He is a disgrace to his father's memory. He is a disgrace, period. Although Wall Street has been disgraced by most people, Mitt Romney, as a candidate for president, is the personification of the corruption of Wall Street.
Obama, on the other hand, is NOT a Wall Street parasite, merely a pawn for the parasites. Romney, though, IS one. His whole career has been about destroying companies, destroying lives, so that he can prosper.
Romney, though not mentioned at all in the original three Barlett and Steele books (I haven't read their new book, so he may be mentioned there), is the very type of person those reporters criticized in their books some twenty years ago. A tiny number of the financial and corporate elite bought off Congress in order to enrich themselves and destroy the middle class in the process. That was TWENTY years ago, and those books are as timely now as they were then.
This sociopathy is now called "success" rather than the high-end bank heist that it is. Why was Bernie Madeoff (misspelling intended) called to task but Mitt Romney is allowed to run for president? Why isn't anybody criticizing his campaign message of debt and greed when he is the personification of both? Why is nobody pointing out the hypocrisy? And, for that matter, why isn't there more pressure on Mitt to release those tax returns, which most likely will show he was a felon for having those Swiss bank accounts and not reporting them?
The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.
Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.
Mitt Romney was and is a spoiled brat who has had everything handed to him. The very type of person we shouldn't have in the White House.
How in the hell did this happen in a few short years? Are people's memories that short?