EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mitt Romney Flip-Flops His Way to the Top
Mitt Romney will be the Republican to face President Obama in the fall. Tuesday night was the clincher, as the former Massachusetts governor won in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C. He may stumble on, but the Catholic zealot Rick Santorum is finished, wiped out by Romney's vast financial resources.![]()
Eight years ago, Romney began his bid to win the Republican nomination, only to be crushed by John McCain. In that campaign, he was tagged as a crypto-liberal former governor of Massachusetts and author of a health plan derided by Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
Week after tedious week in his second bid, Romney has had to stab his own plan in the back, lashed by his Republican opponents as the true originator of "Obamacare," now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever tincture of liberalism he might once have exhibited has long since vanished. His conservatism is of a harshness way beyond the positions of the last Republican challenger to a Democratic president, Bob Dole, who was thrashed by Bill Clinton in 1996.
Romney's opportunism in junking previous positions when under conservative pressure has been unremitting. Take the single biggest issue in American politics today, the minimum wage.
If you adjust for inflation, median personal income in America hasn't moved for almost half a century. Nearly a quarter of U.S. households have zero to negative net worth. It just takes one unlucky turn of the cards — an illness, an accident, a brush with the law — to put them under.
In 2005, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott called on Congress to raise the minimum wage, since "our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between pay checks." The boss of the largest corporation on the planet, which employs 1.3 million Americans and has 850,000 customers in its stores at any given moment, was identifying what was then and is now America's No. 1 problem: A huge chunk of the population barely survives on starvation wages.
Even though the cost of living has gone up, the federal minimum wage hasn't moved since 2009, when the last of a series of increases signed into law by George W. Bush kicked in. In 2011 dollars, the minimum wage was more than $10 in 1968, when jobs and pay were peaking for America's workers.
The current minimum wage ranges between $7.25 and $8.67 per hour. Work a 40-hour week for $7.25 and you end up with $15,080 a year, just above the $11,000 federal poverty line for an individual but well below the $22,000 for a family of four. In 1914, the year Henry Ford doubled the pay of his workers at Highland Park to $5 a day, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay. The price, $15,080, is just a bit more than the manufacturer's recommended retail price for the Ford Fiesta ($13,200), Ford's cheapest car this year.
In November 2008, President-elect Obama promised to "raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation and housing, things so many people take for granted." It was a pledge to low-paid workers to give them a 30 percent pay hike.
Of all Obama's betrayals, this was one of the most bitter. He never really tried, skittish with fear that he'd be nailed by the big business lobbies and their creatures in Congress as an inflationeer.
If ever there was an issue on which Romney could get real traction with the blue-collar voters who liked Santorum, it's the minimum wage. As Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative put it: "these days a crucial component of the Republican electorate consists of working-class whites, often strongly religious ones, who tend to live in non-unionized low-wage states or otherwise generally subsist, sometimes with considerable difficulty, on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Proposing a large wage increase to a socially conservative evangelical Christian who works at Wal-Mart and currently struggles to pay her bills would be the sort of simple, clear message that might easily cut through an enormous amount of ideological clutter."
Romney was perfectly positioned. In January of this year, he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire that he favored raising the minimum wage automatically each year to keep pace with inflation. He could have built on this, just as Reagan did in his 1980 campaign with entirely factitious economic populism. But no. A couple of whacks from The Wall Street Journal and fears of being pilloried as a liberal saw Romney flop on the issue at the start of March. Now he wants the wage to stay at $7.25, with no indexing for inflation. In other words, he wants poor people to earn less every year.
In his first bid for the nomination in 2008, Romney's foreign policy positions were relatively demure. This time he's swerved into Paleolithic Cold War conservatism, rivaling McCain's in 2008. Near the end of March, he was bellowing that, "Russia is America's No. 1 geopolitical foe." He wants to keep troops in Afghanistan and bomb Iran — this last one a predictable bow to the Israel lobby.
In February, president Obama trailed Romney in the top 12 swing states, 46 to 48 percent. Yesterday a USA Today/Gallup poll reported that in these same swing states a majority of registered voters now favor Obama by 9 points. According to the USA Today/Gallup pollsters, the biggest change came from women younger than 50, where the president now leads Romney by 2 to 1. Not long before the poll was taken, Romney, fending of attacks from Santorum, said he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood and endorsed the Blunt amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny coverage of contraception on religious grounds.
Romney has beaten off all challengers, but now he sports all their most unalluring features. The Obama camp is not unhappy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


16 Comments so far
Show AllA progressive, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar.
The bartender looks up and says "Hi Mitt. What can I get you?"
Except that Romney is neither progressive, moderate nor conservative. He's just another in the endless list of political opportunists who will flip-flop their way to power while grinding principle and integrity into political dust. Point of fact, he's the new face of fascism American style, which bears no substantive comparison to "conservativism," whatever that may once have meant.
In this way he's a fitting counterpart to Obama. Expecting anything but lies and tediously serial chicanery from either of them is the height of naivete. And since our thoroughly rigged system isn't going to permit any third party advances against its depradations, we are quite doomed to the dominating horror of the duopoly. With Obama or Romney, nothing meaningful will change, from a frozen minimum wage to perpetual war.
Good post, Ephraim.
I have a lot of respect for AC; but to consume a whole roll of film (or memory card) taking snapshots on a current political candidate, versus the facts on the ground that precludes the race from even being run - is a waste of time and energy. Further, to cite information from “USA Today/Gallup pollsters” as if reaffirming the consciousness of the people as an ingredient to its outcome, appears to be mimicking that successful franchise selling burgers, only in this case, [words]?
Does it really matter how the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat?
Flip-flops are not only the fundamental building blocks of computers, but politicians as well. What value is there to be had by knowing how many times MR has activated this universal latch?
Well said, Andrea2.
Seconded. Very well said.
Alas, almost all the respect I once had for Alex has evaporated under his dry, predictable blast. He must have pried himself away from the libertarian-psycho cabal at Reason magazine to parade out this obvious pebble: Mitt's a freak, Obama's a hack, and poor people are getting pounded. Pure genius.
Prediction: he goes Hitchens within two years. Terminal self-absorption regularly strikes down over-educated Brits.
What a joke the political duopoly has turned the elections into! On one side, the Republicans turn out joke candidates like Sarah Palin, John McCain (a senile warhawk), Gingrich (morally corrupt, and full of failures and scandals), Santorum (whose support only comes from stoking religious fundamentalists), Rick Perry (debates exposed him), and Romney (who is considered "top-tier", what a joke); and on the other side, you have Obama who's crossed his base, isn't even being challenged by those within his own party, and isn't making much of an effort to even make false promises to his base in the coming election because he knows the Demobots will vote for him anyways.
I listened to Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, on The Real News Network yesterday. Whether I agree exactly or not with all her specific pledges, I liked the direction she is trying to go, her knowledge of the problems in this country, and her competency. How refreshing versus the political duopoly!
RP4-PRZ
Are there parallels between Romney's bid and Kerry's 2004 bid? Both are as rich as fools. Both flip-flop and gaffe their way. Both are out of touch with their base. Both are disposable fall guys to the straight man.
Maybe Sarah Palin had it right; candidates are only as good as the training provided by their handlers.
Here's an oddity:
I wasn't particularly taken by this article.
Then I checked out today's "Counterpunch", and saw Cockburn's usual Friday article; today's is entitled "Romney: Why It’s OK to Stick It to Him for Being a Mormon"*.
The lede, or opening paragraph, is identical. So I almost stopped reading, assuming that it was same text with a snappier headline.
But it's not; the "Counterpunch" version is substantially rewritten, and IMO better than the Creators.com version published here. Still not outstanding, for reasons well articulated by Andrea2 (10:46am).
For whatever reason, this is a much more dry and wonky rewrite/edit, keeping all the statistical commentary but leaving out the juicier bits. Check out the "Counterpunch" version and see for yourself.
Incidentally, the "Creators.com" link on this page goes to "http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017083226_sirota26.html", not the Cockburn article.
Curiouser and curiouser.
___________________
*http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/06/romney-why-its-ok-to-stick-it-to-him-for-being-a-mormon/
"...the "Counterpunch" version is substantially rewritten,"
Wouldn't he post the original on his own blog?
Did Creations.com hack his article?
Why would he publish with Creations if they hack his articles?
I thought he published borderline radical articles at Counterpunch, but admittedly, the layout there is far too wonky to read (it could have changed).
You're right, of course-- I ought to have written that the "Counterpunch" version is substantially different; it stands to reason that the secondary versions are the "re"written or edited ones. The "Counterpunch" version also includes other material not germane to the article, e.g. Cockburn's customary plug for the non-Internet "Counterpunch" newsletter.
Off the top of my head, I can't account for why there would be different versions of a routine article like this. Or determine whether the author or a third party is responsible for the variations.
I gather from scant inference that third-party sites, including this one, may edit published articles without notice to, or consent by, the author.
And don't get me started on "Counterpunch"'s layout. They revised it substantially not long ago, but not really for the better. The new, improved version uses those abominable Orwellian "Continue Reading" links that have become standard in web publishing.
You're right that the original article is much better, especially its emphasis on Romney's Mormonism as central to understanding what he's really all about, i.e. Mormonism. But I haven't noticed that any actual editing ever occurs on republished articles at this site or on Counterpunch, which I once long ago brought to Cockburn's attention, after which he excoriated me for being so schoolmarmish. They edit nothing, CD "editors" edit nothing; it all just gets pasted up as it comes to them. Glaring typos, elisions, garbled grammar, blatant misspellings (easily distinguishable from the occasional, inevitable and harmless typo)--all of it posted as is. There is practically zero concern for any kind of accuracy on web sites, where these mere copy editing issues are concerned. Cockburn is one of the most oblivious offenders, and he's proud of it.
Interesting story! But will Rchard Gere take the plunge for the big one? This could break the presidential race open and likely make the president and the Mitt the under dogs. Oh, I likley shouldn't have used that phrase, as some might say I'm bashing the Mitt. Hey, I beleve in Amurka. Maybe Gere will make that his slogan too. He might more clearly exemplify the real deal.
Somebody's should run this through a good poll. Likely it wouldn't even be close. Could anybody beat Gere?
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Some often mix this word up with 'moron'. Anybody got any idea why this is? And what kind of a guy tells the world he is a Mormon when religion should have absolutely nothing to do with the running of any government? Do Americans really want to elect a man who ostracizes his own cousin because he left the Mormon sect? I refer to Park Romney. I guess if he speaks out too often, he will be found with his throat cut, because Mitt isn't about to cut his own throat... religion should not come into the running of America - and I say America - as it goes without saying he cannot ever rule the world...
While I agree with some of Mr. Cockburn's positions, it's hard to take him seriously when he says silly things like "Take the single biggest issue in American politics today, the minimum wage." In what universe? No one is talking about the minimum wage - even though they should be. The reason no politician is talking about the minimum wage? Their corporate overlords don't want them to. And then this chestnut, which is quoted as evidence of why Romney can appeal to religious conservatives: "...Proposing a large wage increase to a socially conservative evangelical Christian who works at Wal-Mart and currently struggles to pay her bills would be the sort of simple, clear message that might easily cut through an enormous amount of ideological clutter.""
I live in an area dominated by socially conservative evangelical Christians who work at minimum wage jobs; who are poor, uneducated or under-educated. They will vote for Romney in November because he's not Obama, not because of any promises that Romney would raise their standard of living. They're told day in and day out by Fox News that they shouldn't want the government doing anything involving raising their standard of living - that's a government handout, or or big government, or whatever else Bill O'Reilly tells them that makes them think they should rather have their teeth rotting out of their head than have the government provide them decent health care. They think raising the minimum wage will cause inflation to skyrocket, so they believe there should be no minimum wage.
One of the reasons progressives fail to win over "socially conservative evangelical Christians" is that they don't understand them.