Daily Kos

William Galston is a noted scholar (formerly the Saul Stern Professor and Dean at the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland) and experienced political hand (Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy in the '90s) who is currently the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

This past week, Dr. Galston released a white paper, titled "Six Months to Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins." It caught my attention since that's a topic of great interest to us, and I was pleased to see some familiar themes (see Things that matter in the presidential election, and things that don't) covered in the paper.

Six topics in particular were the focus:

• An examination of polling results and public attitudes toward both candidates and important issues of the day.

It remains to be seen whether the negative perceptions of Romney that resulted from the nominating contest will endure. For the time being, at least, Obama enjoys a sizeable advantage on a host of personal qualities. He has a narrow edge in most of the key swing states. And his path to 270 electoral votes is easier than Romney’s. In short, he begins the general election contest with a modest advantage, which adverse developments at home or abroad could eliminate or even reverse. The 2012 election will be hotly contested, and the victor’s margin is unlikely to approach Obama’s seven-point edge in 2008.

• The mood of the country

Reflecting diminished confidence in government and public life, younger Americans are more likely to view the American dream as resulting from personal achievement. They are also less likely to give priority to ensuring opportunity for all members of society. Because they cannot rely on government for financial security, they experience increased pressure to provide for themselves and their families. But they are not confident that they will be able to do so if current trends continue.

• The issues

Every survey finds that economic issues dominate public concerns. The most recent survey of the Pew Research Center asked respondents to rank eighteen issues on a four-point scale from “very” to “not at all” important. Eighty-six percent said that the economy was very important, with jobs a close second at 84 percent. By contrast, four hot-button social issues—immigration (42 percent), abortion (39 percent), birth control (34 percent), and gay marriage (28 percent)—came in at the bottom.

• Ideology

The election of 2012 takes place against the backdrop of a political system that is more polarized along partisan and ideological lines than it has been for many decades—indeed, if standard political science measures are correct, since the 1890s. This fact has already reshaped the campaigns of both the president and his challenger.

• What kind of election will 2012 be?

It appears that 2012 will be more like 2004—a classic mobilization election—than either 1992 or 1996. Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama has turned out to be a polarizing president who has induced many voters to choose sides very early in the process. So the enthusiasm of core supporters—their motivation to translate their preferences into actual votes—will make a big difference.

• The Electoral College

The focus of this paper thus far has been on the national electorate. But of course we do not have national elections. As the 2000 election painfully reminded us, the structural difference between the national popular vote and state-by-state results can sometimes be consequential.

But it is important to keep 2000 in perspective. The Electoral College comes into play only when the popular vote is narrowly divided. If a candidate wins the popular vote by as little as 2 percent, it is very unlikely that the loser can win a majority of the electoral votes.

Dr. Galston was kind enough to respond to further questions we had about November 2012.

(Continued below the fold)

• Greece will go to the polls again June 17 to elect a government that will either continue austerity or default and start fresh. Expect bankers to push the meme in the global media that if Greece does not destroy its own people, Western Civilization will collapse.
  
• President Obama lifted sanctions on Burma or Myanmar, whichever you prefer. Quite frankly, the entire Myanmar policy amounts to a major diplomatic coup for the president and Secretary Clinton.
  
• More signs that President Obama's sactions regime against Iran is taking its toll:
  

  Inflation is now officially running at about 20 per cent, although economists say prices of the goods most Iranians worry about are rising at a much faster rate.

  "This budget will deflate the economy. To have what is almost zero growth with a growing population like Iran's, in real terms the country is going to contract severely. It is a truly bad situation," added Emadi.

• North Korea appears to be up to its old habits:
  

  Ten thousand rolls of tobacco, 12 bottles of sake and a handful of second-hand Mercedes-Benz cars are among the latest reported breaches of a UN ban on luxury goods sales to North Korea, according to a confidential draft UN report.

  Guess who that stuff is for.
  
• Syria remains unstable. President Obama calls for political change, but stops short of military involvement.
• It is a good time to go to London if you can manage it. Soon, the Oylmpic Games will begin.

Take a minute and think carefully of all the public figures you've disliked throughout your life. File through all the politicians, entertainers, sports figures, and the like. Assuming you are a somewhat reasonable, normal person, you probably have strong opinions some of these folks. Perhaps you reached the point of hating one or two of them. Now, if you can, try and mentally assemble all the people you never liked on a thermometer, with those you can probably tolerate at the bottom and those who make your blood boil at the very top. Take a mental picture of that person. Now bring it forward to the front of your mind. Do you see Mitt Romney?

It is well understood that Democrats do not like Mitt Romney's policies. In fact, our leading politicians will go out of their way, as we Democrats are wont to do, to praise Mitt Romney's character. We practice the rather high minded view that our disagreement with him and his party is not personal, but purely a matter of phiolosophical and political differences. We think it is impolite to call Mitt Romney "weird." That it is unseemly to ask questions about his church or the things taught from its pulpits. We cannot attack the character of his family or his associates. We think ourselves better than this sort of thing, content in being able to look at ourselves in the morning for not having gone done the road Republicans often do not hesitate to travel. Speaking for myself, however, my perception of Mitt Romney has almost nothing to do with his policies, most of which are standard nutcase Republican fare. There are plenty of other Republicans who parrot the same talking points as Mitt Romney, but they don't get up to the top of my thermometer. I even find Limbaugh a mere bufoon. But there is so much about Mitt Romney that makes me detest him more than any public figure I've known in my life. In my mind he's the worst kind of person that should be involved in politics. It basically comes down to this: Mitt Romney has spent his entire life preying on the weak and defenseless, always from a position of complete safety for himself. In other words, he's a coward.

His propensity for lying is well known. His lack of any central convictions about anything other than his own ambitions well documented. As he's run for the highest office in the land, we are now getting enough stories about his life that allow us to examine it as a whole. Consider his willingness in his youth to engage in violent hazing with a gang of similary privliged ruffians against a defenseless outsider. Consider his callous mistreatment of his own household pets. Think back about the episode when Romney talked about how illegal immigrants ended up maintaining his lawn and his open hostility toward them today. Consider how harshly he has treated his own employees when money was at stake. Look at how he has treated his fellow competitors for the Republican nomination. In every case, Romney has always attacked the weak with particular viciousness. In every case, Romney has kept his distance, doing it all from the comfort of an office tower or lordly estate. Do you think Mitt Romney would personally deliver a pink slip to a steelworker? Would he personally walk up to a gardner and fire him to his face? Would he attack a gay person without a pack of toughs behind him? He offers $10,000 bets to people who don't have $10,000 to bet. He braggs about the joy he takes in firing people. Worse thing about it is, he does it in a way that makes it appear that he truly believes that he's doing you a favor. "Pranks and hijinks," he says. "Politics aren't bean bags," he says. An overbearing gorilla calls a woman a slut over the airwaves and his response is "not the sort of words I'd have chosen." The man is a coward. He won't confront the strong and forces himself on the weak. His entire life, that's all he's done. You can't find one instance where Mitt Romney actually stood up and fought for someone other than himself. Find a case where Mitt Romney put himself at risk on someone else's behalf. Look and see if you can find a single case where Mitt Romney sacrificed something for someone else's benefit. You can't because he doesn't.

No, Mitt Romney is not a patriot. No, Mitt Romney is not a great guy. No, Mitt Romney isn't a wonderful guy in private. Mitt Romney is an self-indulgent, egomaniacal, sociopathic coward.

There are plenty of reasons to vote against Mitt Romney even if he agreed with us on policy. He isn't the kind of person who should be in public life, except perhaps as a "heel" character on pro wrestling. People like him should peak in high school and then go learn their life lessons through hard knocks in obscurity. Had it not been for Romney's wealth and pedigree, that is exactly what would have happened. Perhaps it is rather low brow to want a public leader who actually has a heart and a moral compass that aims true. Who laughs without ulterior motive. Who doesn't think legal entities are the same thing as human beings. But if there are voters who vote against Mitt Romney because they just can't stand him, that's fine with me. I'm right there with them.

Growing up, I seem to remember being taught or hearing the phrase about a right to a trial by a "jury of your peers." I didn't know then that nowhere in the constitution are "peers" mentioned, only the word "impartial." I got taught black history at home, not in school, and my parents discussed the news of the day at the dining table, so I was aware that in many parts of the U.S. we couldn't vote, and the phrase "all-white jury" was often attached to stark injustices taking place. I will never forget the 67 minutes it took for an all-white, all-male jury to acquit the murderers of Emmett Till.

I was eight years old in September of 1955. Over half a century later, blacks, other people of color, and women are still being kept off of juries by the use of several methods, including peremptory challenges and various limitations to the jury pool.

So though the Constitution's Sixth Amendment speaks to impartiality, the question then becomes "can an all-white, all-male jury in the U.S. be impartial?" We have to examine what role discrimination plays in both jury selection, and trial outcomes.

These issues have been well documented by the Equal Justice Initiative, who issued a report on Race and Jury Selection in 2010, which was widely distributed at the time, in media like the NY Times.

And now Duke University has issued a study demonstrating that all-white jury pools in Florida convict black defendants at a 16 percent higher rate.  

Juries formed from all-white jury pools in Florida convicted black defendants 16 percent more often than white defendants, a gap that was nearly eliminated when at least one member of the jury pool was black, according to a Duke University-led study. The researchers examined more than 700 non-capital felony criminal cases in Sarasota and Lake counties from 2000-2010 and looked at the effects of the age, race and gender of jury pools on conviction rates.  

The jury pool typically consisted of 27 members selected from eligible residents in the two counties. From this group, attorneys chose six seated jurors plus alternates. "I think this is the first strong and convincing evidence that the racial composition of the jury pool actually has a major effect on trial outcomes," said senior author Patrick Bayer, chairman of Duke's Economics Department.

"Our Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of our peers is a bedrock of the criminal justice system in the U.S., and yet, despite the importance of that right, there's been very little systematic analysis of how the composition of juries actually affects trial outcomes, how the rules that we have in place for selecting juries impact those outcomes," Bayer said.

(Continue reading below the fold)

Americans Elect announced this week that it will not field a candidate in the 2012 presidential election because no potential nominee received sufficient popular support. This is an ignominious end to an effort backed by $35 million and many high-profile political figures who sought, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman, to create a viable, centrist, third-party force in American presidential politics.

The reason Americans Elect was unable to generate much popular support is simple: Not many moderates believe both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative. Further, not many moderates feel there is no place for moderates in either the Republican or Democratic parties.

Given the narrative weight behind the idea that polarization in American politics is alienating a vast swath of the center, these claims may seem counterintuitive. However, a look at the raw data from two recent Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation polls provides strong supporting evidence.

First, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from April 26-29, only 35 out of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed indicated both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative (see questions 5 and 6, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). Only 18 of those 35 respondents self-identified as moderate, or about two percent of all registered voters surveyed.

Second, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from May 10-13, only 92 of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed thought there is no place for moderates in either the Democratic or Republican parties these days (see questions 12 and 13, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). What's more, only 14 of those 92 self-identified as moderates.

In looking to find a viable, centrist, third-party presidential candidate for moderates who feel left out by both the Democratic and Republican parties, Americans Elect was drawing on roughly two percent of all registered voters for its base of support. As such, it is unsurprising Americans Elect was unable to generate sufficient participation to produce a nominee. While the idea that the two major parties have both abandoned the center may be popular in the opinion sections of several prominent news organizations, that idea does not have much traction with the American people.

(Click for larger image)

Follow @DailyKosComics on Twitter

Visual source: Newseum

Austerity champions and deficit fetishists in the Republican Party have pushed economic policies that hurt the vast majority of Americans. John J. Drew at the Taunton Daily Gazette gives an overview of how these policies are hurting our nation at the state level:

[T]he harsh content [of Republican economic policies] stands to set the tone for the 2012 elections. It legitimizes a punitive public attitude toward those who struggle to survive in the still-difficult American economy.

Why are we balancing the budget on the backs of the poor? We know that investments in programs that give a boost to poor children and working people and provide opportunities for job-training and education have a huge monetary return down the line.
This budget hits hard the people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, to put food on their tables, to send their kids to college. Meanwhile oil moguls get subsidies and the 1 percent richest Americans get tax breaks. [...]

Americans need to mobilize to prevent the budget cuts from the current House budget as well as the automatic “sequestration” cuts that will be triggered if no alternative budget agreement is reached. We need to make the choices that will protect our children and our future. We cannot let the programs vital to the health, education and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens be decimated while military spending is protected and the very wealthy continue to get tax breaks.

Charles Babington at the AP looks into the latest question of the day: are Republicans deliberating trying to hurt the economy for political gain?

Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth. [...] "The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer's debacle that nearly brought down our economy," Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: "I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn't want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets."

Regardless of whether Schumer's suspicions are right, there's evidence that unceasing partisan gridlock and the prospect of big tax increases and spending cuts in January are causing some companies to postpone expansions. Even small economic slowdowns are bad news for Obama, who is seeking re-election amid high unemployment.

Jim Lee at The Carroll County Times examines the disastrous Republican economic record in the context of the GOP's state of denial:

[P]oint out to Republicans that it was under their watch and it was their policies that put us in the current economic condition, and the response will more often than not be something along the lines of “that’s just the liberal pro-Obama media pushing the socialist president’s agenda.” Complete denial.

Contrast that to Democrats and their response to media criticism of Obama’s “evolving” gay marriage views before he actually came out and supported it. Those stories and opinion pieces almost all fault Obama for trying to play politics and remain on the fence about a contentious issue. But do you hear waves of denials from Democrats? No.

Democrats and Republicans both engage in questionable behaviors. For every example a Democrat has of Republican bad behavior, there are as many examples from Republicans of bad behavior on the Democratic side. That’s why the overall approval rating of Congress has been in the toilet for so long. People of all political stripes know that elected officials too often say and do things based entirely on how it is going to impact their career as opposed to doing what is right for the country. Democrats, however, recognize when their folks are doing this. They may not actively publicize it, but they are far less likely to point fingers at the Republicans, try to shift blame or try to ignore the wrongdoing in their own party than the Republicans when they are in a similar situation.

The more Republicans push their slash-and-burn, reverse Robin Hood policies that take from the 99% and give to the 1%, the more they'll alienate voters, no matter how much they deny it.

But denial is a key part of Republican strategy.

The New York Times looks at the vast Republican campaign against women and points out that on these issues too, Republicans refuse to take any responsibility for actions:

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.

Republicans seem immune to criticism. In an angry speech last month, John Boehner, the House speaker, said claims that his party was damaging the welfare of women were “entirely created” by Democrats. Earlier, the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, sneered that any suggestion of a G.O.P. “war on women” was as big a fiction as a “war on caterpillars.”

But just last Wednesday, Mr. Boehner refuted his own argument by ramming through the House a bill that seriously weakens the Violence Against Women Act. That followed the Republican push in Virginia and elsewhere to require medically unnecessary and physically invasive sonograms before an abortion, and Senate Republicans’ persistent blocking of a measure to better address the entrenched problem of sex-based wage discrimination.

Speaking of GOP attempts to limit rights, Ian Duncan and Lisa Mascaro at The Los Angeles Times analyze the GOP's latest move: the attachment of a bill banning same-sex marraige at miliatry chapels to a defense bill:

The annual National Defense Authorization Act, approved 299 to 120 on Friday, is a traditionally bipartisan effort that can prove difficult for lawmakers to oppose. The bill includes a 1.7% annual pay raise for the troops but also is loaded with politically charged extras. [...]

The bill addresses gay marriage with two provisions. One would ban performing gay marriages on any facility owned by the military. Another would protect military chaplains from punishment if they declined to marry a gay couple.

The Department of Defense had opened the door to gay weddings on bases in a memo last September after Congress repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which barred gays from openly serving in the military. The policy change said chaplains were allowed to perform same-sex marriages but noted they could not be required to. It is not clear whether any ceremonies have yet been performed in military chapels.

Steve Sebelius at the Las Vegas Review Journal explains why Republicans are in "chaos" in Nevada:

[M[ainstream Republicans began talking openly about forming a shadow organization in Nevada to channel national party money into voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, on the theory that [the Clark County GOP] run by Paul supporters might not be trusted to enthusiastically gather votes for a far less conservative candidate.

"This is not unusual in this state. We've had a lot of orangutans in the party over the years," says Sig Rogich, an establishment Republican ad man. "No one's going to contribute money to a bunch of orangutans."

Instead, Rogich said, the Romney campaign will run its own network, which could be turned over to establishment types who may have a hard time winning over conservatives, such as Gov. Brian Sandoval.[...]

Any shadow organization would be seen as an affront to the organized Paul supporters who spent years getting involved at the grass-roots level, learning the rules and showing up in force to win party positions. They followed the rules, and now they're being told the rules don't matter, this source said. But the mainstream Republican view is that philosophy doesn't matter as much as victory. "There are sensible Republicans who understand at the end of the day, it's about winning," Rogich says.

Meanwhile, on the topic of the NATO summit, The Christian Science Monitor's Howard LaFranchi looks at the Afghanistan issue:

When NATO nations meet in Chicago on Sunday, one question will top the agenda: What happens in Afghanistan when US combat troops leave?

To be sure, some troops from NATOcountries, led by the United States, will likely stay behind after 2014 – both to train Afghans and act as a hedge against the Taliban's return. The summit will try to iron out some of those details.

But perhaps even more crucial – certainly for Afghanistan itself – is the question of who will foot the bill for Afghans to protect themselves. Afghanistan does not have remotely enough money to defend itself. Left alone, it could afford to pay about 30,000 soldiers and police officers. Currently, with international aid, it has more than 300,000 – a number that some experts say is too low.

When Mitt Romney says something, you can be sure he stands by it. Whatever it was. Regardless of whether or not he even remembers it.

But as with most hard-and-fast rules, there are a few exceptions. For instance:

• Mitt Romney was always a fan of Bill Clinton. Except when he wasn't.
• Mitt Romney has always supported stimulus funded projects. Except when he hasn't.
• Mitt Romney always claims he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital. Except when he doesn't.
• Mitt Romney has always been gayer than Ted Kennedy. Except when he isn't.

Bottom line: This is shaping up to be a "choice" election.

Who are you gonna believe—Mitt Romney, or your lying eyes and ears?

Reposted from Daily Kos Elections by Steve Singiser

For the first time in recent history, Mitt Romney actually held the advantage in the majority of national polls released this week, besting the Democratic incumbent in five of the nine national polls dropped this week.

President Obama, however, still looks comfortable on a state-by-state analysis, though perhaps incrementally less comfortable than he did two weeks ago. Just the same, the HuffPo/Pollster electoral map of the presidential race still gives Barack Obama the edge in states totaling 284 electoral votes, more than enough for re-election. For his part, Mitt Romney has locked down just 170 electoral votes in the same analysis.

This odd dichotomy, more than any other statistic, has been the hallmark of the month of May in the horse-race political world. If one solely focuses on national polls, an Obama re-elect looks like no better than a 50/50 prospect. But, when analyzing the lay of the land on a state-by-state basis, Republicans would have a hard time feeling confident about their prospects.

Downballot, meanwhile, we have some growing discontent in Wisconsin, where some intrasquad squabbling marked a week where Republicans were close to growing complacent over their prospects in next month's recalls. In the Senate, another establishment frontrunner failed to make it past primary day. And, in the House, the Granite State could be headed for its third election out of four where it completely flips the script from a partisan standpoint.

All that (and more!) in the "only two weeks to sign up for Netroots Nation 2012" edition of the Weekend Digest.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the Affordable Care Act next month, White House allies are developing their response strategy, focusing both on building support for the law and on the popular provision and doing it with a rapid response. That's according to a strategy memo written by Health Care for America Now and obtained by Buzzfeed.

"We should prepare advocates and activists who will participate in rapid response for an outcome that is mixed, muddled or even negative with a coordinated message with the public," the memo reads. The response should:

• Highlight the impact on people who benefit from the ACA;
• Simplify the outcome so average folks understand what happened and why;
• Avoids delving into arcane legal explanations or speculation on policy implications;
• Celebrates what we won and highlights the political agenda behind takeaways or lost benefits.

Hopefully there will be something to celebrate in the decision, but in the case that there is not, advocates for health care reform will be ready to let the nation know what has been lost. To that end, they suggest having real people who have benefited from the law to talk about it.

• Teachers who can talk about the impact of the decision on the future of kids;
• Docs/Nurses/Providers who can talk about impact on patients;
• Small Business People;
• State Legislators and other State Elected Officials who can talk about state impact;
• “Experts," Academics and Advocates who are recognized authorities and will draw media attention;
• Hospital Administrators or Board Members, Community Health Center Directors, Nursing Home or Home Health Agency Administrators, etc. who can talk about jobs and services lost or gained.

The key, says HCAN, is preparing now for whatever eventuality occurs. Given the continued lack of popularity of the law, it might be tough to change minds. The focus on the the popular provisions of the law and on the fact that it has already helped people could help politically, however. The Republicans do or don't have a plan for dealing with the health care crisis in America, depending on who you ask and what day of the week it is. Pointing out what's been lost, now that the pressure is on them to fix it, could help refocus the electorate on the Republicans' real lack of a plan for governing.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Kaili Joy Gray

American Airlines unions continue fighting for the best possible outcome in the bankruptcy of parent company AMR. Earlier this week, five out of seven work groups in the Transport Workers Union, the largest union at American, voted to accept contract offers:

Under the deal, according to TWU, workers would make make concessions on wages and benefits, and American would retain some of the 9,000 TWU member jobs it had originally proposed to eliminate. TWU and AMR said that ratifying the contracts saved those five bargaining units a total of 1,300 jobs,  and that had the maintenance and related positions bargaining unit voted to ratify, it would have saved an additional 1,960.  

An American Airlines spokesperson told the Associated Press following the vote that if the court approved its motion to override contracts, its maintenance hub in Tulsa could be cut from 7,000 workers down to 4,700. Historically, companies usually win such motions; this one is being heard by Judge Sean Lane in New York.

The unions are pushing for a merger between American Airlines and US Airways, with an expert for the flight attendants union testifying in bankruptcy court that a merger is "not an option. It's not an alternative. It's inevitable."

(Continued below the fold)

The reason why Mitt Romney and his defenders in the press do not want to talk about Bain Capital's brand of "business" is because it strikes at the very heart of Mitt Romney's central justification for being president. They both defend what Mitt Romney did as "capitalism" and "free enterprise." In their elite world, it is perfectly legitimate business to make money when companies fail. Therefore, Mitt Romney as president will also see to it that this style of "business" is legitimized and encouraged by the federal government when Mitt Romney is president.

But Mitt Romney isn't a businessman in the way the average American understands business. Mitt Romney didn't invest in that steel mill, turn it around for a profit and walk away with perfectly justified earnings. Nor did he invest that money and lose his investment through mismanagement or bad luck, which would also be perfectly fair.

The central problem with Mitt Romney's style of "business" is that he doubled his investment even though he drove that steel mill into bankruptcy. This is no different from golden parachute CEO's who run companies into the ground and still walk away with a huge severance package. This is no different from what Bernie Madoff did. This is no different from racketeering. Mitt Romney's "business" is no different from what Wall Street did, running the national economy into the ground and walking away with record profits. While one could very cynically call loansharking "business," nobody believes it is in any way a healthy and free market enterprise.

The American people understand business shouldn't be like this. There should be rules against it. There should be ethical standards preventing people from even thinking of doing it. Not only is it immoral, it strikes at the heart of what a truly free and fair market should be all about: creating and building, competition on a level playing field, and comeuppance when there is failure. If you or I start a flower shop and it fails, we lose our savings. If Mitt Romney does the same thing, he doubles his investment. That's not a free market. That's a perversion of what free enterprise is all about. Mitt Romney's brand of "business" should not be held up as a model. He should be decried as the poster child of what is wrong with this country's elite in the media and on Wall Street. Mitt Romney's "business" experience wouldn't be any better for America than Madoff's.

Mitt Romney's experience at Bain is exactly what disqualifies him for the office of president.

To make a long story short, Mitt Romney isn't a businessman. He's a Wall Street racketeer. Any business that rewards failure is not a market, and certainly not a free and fair one. That's called a racket. Even the Tea Party understands that, even if the elite media do not.