Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”
This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:
“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”
It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:
“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”
Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.
“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”
Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:
“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”
Yep.

56 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

I honestly think the vulture capitalist thing won't work. It is too easy to defend against. Plus, Bamster's new guy is a vulture himself, so it can be thrown back on itself. With each passing day, I am becoming more secure in my feeling that Mitt Romney, though not a conservative, will become POTUS and help congress create a business friendly environment to get our economy turned around.

Ponderosa said...

Gingrich, Perry, et al are doing their best to make Romney look sane.

That will help with the independents in the general.

tryanmax said...

I will mark one significant difference between this round of mud-slinging and the one that took Cain out. Unlike before, there were actually portions of the allegedly conservative media that ran to Romney's defense, providing context, explaining Bain Capital's activities, and prompting smart discussion. There was no tidal wave of "if this is true" preemptive abandonment declarations. That makes all the difference, and that is why this story will die a quick death. It already seems to have developed a limp.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.”

This happens when a company buys another company and then forces it to pay for what it bought. The little guy doesn't have a chance. I have seen it time and again.

One of the first things that new owners do is cut the fat. Now, you would think that a company that was just sold had already cut the fat, well they did. The new owners know this and yet still cut even though there isn't anything to cut. If you compare it to a body, you would think that the company bought was two hundred pounds overweight. In fact, comparing the sick company to a bulimia patient close to death is more accurate.

Also, the new owners think and treat the employees like chattel to be bought, sold and disregarded as they see fit. Why not? They own the company. Never mind that it dislodges a perfectly good crew with bad upper management but good middle managers.

All the while this is going on, the old CEO gets a golden parachute, the board of directors are paid off and the middle management is blamed for the sickness.

Individualist said...

Joel

I wouold humbly suggest that the situation might be a little different. when one company buts another company they are combining two entities into one.

Each company had there own HR department, Invoicing, accounting, recieiving. The had their own levels of middle management and what have you.

The fact of the matter is that the reason to buy out the other company is to gain the benefit of reducing competition and gaining economies of scales. With two companies you need to duplicate efforts. With one the same department can handle both areas. While they may need more people to handle a larger company they do not require twice the people.

If they did, there would be no reason to buy out the company to begin with. While it may seem unfair that top executives get buyouts it is harder for them to find the same positions. The golden parachute becomes a requirement when they agree to take the position.

What is "fair" is not something that can be quantified. I feel that if the merger or buyout is unfettered by government. If it is a natural level of the industry or market and the winners and losers are chosen by the market then it is a part of life.

If it is because government regulation has put barriers to entry into place or worse ordered the merger then I am against it. This is because I feel the best markets are those that have the greatest number of players that can reasonably sustain themselves. When you purposely reduce the number of players by creating government sponsored oligopolies and monopolies you end up reducing the amount of business that is done. This costs the economy and it costs jobs.

The thing you have to realize is that the only thing in the end that you have a right to require of your employer is your paycheck and the only thing your employer has a right to is the work you are supposed to do.

Loyalty, pensions, benefits... these are all fine but you should not rely on them. It is mercenary for sure but in the end when push comes to shove the company may have to cut your job. You have to be cognizant of this fact and be prepared to find your next one if needed.

It sucks, I know I have been there more times than I would like.

The true vulture capitalist is not Romney it is Obama. He took the majority of stock on GM, AIB, Citicorp and lord knows who else form the investors who paid for and earned it. He gave that stock to entities that had not earned it based on his whim.

Gingritch and Perry should no better and the fact that they would not publicly condemn the MSM for printing this is one of the reasons I don't want to vote for them either.

DUQ said...

Jed, Romney's speech last night helped me get more comfort with him too. He drew a very clear line between helping the private sector build America and having the government do it.

rlaWTX said...

I think that Ponderosa makes an excellent point! Like I said last night, I used to like RPerry.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I've become more comfortable about that as well. I think Romney will basically defer to the Republican Congress and will do his best to change the regulatory environment and bureaucracy to be more business friendly. All in all, that should be good for America.

He's not thrilling, but I think he'll do well.

I don't think the vulture capitalist charge will work either. I think it sounds anti-business unless you're very careful about how you phrase it and Obama can't be careful and still use this to excite his base.

AndrewPrice said...

Ponderosa, That's a good point. But I do wish they would stop playing into the Democratic myths about business. The Democrats sell this idea that businesses are out there preying on people and the Republicans should not be promoting this idea.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's absolutely right and it shows why conservatives are fools to ever fall for these things. If they first ask the question "is there anything to this" and then they all fight back when there isn't, then these liberal smears collapse. That would be the end of the liberal power to smear. Only, too many conservatives keep giving these things power by piling on.

This alone should trouble people about Perry and Gingrich. For their own reasons they are giving aid and comfort to dirty liberal tactics. That shows poor judgment.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I don't disagree that CEO compensation and management tricks to protect themselves are bad -- they are and I think corporate law needs serious reform. In particular, I think the law has evolved to allow managers too much power compared to the shareholders, i.e. owners.

But with few exceptions, the reason for takeovers is because there is value in the company that is being lost. These firms are trying to improve the companies and make them better because that's how they profit.

This was the thing in the 1980s and 1990s, many American companies were bloated conglomerates which were falling behind the world. The merger/acquisition people came in, broke them up to focus them, trimmed the waste, and made them competitive again. Japan failed to do that and they've suffered for the last two decades because of it.

Were there abusive practices? Sure. But not nearly as many as people think. And when the alternative is to have a zombie company stumbling along until it finally collapses and 10,000 people lose their jobs, or someone breaks the company up and makes it competitive but fires 5,000 people, the better choice all around is to have the takeover.

So while I do think some reforms are needed, its wrong for Gingrich and Perry to attack the whole process -- and especially for them to attack the concept of profit because that is what business is about and that is a standard progressive line of attack... treating profit as someone else's loss.

LawHawkRFD said...

You can debate whether or not Bain Capital should have cut some or all the people they cut, but those are the decisions that venture capital companies must make. They're not always right, but in the long run, they usually end up getting rid of deadwood and creating more jobs than were originally lost during the transition.

Nobody wants to lose his job, particularly if he's been doing the job well. But my last executive act with the Hawaiian jewelry company I worked for until 2008 was to recommend that they tighten their belts and close their mainland stores (the ones I was responsible for). I had to inform the employees of five stores on Christmas Eve that they wouldn't be coming back after Christmas. The company couldn't afford to stretch its resources after the big market crash. Since I didn't want to move to Hawaii and be that far from my family in California, I was among the newly-unemployed. It had to be done. If that made me a "vulture capitalist," then it means I was myself among the carrion I was feeding on.

Without the mainland stores draining the profits of the Island stores, the company survived, and is in good financial shape. As of six months ago, they had begun hiring again, and may some day re-open their mainland stores (once we get rid of Obama and but a business-savvy president in office).

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Well said!

1. Despite what the left claimed in the 1980s, you can't profit from buying a company and making it worthless. You only get your investment back if you can turn the thing around.

2. The job loss is typically the result of the two companies combining functions and eliminating duplicate effort. Sometimes it's also the result of dropping parts of the business that no longer make sense to continue but which the prior management refused to stop.

3. On monopolies and oligopolies, I do disagree somewhat. I think these are per se bad because they stifle the market. But I also think most of these are the result of government action, not some market power. It's no surprise that these companies all tend to spring up in the most heavily regulated areas.

4. I do think poison pills and golden parachutes and similar control tactics are too much. I want to see companies be more responsive to owners. I think that would also reduce some CEO pay.

5. I agree too that all an employer owes you is payment for your work. Any other promises are a bonus. I think of this in terms of should we really say, for example, that just because you hire someone to mow your lawn that you now owe them work for the rest of their lives?

6. Finally, what really bothers me the most about these and maybe this didn't come through clearly is that they are playing into the liberal anti-capitalist meme that someone profit can only be had at someone else's expense. Perry in particular is making this equation your profit equals someone else's loss.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I thought it was a really good speech. And I have to say that by comparison to the others, he really comes across as presidential. The others all seem petty and like they don't get the concept yet.

If we only went by last night's speeches, I would actually have been a bit excited by him as a candidate. So like you I am getting much more comfortable with him.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I used to like several of these candidates better before they started acting like desperate idiots. I still don't have the candidate(s) I want, but I am getting more comfortable with Romney.

The wouldn't stop me from jumping to a Ryan, Rubio, etc. in a heartbeat, but I can support him.

On Perry, he really is not helping himself. Not only with the debating disasters, but he just hasn't said anything good since getting into the race. He never talks about his plan. All he does is repeat "I am the governor of Texas". And he's gotten downright nasty, right along with Newt. That's a bad combo.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I think your experience is fairly reflective. I've spoken with many officers of large companies and they all report similar concerns -- they don't want to fire anyone, but sometimes they need to because that's the only way for the company to survive.

Now it's true that some companies are more heartless than others and some venture capitalists are more heartless than others. And some make mistakes. But by and large, the industry has helped to rebuild America, not tear it down.

Do I think there could be some reforms of corporate management? Absolutely. Do I wish no one ever had to be fired? Sure. Do I think there is too much money on Wall Street and not enough on Main Street? Yes. But I don't think it's right to condemn capitalism. In fact, I think each of these problems above is the result of government meddling, not capitalism.

Individualist said...

Andrew

The only industry that I think has a true tendency to form monopolies and oligopolies without government influence are computer software companies. This is ironically enough because of the need for the internet and application software to beused independently by the individual users.

In order to to be able to use word processing, spreadsheet and database software I need to be able to transfer the files to someone esle, maybe someone not related to my company and be confident that they will be able to load the software.

In business this led to Microsoft becoming the dominant Network OS and Office becoming the dominant software program. So much so that others simply went out of business. Word Perfect and Lotus.

The only company early on to compete with microsoft was Apple but that was only because they found a niche in being the best machines for graphic and audio software. If Apple had to compete with Bill Gates in the Spreadsheet arean alone I don't think they would have made it.

There are changes in the industry. This is because companies are making the application software free and relying on advertizement and other revenues. The internet and iPhone apps for instance. It remains to be seen if this will be successful in the business world. However the company making headway with Google Office is only able to do so because they became a major player in the niche market of search engines.

Thus while the US government has a problem with Bill Gates I do not because I truly feel that Microsoft's place as a corproate giant is reflective of the unusual nature of the Tech and Computer software industry.

This however is the only industry beyond perhaps Utilities which has become government controlled already where this occurs.

Just a thought.

DUQ said...

I'm just sick of Republicans attacking each other.

tryanmax said...

Romney may have put a splint on that limp. Apparently Romney has likened the activities of Bain Capital to the auto bailout. Wha-wha-wha-whaaa

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Same here.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's a good counter.

Also, let me say that I think it helps Romney a lot that this happened now and he can test ways to defend against it. Plus, it will be largely played out by November. So this is largely defusing an issue Obama could have used.

Joel Farnham said...

That isn't the point I was making. I think you should actually understand that this will resonate. It doesn't matter who falls for it. It also doesn't matter if it is accurate. All that does matter is a sizable proportion of this country are out of work and can't get new jobs.

Our only hope is a brokered convention and picking a candidate that hasn't shown up yet. Oh, and if you really think that the Republican Candidates don't know what they are doing? You have shown ME again and again that all of them are out for themselves. They all want to run it. They don't really care that there is an iceberg coming up and Obama is pouring on more steam. If they really cared, they would never have allowed any of their debates to be ran by Democrat Party Hacks.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I think computer operating systems (right now) fall into the category of what used to be called "natural monopolies." These were things like railroads and power stations where it didn't make sense to have multiple providers in any one area. In those instances, the government stepped in and regulated.

But with advances in technology and competition from other sources (e.g. the car and the airplane), many of those industries can now go unregulated. Sadly, the government hasn't gone hands off. Instead, it's stepped up its regulation because the companies in those industries see that as the best way to get protection from competitors.

Moreover, other industries that were never natural monopolies have jumped on this idea and sought the government's help to become monopolies. Thus, companies like milk companies suddenly become monopolies because the government regulates who can sell milk and car companies become monopolies because the government imposes so many regulations that no company can act as a start up.

Also, regarding Microsoft, at least there is the constant danger that someone else will come up with a better competitor. That's why Microsoft doesn't worry me as much as things like GM where the government is actively protecting the company.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Point taken. You are correct that this will resonate and it will upset people, especially at a time when people are out of work.

But that only highlights why the Republicans should NOT be engaging in this kind of crap -- because they are only encouraging people to think this way. They should be out there explaining why capitalism can get people jobs and anti-capitalism can't, not attacking the tools of capitalism.

But as you note, they don't really care about that. These folks just want the job because it fits their egos and they don't really care what happens to the country in the process of their getting power. The think, "I don't care what it costs or how much damage I do, I want to win."

It reminds me of Milton: "it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

Individualist said...

Andrew

Even if one ends up ruling in hell...


they will still have to learn how to day "Do you want fries with that..."

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Yeah, working fast food is not a pleasant experience.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: Just a quick sidenote. WordPerfect is still alive and well and at Corel. There are still many of us who strongly prefer WordPerfect to Word, For technical use, WordPerfect runs circles around Word. California courts still require that pleadings be submitted both in writing and in WordPerfect format on a disc. For one thing, WordPerfect (unlike Word) doesn't insist on taking over my formatting, telling me when I should be indenting or how I should be arranging my paragraphs. Unfortunately, WordPerfect can no longer be purchased as a stand-alone. It has to be purchased as a suite, including Borland's old Quattro Pro, and in that case, I much prefer MicroSoft's Excel.

Individualist said...

Lswhawk

Faithful customersAmong the remaining avid users of WordPerfect are many law firms and academics, who favor WordPerfect features such as macros and reveal codes, ........ A related factor is that WordPerfect Corporation was particularly responsive to feature requests from the legal profession, incorporating many features particularly useful to that niche market and those features have been continued in subsequent versions usually directly accessible with key combinations"

You are correct. Thansk for letting me know I thought it was defunct. Word Perfect was/is a much better program than Word (from what I know). I liked it because you could use the edit feature to fix formatting problems. Word is sometimes indeciperable in what it deos.

Evidently it is only in business because it found a niche market in lawfirms. At one point however it was the standard. In the software industry the fight is to become the standard. Once you are no longer the standard you are essentially dead unless you can find a niche market like graphics or law firms where you can become the standard again.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect

Sorry forgot the link

Ed said...

I go back to the Eleventh Commandment and I think these attacks are over the top. If Romney did something wrong in a particular instance, then so be it. But to make a broad brush attack on him being a vulture capitalism is a smear.

Individualist said...

Joel and Andrew

The problem is this.

1)People can't get jobs.
2)Democrats state that it is CEOs.
3)Media goes along.
4) Republicans play along and avoid the subject.
5) Democrats regulate Corporations to get CEOs.
6) this oligopolizes the market creating more crony capitalism and loses jobs.

See step One, repeat until the Republic collapses

We have to start countering these arguments and getting people to udnerrstand it is DC and not the head of a Corporation that is the problem.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: That's a pretty good summation. I used WP 3.0 and 6.0 for years. 9.0 has more of the Word look on the surface, and allowed us to integrate graphics into the text more easily (that was Corel's contribution).

Here's the link: WordPerfect.

AndrewPrice said...

This is interesting. The talk last night on the left was that Romney actually lost because he was going to get 35% and not the 40% they think he should have gotten. The final results have him at 39.6%. I guess that makes him a winner in their eyes?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi and Lawhawk, I got my start on WordPerfect and swore I would never switch to Word. But then I tried Word at school and it was so much easier (at the time WordPerfect still required you to input codes to make things like underlying happen).

I knew WordPerfect continued to survive, but I rarely hear of anyone using it. Instead, I'm hearing now that people use Word or some Mac program with which I'm not familiar or Open Office.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That is a problem and as long as Republicans keep attacking each other using Democratic rhetoric, they will only strengthen idiotic Democratic ideas. Unfortunately, that's not going to change because as Joel points out, these people want to win and they don't care about the collateral damage or the long-term consequences.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ed: You're absolutely right. What happened to the Eleventh Commandment? In a healthy contest, the candidates will tout their own records, and make valid criticisms of their opponents. Gingrich and Perry just sound like nasty school kids calling other kids names. It's extremely unseemly. There is one upside, though. It's very likely this will prepare Romney for exactly the kind of attacks Obama will launch, since he's also one of those nasty school kids.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I agree. And that's where Reagan was so good -- he grasped that you had to defend things like capitalism from Democratic attack, not join the attack. Unfortunately, the current crew don't "get it." Thus, they play right into Democratic hands.

Joel makes a very solid point that people will believe these attacks and he's right. But part of that is because the Republicans simply lie down and die rather than coming to the defense and counterattacking.

I don't know how to change that except keep making these points and hope that people listen and start supporting candidates who do it right.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk and Ed, I couldn't agree more. I think that was one of the best things about Cain -- he tried to sell himself rather than tear down the others. That works. It also gives you a stronger administration and a more solid mandate.

rlaWTX said...

I learned on Word. They had both here when I started, and I could not figure out how to make WordPerfect behave. And don't get me started on QuatroPro... We are now all Microsoft because I need to retain the limited grip I have on my sanity...

As for the candidates, can we have a gag order til November? Including TOTUS, of course. Counter-productive, I know, but it sounds nice.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That would be nice! A "fairness doctrine" for voters which prevents politicians from speaking between now and November! LOL!

rlaWTX said...

maybe in T-Rav's alternate dimension...

tryanmax said...

In a way, these attacks make me like Romney more. For sure, Perry and Gingrich have revealed themselves first and foremost as politicians who will adopt whatever rhetoric they feel gets the win. They aren't so much attacks on Romney as they are on capitalism.

And while Romney's defenses aren't the ones I'd use, they are still defenses. I'd rather he focus on differentiating himself from Obama that equating himself. That just seems like the better strategy whether the topic is capitalism or something else.

RE: Word v WordPerfect - I don't know if anybody here knows graphics software, but I still lament the replacement of PageMaker with InDesign. I thought the former layout program had a much more intuitive interface. I'm of course speaking as one who never got on the Quark bandwagon.

BevfromNYC said...

I wish I could figure out what game Gingrich is playing? I thought he was a fairly solid Republican, but he's turning out to be a thug. His attacks make no sense if he's trying to garner votes.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I hear it's a nice place! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I haven't used any of those programs.

I too would like to see him separate himself from Obama, but I can understand why he would tie his biggest vulnerabilities to the things Obama claims the most credit for (the auto bailout). That will make it harder for Obama to attack him. It's not a bad strategy.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I think you're seeing Gingrich the bully. He's always been this way. When things go right, he acts very gregarious and loves everybody -- even the bad guys. But when things go bad for him, he gets really, really nasty. And I don't think he worries about intellectual consistency with his attacks, he just uses whatever is available.

TJ said...

It's a shame the "allegedly" conservative media didn't run to Cain's defense like they did for Romney. Oh well, I too am becoming a little more comfortable with Romney - or is that resigned?

I love WordPerfect - that is what I first learned being a legal secretary for 21 years. I now work in a real estate office and have both Word and WordPerfect and my preference is definitely WordPerfect.

StanH said...

Venture vultures are an integral part of the American business cycle, and like anything do not work every time. It would be foolish to acquire a company only to liquidate it. Their intent is to fix and save the business and sell, sadly this means firing and downsizing will be required. As far as Gingrich and Perry, Romney’s retort hit the mark.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, It is a shame and a disgrace. They should have been out there defending against all smears. I hope they learn something from this.

I'm getting more comfortable with Romney too. He's showing flashes of being a good choice.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I agree. Capitalism isn't perfect nor is it always pretty, but it is easily the best, fairest system and it needs to be defending. I agree with you about Romney's response -- it was right on point.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I hadn't considered that. Stand too close to Obama and he can't hit you because he will hit himself, too. On the other hand, that makes for a very fine line to walk.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It's an interesting strategy that offers more good than bad, if played right. The good is that it becomes very hard for Obama to attack without attacking himself. Also, moderates then see you as "reasonable" and "moderate." They find that comforting.

But the danger is that you might end up turning off your base. So you need to walk a very fine line.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Capitalism/free enterprise is about equality of opportunity. Socialism/Obamism is about equality of outcome (themselves excepted, if course). Under capitalism, some get rich, some go broke and most make a good living. Under socialism, everyone is equally poor (except the elite running the show). And under capitalism, even those who go broke or lose their jobs can start over and still grab the brass ring. As you said, Romney handled it well, and I suspect will continue to get better at it (knowing where Obama is coming from). Like democracy, capitalism is the worst form of wealth-creation, except for all the others.

Joel Farnham said...

I know this will date me. I cut my computer eyeteeth on WordStar, SuperCalc, and dBase III plus. The only reason, Word, Excel and Outlook dominate is because they are in a bundle and work well together. If someone bundled WordStar, SuperCalc and dBase III plus and sold it for a competitive price to consumers, then we would not have Microsoft dominating the market. As it is, the reason people want and use Microsoft is Ease of Use. You don't need a computer degree nor need to understand computers to run them.

If each one of these, like Word, had to compete independently very quickly there would be a slough of superior products. Open Office from Java works as well as Office and it is free. Yet, it still hasn't caught on because it is free.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Well said. I wish more people realized this and that more Republicans could explain it.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I started on computers before there were word processors. LOL!

What's funny is that by the time everyone was on Word or Word Perfect, I got a job with the government where they were using a word processor designed by Wang. It was built into the operating system itself and you had to enter code all over the place, even to do things like indenting.

Post a Comment