I agree...the attack was because of the principle involved, not the candidate...in fact there is a good argument that there are no conservatives left in the campaign from which to choose, although some of them have some conservative characteristics. It happened that the attack on capitalism benefited Romney, but not because it was Romney, but only because that was where the criticism of capitalism arose.
It could as easily gone the other direction, had Romney made that attack on Newt.
I agree with Rush, someone must defend First Principles, as there are no candidates doing so now except with lip services.
No Romney...gritting teeth for the others...Go Sarah.
Go watch "Bridge on the River Kwai" and UNDERSTAND that Col. Nicholson was driven ENTIRELY by "the principle involved." I know, it was "just a movie," and you can use that as your rationale for dismissing its message, but the MESSAGE IN THE MOVIE REMAINS HONEST AND TRUE, and that cautionary tale is perfectly applicable to Rush Limbaugh.
Crony captialism is indefenseable....period.