Romney Solidifies His Message: Pro-Free Enterprise, Anti-Washington

[Politico]

"I happen to be the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington," Romney said. "I don't have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals that I have to defend."

"In business, if you're not fiscally conservative, you're bankrupt," he said. "I mean, I spent 25 years balancing budgets, eliminating waste, and, by the way, keeping as far away from government as humanly possible. I did some of the very things conservatism is designed for--I started new businesses and turned around broken ones. And I am not ashamed to say that I was successful in doing it."

"I served in government, but I didn't inhale--I'm still a business guy. And I can't wait to get my hands on Washington."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/live-stream-mitt-romney-cpac-speech-163639781.html

[Politico]

But not for lack of trying!

No Republican could beat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because in Lief's World it is better if a distressed company goes bankrupt and EVERYBODY loses their job rather than undergoing a restructuring of the company, unfortunately having to lay off people in the process, but eventually getting the company back on solid footing (i.e., growing and hiring people again).

Let's see: Everybody becomes equally poor OR "some you win/some you lose"? I think I'll go with the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bain Capital manages approximately $60 billion in assets. Put another way, that is $60,000 million (I know some of our friends on the left failed math in school, and cannot differentiate between millions, billions, trillions, etc.). I do not know who told you that Bain received a $50 million government bailout on Romney's watch, but you need to stop reading them.

[Politico]

Romney isn't pro-free entreprise.

He is pro-multinational. With him, small businesses would be screwed.

And just how does being "pro-multinational" (whatever that means), screw small businesses? Can you help me with some of this?

Because it gives an unfair advantage to the big corporations over the little ones.

How?  One thing economics most certainly is not is a zero-sum game.  Pro-multinational need not equal anti-everyone else or that equal pro-everyone else.  Give specifics instead of sound bites please.

His econ score is -5.03. What else do you need to know? He's clearly clueless on economics. These people think that everything is about distribution or, to be more precise, using the government to redistribute. Even if their life depended upon it, they could not understand the concept of comparative advantage, let alone the idea that growth allows everybody to potentially gain a larger slice of the pie without it being at the expense of somebody else (positive-sum game). They do not understand why their policies create stagnation, which does indeed make the economy a sort of zero-sum game in the sense that one can only gain a larger slice of the pie if it is at the expense of somebody else and their slice. Then again, this is why liberal politicians love stagnation. It helps feed belief in the fallacies of their followers, and has everybody becoming increasingly in favor of dependency upon government.

[Politico]

I accidentally left out the best part of Romney's speech:

"Let me tell you, any politician who tries to convince you that they hated Washington so much that they just couldn't leave, well, that's the same politician who will try to sell you a bridge to nowhere."