Did anyone notice that Mitt Romney invoked Steve Jobs name in his address?
I did.
Here's the text:
"Now we weren't always successful at Bain, but no one ever
is in the real world of business. That's what this president
does not seem to understand. Business and growing jobs is about
taking risk, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, but always
striving. It's about dreams. Usually it doesn't work out
exactly as you might have imagined. Steve Jobs was fired at
Apple, and then he came back and changed the world. It's the
genius of the American free enterprise system to harness the
extraordinary creativity, and talent and industry of the
American people with a system that's dedicated to creating
tomorrow's prosperity, not trying to redistribute today's."
His argument (if there was oneI didn't quite follow the logic) would have been better if he pointed out that Steve Job's business he created while away from Apple (Next) wasn't hugely successful financially but was extremely valuable in helping Apple create a next generation OS, not to mention the people brought over from Next. So, he could have made a point that you should let businesses fall where they may because in this case two not terribly successful businesses came together and made one really successful business, and they did it without any special intervention from the government.
However, that point would only be really good if the Democratic party were somehow against any of that happening. However (two howevers?), if I were to play Devil's advocate and try to throw Mitt a bone, I would advise him to make the point that Obama tries to save businesses with government intervention (auto industry, Wall Street). I have some really good counterarguments to that, but at this point I am really just arguing myself.