John McCormack already wrote a blog post below about Mitt Romney’s unfortunate comment that he’s “not concerned about the very poor,” astutely noting that the candidate’s remark “isn’t merely tone-deaf, it’s also un-conservative.”
But he isn’t the only one that appears to be alarmed by Romney’s remark, not just as political gaffe, but as a window into Romney’s ideology. Here’s Mark Steyn striking a similar chord:
After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society? I don’t know how “electable” Mitt is, but, even if he is, the greater danger, given the emptiness of his campaign to date, is that he’ll be elected with no real mandate for the course correction the Brokest Nation in History urgently needs. In last Monday’s debate, Newt said he wasn’t interested in going to Washington to “manage the decline”. Mitt’s just told us that he’s happy to “manage the decline” for the poor – but who knows who else?
