Palmetto State poised for pragmatic pick over preening vulture anti-capitalists
South Carolinians have seen too many shuttered textile plants never visited by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital to fall for Newt-Perry slurs that blame the buyers of companies already failing due to the internal policies of the sellers or external policies of governments.
Vultures eat the dead.
Bain, under Romney, saved jobs worth saving in the private sector (unlike the now government motors taxpayer -funded welfare “jobs” saved by President Barack Obama at a loss) by salvaging the identifiable living and the profits earned saved and created jobs, sight unseen:
The problem with the entire discussion is that jobs are being used as the only measure of the “good” done by Romney. Profits are also good as they allow companies to grow and as they return capital to investors who can then fund the creation or growth of other companies. Indeed, despite our being surrounded by Keynesian-thinking politicians who believe that nothing is as important as consumers having spending money, the indirect benefits to society of profits to investors are arguably at least as large as the indirect benefits of employment.
We have to assume that conservative movement leaders like the former Speaker of the House and a twice re-elected governor of the Lone (jobs-producing in the 21st Century so far) Star State are familiar with the the economic fundamentals that define free market capitalism and that constitutes the foundation of modern day American conservatism. Hence this2000 conservative epiphany-defined gamecock’s disdain for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they launched their respective efforts in my native home state by hurling the “vulture capitalist” epithet at the successful former CEO of Bain Capital and related companies, savior of the post-911 Salt Lake City olympics, and balancer of Bay State budgets.
Mitt Romney turned Bains around three times. His job was to make a profit. He did. Profits are good. This is fundamental to conservative principles. Disparaging the buyers of troubled companies as “vultures” is anathema to conservative values and principles and must not be rewarded with the historically dispositive prize that is the SC Republican Primary.
Conservatives want Reagan (or Coolidge). We find none.
We thought Perry was the closest facsimili thereof, and while he seemed the most reliable conservative in the field before his desperation-driven avian mis-sighting, but his debate-gaffe driven microscopic caucus and primary showings prompted a second look a decidedly non-reliable Gingrich. Then he devolves into vulture anti-capitalism after being forced to defend accepting hush money from Freddie Mac. What would you expect from a guy so concerned with Air Force One plane seat accommodations. And for those that cried Huntsman when we eenie-meenie-minie-moed between Romney and Santorum, Jon dropped out today.
Evangelicals, and any conservative concerned about life, marriage, Iran, and manufacturing jobs are naturally drawn to the Roman Catholic son of a coal miner and father of enough future conservatives to swing future Iowa caucii or man a basketball team with players to spare on the bench. Good job Daddy Santorum!
We forgave Rick Santorum his support of Arlen Specter when we learned of the loyalty angle, are impressed with his arguments for tripling the child tax credit and manufacturing tax incentives, and will always respect his denunciation of the Newt/Perry vulturism when he was arguably poised to benefit the most from disingenuous, anathem-to-conservative appeals to supposed class envy-starved South Carolinians. Then we sought counsel from our fellow Southern Baptist,Richard Land:
Will evangelicals support Mr. Romney if he is the nominee? Yes, and by substantial percentages. Never underestimate the unique ability of President Obama to unify social conservatives, of every faith tradition, around his eventual opponent.
Will Mr. Romney’s Mormonism be a negative factor for evangelicals? It will for some, but remember that in Iowa the 60% of voters who identified themselves as evangelicals gave 42% of their votes to a Mormon (Mr. Romney) or a Catholic (Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich), while giving only 38% of their vote to fellow Protestants (Messrs. Perry and Paul and Mrs. Bachmann). So much for narrow denominational prejudices.
One should note also that several prominent evangelicals, such as former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, are enthusiastically supporting Mr. Romney.
Even Pastor Robert Jeffress, who may be Mr. Romney’s most vocal evangelical critic and last fall referred to Mormonism as a “cult,” has stated: “If it comes down to Romney versus Obama I’m voting for Romney.” I’ve heard the same sentiment from hundreds of evangelical pastors over the past two months.
This USC Gamecock knew as much even before he made his roost atop Stone Mountain of Georgia, supported Mitt early on in 2007 before Fred Thompson teased us, and after Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Newt imploded.
Santorum would make us proud as President. So would Mitt. They both exude American Exceptionalism and would either’s election as president would inspire the re-entry of billions if not trillions of currently sidelined dollars into the economy.
I recently made my executive experience-driven choice in Mitt Romney. But what is most important about this stage of the GOP nomination contest is that conservatives not reward vulture slurs against economic liberty.
I am confident that home of the winner of the last two College World Series will not let me down.
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist – Examiner.com
Editor – Hillbilly Politics
Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson