katie, as I see it, the purpose of exposing this video, from Gingrich’s perspective is to show the difference between corporate-level consolidation as one aspect of healing over-bloated dying companies, and a comprehensive business model that enables ground-level, small business creation.
Romney is a corporate guy. There is nothing wrong with that - I have worked for some of the biggest corporations and endured restructurings and staff reductions for 30 years. Newt’s angle is that Romney may know how to make money, but he does not know how leaders drive public policy to trigger a wide-spread economic expansion. Listen to what Prof. Art Laffer says: “You know, economics is my profession, and I’ve specialized in it all my life, especially public policy economics. I feel sort of like a doctor in a hospital, choosing which surgeon is going to operate on my child. And, you’ve got a bunch of good candidates out there but Newt Gingrich has done it before. His plan is pure and simple supply-side Reaganomics all the way,” he said.
The point is that Romney is a corporate rebuilding expert for creating profits. The Reagan model is supply-side driven, driving tax-rate reductions, deregulation, consumer based ground up growth. This is where Newt has credibility. There is a big difference between creating profits and growing a ground-up economy. This is where Newt has an advantage because as Prof. Laffer states, Newt has credible experience doing this. Newt can lay claim to helping create 11 million jobs. Romney did create profits but in no way does his model comprehensively trigger consumer confidence and wide-spread growth. This is what I hope is clear to the SC voters.
There were 17,000 employees who lost their jobs. People that knew Romney and are very familiar with Bain. I would like to hear their story and there will be a hell of a lot more than just 20 people that watch it. The silence of the msm, some freepers and Fox News was deafening as lies were told about Gingrich via Mitt’s super pacs.
On Bain...although so many suffered and went down..Mitt escaped unscathed and made millions. He paid an absurdly low tax of 14%. Not many accomplish that...I say let the movie air and the voters decide.
Your analogy of the difference between Newt and Romney is well taken. Bain had it’s risks and quite a few workers were hurt. Reaganomics also the Newt way is the right idea. Hopefully, voters will note the difference between the two.
Good post! As far as what may be clear to SC voters, I really do wonder if this is a distinction that the average voter will understand. If not, it may only serve to fire up more of the OWS-sort of class warfare, union thuggery, and increased gov't regulation advocacy that the Obamanation is using to drive this country straight into socialism. Reading some of the comments here, I'm not so sure.
BUMP to a terrific post!