Maggie: “I think that’s a tad bit of hyperbolae — The Democrats in this country are seizing on what Romney said about “geopolitical foe” and “greatest” as a huge gaffe. Republicans are arguing otherwise, that there are all sorts of reasons why this remains of great concern. I think that for Romney's campaign this is an attempt to try to pivot toward substance, an attempt to pivot out of the smallness of this primary.”Mitt Romney: Out-of-Touch,Out-of-Date, Unelectable (March 28, 2012):
"Electing Mitt Romney as the next president of the United States of America would be like appointing a serial pedophile as a kindergarten teacher, a rapist as a janitor at a girl’s dormitory, or a psychopath with a fixation on knives as a kitchen hand. His comments on Russia are a puerile attempt at making the grand stage and boy, did he blow it."
Timothy Babcroft-Hinchey, @Pravda.ru
Alex was incredulous: “Do you think so, really?! In terms of substance, antagonizing Russia in such strident terms after what he said about China …”
Maggie, defensively: “It’s saber-rattling, I’m not saying there’s depth behind what he’s saying, but I think they’re trying to speak on a grander scale.” Ari Melber and Sam Stein blow Maggie’s argument out of the park. Watch:
Uh, Maggie … If you’d like your candidate to speak on a “grander scale” he should first make a grand, cogent, informed argument; not, as you reluctantly concede, “saber rattling, I’m not saying there’s depth behind what he’s saying, but [he's] trying to speak on a grander scale.” Right. Instead, we get ancient Cold War rhetoric, i.e., dangerous, strident hyperbole from the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. Oh, if only there were depth behind what Mitt Romney is saying, that is the question. Right, Maggie? So, without further ado, Maggie Haberman please: