Romney

[myboynoah]

Mitt Romney, Bain Capital and the gospel of ‘creative destruction’

So now Mitt is also responsible for jobs lost by competitors of the firms Bain helped?

Staples became a runaway business success in the 1980s and 1990s because it offered companies a smarter way of purchasing supplies, saving them money. As Staples grew, smaller stationery stores were shuttered. These losses are not counted in Romney’s jobs figure.

Jobs were a "byproduct" of Bain's activities.

“I’ve got a lot of admiration for Bain Capital, but jobs were the byproduct of the mission, not the product,” said Howard Anderson, a senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “The product was to increase wealth, and in some cases it meant expanding the company. In some cases it meant contracting the company.”

That makes sense for those that believe in the free market, like most Americans. We advocate following certain principles and assume that a greater overall good will result.

Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, said that despite job losses and other discomfiting changes when companies single-mindedly pursue profit, Americans are ultimately “believers in creative destruction.”

“Romney is mainstream in one sense, and that is that Americans are very committed to this process because we believe in the future and we believe in technology,” Carnevale said.

[il Padrino Ute]

Mitt Romney, Bain Capital and the gospel of ‘creative destruction’

So now Mitt is also responsible for jobs lost by competitors of the firms Bain helped?



Jobs were a "byproduct" of Bain's activities.



That makes sense for those that believe in the free market, like most Americans. We advocate following certain principles and assume that a greater overall good will result.

The writer of that tripe sounds like she is a disciple of that Keynesian hack Krugman She's just another one of those Obamao sheep.

[Pelado]

Forget these idiot pundits trying to prolong their relevancy. Just answer me a simple question. Has a candidate ever won Iowa and New Hampshire and lost the nominatoin? Has that ever happened?

Democrats - Muskie. Republicans - Never.

[calicoug]

If Romney pulls off a win in South Carolina, wouldn't you think it would basically be over? The money would get behind Mitt and dry up for Santorum, Perry, Huntsman, and even the angry fat hobbit. I don't see how those guys could effectively go on. Paul will probably stay in the race until the end, but the rest of the primaries would be a cakewalk for Mitt with Paul getting his 5-15%.

If Romney wins SC it is obviously very good news for him and like I said, clearly it makes him more likely to win the nomination. But it is an error to say it makes him a lock. I alluded to this earlier too, but the extended primary process for Republicans this year makes it somewhat harder to capitalize on momentum out of a primary win. And it gives the non-Romney contingency time to coalesce around one candidate. If they can aggregate support behind a Santorum, for example, things can get interesting.

You also have to wonder what happens if Paul keeps getting high vote counts. Will that be enough to cause him to run an independent campaign? He isn't running to win anyways. He is running to promote an ideology and he would get a lot more attention by staying in than by dropping out.

[Moliere]

You also have to wonder what happens if Paul keeps getting high vote counts. Will that be enough to cause him to run an independent campaign? He isn't running to win anyways. He is running to promote an ideology and he would get a lot more attention by staying in than by dropping out.

From what I've read (since I'm personally uninformed) the bets are against Paul going independently. It seems he might be running for two reasons (other than to be president): (1) pull the GOP back to more fiscally conservative principles and (2) set up a potential run for his son in future years. I'd think leaving the GOP would really, really hurt his son's future chances of becoming president.

[Pelado]

If Romney wins SC it is obviously very good news for him and like I said, clearly it makes him more likely to win the nomination. But it is an error to say it makes him a lock. I alluded to this earlier too, but the extended primary process for Republicans this year makes it somewhat harder to capitalize on momentum out of a primary win. And it gives the non-Romney contingency time to coalesce around one candidate. If they can aggregate support behind a Santorum, for example, things can get interesting.

You also have to wonder what happens if Paul keeps getting high vote counts. Will that be enough to cause him to run an independent campaign? He isn't running to win anyways. He is running to promote an ideology and he would get a lot more attention by staying in than by dropping out.

If the non-Romneys can't win in SC, their backers will start to dry up. Donors don't generally want to support a loser. The more primaries Romney wins, in spite of the extended process this election cycle, the less likely the other candidates are to have the funding to continue to put up a fight.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-survey-shows/

[beefytee]

Demint in SC hasn't endorse Mitt

He has in fact endorsed Mitt Romney. Just not this election cycle (it was 2008).

I think it's weird that the media keeps talking about who DeMint will endorse and they rarely mention Romney even though he did endorse Romney the last time around.

[Jacob]

Sounds like he's joining Romney's team to advise on foreign policy. That's big. Romney must have promised him a cabinet position. Secretary of State?

I can't imagine having promised Bolton any such position. especially not Secretary of State. Bolton is a controversial figure and not very diplomatic. As much as I may like the guy (if for nothing else than helping Justice Thomas develop his conservatism and constitutionalism while roommates at Yale Law) I'd be very surprised if a smart candidate like Romney gave him Sec of State. OTOH, it is amusing that Gingrich did tell everybody he would make Bolton his Sec of State only to see Bolton endorse Romney.

Also, I don't see this endorsement of having any real effect. No more than any other endorsement and probably less. And I hope that it doesn't mean that Romney will rely much on Bolton's foreign policy preferences, at least as it relates to the size of our military and the aggressive miliary interventionism that I think Bolton advocates. Unfortunately, every public statement Romney has made indicates that he thinks like Bolton. Except for Romney's recent statement that we woudn't have gone into Iraq knowing now what we didn't know then. A bit of hope from that statement for a more modest approach to interventionism.

[LA Ute]

Sounds like he's joining Romney's team to advise on foreign policy. That's big. Romney must have promised him a cabinet position. Secretary of State?

I am pretty sure no promise was made. It took Bolton a long time to make up his mind on this. He is a rock star among foreign policy conservatives, and I think that helps a lot.

[Jacob]

I am pretty sure no promise was made. It took Bolton a long time to make up his mind on this. He is a rock star among foreign policy conservatives, and I think that helps a lot.

I promise it is not going to help convince Bill Kristol. Most everyone else is coming around to Romney anyway. I don't think it has any effect.

Aside: I'd rather have John Bolton in the supreme court than as Sec of State.

[Surfah]

I can't imagine having promised Bolton any such position. especially not Secretary of State. Bolton is a controversial figure and not very diplomatic. As much as I may like the guy (if for nothing else than helping Justice Thomas develop his conservatism and constitutionalism while roommates at Yale Law) I'd be very surprised if a smart candidate like Romney gave him Sec of State. OTOH, it is amusing that Gingrich did tell everybody he would make Bolton his Sec of State only to see Bolton endorse Romney.

Also, I don't see this endorsement of having any real effect. No more than any other endorsement and probably less. And I hope that it doesn't mean that Romney will rely much on Bolton's foreign policy preferences, at least as it relates to the size of our military and the aggressive miliary interventionism that I think Bolton advocates. Unfortunately, every public statement Romney has made indicates that he thinks like Bolton. Except for Romney's recent statement that we woudn't have gone into Iraq knowing now what we didn't know then. A bit of hope from that statement for a more modest approach to interventionism.

I should have clarified that I think it's big for some conservatives. Bolton is admired by many for his conservatism. Where Romney is attacked for being too close to the center, I think the Bolton endorsement can help with some who think Mitt isn't conservative enough. Plus Bolton is the anti-Paul and may galvanize some voters for Romney who think Paul's stance is extreme.

That said, I am probably overstating Bolton's endorsement some.

[Indy Coug]

I think John Bolton is very bright and is right most of the time, but for some reason I just feel like there's something off about him.

Maybe it's the pushbroom on his face.

[Surfah]

I think John Bolton is very bright and is right most of the time, but for some reason I just feel like there's something off about him.

Maybe it's the pushbroom on his face.

I was going to say, it's definitely the stache.

[Donuthole]

I think John Bolton is very bright and is right most of the time, but for some reason I just feel like there's something off about him.

Maybe it's the pushbroom on his face.

I can't count the number of times I've said the exact same thing about BYU71.