"What's it all about, Romney?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Romney?
Are we meant to take more than we give. . ." ~With apologies to Burt Bacharach and Hal David who wrote the original song, "Alfie"
Part of Romney's image problem is that he leads not as a selfless Lincolnesque statesman but as an Ayn Rand greed worshiper. Setting the standard for his campaign, Romney gave a high-profile plug to a company owned and run by major donors. His son has followed in those ethically challenged footsteps by using his campaign connections to launch a business. And a campaign adviser benefitted from illicitly leaked confidential government information.
In RomneyWorld, that's all OK. His answer to the song's question, "Are we meant to take more than we give," is a resounding "YES." "What's it all about?" For Romney, it's about exploiting the 99 percent for the profit of the 1 percent. That vulture capitalist philosophy is bad enough in the business world, but it's dead wrong for public service. As the head of his company, Romney made so much money that he squirreled it away in the Cayman Islands and secret Swiss bank accounts. But shadiness and avarice aren't attributes Americans prize in the head of their country.
Romney's stealth product placement occurred in December. He endorsed the business of donors Bill Heavener, CEO of Full Sail University, and C. Kevin Landry, chairman of TA Associates, the private equity firm that owns the Florida college. On at least two campaign stops, Romney specifically named and promoted Full Sail University, urging students to consider such for-profit colleges to contain the cost of higher education.
Romney didn't mention that the price of many Full Sail programs is $40,000 a year -- thirteen times that of a typical not-for-profit community college. And Romney neglected to mention that Heavener is co-chairman of the Romney fundraising team in Florida. And that Heavener gave $45,000 and Landry $40,000 to the Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.
How hard would it have been for Romney to say: "By the way, this campaign stop is brought to you by Full Sail University, a school with a spotty graduation rate whose CEO happens to love me." That's what ethical television anchors do when they broadcast glowing stories about companies with financial ties to station owners.
Movie producers don't provide such advisories when they prominently place products like Coke or Wheaties in scenes. But filmmakers are selling a product, just like Coke is hawking sugary carbonated water. Little but avarice is expected of them. The likes of news broadcasters and statesmen are held to a higher standard.
When Romney models sketchy behavior, it's no wonder those connected to his campaign engage in it. Take, for example, the way his son Tagg and his friend Spencer Zwick formed Solamere, a private equity firm. Tagg served as a senior advisor to Romney's failed 2008 bid for the Republican nomination and Zwick was the 2008 campaign's top fund-raiser.
After the 2008 race, Tagg and Zwick held something incredibly valuable in their hands. It was the list of Romney's rich campaign donors. These wealthy contributors were perfect prospects for the pair in pursuit of private profit.
Tagg and Zwick could hit up the rich donors for $10 million each to launch Solamere. While deliberating investment, the rich donors would bear in mind that Romney was considered the likely Republican nominee in four years.
Tagg contends only five of the investors were donors he knew solely from his father's contributors list. And Tagg and Zwick deny their connection to Romney prompted investors to hand over $244 million to a start-up by two people with no private equity experience.
There was no relationship between the campaign and the firm, they contend, even though Solamere was located in the same buildings as the campaign and later a Romney PAC and Zwick solicited for Solamere at the same time he solicited for the PAC.
And then there's the case of Romney's campaign advisor who benefitted from leaked sensitive government information.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General has determined that board member Terence F. Flynn disclosed confidential information to former board members for their private gain. One of those who got the information is Peter Schaumber, who Mitt Romney selected last September to co-chair his campaign's labor policy advisory committee. The campaign now says Schaumber resigned in December. That's the very month Flynn learned he was under investigation for the disclosures.
Some of the information Flynn leaked was so sensitive that, the NLRB has said, the agency would have refused to give it to Congress. The Inspector General has asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Flynn's releases to Schaumber violated the federal Hatch Act, which bans public officials from using government access to advance political campaigns.
"What's it all about, Romney?" For him and those in his campaign, it's about private gain.
The lyrics of the song "Alfie" admonish against selfishness.
That is a concept, however, that escapes Romney and his supporters. They don't get it. They don't understand that Americans don't really like Richie Rich's evil twin, his arrogant attitude of entitlement, or his belief in taking more than he gives.
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
PLENTY!
Because of their pay and benefits, non-union companies still need to pay quality and pay and benefits in order to remain competitive in the labor market.
Every employee, union and non-union, benefits from strong unions.
Romney should be indited.
All union presidents and executives and rank and file should also do so.
The Republicans are constantly bashing unions they have convinced many fools that unions are bad.These folks do not realize that every benefit they enjoy is because of unions.
Romney should go down to defeat in a landslide. He is a 1% for the 1% and only for the 1%.
What percentage of the wealth those 1% and 10% posses.
It's relevent you know.
Leaving that out of the equation makes your numbers absolutely meaningles.
Here's a little help for you:
If the stats we never hear worked in favor of your half argument.......
faux would be shouting then 24/7
It's called, "one person, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote".
Perhaps you should move to Somalia and enjoy your small state paradise.
No matter what, you always get your dough.
However many people out of work,
You still get every single little perk.
If fired, you are properly consoled
By floating 'neath a parachute of gold.
The best thing you can be is CEO.
No matter what, you always get your dough.
Obama, on the other hand, has faced these problems and knows what it is to be at the bottom and still achieve success with hard work and determination. He makes an effort to help out those less fortunate then him and tries (unsuccessfully so far) to work with congress to achieve things that will help the majority of voters both Democrat and Republican.
The fact that Romney gets dragged into the discussion is a bonus.
Romney will never win election for very many reasons.
In my opinion, it's his complete detachment from the normal lives of American voters - not the 1%, that has his campaign doomed to failure.
Are they NCAA Division II or III? :)
Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the obligation to help homeowners, college students, and unemployed workers? Why are fewer people working today than three years ago? Yes, 'we do need people in office that represent us, and not gaming the system for personal wealth.' OBAMA IS NOT THE ANSWER! His record speaks for itself!
Romney is the ultimate 1% candidate that is not even his own man. He is as bought and paid for as a "product" could be. Raging Billionaires and their fellow travelers purchased a robot that they could program to do what they want and of course, to completely control. Romney is their perfect vessel, a feckless "etcha-a-sketch" designed to do their bidding.
No use going further than this, nothing else to see in terms of Romney.
In terms of what it says about the Republican Party, they aren't much different than Romney - just a bunch of irresponsible fanatics bought and paid for by a bunch of unhinged narrow interests. Romney and the Republican Party are mirrors of one another.