Stop It. Now.
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Demagoguery | Economic Populism | John McCain — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Matt Welch is dead-on accurate and we really need to stop stigmatizing wealth creation in this election cycle. It is bad enough when those on the other side of the partisan divide do it but it was my understanding that Republicans would actually respect legitimate wealth creation by entrepreneurs. Alas, that does not appear to be the case for whatever goofy reason.
And yes, Senator McCain, we are looking at you. You are in the driver's seat, after all, in seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. You are supposed to defend capitalism and wealth creation. We know that you enjoy taking potshots at Mitt Romney because you don't like him but when those potshots entail unjustified critiques of capitalism, those of us on whom you would rely to help carry you through the general election with a strong Republican turnout begin to wonder whether it is all really worth the effort to do so.
Stop making us wonder whether we'd be better off if we would lose this election. Would you please?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Department Of Overstatement — Comments (9) »
Stop It. Now. 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He runs around claiming he's had "a real job in the real world" thereby implying that military service is not a real job.
People love to call out McCain for his "patriotism, not for profit" line, but no one is calling Romney on his not-so-veiled attack.
Romney is not "claiming" to have had a real job in the real world - he's had them, & created jobs for many others.
The vast majority of those voting in the primaries & in the general are not in the military. I don't see this as a "denigration" of military service - republicans in general ARE the supporters of the military, & with 75% or so of the military vote going republican most in the military recognize this. The military is different business-wise from the civilian world. The military is not for profit - the civilian world is. Understanding this difference does not denigrate the military or military service.
However, McCain went right from the military to Congress. There are actually signs that he chose Arizona to live because he knew it would be a good locale for him to posture for office. He had been the head of the armed forces congressional liaison office for quite some time, and I think that might have been his last station.
If it was a situation like Gen. Pace or Gen. Petraeus would face if they decided to run for president, that would be one thing. But it is an honest critique, and it's not just for McCain. Other than pastor, the same can be said for Huckabee. Same for Giuliani, same for Hillary and Obama (kind of). Very few of the candidates this year actually did something in the private sector, and he's the only one that did it as the head of a company or an organization. Pretty impressive, if you ask me.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
A. You are incorrect. He worked for his Wife's Father's beer distribution company for over a year between retiring from the military and running for Congress.
B. He moved to Arizona because HIS WIFE IS FROM THERE AND HER ENTIRE FAMILY LIVED THERE AND RAN A BUSINESS THERE!!!
So both of your low blows fail on the facts.
This attack is really, really stupid. If you want to go tell GOP voters that serving in the military is no higher calling then running a business, go ahead, but you'll only shred Romney's already shaky credibility.
I won't deny that in a certain high-minded sense, obviously, the military can't be strong without businesses that create wealth, keep the country running, etc. But most GOP voters, most Americans for that matter, DO think it's a higher calling, and you're only diminishing military service and hurting your own candidate in the process.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
But this comment lacks so much truth.
Sorry RedFox but Romney's work ethic/employment is evident in his success in both the public and private sector and in his bank account.
John may have a close second to Romney money but that money was not through hard work it was through matrimony! Johnny Boy has been doing what career politicians do best; ride someone elses money to the White House or re-election (i.e. his wife's family money)
JOHN MCCAIN'S HERO STATUS HAS BEEN BANKRUPT SINCE 2000! But he went 'all in' on his hero status and lost long before 2000 election thats for sure.What an ass that man we call Maverick.
Everything that he has done since 2000 has been in the mold of a vindictive child trying to ruin his brother's career out of jealousy and envy.
McCain is the worst kind of politician. If there is any doubt, do your homework and find out what you DO NOT know about McCain! There is more than meets the eye and if you dont hear about soon you will certainly hear about when the Clinton's start running against him! Mark my words brother McCain will fall hard and fast at the hands of the Clinton Machine and they will laugh all the back to the White House.
I dont know, I cant figure what I'd like more; to see McCain destroyed by the Clinton's or Hillary lose her bid for the White House? Its a toss up at this point, both are equally bad for the USA.
What goes around comes around Mr. McCain, and when your cheating, womenising and evil ways brought you to DC; God was watching the path that you took!
McCain is going to pay dearly for his evil past and we are going to get to watch. McCain, get a shovel, you're going to need it. The Clinton's are coming in through the closet door!
Mitt Romney's father worked his way up from nothing, starting as a day laborer to becoming Chairman of American Motors and Governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney then turned his upper middle class background as the son of an auto exec into an immense fortune. That is, he earned it.
While Mitt Romney's grandfather was an itinerant laborer, John McCain's grandfather was a U.S. Admiral. John McCain has an estimated net worth of about $14 million to $24 million. He, too, is a very wealthy man (though nothing compared to Romney). Where does McCain's wealth come from? He married into it, and in turn she inherited it. Yet Romney never disparages McCain's wealth or takes cheap shots at McCain's more aristocratic family lineage or unearned wealth.
In so many ways, Romney is the better man.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
So not only do we give Romney a pass for his calling military service not a "real job" because we just hate McCain that much, we're going to criticize McCain because his grandfather was an Admiral?
"Mitt Romney then turned his upper middle class background as the son of an auto exec into an immense fortune."
LOL. If son of the CEO of the largest American corporation at the time is only an "upper middle class background," I can hardly imagine what you would consider an upper class or wealthy background.
So now you are disparaging him for marrying a wealthy woman that he's been married to for over a quarter century?
I don't know about Mitt being a better man, but I know one thing for certain: His supporters aren't better people.
Oh, and BTW, I'd sure like to see how Romney would have gone to college, business school, and law school without help from his wealthy father. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but your attack on McCain for his wife inheriting money is beneath contempt.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Redfox84 and RandomGuy, calm down and read what I wrote.
I don't criticize McCain because his father was an admiral, Redfox, I point out rather that McCain and his advisors take cheap shots at Romney as some sort of aristocratic heir, when in fact the McCain family background at the top of the American social pyramid runs deeper than does Romney's. RG, if you relax you'll note that I do not attack McCain for marrying a rich heiress. Rather, I'm pointing out that McCain takes cheap shots at Romney for his wealth, when McCain is himself a very wealthy man, and acquired his wealth not through the creative process of the market, but through pure good fortune of marrying well. But Romney does not take cheap shots at McCain's wealth - as indeed he should not. In other words, boys, I don't attack McCain because his father is an admiral or his wife is rich - I attack him because he's throwing rocks at Romney from his own glass house, and I note that Romney has not stooped to that.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
rational does NOT describe bots.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Yes, Senator McCain, it's time to stop with crapola like this! There is nothing wrong about making money, money is not evil. I'm not rich myself, however I'd like to be one day.
Would we (as in the US) be better off if McCain (if he wins the nomination) loses? I can say no confidently because of what would be the alternative. Plus, I think the attack machine that has attacked Bush would not stop, & this *may* push McCain somewhat to the right. However, McCain needs to "get it" because we don't need this to be a question on election day!
Thank you for this post!!!! And Amen to Brad Smith's comment!!! Further more - Mitt is using his OWN money to do what???? Campaign for a job for which he intends NOT to take the salary. And he didn't take one for the Olympics, or his governorship. Hmmm... sounds like a mighty selfish man to me! I am tired of McCain's jabs at Mitt's money..... at least HE worked for HIS, and didn't dump his poor limping first wife for the beautiful young heiress with HER millions......
Kermit
but pretend that there's a recommend button over there and I just hit it.
I wish our republican representatives all realized and recognized that the strength of our nation is not the government, but free people and free enterprise.
Capitalism should be defended at every turn by every Republican every time.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Talking to the middle class and blue color workers... what a horrible thing--it is so horrible.
You guys try to explain the moderate views of GHWB and Dole lost elections. In truth, they like others in the GOP had trouble connecting with voters who did not understand the benefits of cutting taxes and spending stimulated our economy and thus created jobs.
Reagan knew how as do a few others.
Romney is your guy?!?! I'd love to see Romney run in the general election with the threat of recession hanging over people's heads, trying to answer Democrat ads showing his business acumen really cut as many jobs as it created... yeah great message.
Communicating to all Americans requires adapting your message to the audience.
I'm not sure what kind of business world you live in but in my line of work there are times where you literally have to cut jobs to save jobs. Some companies are so overloaded with unecessary overhead that in order to preserve the company and stay profitable they have to cut back on jobs. That is how the business world works. Of course, some of the companies Bain worked with had to cut jobs, if however, you're trying to infer that Romney is a poor businessman then you're just wrong, or ignorant on his record.
BTW, I want a guy in Washington who will cut government jobs. There are so many unecessary jobs that cost taxpayers money. Romney will do this and has the experience to recognize where it can be done. This is a "great message" for those of us who recognize the problem and understand how the economy and job market works. I've worked in business operations my entire career - I'm one of those horrible boss types, you know the guy who reminds you of the guy who laid you off. I do know what I'm talking about. I've saved many jobs not just by cutting costs but by cutting personnel.
*Tagg Romney 2038!*
In the political world, no candidate benefits by telling voters that losing jobs is necessary.
In 1994, when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for senator, the Kennedy campaign located and dragged before the cameras a number of workers who had lost their jobs in one or another of Bain's restructurings:
"I lost my job due to Romney"
"I got laid off due to Romney"
etc.
The ploy worked very well. What could Romney say, "Sorry, that's just the way it goes"???
And that is exactly what Romney would face against Hillary. Hillary's oppo research is so thorough that she actually located an essay that Obama had written in kindergarten. The Hillary campaign would locate every single worker who ever lost a job due to Bain, and would put them in attack ads against Romney all the way through the election.
The irony is that thanks to McCain's own campaign reform, pretty much ONLY rich guys can run. So every time he swipes at Romney for using his money for negative ads, I growl a bit because it was McCain that made the door that only guys like Romney can walk through.
I have serious, serious problems with McCain. I really do. If he gets the nod from the GOP I will not be voting for him as much as voting against Obama and Hillary.
But, we still have a few day to Tuesday, so I'm praying for Romney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
Hang on - I may be off here, but didn't Romney tell Michigan workers about how he was going to use the government to bail them out? Didn't he back a big stimulus package?
And didn't McCain tell Michigan workers the truth--that some jobs aren't coming back? And didn't he say that the answer to the current economic "crisis" was to let the Fed do its job?
Romney is a self-made man--I give him that. Cool. But my impression has been that his approach to economic issues has been more populist than McCain's.
Joel Pollak
Guide to the Perplexed
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com
But hey, as long as you are NOT MCCAIN that's apparently not only acceptable, it makes you a better conservative.
the people of Michigan that he would fight for every single job. He told them that he would bring back the same auto jobs they had lost. He told them their jobs were coming back. He told them he would not rest until every single job came back to Michigan.
With this in mind, McCain was right to point out that Romney's job at Bain Capital was in fact to cut jobs. Romney would buy companies, strip them bare and sell them for profit. That was his job. He laid people off. It's what he did. He made a fortune doing it. But people lost their livelihood in the process. That's the point. No one begrudges him his wealth. Let him campaign as "Mr-Fix-it". He will not get grief for that from me. But he cannot campaign as the guy who will fight for every last job and not expect to be challenged about his history of destroying jobs.
_________________________________________________
We're all in the same boat, fellas.
But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
His shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
-Evil shenanigans!
You really don't seem to understand business. Unfortunately, there are points at which jobs have to be cut. Not for profit, but for survival. Mitt's job wasn't simply to "strip them bare". He was there to analyze the situation and find out how the company could get the job done in a more efficient manner, save overhead costs during periods of rough seas, and weather the storm and not only survive, but rebuild and succeed, and be in a far greater position to add workers and add jobs.
McCain's line wasn't to "point this out". If he wanted to try and actually take this point up, he would do it in an actual setting where he explained what he's talking about. McCain knows its bunk, so he tried to slip it in as a little joke.
And its far more indicitive of McCain's attitude towards business in general. He doesn't need to understand the economy, apparantly, or the roles of business in society, or much else; after all, he's John Freakin' McCain-it certainly can't be that hard. He'll just name-drop someone out to take care of it for him.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
Romney has something to like for conservatives. McCain has nothing to like.
I'll vote for whoever stands across form McCain in a general election be it Hilda-beast, Obama, or Ralph Nader.
I agree wholeheartedly that there are times when "jobs have to be cut."
The point is that Romney didn't have the guts to tell THAT to the voters of Michigan.
He could have told the uncomfortable truth: The auto industry also has to cut jobs, cut wages, and cut benefits, for its OWN survival.
Instead, Romney promised some kind of magic resurgence of the auto industry with a Federal R&D program. What Romney promised the voters of Michigan is inconsistent with what he was FORCED to do at Bain--retrench, lay off, accept short-term pain for long-term gain.
And he also proposed a Federal bailout of the auto industry's R&D, no less. How does that square with his being an economic conservative? Why is General Motors entitled to Federal subsidies of its R&D, but not Google or YouTube?
In the past, such an "industrial policy"--public-private partnerships with favored industries--was the brainchild of LIBERAL economists like Lester Thurow.
A truly CONSERVATIVE economist like Milton Friedman would say: Just let General Motors go bankrupt, sell off the factories to Honda and Toyota, and let them build the cars from now on.
You say "we don't understand business." As I understand business, a well-run company has no need of Federal subsidies. And a company that goes pleading for Federal subsidies is not worth saving.
You never seem to answer anyone's replies. Your point in life seems to be to go on and refute anyone, no matter the point of their post, and then ignore it when your rationale gets challenged.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
I also would not vote for McCain in a general election. I would consider Romney since he favors legal immigration and good judges unlike McCain. I dislike both of their pro-occupation stances on Iraq. We've spent a trillion dollars in Iraq, and I don't think we should spend another dime.
However, I am supporting Ron Paul in the primary, and like you, I wish people would quit questioning my commitment to the Republican party.
If it's Romney vs. Obama....I *might* vote Romney.
If it's McCain vs. Obama....I will campaign for, donate to, and vote for Barack Obama with enthusiasm.
I can't think of a single issue that I share with McCain. He's the anti-thesis of conservatism.
Go Romney....or go whoever....go Obama or whoever stands across from that man.
to shy away from McCain. If he gets more votes , get's the nomination, good for him , very bad for the consevative movement and I , in no way will vote for him. Nothing at all personal against JM , he just doesn't stand for what I believe in at all. He is the NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN of the Republican party and GOD help us if he gets the Presidency.
Yes I to am willing to work and vote for Obama if McStain is the nominee.
He is no different than a Joe Lieberman or Teddy Kennedy infiltrate into our party.
I will do whatever it takes to defeat McCain in a primary or general election.
Neither John McCain's nor Romney's nor anyone else. What I do care about is having an equal opportunity to gain such success for myself if I want it, not take it from others. It's what defines me as me. I could care less if I were a multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire but I know others who do and that's all well and good. Nobody is stopping them... at least not yet.
I find this class warfare rhetoric to be distasteful because like the blog post said: "... we really need to stop stigmatizing wealth creation in this election cycle."
Who cares how they got their money as long as it isn't illegally or unethically gotten gains? Is that what this election is about? I thought it was about who would best fill the position for the President of the United States and lead the country through freedom and prosperity.
Class warfare is a Democratic Party mantra. I find it very distressing to have Republicans echoing those sentiments. Conservatives stand for equal opportunity to create wealth. They support entrepeneurialship. Without either, a society cannot advance itself. We've seen this over and over in other countries.
If you envy Romney's or McCain's money then go out and make your own and you can be "elite", too, if that's what floats your boat, but you better hurry before the Dems get hold of Washington. Oh, and do what they do, send it all offshore so it isn't taxed to death when they raise taxes on everybody else and you lose the opportunity to create your own wealth.
These are the types of questions I'd be asking at Democratic debates: Why, if they believe in equality and taxing the rich, do they buy mansions in the Caribean and create bank accounts in the Caymans where it can't be taxed? How about the Clintons' Irish home? Or the fact that they are not taxed there either?
Class warfare and it's rhetoric are the biggest scams ever perpetuated. If you buy into it, you've already lost. The rich don't keep the bulk of their money here to be taxed. That's why it always falls upon the middle class to foot the bill.
So, I'll be voting for the one who allows me to keep the most of my money in my own pocket; the one who empowers me to create my own wealth and success according to my definition of it. I will not someone who says I should have only this much of what I work for because someone else... who didn't work for it... needs the rest more than I do.
Yall really need to learn the entire story of Jamestown. They tried that 'common good' approach initially and everybody nearly starved to death because there was no incentive to work for what they could get from everybody else.
Perhaps the pundits are right and it will take another "Carter" to get us a "Reagan."
You know, this conservative backlash against McCain sounds like those Ralph Nader lefties who said they'd rather see Bush win than Gore.
Two election defeats later, they still hadn't learned. Now, why are conservatives talking about voting for Obama if their Republican doesn't get the nomination? Is it out of principle, or out of spite?
Joel Pollak
Guide to the Perplexed
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com
I agree that that the "for patriotism, not for profit" line is a tawdry piece of rhetoric that McCain should drop. But McCain is not stigmatizing wealth creation per se. He's contrasting his leadership style with Romney's.
Romney has said, "At a time like this I believe it's essential to have someone who's actually had a job in the real economy." This is possibly as offensive as McCain's line. Romney is saying that despite McCain's wartime experience, his leadership of a Navy squadron, and years of service in Congress, he lacks the essential qualifications for the presidency--and would be more qualified if had managed an investment firm. It's no wonder that McCain, who comes from a proud naval family, has shot back: "I did not manage, I led. ... And I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism."
But McCain should have taken a higher road and said something like this: "I have all the respect in the world for investment firms and their CEO's. But in this time of war America needs the kind of leadership that President Bush showed in supporting the surge, and that Reagan showed in saying, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' America needs a President who, when the chips are down, will stake his reputation for a cause that the public and the media are unsure about. When I threw my support behind the the surge, at a time when very few were willing to do so, I didn't hedge my bets. Successful investment firm managers like my opponent--God bless them--sometimes don't have the mindset to such risky stands. That's part of what makes them good businessmen." (In fact McCain has made some of these points in discussing his support for the surge.)
Even the Wall Street Journal (and if anyone appreciates capitalism and profit, it's the WSJ) has criticized Romney's leadership philosophy:
"To hear the candidate himself tell it, Mr. Romney believes above all in 'data.' As he told us on a visit, his management style includes 'wallowing' in data about a problem, analyzing that data like the business consultant he once was, and then using it to devise a solution. A major theme of his candidacy is that he'll bring that business model to a 'broken' Washington, apply it to Congress and the bureaucracy, and thus triumph over gridlock and the status quo.
To which we'd say: Good luck with that. Washington's problem isn't a lack of data, or a failure to calibrate the incentives as in the business world. Congress and the multiple layers of government respond exactly as you'd expect given the incentives for self-preservation and turf protection that always exist in political institutions. The only way to overcome them is with leadership on behalf of good ideas backed by public support. The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter."
He has always taken orders from:
Those of higher rank.
His father-in-law.
Charles Keating.
Feingold.
Kennedy.
The MSM.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I think Robert Kagan put it well:
"[T]he only reason Republicans have any chance of winning in 2008 is because of the surge. Imagine a Republican running this year as the American position in Iraq crumbled, with images of defeat and slaughter on the TV every night, instead of signs of progress. People might reflect a bit on these facts before entering upon a crusade against someone who behaved with such high-minded political courage, at the apparent expense of his electoral prospects, at a time when many others tried to duck."
"Those of higher rank."
This is what I mean. First we have Romney proclaiming military service is not a "real job in the real world" and now we have Romney supporters trying to portray standard military conduct as a failure of leadership and a negative thing.
"First we have Romney proclaiming military service is not a "real job in the real world""
FredHead for Mitt Romney!
First, I am not a Romneybot and you are obviously a fool for not recognizing that. Just exactly who did McCain "lead" as a naval aviator? No one. That is not to say he didn't serve honorably and well. He just spent most of his career being told what to do next.
I never implied that he was a failure. You reading comprehension is about third grade level. I sure it would have been better if you hadn't been on jury duty most of your fourth third grade year.
Now, run along and play outside.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Tbone
Mitt gets his instructions beamed directly to his Robot Positronic Brain using the LDS Satellite Network and a special small Ku Band antenna hidden under all that hair of his.
So I figure it's a fair trade.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Great post, and I'd throw in Huckabee's populism. There is a great article in the City Journal about Romney's tax plan.
http://www.city-journal.org/index.html
Not taxing people for capital gains if they make less than 200k a year would make saving and investing a lot more appealing to the middle class.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney