Dig a deeper hole and then you'll feel better

All day I've been watching the Mitt show and all day I've been entertaining the notion that none of the "leaks" we've been seeing is particularly damaging.  To begin with, this Politico story about Mitt's whining staffers is mostly just inside bullshit ball irrelevant to anyone other than the pros involved and their future job prospects. But I'm glad I saw it this morning.   It was a timely reminder that any so-called leak coming out of an active political campaign isn't to be taken at face value.

Which is why I'm not so convinced that the initial reaction of the universe to the day's bigger "leak" is correct.

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Now if you're looking around today at most establishment commentators, you're hearing widespread condemnation of Mitt. Some are even going so far as to name this the day he lost the election.

I'm sorry but I don't see it. Mitt's statements to this fundraiser, vile as they may be, are in no way out of step with the main line of American political thought for several decades now.  This is the pure, "we're all being held back by inferior lazy poors and their entitlement state" that has resonated with a majority of voters throughout the post-Civil Rights era.  It's "welfare queen" bashing plain and simple.  Ronald Reagan would be proud.

Furthermore the "candid moment" quality of this helps break through Mitt's usual wooden and obviously staged demeanor that has prevented him from connecting with the conservative base this sort of red meat is aimed at.  Here voters are meant to believe they're seeing the real, unfiltered Mitt. They're meant to take it as a glimpse at what Mitt really thinks when the cameras aren't on and he's not being safe.   I've been pretty firm in my belief that all Mitt has to do to get over the top in this election is to find a way to fire up a conservative base itching for an excuse to get fired up.   I can imagine hearing this might be reassuring for the base block of what we used to call "Reagan Democrats" who might not have trusted Romney otherwise.

Plus there's all the gratuitous racial paranoia thrown in.  

Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."

It's really almost too good. And it would take a lot to convince me that it's not good for Mitt overall strategically.

Update: Ah see now David Brooks is condemning Mitt.  That seals it for me.  Something is definitely up with this. 

Upperdate: Charles Pierce responds to Brooks' column

The problem with this whole business is it gives openings to people like Brooks to talk about the.. you know... responsible ways we should go about shaming poor people.

(*)