The liberal mag site MotherJones is having a ball this week leaking "secret" videos of Mitt Romney speaking candidly to a gathering of big-dollar donors. Yesterday's outrage was that he (correctly) pointed out the staggering number of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. Today we find out Romney "took a swipe" at minority voters by claiming political victory would be easier if he were a Latino.
Here's the video:
"It would be helpful to be Latino," Romney jokes. Oh, the horror.
"Abusador is a word Mexican-Americans are using to describe Mitt Romney, because we see a pattern of abuse that ranges from Bain Capital to the very poor and voiceless," writes "Hispanic Politico" Dee Dee Garcia Blase at the Tuscon Citizen. She adds that the video is "disgusting" and "has Latinos in an uproar" today.
Uproar over what, exactly? Is there a single item in Romney's remarks that was false? No. Would it be easier to win a national election if you were a Latino? Probably. It would at least be easier to win some Latino votes, right?
If Ms. Garcia Blase wants to argue over this fact, I'd point to Barack Obama's 96% advantage over Romney among African-Americans. Spare me the feigned outrage. It's a fact -- a sad one, but a fact nonetheless -- that race matters to many voters in American politics. For every caucasian voter who refuses to vote for Barack Obama because he's black, there's (at least) one African-American voter who refuses to vote for Mitt Romney because he's not.
This is racism and it's not a partisan issue owned solely by Republicans or Democrats, blacks or whites. So why would I be outraged when Romney identifies this pattern in a lighthearted joke?
Which brings me to the other Romney video making waves this week -- the one where the former Massachusetts governor claims most Obama supporters are dependent on government handouts...
Is this not true? Do 47% of Americans not rely on others to fund construction and repair of those roads & bridges President Obama likes to talk about? Sure most everyone pays Social Security and Medicare taxes, but the government and countless Americans do rely on a smaller population to fund the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. Is it really a stretch to assume that the people benefiting most from this lopsided tax system would vote for the candidate whose goal is to make the country's financial responsibilities even more one-sided? I don't think so.
We have more on other videos being released from Mother Jones (with the help of Jimmy Carter's grandson, no less), including "embarrassing" comments about how Palestinians are unwilling to accept a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis. Coincidentally, that's also a fact.
Ed Morrissey has a good write-up tackling the absurdity of the liberal left's outrage surrounding this one:
If this is the second-best clip that Mother Jones has on Mitt Romney, I think his campaign can breathe a sigh of relief. MJ headlines this as “On Israel, Romney Trashes Two-State Solution,” but that’s not accurate. What Romney actually says is that peace isn’t possible because the Palestinians won’t accept a two-state plan as a permanent solution … a point that has been obvious ever since Yasser Arafat walked away from a carefully-crafted deal at the end of the Clinton administration and called for another intifada. With Hamas now in the mix and their parent group Muslim Brotherhood taking control of Egypt, the Palestinians have even less incentive to accept a permanent state of Israel. [...]
What exactly is supposed to be “embarrassing” about this? It’s a more honest assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than we’ve seen in decades from presidential-level politics, from either party.