What does that even mean? That some shall-remain-unnamed Republican colleague literally told her, presumably when asked why he supported the one percent budget cut to the federal food stamp program recently passed in the farm bill or why he did not support extending unemployment benefits or something, that his entire party’s policy platform is based off of its collective and utter indifference to the plight of families in poverty? …Why do I feel skeptical? Via RCP:

I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the vital lifelines for struggling families and really hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honestly. What he said was to the Republican caucus, these people you are talking about are invisible, and the Republican caucus is indifferent to them. Invisible and indifferent. This is just plain wrong. That is not the leadership the American people deserve and it is up to us to demonstrate clearly how Democrats are different.

Ahh, yes — because with the Minority Leader, it’s never the case that Republicans have well-intentioned yet incorrect or impractical policy proposals. It’s always the case that Republicans’ common unifying characteristic is their sociopathic disdain for their fellow human beings, or else their innate aversion to things like “clean water and clean air” or whatever. I mean, I get it: Who wants to have an uncomfortably honest discussion about policy outcomes when you can just slander Republicans for their ostensibly intrinsic derangement? As Ed already noted earlier today, it’s been mighty useful for Democrats to aggressively pretend that Republicans are the craven hyper-partisans in this rodeo (while they themselves are of course paragons of centrism and human compassion), so remember: The only possible solution for lifting people out of poverty is further expanding the already unsustainable entitlement state, or else you’re an apathetic, uncompromising, black-hearted bottom-feeder.