“Read Milton Friedman, like Reagan did.
I do, and Newt should too.
I like Milton Friedman, but prefer Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc. Friedman is still too much of a government-interventionist for my tastes. If you want free-market purity, go Hayek.
I know Newt references Hayek quite a bit, which is pleasing to hear.”
I think I’ll stick with what I wrote, because it is more current, involved Reagan, etc.
The point was that Gingrich was out of line, in terms of political philosophy.
But he’s such a talker, he forgets to take time to fully think through what he is going to say.
Consequently his statements require clarification, just like Romney.
I commend Santorum and Paul for having the quick judgement to steer clear of the blunder made by Gingrich and Perry.
Would probably help if you actually
listened to Newt's explanation. It's unfortunate many Republicans don't seem to understand it.
It isn't an intrinsically difficult position to comprehend, nor is it any kind of Left-tard attack on capitalism. Newt's case is simple:
1) Romney's vaunted "private sector experience", is of a particular kind that's going to represent a huge liability in the general election. Nobody's asserting that Bain Capital's actions were necessarily illegitimate nor unlawful, but it's obvious that Romney was no white knight of heroic, entrepreneurial capitalism.
2) Questions on
business ethics are legitimate inquiries that one should have to answer for, especially if they're running for public office—these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's entirely goofy to construe it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors.