Is it giving in to class warfare to suggest that Mitt Romney has no idea what your life is like?
Is it "divisive" to point out that Mitt Romney "earns" more in a single day than the average person does in an entire year?
Is it engaging in "the politics of jealousy" to let you know that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than a person who makes in an entire year what he "earns" in a single day?
Are we stoking up class anger by drawing attention to figures released by the New York Daily News
that prove Mitt Romney "earns" enough money in a single week to put his income at the $380,354 cutoff which one must surpass to be in the upper 1 percent of earners in the United States? That he is the upper 1 percent to the 52nd power?
Is it wrong of us to inform the average voter that Mitt Romney's pretense at being a "regular guy" who "does his own laundry" because "who else is going to do it" is pure, political artifice, crafted to fool the dimwits who think that if they vote for a rich guy he will somehow make them rich too?
Are we out of line for putting the word "earns" in quotes because Mitt Romney makes his money off of money he's reinvested from money he reinvested from money he earned while being a corporate raider, closing down factories, selling their machinery, sending your jobs to China and India and Mexico?
Are we at fault for suggesting that Mitt Romney knows as much about being a "regular person" as a dog knows about being a cat?
Should it bother us that Mitt Romney has been stashing cash in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and a Swiss Bank Account that he closed in 2010?
Is it horrid of us to say that Mitt Romney is the worst kind of hypocrite for even joking about "being unemployed" among people who actually are?
Not that there's anything wrong with being a billionaire. FDR was wealthy. So was Jack Kennedy. But one at least had the feeling that FDR through his actions and Kennedy through his words that led to Lyndon Johnson's creation of the Great Society -- they seemed to care about those of us who put rubber to steel, who use our bodies and our brains to earn an income that buys less and less and less while Romney's net income grows and grows and grows at the expense of the people whose jobs he sent overseas?
Are we being unfair to suggest that Mitt Romney wants to be president because he wants to be president. That he will say and do and do and say whatever it takes to be president? Because he wants to be president?
Or are we right on the money? So to speak.
(BTW: I apologize for the singing in the video. I can write pretty well, but my singing has suffered over the years.)