Eske Esquire wrote:
He "very literally said it," and then in the next sentence he said that middle class was $250k or less, thus giving a more precise answer. I think you're making a big deal out of 2 seconds of misspeaking.
Seems like a nonsensical way of making that point. I mean, the two statements (100k isn't middle class, and middle class is 250k and less) are contradictory, so the second can't be "a more precise answer".
I gather that you're saying that the intention was to say something like "No, 100k isn't middle class, because middle class is actually everything up to 250k, including 100k"? It's possible, but that just strikes me as an odd error of speech.
The confusion comes from folks falling over themselves to make the "Romney thinks 200-250k is middle income" argument so they're leaving out key parts of the conversation.
He was responding to a question about a study showing that in order for his economic plan to work, he would have to eliminate tax deductions for folks earning more than $100k. GS asked "Is $100k middle class?", but it's clear in context that he was really asking if $100k was some kind of cut off point for being "middle class" with everyone above that being "rich". Romney's answer only seems awkward if you don't read the bits leading up to it. It's clear in context that he was saying that middle class extends upwards to the $200-$250k range, not that it starts at that point.
Either way, it's a gaffe, which is the entire reason that I linked it. And I do think that there's a reason that Romney's prone to such gaffes.
To be fair though, if you have enough people trying really hard to take anything you say out of context, it's pretty close to impossible not to say anything ever that they can do this with.