Here’s the video, which the “new tone” left that calls the Tea Party “terrorists” will undoubtedly crow about. There’s nothing to crow about, though, unless you enjoy watching an idiot yell at an innocent man.
On Fox, Megyn Kelly noted its similarity to the 2009 town halls, and surely that’s the look that the Obamabots (you know this is part of the “kill Romney” strategy, right?) were going for.
But here’s why the Gilligan in the hat is such a dope, and why the town hall comparison is wrong.
The 2009 town halls were spontaneous protests against a policy that had not yet been enacted. The town halls were warnings to Congress not to pass ObamaCare because, in the protesters’ view, it would be disastrous for economy and for the country.
The Democrats did not heed those warnings, of course, and ObamaCare was foisted on the nation against majority will. And it’s a disaster.
The town halls were warnings to politicians who ended up doing the exact wrong thing.
This dope yelling at Romney over Social Security is yelling a man who has not formulated any public policy in several years. This is a set-up meant to goad Romney into a fight for video for use now and in ads later. This is political theater at its worst.
Romney handled the set-up pretty well, by the way. Gilligan comes off looking unhinged and discredits himself and whatever point he was trying to make.
Update: Confirmed — Fox reports that Gilligan is part of a group called Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, which is a Democrat front. This was a set-up.
Who knew that Bob Denver had become such a senile, bilious old coot?
Romney does come off well. He does have real talent as a retail politician.
In reality, though, the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax will be the first thing to go.
I wish Mitt would have explored the concept of what it means for someone to pay “their fair share” of Social Security taxes. The fact SS and Medicare benefits are given to everyone eventually goes a long way toward explaining their popularity. What Gilligan wanted was another program of wealth-redistribution. That’s the advantage much of Europe has over us with their high taxes and enormous public benefits programs- everyone participates, everyone receives. Our government programs, based on “progressive” taxation and means-testing, divides our society, while theirs tend to unite.
Had Mitt polished his talking points a bit, he might have said, “So, you want to take one of the only programs the government has where a taxpayer usually gets out what they put into it, and turn it into welfare?”
(Of course, we know most current retirees get out far more than they put in, but leave it to the MSM to explain that. Chances are, they won’t.)