You know things have changed when even The World’s Worst Newspaper admits . . .
“Guided by pollsters like Frank Luntz, the Republican party upgraded all rich people into “job creators,” and tarnished the estate tax by calling it the “death tax.” Its candidates prefer “energy exploration” to oil drilling, and insist on the “religious freedom” of church groups to deny freedom of reproductive choice to their employees. Carefully choosing words to disguise or express contempt is so vital to the party’s strategy that Republicans won’t even properly use the name of the Democratic Party, cutting off the final “ic.”
So it was probably inevitable that in a moment of political panic, Mitt Romney’s campaign would seize upon the loaded word “redistribution” to paint President Obama’s advocacy of long-accepted government policy as Marxist. Brandishing a 1998 tape of Mr. Obama saying he believed in “redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody has a shot” the campaign gleefully tried to suggest the president favored a radical seizure of wealth.”
“Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth,” Paul Ryan said today while campaigning in Virginia. “Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth.”
“We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution,” Mr. Romney said Tuesday on Fox News.”
You see? Mittens ad his minions DO believe in redistribution — take from the poor and give to the rich.
Not that the rich don’t do any giving.
But that of course is a private matter — as Alice Rosenbaum is only too anxious to point out.
“If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.”
These days, of course “Communism” is out and “Socialism” is in. But that’s not the real reason the Republicans, whatever their misgivings about Mittens may be (and they are legion) are still going to vote for him — as Randy Newman explains