about his career way back then? I bet plenty, and I doubt not talking about his time at Bain will be enough to bury it all.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Frozen Chosen
Stuart Creque: The specific words a candidate uses matter as much or more than the ideas and intent behind those words.
Mitt Romney seems not to have realized that this is the world we live in:
Stuart, I would love to see you give 5 speeches a day every day for 10 months. I'm sure you would never make a mistake or use an inartful phrase.
The other candidates make a gaffe a week and when Romney makes a minor one every 3 or 4 months suddenly he's a gaffe machine.
I am anxiously awaiting your list of candidates who never make a mistake on the campaign trail.
Heh, heh. After 1,500 speeches, I am pretty sure I'd have expurgated the clunkers from my spiel and memorized the most palatable formulation for the points I wanted to make. Practice makes perfect, they say, but really only perfect practice makes perfect.
I've been impressed with Santorum's recent appearances. It seems to me that he's benefited from his extensive practice in front of the voters of Iowa.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
James Of England
dogsbody
As a campaigner, he's incompetent. · Jan 9 at 5:32pm
Mitt is almost certain to achieve the Iowa/ New Hampshire double as a non-incumbent, for the first time in American history.
If his marketing is incompetent, his substance must be awesome. · Jan 9 at 7:58pm
He's polling a consistent 25% among Republicans. His floor isn't far below 23%, but judging from how Republicans view him, his ceiling isn't far above 25%.
If he wins NH and, eventually, the nomination, it will be because his competition is even worse. That's why I am so pessimistic about 2012. As I said in a comment a few weeks ago, I think none of the current GOP crowd can beat Obama. None.
What's even more sad is, I'm not sure the GOP establishment really cares.
Edited on January 10, 2012 at 5:32amDec '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
"I like being able to fire people" is right up there with "It's good to be the King."
The idiocy of the statement is that he wasn't talking about PEOPLE at all: he was talking about vendors, insurance companies providing a service. The correct language would have been about freedom of choice in a marketplace.
As far as firing people, Romney ought to take Newt's challenge head on and give a press conference dealing specifically and directly with Bain's role in bringing out the value locked in the firms it restructured, the importance of creative destruction in capitalism, and how the process leads to growth in GDP, employment, and worker income. And how firing Federal employees unburdens the economy.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
dogsbody
He's polling a consistent 25% among Republicans. His floor isn't far below 23%, but judging from how Republicans view him, his ceiling isn't far above 25%.
If he wins NH and, eventually, the nomination, it will be because his competition is even worse. That's why I am so pessimistic about 2012. As I said in a comment a few weeks ago, I think none of the current GOP crowd can beat Obama. None.
What's even more sad is, I'm not sure the GOP really cares. · Jan 9 at 8:30pm
No, it seems he's starting to break through the 25 percent mark: over 30 in South Carolina, mid-30s in Florida. If his opposition remains fragmented, he may be able to go into February positioned to knock them out one after the other.
On the other hand, if one or two drop out after New Hampshire and one or two more after South Carolina, the field on Feb. 1 may be Mitt, Paul and only one or two other competitors, and that may make February a real race.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Stuart Creque
No, it seems he's starting to break through the 25 percent mark: over 30 in South Carolina, mid-30s in Florida. If his opposition remains fragmented, he may be able to go into February positioned to knock them out one after the other.
On the other hand, if one or two drop out after New Hampshire and one or two more after South Carolina, the field on Feb. 1 may be Mitt, Paul and only one or two other competitors, and that may make February a real race. · Jan 9 at 8:35pm
I shouldn't have said that about his ceiling; it's the weakest part of the argument anyway. I'm still pessimistic about any of the current candidates being able to beat Obama.
But I hope I'm wrong.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Frozen Chosen
Stuart Creque: The specific words a candidate uses matter as much or more than the ideas and intent behind those words.
Mitt Romney seems not to have realized that this is the world we live in:
Stuart, I would love to see you give 5 speeches a day every day for 10 months. I'm sure you would never make a mistake or use an inartful phrase.
The other candidates make a gaffe a week and when Romney makes a minor one every 3 or 4 months suddenly he's a gaffe machine.
I am anxiously awaiting your list of candidates who never make a mistake on the campaign trail. · Jan 9 at 8:10pm
Edited on Jan 09 at 08:11 pm
10 months? Try 5 years.
May '10
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
Romney's statement wasn't a gaffe. It was exactly correct, and well said. He didn't say "I like firing people." He said, "I like being ABLE to fire people."
No, lets be honest: it was a media-environmentally foolish thing to say. But it's par for the campaign course; lets just hope his unforced error rate stays as low as it is.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt, Don't Back Down on This
ParisParamus: Romney's statement wasn't a gaffe. It was exactly correct, and well said. He didn't say "I like firing people." He said, "I like being ABLE to fire people."
No, lets be honest: it was a media-environmentally foolish thing to say. But it's par for the campaign course; lets just hope his unforced error rate stays as low as it is. · Jan 9 at 9:21pm
The more I read on this, the more forums I see people, some of whom I can't vouch for, some of whom I have internet familiarity with, saying that this is the first time they've supported Mitt this campaign. The Club For Growth is being more pro-Mitt than they have been at any previous point (I'm not sure why Stephen Moore has been so consistently opposed to Mitt: Mitt's opposition to the Fair Tax?, but he's been very strong in his attacks). I wouldn't be surprised if Art Laffer felt too embarrased to come out today.
For the "enthusiasm" element of the general, primary attacks from the left may be just what the doctor ordered.