Okay, cheap shot. But equating any discussion of inequality with Communism as Romney did is no more than crude red-baiting.
Nevertheless, I can’t agree with those who think that the exchange means that “the pressure may be getting to Romney.” Romney’s response was a perfectly-formed paragraph, almost designed for a South Carolina primary audience. More to the point, it succinctly distills the contemporary GOP position. Any discussion of inequality is completely off-limits and must be squashed. Romney wasn’t snapping at his questioner — he was coolly setting forth the ideology of the conservative elite, which has smoothly carried out its Revolution From Above over the last 30 years.
Any chance he’s getting the message that people think he’s an emotional stiff and this is his attempt at Christie-izing himself? RIght wing nutter just love people who punch hippies.
Seems kind of late for that, and it’s not really his style anyway. He’s a technocrat, not a fire reather.
ACLS: that’s the problem. Emotion-free isn’t what a lot of voters want, and doesn’t make for the kind of horse race the media want to cover.
I’m going with both/and. It is a perfectly plain statement of modern republicanism, but it’s also coming out under duress.
ACLS- Advanced Cardiac Life Support?
It seems to me that Romney’s remark is so 1968. However, a perfect comeback would be: “Can we go to the Caymen Islands instead?”
Mitt Romney for president?