I should probably start this by iterating that this is indeed how I see things, and unless they are indeed facts, much of what I say is opinion.
Ok, so now the debate is on, it time to weigh in on the Baingate, yea I understand the whole gate thing is way over used, but I couldn’t’ t think of anything that sounds better. In all fairness to the Romney supporter who may read this, I have your candidate third on my list of who I would support. Even though I feel Rick Perry is the most conservative and most likely to defeat President Obama this November (Part-time Congress), I want a governor and I do not see Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich being any more conservative than Romney; most would not agree, and that is fine, that is what America is all about.
I thought this would be the outcome if conservatives had failed to rally around Perry, who has a record that is hard to attack in the way that can be done with Gingrich and Santorum, who both can be said to have made over a million dollars working with lobbyist, or lobbying themselves, if you find their explanation to be weak like I do. I would enjoy seeing Gingrich and Obama debate, both are very smart, one is right, but the other will get the media backing their version. Gingrich has a lot of baggage, like shutting down the government in 1995, which cost the Republican Party dearly then , and it would be a tough thing to defend in the general election. Lets remember the almost shutdown last year damaged the approval ratings of congress, Gallup stated in mid December that a “record-low 11% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest single rating in Gallup’s history of asking this question since 1974.”
Newt went even further that the 112th, and it cost the party, it is at tipping point now, but reminding voters about this would not be hard for Obama and the Chicago machine to do. It had been hard enough in Iowa and New Hampshire defending this record to Republicans; and Newt has not defended the record well at all, and now he is going on the attack, which brings us back to the Bain question. Even though I see Romney as the better candidate to face Obama and win than Gingrich would be, I still feel that the attacks by the establishment against Newt for bringing up Romney’s time at Bain are wrong; but that is to be expected from the people who see temselves as a fourth branch of government.
So I write this not to attack Romney and stick up for Newt and Perry, I think both of these candidates are within the right when attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital. In fact, this is something that should have been brought up much sooner, the damage will be real.
The question – does it mean you area attacking capitalism if you attack how certain businesses make money, or does the free market mean that one has to except shady practices, even if you think they are wrong. This is a very interesting question, but one that I do not feel is that hard to answer. I am not really saying I think what Bain did was harmful, but I respect Gingrich and Perry’s right to say they do. It does not make for a good story for Romney.
Ok, lets define capitalism; Dictionary.com define it as “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” and I think this is a fair definition.
So I ask, has one of the candidates called for the federal government to step in and dissolve Bain, or implement any sort of government sponsored measure? I do not remember seeing this happen at all.
The Wall Street Journal contends the attacks are a “crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism.”
But considering the reason they are sticking up for Romney, it makes sense, it is after all the Wall Street Journal. The Question I ask is this; if we had a candidate running for president that made a fortune running a chain of adult entertainment stores, would we say it is anti-capitalist to call into question the character of the man or woman who made his fortune selling sex paraphernalia and videos of barley legal teenage girls. I do not think we would, and if it was a Democrat we would go at this candidate extra hard, and least I would. We would call into question the mans character, which is exactly what Perry and Newt are doing to Romney.
So my point is, not all capitalism is the same, and this is why I think it is valid to say Romney’s record is something that conservatives can judge. We should judge a capitalist by how they make their money. I am waiting to get a full report on Romney’s time at Bain, for all we know those jobs he says he created could have been in Mexico, but one thing I do know for sure is that Romney’s record will be used by the Democrats, and I think it will make for a compelling argument to those who are struggling, often times they care little for ideology, and already blame the guy that shut down the factory, for losing their jobs to India or Mexico. If the Chicago machine can effectively paint Romney as that person, it will make for a tough campaign for Romney. Lets think, Romney had made some very elitist comments this last year such as, “We went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property,” followed by “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.” This does play into a very negative steotype about the Rich Republican who only cares for his rich friends. The worst part is that unless voters rally around Perry or Huntsman, Romney is the best we have.