I'm going to defend Mitt Romney - this one time - and say his 'firing people' remark was taken out of context.

Romney was simply referring to the ability to seek a different vendor if a current one is not satisfying the customer.

Nothing wrong with that - it's good old fashioned American competition.

Mitt Romney sounds like Bob Monkhouse when he speaks - it's unnerving. You almost expect him to come out with one-liners.

The fiction that Romney doesn't believe in anything shows just how successfully the business absolutism he espouses has positioned itself outside ideological terms – beyond question, self-evident.

Absolutely right, well spoken.

Yes, agree also with Greenlake here, making similar point.

But there is still the whole Bain business, and, as Jason says, while Romney looks to lean whichever way the wind blows on social issues, on economic issues he knows exactly what he thinks – and of course he thinks "corporations are people", because his best friends are corporations.

As Karl Marx might paraphrase James Carville, "It's the economic, stupid."

“I want individuals to have their own insurance, That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you could fire them.

... I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone isn’t giving the good service, I want to say I’m going to get someone else to provide this service.”

It seems a bit dishonest to reduce this to "I like being able to fire people", his rivals are taking that cheap shot as they don't have much to say for themselves but that isn't any reason to follow suit.

I don't think, in the world of political-speak, (both over here and in the US,) the word liar is used much. Flip-flop does sound nice and cuddly, but Romney, like the rest, is a liar; suppose he has to be, seeing his competition, but, like the emperor's new clothes, nobody, even in the muzzled US media, points this out.

He has the might of the GOP and the 1% behind him, and therefore he will win.
Simples.

Don't think the culture wars are over at all; they will continue with their sound and fury on my deathbed, just as they were hovering over the airwaves when I was born, indeed when the US was born.

James, these are Republican primaries, and the attacks on Romney we're seeing are Republican attacks. It's been almost exactly a hundred years since any Republican (TR, WHT) attacked another one for being a tool of the plutocracy. It just isn't what they do and it's unrealistic to think it's significant that they're not doing it now. Huntsman has already delivered more of that then we had any right to expect.

Once Mitt is the guy, the Thumpers will mostly shut up in public and Mitt won't be hearing very much sniping from the culture war department. That's when it will become useful to explore his self-identification with the very sleaziest elements of the finance trade.

And this makes him different to Obama in what way? I don;t understand why Obama can do exactly the same things and draw no criticism from the left.

I've just read an article that says that amongst the European press and opinion generally, that Mitt Romney is seen in quite a positive light. Maybe thats because the Euros see Romney as the least of a bad bunch, or they quite like his moderate tones.

Well, firstly, if i was an American, i would HATE the idea of an endorsement from anyone on the failed continent of Europe. European politicians are a joke. They are economically illiterate, they are arrogant and quite frankly they are stupid. So if i was Mitt Romney, i would hold a press conference immediately and let the world know that i firmly REJECT any endorsement from Europe, and would tell them in no uncertain terms to f**k off and mind their own business. I mean really, the concept of an endorsement from anyone who thinks the Euro is a good idea, or who are so arrogant that they think its is their right to hold up the world's economic recovery just so they can fix this Euro piffle, is pure poison.

But on a further note. Isn't it ironic that the so-called Euro elite, with their socialist bleatings and their alleged egalitarian views, end up endorsing the one candidate with more money than the rest put together.

What total and utter hypocrites. They all belong to the same red-carpet brigade and are despicable.

But there is still the whole Bain business, and, as Jason says, while Romney looks to lean whichever way the wind blows on social issues, on economic issues he knows exactly what he thinks – and of course he thinks "corporations are people", because his best friends are corporations.

Take a look at some of my previous posts about Romney, and you will see I have written essentially the same opinions - but put in much less diplomatic terms.

Obama also stands for the 1%, just another " Corporate Nazi " ( welfare state for the Banks and their stock market parasites ) Wall Street puppet, the only relatively " clean " guy is Ron Paul despite his other deviations like once saying end welfare etc !

In this first presidential election since Citizens United, the breathtaking US supreme court decision that allows corporations to spend as much as they please in support of candidates,

You mean like unions can ?

I'm a hard core Republican and as pro-capitalism as they come but I'm no big fan of Romney. He's a weasel who made a fortune sqeezing cash out of companies then letting them wither away. He is a flip-flopper with no core principles who has been pandering to the extreme right wing of the Republican party. Furthermore, despite his ad nauseam boasts about his alleged job creation knowledge from working in the private sector he has few economic accomplishments from his tenure as governor of Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that Obama, in many ways, also represents the 1%. When he assumed office he surrounded himself with Wall Street guys who pressured him for hundreds of billions in bailout money. He was also buddies with disgraced MF Global CFO Jon Corzine.

Romney will probably get the nomination and may very well be the next president. Americans are angry and won't be suckered like we were in the past. Whoever wins the presidency will unlikely be able to continue abetting Wall Street shenanigans.

Obama, such as he is, isn't proposing a budget increase for the Pentagon, and a huge deficit-busting tax cut for those making 1 million dollars per year. He also isn't proposing tax increases for the poor.

the only relatively " clean " guy is Ron Paul despite his other deviations like once saying end welfare etc

And other 'relatively clean' deviations, such as homophobia, racism, and antisemitism.

We have a candidate waging class warfare in this presidential election, and he is not the current occupant of the Oval Office.

You have got to be joking - every time Obama opens his mouth he's talking about 'millionaires and billionaires'

European politicians are a joke. They are economically illiterate, they are arrogant and quite frankly they are stupid.

So that's where our GOP candidates come from.

From his time at Bain Capital, where he squeezed companies to death to extract billions for investors,

The idea that investors make money from "Squeezing to death" companies is simply idiotic. Dead companies don't pay dividends. if you don't believe me try it for yourself.

He made money because a lot of the companies Bain invested in became very successful.

but to "let the failures fail", as the Tea Party likes to put it, is not Romney's style.

So a minute ago he was squeezing companies to death, now he refuses to let them fail? At least Mitt Romney waits a few years before he flip flops, not a few sentences.

This kind of internal contradiction comes about because the aithor hasn't considered the issues and decided that he doesn't like Romney- because he plainly doesn't understand his own points. I suspect but he has heard a few slogans and talking points from various sources and thrown them together in a kind of word salad.

True but one's choice of words does betray one's subconscious mindset. I would say "I like to be able to choose who I get my services from". But then I have never been in the position to fire people.
Romney has, and has done so. The fact that "he likes to be able to do it" sends shivers down my spine.
Romney has reminded people that he has been responsible for people losing their jobs in the past, and it will haunt him to the election.

Au contraire Monsieur Americano,
Trust me when i tell you that this time round you MUST vote GOP. Liberal (what we in Europe call socialist) candidates and politicans are luxuries for when times are good and when money is in plentiful supply.

Barack Obama IS a socialist, of that there can be no doubt, and i would say that at least economically speaking, ANY of the GOP cnadidates would make a better president. Obama may be comfortable in his role as president, but that doesn't mean that he is a good president. Do not confuse confidence with competence.

I recommend you go to the US debt clock website, and click on the world debt page behind it, then you will see just how much debt the European countries are in. If you think you've got it bad in America, your problems are miniscule to what is coming down the road in Europe. In a few years, quite literally the lights could be going out all over Europe. We may need another Marshall Plan to get back on our feet. Things are that bad. But do European leaders see these problems? No of course not. They seem to think that debt will blow away like a recession. If we wait long enough the debt will dissappear. Thats how stupid they are.

Believe me, a GOP president is your last chance to prevent America going the same way as Europe. We are screwed over here. Don't follow us.

Remind me again how our deficits worked out with the last 2 or 3 Republican presidents?

Sorry kid, i'm resignedly voting for Barry again.

If there's any justice in the world then Romney will get the GOP nomination and the Democrats will win with a landslide and a correspondingly powerful mandate for real change. It surely can't be hard for Obama to drive home to working-class and middle-class America the message that Romney and the Republicans represent a system that is far more likely to throw them out of work than to give them a share in the American dream?

Then again, as Thomas Frank has observed, the Republicans seem to excel in their ability to make less well-off people vote against their own economic interests.

Mitt Romney, candidate of the 1%

Since Obama (and much of the Democrats’ elite) is part of the “1%” does that mean that Romney is Obama’s candidate too?

If someone actually polls members of the “1%” how many of them would say they support Republicans? My best guess is ~50%.

The bad news is if he gets the nomination he could well be president, he's been consistently outpolling Obama in nearly all the swing states. If there is any good news it's that by GOP standards he isnt that right wing.

("Corporations are people," Romney helpfully explained at a town hall meeting, and as people are guaranteed free speech, corporations can spend what they like.)

One of the few absolutely true things Romney has said in the last decade.
It's no longer about whether they should be people, that debate is over and the battle has been lost. Just as the battle about money being a form of "speech" is over. Those preposterous assertions, and "Citizen's United", are now the law of the land.

Absent any SCOTUS reversals, or a reversal via Constitutional amendment, these are the tracks upon which the US will continue to run, regardless of who we elect - no other outcome is possible.

And there are simply no candidates up for election (not in any significant numbers anyway) running on a platform of doing anything about it, so those reversals are not even on the distant horizon, nor are they possible without entrenched economic power defending them by "whatever means necessary".

A political system so wholly colonized by those interests is not going to permit any alternate narrative to gain traction within any currently available "democratic"' pathways. If they have to go the Chinese route, and censor the internet, they will. If they have to strangle our firstborn in their cribs, they will. Power addicts, like any other addicts, will stop at nothing if they sense the source of supply is threatened.

The entire edifice is now balanced on the head of a pin, and they know it. It is not a coincidence that US police forces have been increasingly militarized beyond recognition from what they were a generation ago.

Corporatism is dug in like a tick now, and we're in for one hell of a ride.

Do you even know how that so called "debt" number was calculated and what it actually means?

If you believe that number is an actual "debt", then do you understand that LOGICALLY you must also believe that a person has a $1 dollar actual "debt" if they have 100 pennies instead of a dollar bill?

Maybe this link will help you understand what you don't know?

Actually the author is correct.

Oftentimes private equity firms - like Bain - invest in companies and force them to pay large dividends. The money to pay these dividends is often borrowed by the companies. Therefore, the investee companies are saddled with a huge debt in order to pay the PE companies a dividend.

The dividend is often larger than the amount the PE firm invested in the first place. Therefore, even if the investment goes out of business due to its large debt the PE firm still comes out ahead from the cash it squeezed out via the dividend.

There is nothing illegal about this but Romney should not be selling himself as some kind of hero who created jobs when he worked in the private sector.

If you're so concerned with the deficit and debt, why are you supporting someone whose plan with greatly add to both?

Pardon my mistake, should have read "whose plan would greatly add to both".

Oh please don't. I'm begging you.

You've got no idea just how gloomy things are over here in Europe. We, aswell as you, need an American president who turns up in the White House and starts to cut, cut, cut. And does so with glad heart, knowing full well that people need to be shaken out of their liberal/politically correct/ debt mired/ nanny state mentality. I don't think i could stand another 4 years of being told what to think by our so called liberal elite.

If this carries on, you as an American should go and buy Jack Daniels stock. They would be an immediate spike in the share price. And it would be because of me drinking more out of desperation and to dull the pain of 4 more years of liberal garbage and Keynesian b*llsh*t.

"Distracted by the antics of conservatives who can't win, liberals are missing that the GOP will select Big Money's staunchest ally"
*
This is inaccurate. Romney is not Big Money's "staunchest ally".
He is one of their own.

Save your breath, kid. Now i don't always toe the progressive party line on some issues, but i still think it's sorta really important that we keep a separation of church and state, that my body is still totally my own, and that people that happen to be gay have an equal right to the happiness or misery of marriage. The financials are important, but secondary.

Cutting everything is working out well for Europe, right?

He used to seem all right with gay people; now he's big on "traditional marriage".

Which tradition? Mitt's Mexican father had two grandfathers and 4 grandmothers.

With same sex and plural marriages, there are an infinite number of combinations.

What will all this do to the Mormons' genealogical records? My head is spinning!

When you boil it all down, Obama said he'd do two things as President. He'd reform the medical insurance system and end US military involvement in Iraq. (There was some waffle about Guantanamo but it was waffly). He's done both. He hasn't done much else, but he didn't say he would. This will count over the next 12 months. It will help him that a large number of obsessive people who know no better will use the word 'socialist,' at regular, though fairly random, intervals. If he's really lucky, in the same spirit they'll also accuse him of being a Whig or perhaps a Montagnard, or a Rosicurian, whatever. The election's in the bag.

If all our money is government issued debt notes, how the hell can the government ever be in debt?

I would love to hear at least one "debt hawk" debt try to answer that question?

My best guess is ~50%.

You must be under the false assumption that the 1% can only support one side or the other, many support both.

Excellent article, thank you.

And other 'relatively clean' deviations, such as homophobia, racism, and antisemitism.

How is he racist and anti-Semitic? Genuinely curious.

Oh, please can you source and cite his words, not the interpretations of commentators (for therein lays madness).

Thank you for the link. I've read it, and it sounds like total garbage.

As always, academics on the left have always got a counter argument and a reason why things are different to what those on the right say.
However, as they say, the proof is in the eating. Socialism works on paper and in the imagiantions of men. But reality is different.

If you think that debt is not a problem, perhaps the people of Greece are rioting for another reason altogether. Perhaps they are rioting because their ice creams have melted, because the electricity has been shut off and they can't afford to power their refrigerators. Doh, yup, thats that debt problem again, because, lo and behold, no-one will lend to them at anything other than exorbitant rates. Consequently, the only country with enough money to be those 33% interest rates to honour Greek bond yields, are the Germans. And guess what, Germany is slowly going bust aswell.

That link you provided failed to mention the most important feature of all, namely that the USA is still the lender of last resort for world's economy, and the dollar is the reserve currency. Consequently the USA is the only country in the world which can print money to pay of its own debt without serious inflationary pressures at home. But you ever lose this status, your debt will become much more 'real' and threatening.

All i am saying is don't fall into the same mind set trap that we have in Europe, or at least our politicians have, namely that debt is not a problem. Keynesianism does not work. Its only useful purpose is during times of was, when domestic demand gets stimulated for the purposes of war production. And even then you should only enact it if you think you have a greater than 50% chance of winning or if the moral aspects of the war are compelling enough. At all other times, printing money is bad. It reverses the moral foundation of a country and rewards profligacy and punishes thrift and endeavour. In short, it is morally wrong.

" Oftentimes private equity firms - like Bain - invest in companies and force them to pay large dividends. The money to pay these dividends is often borrowed by the companies. Therefore, the investee companies are saddled with a huge debt in order to pay the PE companies a dividend.

The dividend is often larger than the amount the PE firm invested in the first place. Therefore, even if the investment goes out of business due to its large debt the PE firm still comes out ahead from the cash it squeezed out via the dividend. "

Name two companies where this took place.( Hint - debt covenants )

""You must be under the false assumption that the 1% can only support one side or the other, many support both."

Well, you always want to hedge your bets when you start handing out the campaign donations. They're the same party as far as actual policy is concerned anyways.

Uh Big Money candidate? Who is more Big Money than Obama? he'd be the very last person who should be pointing fingers at Big Money candidates.

Obama, such as he is, isn't proposing a budget increase for the Pentagon, and a huge deficit-busting tax cut for those making 1 million dollars per year. He also isn't proposing tax increases for the poor.

What????? It was Obama who pushed to extend the “temporary” tax cuts last month over opposition from the Republican House Speaker. It was his administration that has increased the US deficit by over four trillion dollars. You think that might get paid by cutting public services for the poor and middle class, maybe?

Those of us who normally side with the liberal-left are left dumbfounded as to how to deal with a situation where the biggest little helper of the million-dollar earners is the Democratic president.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It was Senator Obama who backed the mortgage lenders who sucked all the money out of poor black neighbourhoods with their “special” deals for low-income families.

Why even pretend that the speeches that politicians give as candidates for office mean a darned thing, when most of them can't even remember which party they belong to once they've been elected?

Why do you say REALITY is garbage?

Are you arguing that the $15 TRILLION dollar amount shown on the debt clock is NOT the total amount of unmatured Treasury Notes?

Why do you think a Curreny note is not a "debt" while a Treasury note is a "debt"?

Aren't both types of notes money, just like 100 pennies and 1 dollar are both money?

If you can't answer and these questions about don't understand the money post 1971, aren't you commenting on a subject that you know nothing about?

It seems a bit dishonest to reduce this to "I like being able to fire people",

You're right it goes beyond a simple pleasure taken from firing people.

What he is saying is that as someone with financial muscle, he enjoys better health insurance.

This is true everywhere but the implication is that this is the mechanism for social services, so if you have poor financial muscle you deserve poor service and no financial muscle you deserve to die (at least if you get sick).

By that reckoning it is the richest who deserve the biggest Govt benefits subsidies and allowances, they have the muscle to choose them, and oh look, that's what already happens. Corporate joy!

The European economic elite is not socialist and it is certainly not equalitarian.

Interesting stuff on where Mitt Romney's funding comes from for those interested:

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,25

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286

In Mitt Romney's world corporations are people. Calling him a flip flopper is giving him a pass. In realty he is a smart oppurtunist. There are only two GOP candidates who have shown consistency, decency and character. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. GOP machinary will never nominate Ron Paul because of his views, but what they have against Hunstman?

I'm still reveling in exquisite schadenfreude.

The teabaggers, who vented ample spleens from ample butts confined to ample motorized wheechairs will be forced to vote for the:

Yankee, Ivy League Mormon, who engineered Socialized Medicine and emerges, neatly coiffed, from his private jet just from UC Berkeley.

Exquisite schadenfreude.

Just exquisite.

What an ignominious (but not utterly humorless) ending for the teabaggers. Voting for the antithesis of their "movement."

Exquisite.