Romney: I like being able to fire people

Romney’s business ventures with Bain Capital are now being used against him to portray him as ineffectual in the private sector, experience he has touted to distinguish himself as a “Washington outsider.” Why? Because per usual in the private sector, some employees lost their jobs. What’s interesting (and incredibly disturbing about this whole ordeal) is that Romney is being attacked by the Right for his capitalistic endeavors.

The meme started with this Move On ad:

The Right picked up a talking point from Move on and is leveraging it against the current GOP front runner. In conjunction with this leftist meme, Romney is now being quoted out of context by other GOP candidates as saying he likes to fire people. Take a look at what he said, in context:

“I want people to be able to own their own insurance if they wish to. And to buy it for themselves and perhaps keep it the rest of their life and to choose among different policies offered from companies across the nation. I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that 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 the good service I need I want to say ‘You know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.’ So, that’s one thing I would change.”

For as much as we love to criticize the media for their unabashed slant, and rightly so, the Right still falls for their ploys and rabble rousing every single time.

Apparently the Right wants someone with private sector experience, just not private sector experience that involves firings or making a profit. Since when do we hate capitalism? I thought that was the Left’s job. The primaries are dress rehearsal for the general election and it’s imperative that we vet all candidates extensively before the media really sinks their teeth in to our nominee, however, employing class warfarish, anti-capitalistic criticisms is nothing short of deplorable.

(h/t Business Insider)
___

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    And we like being able to fire you, Mitt. Do us all a favor and retire somewhere, please.

  • Anonymous

    So Romney is being eaten’ by the NEWT WHALE and othe double talking, slime machines in the blood fest playing into ther big stinking O. Hey, what Romney did was JUST what a good surgeon does when there is cancer to remove and save th e patient. Has even the Republicans been taken over by trhe Pod People brain disease.

  • Anonymous

    Looking at my Gucci it’s about that time… now it’s getting dirty in the political ad field, politicians quoted out of context? Tisk tisk, I would say this is shameful, but it is part of the game. Besides, Romney has made ads that contain out of context quotes too, so he had it coming.

  • Anonymous

    I like to be able to fire people too and I do it every time I get inferior service for my money. Right now I’d like to fire most of Congress and the President for instance.

  • Anonymous

    Time to take off the ‘Mittens’…

  • Anonymous

    I’d expect this from Newt, but now Perry is jumping on the anti-capitalism bandwagon too. We can thank them for showing us their true colors. This leaves Newt in political Siberia once Mitt wins the nomination. Foolish scorched earth strategy.

    I’m 90% solid behind Romney at this point. I hope he will champion some of Ron Paul’s issues like the Fed, spending, agency cuts, etc.

    • Anonymous

      I jumped all over Newt for this in another post. Seems nobody agreed with me. I was really dismayed this morning to find out that Perry is piling on.

      Perry is my number one guy. This hurts the conservative cause for all of us.

      Perry needs to rethink this. Newt is just hellbent on destroying Romney at any cost.

      • It’s not that no one agreed with you, it’s just that Romney thought he could open Pandora’s box, launch millions of dollars worth of attack ads which are meant to destroy your oponent.. and skirt away scott free.

        That’s just not how it works in politics. Once you open that box, you have to be ready for the blowback. Attack ads are dirt, if Romney didn’t want to get dirty he should have stayed out of the mud. At least that was the point of my response to your comment previously.

        • Anonymous

          Fair enough. But someone was arguing with me that what Mitt was doing was crony capitalism, but that line of argument doesn’t make sense to me. (Unless someone can explain how.)

          I am in full agreement on Romney being a complete scumbag with those PAC ads.

        • I agree- Newt asked nicely and Romney not only disregarded it, but then said it’s just politics…..Newt said, ‘Oh, really?’ Romney may have felt a little cocky with the establishment behind him, but going up against such an experienced candidate is going to humble him.

          I friggin hate bullies, and what Romney did was basically have his friends punching Newt in the stomach in Iowa and then respond like his sh*t doesn’t stink and like nothing happened.

      • Anonymous

        He needs to rethink, yes. Think is the operative word, here. Sad when they just parrot what they heard.

    • Anonymous

      Corporate raiding is the ugly side of capitalism and not very popular.

    • you’re 90% behind Romney at this point, okay fine, hope for anything but you never know where he’s going to stand on the issues come tomorrow. Never know what he’s going to say tomorrow to contradict what he says today.

      • Anonymous

        Yep. The most entertaining “Republican” debate we could ever witness would be Mitt debating Mitt.

        • Anonymous

          Conservative Mitt: You’re a progressive Mitt.

          Progressive Mitt: I’m an Independent and I don’t like you Reagan Republicans and your policies.

          Independent Mitt: Stop lying progressive Mitt you stopped being an Independent when you ran for Governor of MA.

          Progressive Mitt: Conservative Mitt tell Independent Mitt to stop attacking me.

          Conservative Mitt: I can’t tell Independent Mitt what to do, he makes up his own mind and changes it hours later.

          “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate and my views are progressive” -Mitt Romney

          “I’m Not Running As The Republican View Or A Continuation Of Republican Values” -Mitt Romney

    • Anonymous

      What indication do you see that Romney is at all interested in any of those issues?

      I cannot support Romney (or any of the other GOP candidates for that matter, save Ron Paul) specifically because they will never challenge the Fed and our corrupt monetary system.

      • Anonymous

        so are you telling me you wont vote for romney if he is the nominee?

        • Anonymous

          Correct. Romney is the bankster hedge against Obama. I can support neither.

          • Anonymous

            you know i am done defending the intelligence of conservatives. I work with alot of liberal and progressives and when ever they insult the rights intelligence i defend but no more. If you are willing to let obama get reelected cause your guy isnt the nominee or cause he is not conservative enough for you then you are dumb and deserve all the negative effects another 4 years of obama would bring to our country. You wanna fight for your guy during the primaries then by all means fight for your guy, you wanna fight the establishment then do so, but you must vote for the nominee who ever it is this election. Obama is far to dangerous and destructive to allow to be reelected. If you people are to stupid to understand that then there truly is no hope for our country.

            • Anonymous

              I am done voting for phony conservatives who are just as dangerous and destructive to our freedoms as the libtards they decry.

              If the Federal Reserve is not an issue, and it is definitely not an issue for Romney, I cannot support that candidate or nominee.

              THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

          • Anonymous

            My, aren’t we pure!!

      • Anonymous

        OK. so you’re gonna leave Obama in there to run things?

        • Anonymous

          Between Obama and Romney, it just doesn’t matter. Of the others, only Perry and Newt have given lip service to reigning in the Fed. Neither of them will be the nominee, so their sincerity on the issue just doesn’t matter.

  • Anonymous

    Quote: “Apparently the Right wants someone with private sector experience, just not private sector experience that involves firings or making a profit

    I can tell you exactly why.

    It’s because many on the Right follow the morality of altruism, which declares that it is a virtue to sacrifice oneself for the sake of others, and that correspondingly it is a vice to act selfishly. Hence, making firings and making profits (which are typically selfish actions) are considered a vice, but sacrificing oneself by hiring people and taking a loss on the basis that they “need” the job so badly is considered a virtue.

    Their moral code is their motivation here.

    Little do they know that their moral code (altruism) is utterly incompatible with Capitalism.

    • Anonymous

      firings and making profits (which are typically selfish actions)… altruism is utterly incompatible with Caitalism

      Huh! Since when? Unless I’m not reading your post correctly, your argument is a bit shaky, imho.

      Capitalism IS altruism. It’s the highest form of giving, according to Milton Freedman, which allows people we don’t even know to benefit. No… capitalism is NOT greedy. There may be greedy Capitalists, but free market Capitalism is not a creed of greed. Socialism, however is… it’s a creed of taking, while Capitalism is a creed of making.

      • Anonymous

        Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.

        • Anonymous

          You obviously believe capitalism is a construct of greed. You would be on safer ground to call it “amoral” at the very least. That’s an Idea I could buy.

          I’ll assume you put some thinking into what you believe… And I’ll assume you are an acolyte of Ayn Rand if indeed this is where you got this non-nonsensical idea that “Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights.” So I’ll concede that there is maybe, just maybe some philosophical underpinning to your claim, and that Rand is your reference. If that is true, then as much as I love and admire Rand (and I think she is awesome), she was out to lunch on this part because she suffered a Hitchens complex on religion and as such structured her ideas to fit her atheist faith.

          Now… as to your second point and the “sacrificial lamb”. You make no point. And I am unconvinced that you even knew what you were really trying to say. My best assumption is that it was some back handed reference to Jesus.

          • Anonymous

            Capitalism is the most moral social system ever devised by Mankind – I know this to be true. So confident am I in the moral superiority of capitalism that I spit upon the pathetic notion that it is “merely amoral”. I utterly denounce half-hearted defenses of capitalism – They are not only wrong but they also embolden fervent anti-capitalists in their pursuit of communism.

            Irving Kristol once gave “two cheers for capitalism”, rather than the standard three, and he did that because despite capitalism’s proven success as an economic model, he couldn’t bring himself to give it the third cheer because he felt that there was something “morally wrong” with its reliance on people pursuing their self-interest. Irving Kristol is an altruist – He believes, as do a great many people, that virtue lies in the sacrificing oneself for the sake of others, and that evil lies in its opposite – selfishness.

            Ayn Rand wrote a book, a very good book that I definitely recommend that you read called “The Virtue of Selfishness”. In that book she explains that people have got morality backwards, that altruism (self-sacrifice) is evil and that egoism (self-interest) is good.

            Yes, Ayn Rand was opposed to religion, since she was opposed to the metaphysics of “mysticism”, the epistemology of “faith”, and their ethical product: “altruism”. Instead, Ayn Rand promoted the metaphysics of “objective reality”, the epistemology of “reason”, and the ethics of “egoism” (or “rational egoism”, albeit the “rational” part is redundant since to be an egoist is to be rational).

            There is no rational argument for how capitalism could be the product of a philosophy based on mysticism, faith and altruism. It is impossible to logically deduce “capitalism” from those things, but that is precsiely what mystics (such as yourself) are claiming today. Capitalism was the philosophical product of objective reality, reason and egoism. You can logically deduce capitalism as a social system from a philosophy based upon those concepts – It isn’t hard to do.

            I appreciate that you “think she is awesome”, but I don’t think you’ve read enough of her work to offer any criticism of anything that she has said, including her statement: “altruism is incompatible with capitalism”, which you have called “nonsensical” without understanding.

            I’m not Ayn Rand and I don’t profess to equal her intellect, so I strongly recommend that you read more of her work, possibly starting with the book I mentioned above.

            Don’t just snub her work/philosophy, simply because you’re religious and oppose and refuse to read anything by anyone who has anything bad to say about religion.

            Lastly, “Capitalism: The unknown ideal” is a great book too 🙂

            • Anonymous

              Capitalism is the most moral social system ever devised by Mankind

              Bingo! No truer words spoken my friend.

              On the altruism side… a capitalist can walk and chew gum at the same time. Because capitalism is moral and a basic fact of life (like Maggie thatcher says), there is no conflict with altruism. That’s why I will go further that capitalism is unconsciously altruistic.. benefiting unknown millions.

              And one cannot be altruistic unless they produce their own betterment to be able to give to others. But frankly, I’m so sick of this sanctimonious meme of “giving back” that you hear every day from liberals, and yes from even conservatives… as if capitalism took something. Capitalism took nothing… it makes things.

              It’s not an either/or scenario. You can be a capitalist and self sacrificing. Self sacrifice is on a whole other plane… like a soldier sacrifices himself so his country and capitalist way of life can survive. That’s a human good… and in no way denigrates capitalism.

              I’ve read Rands’ Virtue of Selfishness… and that’s where I depart a bit with her. I believe in rational self interest not Rands ego self interest. We have plenty of those types surrounding us already and they produce great evils like socialism as well.

              There is no rational argument for how capitalism could be the product of a philosophy based on mysticism, faith and altruism.

              That’s not an appropriate statement, nor a fair observation. Capitalism just is! And I could prove to you from the NT that Jesus was a capitalist and that both OT and NT saw capitalism as the only form of wealth creation.

              And I am NOT a mystic. People like Rand who had a pedestrian view of the Bible also had a pedestrian interpretation for their views of Christianity and wrapped that misunderstanding into her critique. She like Hitchens could never acknowledge a moral authority outside of man, and her writings reflect this. I disagree with her on this point. It does not make me wrong. It does make her wrong, on that point, however.

              Don’t just snub her work/philosophy, simply because you’re religious and oppose and refuse to read anything by anyone who has anything bad to say about religion.

              I’m heartened that you could assume what I read and don’t read. You reveal more about your bias against religion because you assume that Christians “refuse to read anything by anyone who has anything bad to say about religion.” That’s not even an argument… it’s an ad hominem attack. I’m sure if you think a bit about it.. you’ll repent and agree with me.

              So yes… I too read Rand… and presently tackling Atlas Shrugs. I’ve read Virtue and Fountainhead, and see what I can on YouTube of her. I know about her past and where she came from. Imagine! A dumb prejudicial Christian not reading her because she’s an atheist. I’m also a Hitchens fan and read him all the time. I don’t agree with his atheism, yet it doesn’t stop me from reading him or listening to him. And yes… I think he is “awesome” as well. Isn’t that precious too!

              I’ll add Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal to my reading list. Next up is Weinstein’s Capitalism 101 for me before hand.

              Here’s a suggestion, just a suggestion… you may want to reexamine what you think you know about Christians before slagging them as prejudicial know nothings who refuse to read things they don’t like.. Just sayin’

  • Josh

    I just don’t trust Romney. He comes off as a used car salesman. He will tell you everything you want to hear and would lie to his own mother to make a sale. Just my opinion based on what I have heard and seen from him…

    • Anonymous

      I shared the same concerns but something caught my ear in the debates over the weekend. I did not realize just how lop-sided left-tilting Massachusetts’ legislature is. When you consider Romney’s achievements amid a backdrop of 80% democrats, it is remarkable.

      This helps me to measure his accomplishments in the right context. Imagine evaluating the conservative credentials of a mayor or city councilman in San Francisco!!!

      • how about this context, can you name one conservative accomplishment he did in Massachusetts? Romney only achievement is as a moderate/liberal in the public sector.

        • Anonymous

          It was conservative of Mitt to only impose a $100.00 fee per year on each of your registered guns rather than raise taxes or ban guns along with assault weapons. 😉

        • Anonymous

          800 vetos… Reminiscent of Calvin Coolidge. Sometimes just saying no to more government “solutions” is the most conservative action.

      • Your position is not surprising and typical of people who don’t know much about Romney. I understand because Romney fooled me last time around. I and many others like me won’t be fooled by him again.

        Fortunately for Romney there are many new people to fool, and more importantly, the divide and conquer strategy of McCain/establishment is still alive and well. It appears conservatives haven’t yet woken up to that strategic mistake and Romney has gone essentially un-vetted this time around.

      • Josh

        I think I would consider moving out of a state that was 80% idiots, er… liberal democrats.

    • Anonymous

      “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate and my views are progressive” -Mitt Romney

      “I’m Not Running As The Republican View Or A Continuation Of Republican Values” -Mitt Romney

  • Anonymous

    This is the first time today that I have seen the whole context. At least he will be able to accuse them of taking it out of context since he was talking about insurance companies, not his employees.

    Not that it should matter. Anybody should be able to fire their employees without apology.

  • if there ever was a perfect candidate for Obama it’s Mitt Romney. Holy crap he fits right into Obama’s campaign strategy of class warfare rhetoric and those useful idiots of the OWS can rally behind. Conservatives get to defend a guy they never wanted just in hope a moderate can beat Obama. Good luck with that.

    • Anonymous

      Not only that but R-Care mitigates O-Care, the fact Republicans are saying the Constitution is hanging by a thread and that old Joseph Smith White Horse prophecy among other things. Donna Brazile let the cat out of the bag. Obama would love to run against Romney instead of a conservative who contrast better.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent comments, Red.

  • Jim Botts

    I agree, Newt and Perry shouldn’t be doing this, BUT it would be nice to get it out there now while something can be done about it. I’d rather have Newt and Perry setting the parameters on this subject than Axelrod.

    If Mitt wants to get out of this he needs to start talking about how many dead government slugs he would can. He can start with the EPA, move onto the dept of energy and the SEC from there.

  • Donna Brazile Lets the Cat Out of the Bag: Dems Want to Run Against Romney

    BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him — and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.

    KARL: Why is that?

    BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin’, and that’s Mitt Romney.

    KARL: Oh, come on.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you don’t believe that, Donna.

    RUSH: That’s Stephanopoulos. What Stephanopoulos is saying is, “Shut up, Donna! What the hell are you doing, Donna? Did you not take your meds?” That, “Come on, Donna, what are you doing? You know you don’t believe that” means, “Donna, shut up.” … She practically gleeful here, and I’ll tell you why she’s gleeful. She’s gleeful because what she sees is Romney getting the nomination, so she thinks it’s okay to blow the lid off this cover now. “Mitt Romney won tonight, because no one touched him — and for Democrats that’s good news for us.”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/09/donna_brazile_lets_the_cat_out_of_the_bag_dems_want_to_run_against_romney

    • Anonymous

      Notice she did not say Ron Paul. That is because he is the GOP candidate the Dems fear MOST. They know he can take independents and even Dems away from Obama like no other.

      Suffolk has Ron Paul within 13% of Romney in NH by the way.

  • Anonymous

    Well said Red! I like firing folks who deserve it too. That’s one reason I’d never allow my business to unionize. I’d shut it down first. In this instance, Romney isn’t even speaking of employees, but companies and persons that provide services to him, like an insurance company, a barber, or a lawn care company.

    It’d be great seeing this country run much more like a successful business. This is getting very interesting. Most of us do not want Romney as the nominee but bristle a bit when the other side trashes him. It’s like, Hey(!) don’t use Romney as your whipping boy, he’s our whipping boy! 🙂

    Few are as socialistic as O’. It is ingrained into him from his parents and his mentors.
    Romney has an entire different set of values ingrained into him. Those folks who say that Romney would be just like O’ are stretching and straining credulity. He is also much more charismatic than McCain, (as is our local garbage man).

    Additionally, O’ is no longer an unknown quantity. He has been quantified…as O’. Millions of voters voted for him blindly last time around. He can no longer travel or run incognito as it were. He just can’t. He can’t run as a uniter or a “job creator”. He can’t run as a fiscal hawk either. He is a crony socialist, a divider, a money wasting debt machine and a Marxist. No way he gets back in. I think independents will turn on him in overwhelming numbers.

    • Anonymous

      The bloom is off the rose
      The Emperor has no clothes
      Now everybody knows
      That I should stick to prose

      • Joe

        Don’t forget
        to blow your nose!

    • Anonymous

      You make some very good points here about O. I think many people, like me, feel like a pin ball, bouncing back and forth between one candidate and another as they drop off the radar. We need to let our heads clear.

      Obama is nothing like the GOP field. There are problems with each and every one of them, but, for certain, they are nowhere near Obama. It is no exaggeration to say he is a far left socialist and I know of no Republican that is like that, no matter who.

      So, I guess we need to vet our candidates thoroughly, take a deep breath and choose the best candidate we can. Just because the media says Romney is the only one who has a chance, then polls 1000 people to get half of them to say the same thing, doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. Anybody can and should beat Obama. Then we go from there.

      • Anonymous

        Yep. I’ve been trying to get acclimated to defending Romney and accepting our fate with him, just in case he gets the nod. Newt needs to get right and stay tight. He needs to dance with the ones that brought him instead of trying to “dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight”.

        It’s been an emotional roller coaster for sure. We’ve have to constantly adjust. I was a Cain man for a while until he dropped out, a big Perry guy too. I sooo wish he hadn’t monked up those times. He became instant caricature material and I said, Nooooooo! Dagnabbit!

        There’s one positive thing about Romney being a flip-flopper. With a conservative electorate that whips the stuffin’ out of O’, Romney might have to flip-flop to a staunch conservative’s position 🙂

        See my little smile-face’s eyes? You might have to wipe the moondust out of them. Daddy’s just trying to cope and stay positive.

        • Anonymous

          “pale moonlight” suits him….hope the illumination would be limited to a scant New Crescent.

          • Anonymous

            I wasn’t referring to Romney as the Devil though, but rather the tactic that Newt is using 🙂

  • Anonymous

    The primaries are dress rehearsal for the general election and it’s imperative that we vet all candidates extensively before the media really sinks their teeth in to our nominee, however, employing class warfarish, anti-capitalistic criticisms is nothing short of deplorable.

    Because Obama won’t? If Romney is going to be crushed by his experience at Bane Capital better before the nomination rather than after yes/no?

    I can’t believe people actually think Romney can beat Obama in the political environment we are living in. Obama is going to paint Romney as Wall St’s boy toy besides being a flip flopper with a strange religion and the father of O-Care. We all know this is going to be the dirtiest campaign in years and Romney cannot beat Obama.

    • Anonymous

      “Romney cannot beat Obama” (Guest1776rcp)

      I’ve seen this statement many times from many folks. I think it’s complete hogwash and horsefeathers, with a bushel of balderdash thrown in for good measure…with all due respect of course 🙂

      • Anonymous

        Sure, why would Obama want to run against a flip flopper from MA when he himself is polling under 50% since it didn’t work out so well for Bush. 😉

        Why would Obama want to run against Romney whom he can easily paint as a 1%er and Wall St’s boy toy who hides his money offshore and made a fortune as a corporate raider. Surely in this political environment that’s a big mistake because people just love those CEOs who make out credit give themselves raises then bankrupt the companies, send jobs to China and such. Its a sure loser for Obama.

        Why would Obama want to paint those Republicans as crazies for saying the Constitution is hanging by a thread and the country won’t survive Obama contrasting it with Romney’s Mormonism and their founder’s White Horse prophecy.

        That’s just a few things off the top of my head as to why Obama wouldn’t want to run against Romney. No way, not in this economic and political environment. Obama would be a fool to wish for someone whom he can say my O-Care was based on your R-Care and some of your people even helped us write it.

        Nope, No way Obama wants to run against Mittens who doesn’t defend himself or conservatism very well. Nope, not in a million years does Obama want to run against Mittens.

        /sarcasm

        • Anonymous

          “That’s just a few things off the top of my head…” (Guest)

          Hmmm, sounds like ass product to me. Are you sure you’re not hanging upside down or something?

          Obama himself motivates the republican party.

          /sincerity

          • Anonymous

            Romney inspires the base even less than McCain see 2008.
            Romney is a McCain redux.

            • Anonymous

              That is your opinion.

    • Anonymous

      I am of mixed mind on this one. Part of me is relieved that we can vet Mitt to see how this plays before he becomes the nominee (while there is still time to nominate someone else). But I wish it didn’t come from a candidate who is supposed to stand up for free market principles. And now with Perry piling on, it doesn’t leave much. I don’t want to support Romney, and I don’t want anyone who doesn’t support capitalism.

      We need a do over.

  • Anonymous

    Good! There’s lots that need firing in DC. The EPA, the Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. Go for it, Mitt! (and I’m not even a supporter)

    • Anonymous

      You nailed it.

  • Anonymous

    When a friend of mine interviewed for a hospital job, he was assured the support staff was good b/c they all got fired for striking … as they were a union.

    Who would want a lazy or negligent worker taking care of their sick loved one? And, isn’t the employer negligent by turning a blind eye to sub-par care?

    So, tell me how firing is not a good practice? Even, liberals want a decent quality of care for their family members, or is this assuming too much?

  • Anonymous

    Capitalism and “private sector” are not a single concept.

    There is a big difference between a corporate raider, which amounts to destroying companies for the simple reason of making profit for a handful of operatives (Romney), and creating companies or making them more profitable even by reducing them, if need be (again Romney). Treating “capitalism” as if it’s some sort of conservative untouchable is intellectually vacuous.

    For example, the strongest most stable banks on earth today are Canadian. Why? Because Canada has a very intrusive regulatory structure that prevents the reckless use of capital by banks that is such a problem in the USA. Yet, Americans (especially conservatives) would scream blue murder if Canadian style rules were forced on them. But, ironically, the whole world now wants to adopt Canadian banking regs … except the USA which has now in place rules that will make bigger banks bigger, more easy to bail out, and which will squeeze out smaller banks. What do conservatives believe … that you should let banks do whatever they want … even it means destroying the international economy? Is that “capitalism”?

    Conservatives often ignore the fact that capitalism is a vast dynamic concept with thousands of subsets. It prevents them from engaging their brains when scrutinizing certain practices within capitalism. To simply defend “making money” is an impossible position to defend intellectually.

    The knee jerk reaction that attacking “capitalism” is somehow “un-conservative” is therefore indefensible. There are forces within the capitalist system which are destructive, make no sense, don’t move the country forward, destroy lives, create ruthless monopolies, while only enriching a handful of individuals who most often take their profits off shore. Capitalists create and build … but they also destroy and pillage. That’s why, almost from the first villages 5000 years ago, there were rules.

    Romney needs to be looked at, especially his governing and private sector record. Doing so is not an attack from the “left” any more than it is an attack from the “right”. It’s simply good vetting; and if he engaged in corporate raiding, Obama will destroy him. Those images of grandma being pushed off the cliff will be that much easier to sell.

    Think! Why is it that the Obama admin. and mainstream media want Romney so bad … he is their choice.

    • Anonymous

      Because they are stupid fools that’s why. Also if he is their choice why are they running negative ads against him before the primary is over? How does that help him win the nomination? I think they’d prefer Santorum or Perry as targets for their traditional attack machines.

    • Also, our central bank is controlled by the government. Your banks are controlled by private citizens. And our government has a balanced budget requirement. I laugh when people in the US dis our health care system. We have a balanced budget. Do want the HC system to be better? Sure. There’s always room for improvement. But it’s WAY better than what the US has and way cheaper. The US spends 33 to 66 cents on the dollar for administration. In Canada, we spend less than a penny. Oh, but it’s single payer. Yet, you can get your own insurance if you want more coverage than the basics. All conservatives in Canada like it. And no one from Canada goes to the US for HC.

      While I am trying to be more conservative, the Republican base is way out there on a lot of things. The idea that they don’t want cheaper HC cannot be a conservative idea. Or the lunatic idea that letting insurance companies control who gets care and who doesn’t and for what amount is just ridiculous.

  • I can’t stand mittens, but he’s right. If you own a business, or hire someone and they aren’t doing a good job, fire them! That’s business.

  • Anonymous

    RINO ROMNEY has a new nickname “ROMNEY THE COMPROMISER”, out of the blue, he starts saying how he will be able to COMPROMISE with the Democrats and work with them! Nobody brought this up he just announced it and it plays right in OBAMA’S rhetoric about how the squabbling parties cannot get along and won’t compromise for the greater good(Obama’s agenda).The great FLIP-FLOPPER STRIKES AGAIN! Today Sarah Palin has said what RUSH said months ago ,that Obama and the Dems. want Romney because he’s the WEAKEST CANDIDATE WE HAVE! But officially they’re very afraid of him, LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Everyone said Reagan could not beat Jimmy Carter. Just remember we the people decide who beats Obama. Right up to election day they said Jimmy Carter would win. We all know how that worked out. That means when we get through beating up on all the R condidates and one is chosen then we have to come together, work day and night to get enough right leaning voters to the poles and beat O. Then we go back to work and get Allen West to run for POTUS. Do not listen to the pundits about who can win. Moderates and Conservatives and Independents, Libertarians outnumber the left two to one. Anyone can bet O if we work hard enough for them and do not splinter. I am a Perry supporter but he has disappointed on the national stage and I do not think he can come back but I will vote and work for anyone that gets the R nomination to beat O. This is not a problem that one election will solve so we have several years of work ahead. My children’s future depends on it. Anybody but O. Remember that.

    • Anonymous

      Fa-Q and your anybody but Obama the establishment has you parroting so they can force Romney. No thanks! Anybody but Clinton is what got us Obama. History repeats itself when you refuse to learn from it.

      If Mitt wins the nomination I will not support him because I am unafraid of a four year lame duck second term President. The GOP will win back the senate and be able to effectively stop Obama’s agenda. Obama can’t veto every Bill they send him.

  • Anonymous

    Vetting a candidate is one thing; tearing them to pieces is another. I do want to know what candidates believe, and I am dismayed by what I consider legitimate concerns with all of them. But this half-quote type of business is disgusting. It serves no one except the destroyers of America.

    • Anonymous

      Couldn’t agree more.

  • Joe

    I am no fan of mittens.

    I believe He was speaking about COMPETITION among insurance companies who don’t do a good job.

    The press and all others overreaching here and is getting crazy with sophomoric interpretations – just to cause controversy

    BUT He must learn to make himself VERY clear

    We need a leader like Ronald Reagan again R.I.P

  • Anonymous

    It is interesting to watch you guys bounce back and forth with these candidates as they surge and fade. I decided four years ago who I would support, and I have never wavered from him. I know most of you have ruled Ron Paul right out, mainly for reasons relating to his ideas on foreign policy. What you should realize is that Ron Paul is a very principled man, who does not crave power. His dedication to the Constitution is unmatched and well documented. He would veto any and all crap that the statist Democrats and bought RINOs send to his desk. He would work to eliminate federal bureaucracies conservatives have only dreamed of axing for decades. And if this country is legitimately in danger, and the people speak through their representatives in Congress, he would use the full force of the greatest military in the world to defend our freedoms.

    Ron Paul can beat Obama. The corporate media on both sides will tell you he cannot.

  • blackbird

    the “I like being able to fire people” is nonsence and I can only hope the folks wont be fooled but I have a question Red, in your opinion is this article fair reporting:
    Special report: Romney’s steel skeleton in the Bain closet
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120106

  • Anonymous

    This is one of many problems… soundbite news, soundbite political ads, and everyone jumps on them as if they are complete and true. When did people stop thinking for themselves?

    Bain – None of us know the terms of the contracts that were negotiated with the owners of the businesses Bain invested in or bought out. Companies generally don’t go to VC’s unless they want to expand and have a proven financial record or they are ready to fail because they do not have cash to keep the business going. VC’s take the risks for their investments. Some win, some fail. Were there predatory take overs? We don’t know, but the owners or shareholders could have said NO rather than taking Bain’s money.

  • Anonymous

    THANK YOU RS! Nothing wrong with slapping each other around a little bit but killing each other? US too? Damn, sometimes I wonder if my side has any brains at all. Its stunning. I’m just as guilty and noticed as much after watching the two last debates. I was just picturing Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Washerman Shultz sitting in the White House theater watching the GOP lay waste too each other and Debbie really pisses me off.

    In my opinion, this election is based on something very simple and that is Obama out of the White House. I want things and y’all want things but the ONE thing that we must not lose sight of is winning. Winning. Lets take this inch we must have now and we will get our miles after this one if that’s the way it has to be.

  • Anonymous

    As a successful business man do you suppose Romney would invest $500,000.000.00 in a company that all of his advisers warned him was a bad risk that would surely go under? Do you suppose he would still take that risk with other peoples money that he had a principle fiduciary responsibility for? Do you think he would allow his decision to be influenced by the fact that he owed a favor to someone that was heavily invested in it?

    I guess you know where I’m going with this.

  • Anonymous

    I have yet to meet anyone, either in person or online, who is truly gung-ho for Mitt Romney. Sure, there’s that “he can beat Obama” stance, but no real enthusiasm (at least that I’ve seen) for Romney as a free-standing candidate.

    • Anonymous

      I only know one person who has stated he wants Romney to win, but he’s a total douchebag so that doesn’t surprise me.

      I have not seen one Romney bumper sticker or roadside sign. Obama will beat Romney, and Obama should have no chance for another term.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for keeping it honest RS.

  • I’ve just read that Bain Capital is being investigated by the FBI. If this is true I sincerely hope the Gingrich folks are looking into this.

    Venture Capitalism is legal. What Romney and his ilk were doing may not have been.

    • Anonymous

      Please post a link so we can read as well and determine the source of this story regarding the FBI to determine it’s legitimacy. I read a lot of things, but until I can confirm them, I consider them rumors thrown out there to see if anything sticks. Not me.

      • A brief time with Google will provide some results but this document from the FBI seems to support the notion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/77201586/FBI-Response-to-FOIA-Re-Bain-Capital

        I apologize for not providing it outright. If something looks or sounds fishy about this document or claim someone please enlighten me.

        I for one would like to know what the investigation is about.

        • Anonymous

          Thanks for the link Bill, but it really didn’t provide much detail other than the FOIA request was rejected due to an ongoing investigation, and there was no date on the document.

          Yet another FOIA request rejected by this administration. This Administration uses every agency possible to go against the people who are against their agenda. I could list many, but I think most that pay attention know this.

          • Yeah, an ongoing investigation into Bain. By the FBI. That’s all I said was being claimed in what I read. I think it reasonable and prudent to wonder what, if anything, was Romney’s involvement in whatever it is the FBI is interested.

            Yes, this administration has a history of thwarting FOIA requests. But those usually are requests for info regarding the administration itself and not a private company; usually they site some bogus confidentiality basis and not an ongoing (criminal) investigation into a company headed from 1984 to 1991 by a now Republican presidential candidate.

            Again, a reasonable and objective person would not dismiss this as 0bama administration hijinx so quickly. I’m glad you pointed out a lack of a date in the doc but I’d like to know more about this this FBI reply, the investigation, and Romney’s involvement if any.

  • TxGold

    Being able to fire someone because they aren’t doing their job is a good thing!!!!! Unions be d.am n.ed!

  • ApplePie101

    I’m looking forward to firing a bunch of public officials in November.

  • Anonymous

    If there’s one phrase I detest because it usually means you caught me and I wish I didn’t say that it’s “My words were taken out of context” but in this case they actually are “taken out of context”.

  • Anonymous

    I will admit there is a fine line here, but i would suggest the nature of Bain Capital is NOT what Conservatives think of when they think ‘Capitalism’. I thought Conservatives were about starting from the bottom, working your way up etc? Romney was born elite and rich, he inherited everything. Bain Capital is no Romance story for Capitalism, its not Venture Capitalism as much as Vulture Capitalism.
    There are many ways to make money, not all are as virtuous as others. Speaking *just* politically, how smart is it to run Gordon Gekko against obama? it’s EXACTLY what oabama is hoping for. Romney and Bain Capital smell more like CHRONY Capitalism. As I said before, Mitt inherited his Dad’s rolodex, Lear Jet and mansions.
    As a Conservative, I have to say, I’m tired of ‘old money’, I’m tired of kids and grandkids of super elite and super rich Ivy league families being shoved down our throats as our only ‘electable leaders’. No more Bush or Kennedy Dynasties, I see Mittens already grooming his sons for high office. Reagan was not that, can we please try out a guy from a blue collar background this time???

  • Anonymous

    Those who criticize him are saying they do not want to reduce government excess and inefficiency since it would require firning someone. Lets fire all incumbents at every opportunity until they get it right.

  • Priscilla Rose

    So, I guess those of you who are fine with using the class warfare argument against Mitt because you don’t like him, are fine with Obama forcing hundreds of GM car dealers out of business to make sure that the union got its money, and don’t mind the lay-off of thousands of marines to make our military “more efficient.” Hypocrites.

    • Anonymous

      Are you suggesting Obama is acting as a bane capitalist?

  • Anonymous

    you know i dont find Romney to be the best candidate or much of a conservative but i would hope to god that all of you are not dumb enough to not vote for Mitt because you didnt get your guy. Please tell me your not all that dumb

    • Anonymous

      Personally, I think its pretty dumb that if one is against ROmney being the nominee to be parroting anybody but Obama just like the GOP establishment forcing Romney wants you to.

      I’d like one of these brilliant conservatives against Romney but parroting ABO to tell me how that is any different than advertising intentions to our adversaries in the ME as that same establishment keeps telling us its not a good idea for Obama to be doing. I mean that is to say if your anti-Romney and understand the establishment forcing Romney is your adversary.

      Please somebody explain because when I use my critical thinking skills and follow the logic of ABO it leads to epic fail read Romney.

  • MoveOn.org? Isn’t that a George Soros organization?

  • Anonymous

    This is exactly what makes me sick about the Right, picking up on a theme without seeming to consider what they are saying!!! This isn’t the first time.