aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM
Fri Jan 13 18:06:36 UTC 2012
As TPM has been documenting, the political phrase of the month seems to
be "Quiet rooms"--
> Too bad for Mitt Romney. Turns out income inequality--that thing he
> claims has no place in our political debate, or anywhere outside of
> "quiet rooms"--will be a central theme of President Obama's
> re-election message.
> [Matt Lauer]: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of
> wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
> ROMNEY: [You know,] I think it's fine to talk about those things in
> quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the
> president has made it part of his campaign rally.
TPM is not the only one to mock Romney for "quiet rooms".
Shhhh! Romney wants economy talk in 'quiet rooms'
> We're going to talk about the widening income gap between rich and
> poor, tax policy and the seemliness of predatory investing, and GOP
> presidential front-runner Mitt Romney wants us to do so only "in quiet
Oh, yes he did! Romney requests conversations about income inequality be
conducted in 'quiet rooms'
[The one above comes with the video]
'Quiet Rooms' and Republican Class War
> This is not a debate they feel they can win even among Republican
> voters, a majority of whom actually favor higher taxes on the rich.
> Romney's assertion yesterday that economic inequality should not be
> discussed, or should only be mentioned in "quiet rooms," is a
> too-frank expression of the GOP elite’s actual belief that the issue
> must be kept out of political debate.
>> MR. FLEISCHER: I think if someone were to make a rather economic,
>> esoteric, scholarly argument like you just did, that wouldn't be
>> class warfare.
> "Esoteric, scholarly" captures the same idea Romney is attempting to
> invoke with "quiet rooms."
I thought the whole point of "quiet rooms" is /not/ to have discussions
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l