Romney and McGraw, Sittin' in a Tree...

I tweeted yesterday about the connection between the top dog at Standard & Poor’s and the Mitt Romney presidential campaign:

Is anybody gonna point out that the CEO of Standard & Poor’s, which just dissed Obama's USA, is a Mitt Romney supporter?

Much to my surprise, someone at “Mitt Romney Central” – a name which is undoubtedly supposed to bring to mind ringing telephones and bustling staffers struggling to keep up with the onslaught of work but in reality is probably a lone white guy with a bad haircut in his mother’s basement – felt it necessary to respond to my tweet as follows:

@pdiehl Who isn't dissing Obama's USA?! ...Worst economy since great depression. Wake up. #ObamaIsntWorking

I’m the first to admit that Obama is in some ways a disappointment but my tweet was about the relationship between Standard & Poor’s and Romney.

The financial services company that recently downgraded the United States’ credit rating is the same one that, in the words of Rachel Maddow, “...during the financial crisis was handing out AAA ratings to any pile of junk tall enough to reach the doorbell and ask.” Two other certified rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, have retained the country’s AAA rating.

Someone over at Daily Kos decided to check the Federal Election Commission's database of financial contributors to political candidates and discovered that Harold W. McGraw III, the head honcho at Standard & Poor's parent company, “is a big money contributor to lots of Republicans” who’s passed out cash not only to Mitt Romney but also to Dubya, the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, and the Bush-Cheney Compliance Committee, whatever that is. (What is it with these names, GOP? This one makes me think of whips and chains and leather restraints.)

No wonder the move generated criticism from the U.S. Treasury, economists, business executives and Democratic politicians. (Massachusetts Senator John Kerry referred to it as the "Tea Party downgrade" on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday.)

Speaking of Romney, why do his supporters think a guy who made millions through leveraged buyouts – buying existing firms with money mostly borrowed against their assets and then selling them off in a few years and laying people off – would make a good president? Or who supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam while repeatedly obtaining deferments and never serving? Or who contributed over $6 million of his own money to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign and $45 million to his 2008 presidential bid?

Just because someone grew up in affluent Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, has a net worth of $250 million and has no qualms about purchasing political office doesn’t mean he should be President of the United States.

Just because someone can get his pal to lower the country’s credit rating so the sitting president looks bad doesn’t mean he should.

By the way, Mitt Romney Central, it’s not necessary to tell me to wake up. I’m wide awake.