«

»

The Leader of the Pack

It seems like overnight the Republican also-rans have figured out that attacking Mitt Romney might be more profitable than attacking each other. Huntsman opened with a great defense of being Obama’s ambassador to China. Rick Perry, Mr. Oops himself, had a great line about Romney’s fear of pink slip being a fear of running out of them. And Romney, bless him, handed them a great line all on his own:

Now to be clear, this is taken out of context. Romney was talking about health insurance and defending the private market over a socialized market. He was saying he likes being able to fire your health insurance company if they aren’t providing you with good insurance. But given his dubious attacks on his fellows, he’s opened himself up for this.

Romney’s Bain Capital days are the epicenter of this and I can understand why. The public has a huge distaste for people who make millions downsizing and blowing up companies. Maybe they shouldn’t: there’s plenty of evidence that downsizing, in the end, moves capital and people from inefficient dying businesses to more robust ones. But it’s a fact that people don’t like it. And if you think Perry and Huntsman are being unfair about it now, you just wait until Team Obama gets their teeth into this. Five years ago, this wouldn’t have been a liability. But with the perception that our economy has been crippled by rich guys who do nothing but play with money all day, Romney’s Bain Capital background is a big liability. And how he responds now will be a big indication of whether he can absorb the punches Obama is going to deliver later this year.

Unless the Republicans suddenly discover John Huntsman, the race has narrowed down to Paul, Santorum and Romney. I still think Romney is the most likely nominee since both Santorum and Paul have a lot of baggage. But don’t be surprised if this goes a long time and ends up with a brokered convention.

11 comments

No ping yet

  1. richtaylor365 says:

    But given his dubious attacks on his fellows, he’s opened himself up for this.

    Which dubious attacks, specifically, are you referring to, and how did he “open himself up” to a 17 second snippet, clearly taken out of context?

    But it’s a fact that people don’t like it.

    Depends on which “people”. For those Bain shareholders that made money, for all the employees of those poorly run companies that Bain took over and made profitable again so they could keep their jobs, for those start ups with a workable business model but needed some desperate cash infusion (which Bain provided) to get their business up and running (and keeping their employees employed), those “people” are just thrilled about Bain.

    As I said in my post on the subject, this to me does not seem that hard to defend and only those lacking in economic understanding (or those slimy politicians with an ax to grind) will not see how vital these capital infusion companies are to the free market formula.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    As I said in my post on the subject, this to me does not seem that hard to defend and only those lacking in economic understanding (or those slimy politicians with an ax to grind) will not see how vital these capital infusion companies are to the free market formula.

    Agreed. But “lacking in economic understanding” defines half the voters and 95% of the media.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  3. briggie says:

    Agreed. But “lacking in economic understanding” defines half the voters and 95% of the media.

    I always believed that one should not be able to graduate high school without at least one class in economics. Where I went to school, we had a class for junior/seniors, but it was not required. It is a shame really; I think ignorance about economics contributes to a sizable amount of problems we have now. I was able to take it in college and glad that I did.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    I always believed that one should not be able to graduate high school without at least one class in economics.

    I strongly agree with that. It’s vital for kids coming out of school to know the economic basics. Both micro and macro.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Seattle Outcast says:

    Which economics? Keynesian, classical, neo-classical, Marxist, anarchist, Austrian, Neo-Recardianism, or some other school of thought?

    It’s not that simple, though if you eliminated the ones based on poorly thought out ideas of social justice (Marxist) or unrealistic behavior patterns (Keynesian), you could narrow it down greatly.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    I would think an overview of how their economy works (busts, booms, private, public, etc), how money flows, basic overviews of the main schools of thought, how the banking/financial systems operate. And some history. With as many facts and as few personal opinions thrown in. Like with any sort of education, it should be about arming students with the knowledge and ability to make good decisions, rather than telling them outright what is wrong and right. I.e. on the micro side they should leave high school with a solid understanding of budgeting and debt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Poosh says:

    I always believed that one should not be able to graduate high school without at least one class in economics.

    Any way of teaching this is politically contaminated so no. And especially no with the liberal frauds that pass as teachers today who just ache for a chance to manipulate the children they’re paid to educate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Seattle Outcast says:

    What he’s describing is classical economics – good luck getting that past the a lot of school boards that consider it hopelessly dated and unenlightened by current liberal thought.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Xetrov says:

    My kids are actually taking a class in High School based on Dave Ramsey’s system. Wish I’d had someone forward-thinking enough to teach me about it when i was in high school. Would have saved me a lot of financial problems in my 20′s.

    I would support a required class more like this one than just a general economics one. My sons are learning how debt, credit cards, etc. work, and can completely ruin you if you aren’t careful. So many college kids who’ve never had a credit card in their life get their first card, and are thousands of dollars in debt before they realize just how that debt can crush them for years. Yeah, stupid on their part, but also stupid on their parents part, and the education system in general.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. CM says:

    What he’s describing is classical economics – good luck getting that past the a lot of school boards that consider it hopelessly dated and unenlightened by current liberal thought.

    Crazy. The students need to know what system they’re growing up in. Teach it dispassionately and the kids can determine whether they want to take advantage of it, or tear it down.

    My sons are learning how debt, credit cards, etc. work, and can completely ruin you if you aren’t careful. So many college kids who’ve never had a credit card in their life get their first card, and are thousands of dollars in debt before they realize just how that debt can crush them for years. Yeah, stupid on their part, but also stupid on their parents part, and the education system in general.

    Yeah totally. Ultimately it’s their own personal responsibility, but it just makes so much sense to equip them with the knowledge of what they might get into. If they still get into it, then it really is nobody’s fault but theirs. I’m a big fan of living within your means (and that’s how I’ll be raising my kids), no matter how tempting it might be to use credit. It’s ridiculous to have a society set up with so much credit temptation (constant bombardment with sophisticated targeted marketing) and yet so little education about what it really is and where it can lead.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Seattle Outcast says:

    Crazy. The students need to know what system they’re growing up in. Teach it dispassionately and the kids can determine whether they want to take advantage of it, or tear it down.

    Why teach when you can indoctrinate? Public education in the USA has been thoroughly buttfucked since the Carter administration, and was on a downward slide since before even then. It most likely peaked in the mid to late 1960′s and has since been transforming itself into a far-left experiment on brainwashing schoolchildren to hold dear specific pseudosciences (environmentalism, AGW, global cooling, etc) and social causes. Actual teaching is quickly dismissed as “limiting their creativity” or “teaching to the exam” and actively fought against by the unions.

    You should see what sort of utterly useless crap passes for math these days for example. Take away their calculators and most American kids are unable to perform basic math, much less explain basic theory.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.