-
Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.
May 25, 2013 | 1 comment
-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Mitt Romney just stepped in it. Big time.
During a meeting this morning with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Romney was discussing health insurance when he said, “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.”
It could be argued that Romney wasn’t talking about an employer-employee situation but given his history as an employer and given his history of firing people is it stretch to imagine that he liked firing people while he was at Bain? After all, there were steelworkers in Kansas City who once provided Romney their services and Romney dispensed with them and their pensions.
I certainly realize that firing and laying off people happen in the labor market. I’ve been on the wrong end of that stick myself. When it’s happened to me it was something my bosses took no pleasure in doing. But for Romney to say that he actually likes firing people draws the wrong kind of attention to himself. Romney has just cast himself as the boss you hate. Whether this will do Romney damage in New Hampshire tomorrow remains to be seen. But even if he wins the GOP nomination, Romney has just handed Obama enough amunition to cost him the election. I mean who is going to vote for someone who reminds them of the boss they can’t stand?
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/09/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Dan| 1.9.12 @ 12:20PM
This will surely send Hewitt into apologia hyperdrive.
teflon93| 1.9.12 @ 2:23PM
All Hewitt cares about is getting a candidate with Establishment credentials out there.
Well, that plus getting sales up on "A Mormon in the White House" to offset conservative listeners fleeing Hewitt's lousy talk show.
Conservative Bob| 1.9.12 @ 12:42PM
I am an anyone but Obama voter and not very fond of Romney but this is really a big streatch.... writers block this AM?
Gadfly| 1.9.12 @ 6:11PM
Yeah, he said he likes being able to fire people, not that he likes being able to fire people. If you don't think people should enjoy the power to control who works for them, I don't see how you can call yourself a free marketer.
This reads like something from movesmart.
Conservative Bob| 1.9.12 @ 7:27PM
Miss your meds this evening?
To be clear I was sayin gthere are many more substantive things to attack Romney for.. but if it fits your mantra run with it.
I have been in business for myself for a long time, I enjoy being able to choose works for me and who does not.
The only one I would really enjoy firing is my not so silent partner the federal and state government. All they do is cost get in the way and come up with stupid new rules and regs...
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 10:32PM
Gingrich Super PAC to attack Romney for Bain Capital work?
The effort to derail Mitt Romney’s presidential quest heightened dramatically on Friday when a super PAC associated with Newt Gingrich outbid all comers for the rights to a scathing 30-minute attack video depicting Romney as a greedy, job-killing corporate raider “more ruthless than Wall Street.”
In a season filled with negative ads and rhetorical crossfire, the striking feature of the film, aside from its mini-documentary length, is its authorship. The film was made by Jason Killian Meath, a former associate of Romney’s top strategists, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer. Meath had worked for the Romney campaign in 2008, creating much of the ad content for that failed effort. He left Stevens and Schriefer’s firm, SSG, in 2010. Meath declined to comment on his project, referring inquiries to the pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future…
“A story of greed,” the narrator intones. “Playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders, led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 10:00AM
That Gingrich ad could have been made by Michael Moore. Maybe it was. Gingrich wants to run against Obama, so by all means he should - in the Democratic primaries. He would be so much more at home over there.
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 12:58PM
But....we are told he is the only one who can win, oh dear, what to do now?
John - TMF| 1.9.12 @ 1:51PM
Not the least of which is the tiny little reality that the President can only "fire" who he appoints. Just try to fire a GS or SESer... (especially for political reasons) and find out what happens.
Business IS NOT government, and losers like Mitt Romney haven't a clue. Romney is just a Wall Street Crony Capitalist Liberal Democrat looking to keep the show going long enough to allow his buddies line their pockets.
The old saw that money is power, is backwards... The reality is that power is money, first. Romney is all about advancing Romney, he speaks fast, and says little, because he actually doesn't believe anything that he is saying.
Conservatives with any principles and brains left have three candidates to choose from; Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum.
Romney is a Liberal Democrat Big Business masquerading as a Republican because it is convenient to do so.
Paul is a dangerous anti-Semitic, merchcantilist isolationist who cannot deliver anything that he promises to his cult like following. (Lindy actually did land in Paris, the world is impossibly tiny now.)
Huntsman is actually more conservative than Romney, and really, truly a Moderate Republican. Which is still damnation by faint praise. He is running a ridiculous campaign doing much of nothing.
One hopes that Super Tuesday puts an end to the "Ram Romney down our throats" campaign. WE DO NOT WANT HIM!!! And I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM!! EVER!
r/John - TMF
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 10:10AM
I'd somewhat agree with your list, but let's not stop there.
Perry thinks that employers shouldn't be able to fire people, that taxpayers should have to pay to educate illegals, and that the government has the right to force HPV immunizations on children contrary to their parents wishes. Oh, and he would eliminate some government departments, if only he could remember which ones. Yeah, some "conservative", that.
Santorum would impose an industrial policy to pick manufacturing winners at the expense of other businesses, and subsidize households with large families at the expense of other taxpayers. Yeah, some "conservative", that.
And then we have Mr. Speaker, Gingrich. He thinks that employers are wrong to fire employees and shouldn't have the right to do so. Apparently consumers should have the right to choose in the marketplace, either. Global warming is a dire enough contingency that he is willing to co-advocate drastic interventionist policies with Nancy Pelosi. And let's not even get into his personal life. Yeah, some "conservative", that.
The bottom line is that this is a pretty sorry bunch. It is such a shame, too. The nation desperately needs to show Obama the door this November, and his ouster has seemed like such a sure and easy thing. But not with any of these sorry excuses for a viable Presidential contender.
martin j smith| 1.9.12 @ 2:01PM
have like "free people" because he talks about wanting to work with a party that does not even want to act that way themselves. So why this crap about " Bi-Partisanship where it does not exist ? Romney is talking from a script and thus he is not free. He is a liar.
teflon93| 1.9.12 @ 2:22PM
Little Lord MittleRoy is completely tone deaf like the to-the-manor-born elitist he is.
This is the worst economy in our lifetime---people are really hurting, including people who've worked all their lives, never cashed in like liberal union hacks or rode the gravy train like the Occupiers living in their parents' basements.
Many of these people have just gotten fired and haven't gotten back to work yet.
Then here comes trust fund baby Mittens just in time to reinforce the Richie Rich myth of the Republican Party.
The Establishment isn't just stupid---it is criminally incompetent.
Trinacria| 1.9.12 @ 2:44PM
I'm no Romney apologist, but c'mon folks - have we become such literalists and opportunists that we'd willingly abandon reason and either miss or simply ignore the fundamental point he was trying to make (which, by the way, happens to be one with which most conservatives would agree)? In the context of responding to a question about national healthcare, Romney made the point that - as a consumer of a service -one is able to ensure the best quality of service when the provider has competition. Without the ability to fire the provider and hire a competitive provider, the consumer is powerless and the quality of the service inevitably declines. Controversial? Really?
We've got an absolute national disgrace occupying (double meaning intended) the White House and further destroying the foundation of a once great nation with each passing day, and we're going to waste time creating controversy out of benign statements by Republican candidates? Eye on the ball, folks....
Gadfly| 1.9.12 @ 6:12PM
Well said.
Dai Alanye | 1.9.12 @ 3:01PM
The importance of this isn't what Romney meant but that he's handed the Dems a five second sound bite that he'll need to waste hours explaining. He might have just ruined his chances in the general election.
Trinacria| 1.9.12 @ 3:55PM
If the general electorate is too stupid and/or lazy to see the point he was actually making (which I fully suspect they are) and, more importantly, too blind to recognize the vacuous and utterly unimaginative tactics democratic hacks will employ to suggest that the sound bite implies a nefarious intent (again, which I fully expect they are), then we've already lost the battle anyway (which I fully suspect we have).
Gadfly| 1.9.12 @ 6:15PM
No campaign is destroyed by a single sound bite, especially one as innocuous as this one. This very well might find its way into a Democratic attack add, but every candidate has statements that can be taken out of context and used against him. If Romney is nominated and loses to Obama, it won't be because of this comment.
MarkJ| 1.9.12 @ 3:06PM
Proposed Romney comeback: "President Obama doesn't have to worry about firing people because so many of them have resigned lately. Just ask Bill Daley."
bill| 1.9.12 @ 4:23PM
Romney got NH but cannot win SC or FL. He's a dead man campaigning.
somnolence| 1.9.12 @ 5:24PM
Firing people is called capitalism. Keeping them entrenched on the government dole, or taxpayers providing our reps with extravagant lifetime pensions is called tyranny. Live with it. I can.
somnolence| 1.9.12 @ 5:26PM
Oh, so pastoral with the term "liberal union hacks". Yes, but what about all our PIOUS representatives like Gingrich and Paul with YEARLY lifetime pensions of $174,000 whether they crapped up the job or not at our expense. To this author I say B.S.
somnolence| 1.9.12 @ 7:07PM
The race has narrowed down to two: Romney and Santorum. Perry will get no more than 5% in S.C. while Gingrich MIGHT get near 20%. If taking Romney's statement out of context is all you guys have, believe me, he can coast literally the rest of the way. I have never seen such an inept group of hacks in my life.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 10:25PM
Do Your Homework.
" New Book Releases for September 2011 - Ron Paul has never taken a government junket, does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program, returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every year, never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise Congressional Pay, never voted to increase Executive Branch Power"
The tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
John Eidsmoe| 1.9.12 @ 11:11PM
Mr. Goldstein, You are twisting the truth. Romney did not say he likes firing people he said he likes "being able to fire people who provide services to me." Surely a man who writes for the Spectator can understand this distinction. being able to fire people who provide services to me." being able to fire people who provide services to me." Valuing the authority to discontinue the services of those who give substandard performance, is not the same as enjoying firing people.
Nevertheless, Romney did not choose his words well.
Rank and File| 1.10.12 @ 12:45AM
What is wrong with you people? Goldstein, you know exactly who Romney was talking about. He said it very clearly: his insurer if he doesn't like the benefits they provide.
Your anti-capitalist missive notwithstanding, what do you have against firing people? Would you prefer we guarantee everyone a job? You're living in the wrong country if you do. Move to China. I'd say move to Russia, but Communism has already largely failed there. Fine, if you don't like Mitt, but to attack an enterprise conducted without government force and between and among voluntary market forces because on rare occasions it doesn't work?
You are attacking the very roots of our market-based Republic. Knock it off or switch parties. No self-respecting Republican can criticize the work Romney did at Bain without betraying the principles of capitalism. Newt is repugnant with his comments about Romney's Bain days, as is Huntsman. What did Huntsman ever create or add to the economy? Payroll taxes from his dad's company? What did Newt ever create? Green energy jobs with Nancy Pelosi?
Don't make me have to come over to your blog again. You who even suggest as much as to criticize Romney for his private sector work are the worst kind of traitors and back-stabbers.
Sac a main Prada | 1.10.12 @ 4:25AM
Sac a main Prada Pas Cher
Sac a main Prada Soldes
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 9:54AM
I'm only a nobody consumer, but I like free markets and the freedom they give me to pick and choose what I'm going to buy and who I'm going to buy it from. Even though I'm a registered independent, I used to assume that in this, at least, the Republican party was reliably on the same page with me. No longer, apparently. Now it sounds like a majority of its presidential candidates think that favoring that sort of market choice is a bad thing that they oppose.
Well, we don't need two socialist anti-market parties in this country. If the Republicans are going to become a carbon copy of the Democrats, then it is time for them to join the Federalists, Whigs and Know-Nothings in the ash heap of history, and to be replaced by a real party that stands for freedom.
TJ Walker | 1.10.12 @ 12:21PM
Great ad on mocking Romney "I like being able to fire" quote:
http://youtu.be/ixa7N1Br_GU