WE'VE been talking a lot lately about Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, but hardly at all about his tenure as the governor of Massachusetts. Why? Here's Ezra Klein's surmise:
Why have we spent approximately no time talking about Romney's governorship?
The answer, again, is that neither campaign really wants to. The Romney campaign wants to avoid it because Romney governed from the center in ways that could now alienate the right. In a Republican Party looking for a true conservative, Romney sees little but danger in his record. His signature legislative accomplishment was the forerunner to “Obamacare.” Meanwhile, his state ranked 47th in job creation during his term. (So much for the secret knowledge gleaned from Bain about how to create jobs.)
The Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss it because Romney's centrist record as governor might comfort independents, who otherwise may fear that Romney is a creature of the right. “I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive,” Romney said in 2002.
His health-care reform extended coverage to the uninsured, undercutting the image of a rapacious private-equity pirate. Although his state didn't create many jobs, unemployment nevertheless fell from 5.6 percent to 4.7 percent while he was governor. In a country that's looking for an alternative to Obama but is scared of the extremism of the modern right, the Obama camp doesn't see much upside in emphasizing Romney's moderate gubernatorial record.
This does not seem to me a stable detente. Mr Obama's reasons for neglecting Mr Romney's record in the Bay State sound to my ear like outstanding reasons for Mr Romney to trumpet it...later. Surely Mr Klein is correct that the Romney campaign has made a priority of cultivating the allegiance of those to his right. The debate over Bain, it turns out, is perfect for this purpose. Mr Obama's attempt to simultaneously attack and not attack private equity looks to me like a tepid bit of populist opportunism from a centrist Democrat who is in fact quite cozy with financial capitalism. But to stout conservatives, Mr Obama's Bain offensive looks like the revelation of his true commie colours. For example, Ronald Kessler of NewsMax asks:
Do we need to remind the president that the alternative—Soviet-style Communism—has been tried before and has failed? Apparently, we do.
Like the Soviets, Obama is for wealth redistribution. When talking about financial regulatory reform, Obama has said, “I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.”
The Soviets had good intentions. They figured that if the government ran everything and distributed wealth equally, everyone would be happy. But under their government-run economy, the Soviets had no incentive to work, to produce, or to innovate. The government paid salaries regardless.
Eventually, the system imploded.
As hilariously misconceived as this sort of thing may be, it functions to help Mr Romney with the far right. If I were Mr Romney, I'd try to keep it coming. The more Mr Obama can be made to appear a Kenyan, anti-colonial reincarnation of Lenin, the more motivated Mr Romney's right wing will be. Perhaps Mr Obama's Bain strategy has helped him equally with the left and centre, but in-fighting among Democrats over this issue is making this possibility seem unlikely.
Mr Romney's record as governor does, as Mr Klein says, belie the idea that he is "a rapacious private-equity pirate". As the race heats up in late summer, I expect we'll see Mr Romney running hard to the centre, and I expect he'll be happy to tout his moderate record as governor of Massachusetts as a counter to the inevitable charge that he's a monstrous right-wing radical long on cat food and funeral homes. No doubt Mr Romney will eventually succumb to Mr Obama's mastery at 11-dimensional chess, but for now I can see why he'd be glad to play along with Mr Obama's puzzling opening gambit.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Willard Mitt Romney will not release his past ten (10) years of tax returns, save 2010 under pressure from other Republican candidates.
The 2010 tax returns forced Romney to revise previous financial filings because they did not show offshore bank accounts.
If these previous tax returns show a similar pattern of tax avoidance, point, game, match to Obama.
- TK
The idea that Obama is a communist is a joke because we all know that it is the conservatives who are the communists. After all they are working towards Marx' s prediction that the rich will get richer until the poor have nothing and then the masses will through revolution take over the country. The conservatives do not like income redistribution when it means having it benefit the poor. But they sponsor income redistribution when it comes to channeling more money to the rich.
Maybe Romney is trying to get the Bain issue mentioned and addressed now so that it won't be an issue in people's mind on Election Day. Then as the campaign draws to a close he can attract moderates and independents with his gubernatorial record.
This is not news or even information it is highly opinionated drivel.
Truly the economist has jumped over the cliffs edge, when you print such trash, your nothing more then a fox news affiliate. Very sad day for the economist.
America is on the cusp of a financial collapse, and President Obama has only brought us closer to this European style end game. We have been victimized long enough by the Administrative, Bureaucratic, Academic Industrial complex, and regardless of party, they have brought incompetence, debt and more parasite government that never solves any of the problems targeted. We have spent about $15 trillion on poverty fighting since 1965 - did we win yet? Our political elites created a Dept. of Education in 1978 & we have increased K-12 education spending over 300% -ROI?? Graduation rates, test scores & global standing are all down since 1978. Our colleges & universities have grown their costs and bureaucracies more than 300% since the late 1980's with the advent of more gov't support, grants & funding, and we have created a new class of college graduate debt slaves with useless degrees that have no economic worth. I can go on and on about the wasteful bloat from the federal level on down, and most of these bureacracies have unbearable costs & little value to the people and the counrty.
Anyone that feels we need more public sector jobs, and more government, is either blind or part of the problem. We are broke, and we need to get back to first principals. Our government needs to end much of this delusional counter productive waste, and stop feeding the parasite class that only makes more problems. The world is not, and never will be a perfect place, and bureaucrats & politicians cannot make it so with regulation, rules, and bureaucracy. Big government is our problem, and turning to people that have been feeding at the public trough to "fix" America is like asking the fat man at the all you can eat buffett for diet advice. Personally, Gov. Romney is not my choice, but we could probably use a good turn around guy to downsize this parasite bureaucracy. Maybe we will even try capitalism once again.......
As a Massachusetts resident during Mitt Romney's term as governor, I say that this video says it better than I can: http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/?action_code=FgxRWxYUOVIKQV0...
Romney has nothing else! He runs from his faith, governorship, and personal history! This is the least available to scrutiny..It is a privately held Corporation! All Records hidden behind the law!
THE AMERICAN’S CREED
In this day of question and examination of our freedoms, constitution and the flag, it’s time for all citizens to revisit THE AMERICAN’S CREED.
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
The author of the American's Creed, William Tyler Page, was a descendant of John Page, who had come to America in1650 and had settled in Williamsburg, Virginia. Another ancestor, Carter Braxston, had signed the Declaration of Independence. Still another ancestor, John Tyler, was the tenth president of the United States. William Tyler Page had come to Washington at the age of thirteen to serve as a Capitol Page.
Later he became an employee of the Capitol building and served in that capacity for almost sixty-one years. In 1919 he was elected clerk of the House. Thirteen years later, when the Democrats again became a majority party, they created for Page the office of minority clerk of the House of Representatives. He held this position for the remainder of his life.
Referring to the Creed, Page said: "It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders." His wording of the Creed used passages and phrases from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster's reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830.
Alan G Phillips
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed".
That may have been the dream? The reality in the US today is: Government by business for business.
Justice Stevens see it clearly!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/30/150623/retired-justice-stevens-oba...
Thanks, yes he certainly does, but tell that to the republicans?
Romney should quit the race and start doing this: http://youtu.be/UVspaHILMZ4
I suggest reading the book Keynes and Hayek, it narrates the history of debate regarding maintaining employment vs recovering capital resulting from the post WWI recession to post WWII. The argument is relative to the debate today. Most of the right-wing diatribes don't seem to understand history or economics,and are only trying to intimidate the discussion by demonizing liberals or calling President Obama a commie or Muslim. The book has a better narration of the issue.
According to Mitt Romney everything in America is failing, including, I hope, the Republican bid for office.
Creating wealth for the wealthy does not create jobs for the jobless.
Romney should stop calling himself a “job creator” because that isn't what he was hired for. He was hired to create value for Bain Capital's shareholders, which required the restructuring of many failing companies. Firing workers sounds terrible, but it can actually mean something positive in the overall picture. For example, firing the least useful or least efficient ten percent of a company's workforce may save the company from lack of profitability or even bankruptcy, which would mean saving many or all of the other 90 percent from also losing their jobs. This is how by destroying some jobs, other, more useful jobs can be saved or created through the profitability and growth of the company. Even if all you do is fire employees, by producing more output for less input, you're doing a service to the economy.
That's an indirect consequence in play which bad economists tend to neglect. All government regulation and tax hikes do is make it more expensive to hire and fire employees, both of which harm economic growth.
Maximizing profits by having fewer employees from the employee's perspective indeed looks bad. I've had members of my family laid off from jobs they loved, but we can't look at this from an emotional standpoint. If we didn't allow companies to fire workers, we probably wouldn't have many jobs, because businesses wouldn't take long to go bankrupt.
The more profitable businesses are, the more jobs we'll have and the better off we're likely to be. The bigger picture is that that laid off person's labor has been freed up. This company is better off without him. All the consumer goods and services are being produced more efficiently without him, so this is much better from society's view.
We have to get over this idea that people are somehow entitled to jobs. Those jobs exist only because someone needed an employee to make profits for his business. It's much better that businesses succeed and all 300 million+ Americans pay less for their products and services than to try to keep a few unnecessary or inefficient job positions. This is how putting people first does indeed lead to profits. You can't profit without competing to give the customers what they want. Remember, everyone's employee is also the customer of many other companies, so your low cost of living is tied to the success of American businesses. It's similar to paying employees lower wages. By spending the least amount possible on payroll, more capital is freed up to produce better goods/services for the lowest prices. As a result, even Americans with “low wages” are able to live comfortable lifestyles which those living in countries with less business freedom do not have the fortune to have.
Many businessmen don't even seem to realize that by working to make profits for themselves, even by firing people, they've helped society. Obama has never had this sort of business experience, where his decisions have led to business and economic growth. On the contrary, Obama has lived his life getting in the way of private sector growth by working for the government and living off American tax dollars throughout his adult life. Obama hasn't done anything as a government worker to benefit the economy. He has zero experience dealing with all the regulations and taxes which hinder private sector growth. Romney at least participated heavily in the market and had a positive impact.
The free market is a myth: if it isn't regulated by government to prevent fraud, it is regulated by the corporate oligarchy to prevent competition. Free means not having to go to jail for fraud and theft.
Reading the comments here, I thank God that the laws of mathematics make it so it is the middle ground voters, those who honestly look at both side of the problems, that decide on which way the balance tips in the end.
Binary Societies & the creation of Virtual Dictatorships
We Americans pride ourselves with our democratic system - derived from the U.S. Constitution, Guaranteeing each citizen with Individual Liberty, freedom of expression, and choice.
The question is, with only two-party system, what are those choices?. Where is the freedom to chose, when all you have is only two choices?
“Vote for others” we are told, “and you have wasted your vote”. (Ross Perot's party United We Stand, when more then 22M Americans had voted in the 1992 general elections).
yet, some fellow Americans will tell you, with only two moving parts, it leads to faster and more efficient decisions & consensus. They may very well be right. Notwithstanding, this is not the case with current congress. More polarizations, then conversion. More divisions then consensus.
Think for a moment. If you are not a Democrat, then you must be a Republican. Or, if not a conservative, then sure, you are liberal. Black or White, Right or Left. With us, or Against us. Like the digital binary. The light is either “on” or “off” (“1” or “0”). Where complex issues in our country are distilled only to, “yes” or “no”, and buzz words with meaningless labels.
Conditions like these, naturally lead to what I term “The Binary Society”. No middle ground, only zero-sum-gain. Winners and losers – where the winner takes all, result of which is our present dysfunctional political system.
Furthermore, when one political party controls all 3 branches of government, we end up with what I would term “Virtual Dictatorship” - it gets to dictate its ideologies and agenda on the nation.
Between 2000 – 06 such VD did exist, (tax cut for the wealthy). And between 2008-10 the pendulum swung back to the other party with its Healthcare legislature – just two examples.
The only way to mitigate this anti-democratic system from happening, is to have additional centrist party, with core ideology of pro-Business and pro-labor, which can force the two other ideologist parties to compromise and soften their extreme positions for the good of the entire nation.
The Democrat party has moved so far to the right that it would be the party of moderate Republicans before Ronald Reagan. President Obama tried to adopt moderate Republican policies to enlist bipartisanship, but the Republican pact to obstruct President Obama to lose a second term and the oath to Grover Norquist has resulted in many of these moderate conservative policies to be rejected.
I don't get it, Newt Gingrich also attacked Romney's Bain record. He even suggested that Romney should redistribute his Fannie & Freddie investment earnings to broke homebuyers.
Newt also cheated on two of his three wives. A stellar model for Obama to be following.
How you create your wealth and infidelity both speak to character..In both cases neither romney nor newt showed any!
How you create your wealth and infidelity both speak to character..In both cases neither romney nor newt showed any!
MITT ROMNEY WILL NOT BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF U.S.A. - PERIOD.
to understand the complexities of the America's 2-party system, and why I say Obama will defeat Romney, we need to focus on 2 monumental events in recent American presidential elections.
Each event had sent shock wave through the Dems & GOP's psychic, and forever changed the type of candidate each party choses to representative (forget the "will of the people" - they matter little, due to those extensive and biased TV commercials which take care of it).
1974 Nixon's resignation after Watergate event.
2000 Al Gore losing the election.
When Nixon resigned in disgrace, GOP honchos attributed to the fact, he was too smart for them to control, too independent to listen to the far-right wing of his party.
That explains the fact, each of the GOP presidents (Ford, Both Bush Sr & Jr. and the "prince" himself, Reagan). all were - intellectually weak, tightly controlled by their party bosses. And that is the reason why Rick Perry, and Sara Palin were promoted so heavily by the Republicans.
Other GOP candidates, who were intelligent, pragmatic and well informed (John McCain), either were pushed aside (Primaries of 2000), or lost to the Dem's by wide margin (2008).
Many believe McCain lost to Obama, because his party bosses did not back him wholeheartedly, and he was to independent to control.
After the defeat of 2000, many believed that, Gore lost because he did not stand up to the far right GOP's onslaught, and did not fight back to defend his impressive record as VP under Clinton.
That all changed, during the 2008, and now. Dem's are fighting back,and many American seem to like it.
In summary.
Romney is Mormon, not a WASP. He is too intelligent to gain the enthusiastic support of the Tea Party and far right. He certainly will not sign a pledge not raise taxes to lobby named Grover Norquist.
Obama will fights back, and with Tweeter & Facebook in his pockect, he will push his record (particularity the fight against terror) to the American people.
With a Billion dollar to spend ? who knows?
Quotation marks or no quotation marks around the word prince attributed to Ronald Reagan, his "intellectual weakness" and dependency on the party is sort of lullaby Lefties sing to themselves to alleviate their nightmares. Wow, great Republican president who scared the bejesus out of them!
.
So the whole of your "analysis" (here, the proper use of quotation marks) gurgles down the drain because of the wrong premises. Try better!
Oh yes...the greatest achievement of Reagan was to make Americans feel good about their bigotry again...
You obviously not a bigot yourself... what a pity! If you were, you would know, that a bigot ALWAYS feels good about his own bigotry. I know, I'm a one!
.
Now, there are some words which are used by the so called 'progressive' crowd as mantras - they throw them around all the time with no regard to their real meaning. "Racist", "bigot", "tea-bagger", "right wing" and so on became for them sort of pejorative labels, which more often than not have nothing to do with race, or dried leaf of the tea shrub, or wings (chicken, someone?), and so on.
.
"Bigot" actually is someone intolerantly devoted to his own opinions. In all honesty, how many of commenters here, or on any other discussion board, not to speak about those involved in politics, are not wholeheartedly devoted to their opinions? Look at the mirror, prof!
.
So, Reagan was indeed a great president, but you clearly overestimate his abilities. Bigotry, American or otherwise, is a common part of human nature, and always will be, you cannot praise Reagan for this.
on the same level, neo-cons in US have their own codes words to describe a groups w/o sounding politically incorrect. Here are just few of them
"Illegal Immigrants". referred to Latinos, and other brown colored skins.
"High Crime" Referred to Blacks and other dark skinned.
"Take Our Country Back" - Targeted to White groups, to prevent these two groups, and other forward looking groups like Democrats, etc. to tip the demographic balance to their favor.
Yes Polluter.
Reagan had acted the role of President of United State so well, such that he managed to fool 2/3 of the our American population to believe, he was indeed the real president, and voted for him the second time.
That's true, every group of people, formally or informally connected, creates its own jargon. But those with enough brain can see through it, even when they use the specific vernacular. It doesn't require much, just to keep in mind the real meaning of the words used peculiarly.
.
That is what you don't do. Instead, you're trying to forcibly subordinate real facts and meanings to your slang.
.
Illegal immigrants are those who cross the state border in violation of law. The fact that a huge chunk of this group consists of Latin American states' citizens is just a fact which bears no racist undertones. First of all, because these people belong to multitude of races, actually, to all races. And if you mean so called Hispanics, they belong to the Caucasian race, or different mixes of thereof.
.
As to the skin color, it is not the decisive indication of race. Just look at the out-coming president of the United State. He's relatively dark skinned, but belongs equally to two different races. And you know it, right? But continue with the mantra - confirming in the process my point, thank you.
.
The rest of your 'interpretations' are so laughable that they don't deserve any rebuttal. As I told you earlier, try better!
blink blink,
Despite your intellectual foot dancing - We understand each other.
Yes indeed, in addition to what you had described for these groups - they are also used as metaphors for something else.
I still stand by my comments.
This is the most incoherent Economist article I've ever read.
I know. I don't think W.W. realizes that a "rope-a-dope" is a boxing term. It has nothing whatsoever to do with chess, 11-dimensional or otherwise.
Mit's physical attack on a young homosexual in his teens years and his later success at a private equity firm appear to confirm his extremely callous attitude towards other human beings. His subsequent denial on his recollection on the attack further validated that he was, is and will not be his brothers' keeper.
If all the dirt you were able to dig up on Romney is some teenage scuffle, he'll make a fine president. But there is time till November, you shouldn't loose heart: find some creche transgression. Hell, invent one!
Sorry- I still believe in good old American honesty. I find Mit's attack on the hapless and helpless homosexual teen extremely objectionable for two reasons- One, because it was directed at the weak (I was surprised that they did not lynch the poor kid)- a trait that I consistently see in Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, but not in Lincoln and FDR. Two, being a Mormon, Mit should have had a very good idea what prejudice was. His insensitivity was shocking.
Teenagers are still in the process of acquiring social skills, they're sometimes cruel and definitely politically incorrect. The best of them preserve the latter trait in their adult life.
.
Whatever had happened several decades ago, don't forget that ALL INVOLVED were kids... how do you know that the homosexual was "poor"?
.
So yes, you confirmed my point: attack on a middle age man's character on the basis of something which had happened (or not) when he was a teen is, indeed, a hapless dirt digging.
.
Has nothing to do with American honesty, and even less with Mao or FDR.
With all due respect, I completely disagree with your points. Mit's action in high school constitute as assault and battery in our legal system. For you, they are just pranks. For me, i felt that he should have been arrested and prosecuted.
I am outraged about his actions not because he assaulted a gay, but because he assaulted a hapless and helpless guy. Trust me, a victim in that situation is indeed helpless.
I don't know anything about you and your level of insensitivity. But you are free to vote for him and I am free to vote for somebody else.
If I was the secret commie Muslim Obama, like the far right constantly accuse him of being, and I wanted to 'redistribute the wealth' under socialism, here is how I would do it. I would ask all the TV networks for evening air time to address the American people about an item of 'critical national importance.' In prime time on live TV, I would announce that the USA was going to immediately default on all of its' Treasury debts. All current owners of US investment "paper" debt would receive nothing, and henceforth, only "legitimate" US government debts would be paid by creating dollars at whatever amount that the US Treasury determined was appropriate for the economy to function. I would state that no more US government debt would ever be sold by the United States. "The era of debt slavery to the global top 1% is over forever. God bless you, and God bless the now debt free, United States of America."
Watch the 'redistribution of wealth' that would occur the day after that press conference, baby! The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy times a trillion. Then I could rule as a communist dictator that I had been hiding all this time, by using the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service to terrorize each other, and the top military brass, during the subsequent economic collapse. It would be global, and start the next day. (Within minutes in the Japanese market.) Can you imagine what would happen on every stock exchange on Earth! "SELL, SELL, SELL...Get me out at any price." Tens of trillions in wealth would evaporate almost instantly. My communist government would have to seize and run EVERYTHING of any size, or everyone would soon starve. The first thing I would do as a 'socialist' during the chaos that I can guarantee would ensue, would be to round up all the right wing talking heads and have them all shot as "terrorists" using the Patriot Act, after seizing all the US TV & radio networks. I would have my socialist troops enter the headquarters of NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, Google, AOL, Facebook, etc. to "protect" them during the crisis. Fire a few rounds, and people start taking orders very rapidly, especially geeks who have never been around gunfire. In no time, they would be telling the public whatever communist message I wanted. Terror works. Ask a Russian who lived during Stalin's rule. Or Pol Pot's. Or Hitler's. Someone puts an M-16 to their heads and you would be surprised how fast the Fox and Friends folks will be saying communism can work, and how it was better that they ever thought it would be.
I want to see Romney declare China a currency manipulator, as he has said that he would. If it ever happens, that might be the start of a fun week at the NYSE. How many $50,000,000,000 Treasury dumps by the Chinese would it take to make him change his mind? It has already been war gamed at the CIA. Never threaten over a billion of anything.
Impressive rant! Just one error: it's not a secret to no one that Obama is a commie and a Mohammedan. He himself doesn't eagerly deny it... just perfunctorily.
.
Not so with the Arizona investigation in Hawaii. Wait for announcement on Wednesday... that is something to watch, not your imaginary press-conference.
When will we have a statesman to confront of "lobbycracy" and our government by non-`scientifically educated lawyers? If we want a libertarian government I suggest reading "A Libertarian paradise" at andgulliverreturns.info. I s that what we want?
'
Obama has fallen victim to Romney's two degrees from Harvard University. The old saying goes, "no matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter." Remember, Obama only has one degree from Harvard. That's why Romney will win the intellectual tea party voters and conservatives. Most Tea Party members are very well educated, especially in Philosophy and History, but extremely so in Math - which Obama is very awful at. Math has to be Obama's worst subject, which is a problem for him as democracy is a numbers game, not necessarily a chess game.
Teapartiers I saw interviewed couldn't define socialism. They wanted Social Security and Medicare but did not want to pa for them. The main concern was low taxes for the Koch brothers.
Only 5% of Obama's administration came from the private sector VS over 50% in all previous administrations. Would you let a college professor run your business? There is little real world experience in the White House right now which explains the damage they have done to the economy and the electorate.
Considering the number of high tech start-ups which are headed by the college professor, and his students, who created the technology, absolutely I would.
After all, we all know how important real world experience was in building Apple, Google, Facebook, etc., etc. Yeah, right.
Again, it is not Obama's black liberation theology that has the tea party concerned, it is his inability to do basic math. Socialists and liberals have always been terrible at math. The tea party is very good at math.
Wow...I keep hearing Tea Party types talk about sky-rocketing taxes... Mine has been going down for the last 16 years in a row...maybe I can't do math?
Prof, your tax is smaller because you're paid less because there are less bidders for your wisdom.
.
Such a primitive math.
"That's why Romney will win the intellectual tea party voters and conservatives. Most Tea Party members are very well educated, especially in Philosophy and History, but extremely so in Math"
That my friend is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
I heard Joe Biden say he was going to "spend a billion dollars" on some dumb train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas like he was some kind of wannabe Donald Trump. And the way Obama talks about the national debt and the unemployment rate, it sounds like he has no idea what those numbers mean or how they are derived. Everybody likes Joe and Barrack, more Joe than Barrack, and Michelle is wonderful, BUT I can't vote for them this time around. At least the philosophers in the tea party have a coherent argument.