I think we all know that Republicans as a matter of course support the notion that the wealthiest Americans are the engine of the economy; in this Randian fantasy, they are the "job creators" and as such, they're the ones who should be exempted from tax burdens. They're already keeping everyone employed, isn't that enough? It's their money that makes the world go 'round, why do they have to give it up to the government to give to the undeserving poor? Because that is the conservative viewpoint - the poor are poor for a reason, and if they didn't like it, they'd do something about it. But the government makes it easy and comfortable to be poor, in this conservative fantasy.
It is not news that this is the Republican ideology. In fact, it's unabashedly their platform - "supply side economics" means letting the people who create the demand keep their money so they'll use it to everyone's benefit. Trying to shout "AHA!" at Romney because he said as much to some donors at a closed meeting is pointless. It doesn't speak to genuine issues, it doesn't tell us anything new or shocking about conservatives or the Republican party. You may agree, you may disagree, but c'mon, that's how it is, let's not act shocked, shocked! that someone actually said it out loud.
It's just as pointless to get exercised about this as it is to try and make hay out of "We built that!" Anyone with half a brain knows that President Obama was referring to bridges, roads and infrastructure, and the positive role government plays in building that environment in which business flourishes; not taking away from the success and hard work of business owners. Can we all stop trying to score points on poorly worded sentiments, and stick to the issues?
And to be honest, Mit Romney is not the devil. He's a moderate guy who was surprisingly flexible and willing to compromise when he was governor of Massachusetts. I submit that, if you're not a wild-eyed conservative, Mit Romney is about the best Republican who could end up in the White House. He wouldn't be a disaster, he's not evil, or stupid, or incompetent. Ok, his notion of foreign policy - kicking the can down the road and hoping something changes - isn't the greatest, but let's be honest with ourselves, that's pretty much been America's position for quite a while; except when we want to blow stuff up. He's not Rick Santorum, he's not George Bush. He's a Republican moderate who has to answer the tiger the party has by the tail; the Tea Party movement.
In fact, there's not a lot of light between Romney and Obama on the vast majority of the issues. Will either one of them overturn NDAA? Restore Habeas Corpus? Close Guantanamo Bay? End foreign wars? Stop assassinating people with killer drones? Legalize marijuana? Write laws to reform campaign financing and "Citizens United"? Reduce military spending so the U.S. is no longer outspending the next 20 largest military budgets in the world, combined? Stop the death penalty? Thoroughly separate church and state?
Nope. Everything else is just a distraction. Far more important are the House and Senate. Mit Romney as president in a Democratic controlled Congress is not much different than the same thing with President Obama; who managed to do nearly nothing while his party had a super-majority. Neither party stands for the issues that matter the most, both are essentially different ways of distributing Federal dollars to different cronies.
Let's stop acting outraged when they tell the truth.