Posted on 01/09/2012 6:50:44 PM PST by neverdem
Associated Press
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Republican front-runner Mitt Romney stumbled down the homestretch of the New Hampshire primary on Monday, declaring, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me" as his rivals intensified already fierce criticism.
"Gov. Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs," said former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has staked his candidacy on a strong showing in Tuesday's primary and has shown signs of gaining ground in recent polls.
Romney is the odds-on favorite in New Hampshire, and Huntsman as well as other Republicans who are contesting the state have generally been content to vie for second place in hopes of emerging as his main rival in the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21.
(Excerpt) Read more at minnesota.publicradio.org ...
In a merit based system, putting people out of a job and others into it, is fundamental. It is the statists that believe in full employment regardless of merit.
That's the key. Whoever can show they can 'fix' the economy will win. Obama's going to his strength - "I care." If Romney continues to say too much he'll fail against the onslaught. Obama's got the entire MSM at his beck and call. High gas prices, a sluggish economy and high unemployment, despite the 'numbers' coming out of DC are Obama's Achilles Heel. Obama isn't invincible, but I'm not excited about any of the current crop of GOP contenders.
I originally supported Perry. To win you need money and a solid team. I like gubernatorial experience in a POTUS. But, Perry’s decision to stay in through SC only helps Romney. It stops conservatives from coalescing around a single alternative. If Romney wins in SC and Perry drops out then, it may be too late for Santorum or Newt to do anything about it.
Excellent. Why have the MSM stuck with the switcheroo from Blue to Red for conservatives? Why a century ago were communists allowed to become liberals when classical liberals were for individual and economic freedom (actually they are one and the same)? Why are Progressives so named when their entire agenda is regressive?
Controlling language is controlling the mind.
His campaign better get this out there if they want their boy to stay in it:
“At its peak in 1970, the Kansas City plant, then owned by Armco Steel Corp, employed 4,500 people. Poor market conditions forced a wave of layoffs in the early 1980s and led the company to prune its product line. By the early 1990s, the plant focused on two items: wire for products such as mattress springs and tires; and high-carbon balls and rods used by the mining industry to pulverize rocks.”
ARMCO’s fault.
From this comment: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2829920/posts?page=33#33
So a dying company ended up dying? How much of that death was due to the economic & regulatory policies the Obama Regime supports?
That begs the question, then. If Newt is supposed to be such a political pro, why is he sounding like a neophyte, dredging up class warfare and playing to the low base of the OWS crowd?
Surely there is something better that he could attach to Romney.
Yes, of course.
I agree. Unfortunately, Romney won’t step down.
He keeps on saying he is the best ‘debater’.
I don't think Newt has a clue about capitalism. He career after his hasty exit from the House was centered around 'advising' Federal government dependent businesses even though he says he never registered as a lobbyist.
In this election is it not true that “It’s the economy, stupid.” still holds true.
Gingrich and Perry didn’t pass that test, tonight.
Am I first to mention that “to be able to fire people” and “to fire people” are different things?
Newt (aka noot) was on the Morning Joe yesterday and asked about his attacks on Romney for his work at Baine Capital and he said that since Obama and Democrats would go after Romney for it (closing businesses to make a profit) in an election that Romney should be able to defend that record against his(noots) similar challenges, an electability issue to judge Romney on.
That was a carefully worded way of saying that he is playing Obama-surgate debater to Romney. I believe that there is a legitimate need to vet these candidates for electability including this issue of Romney at Baines, but how Newt thinks taking up the left’s (OWS) talking points against capitalism is supposed to help him in this primary is beyond me. It just reminds Republican primary voters that Newt is a Washington political insider that knows nothing about business or capitalism.
gotta get the point spread right to make book ???
Yup that’s another thing, calling those who are against liberty “liberals”. And those that are against progress “progressive”.
Based on the dictionary definitions of liberty and progress I am a progressive and a liberal and Nancy Pelosi is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.