Screen shot 2012-02-02 at 10.22.25 AM

Two voices from the partisan right have had it with Romney's tin ear. And the above graph shows deep damage. Romney's favorability is now -16. Obama's is +3.5. Screeds come naturally to Erick Erickson:

After making sure we all understood the poor were for the Democrats to be worried about, Romney decided to keep digging his hole even bigger. By the end of the day, Jim DeMint had to rebuke him. Romney, digging his hole deeper, said his remark needed more context. The context, according to Romney, is that we have government programs to keep the poor . . . well . . . poor but comfortable

A more succinct analysis from Bethany Mandel at Commentary:

To the left, [Romney's gaffe] verifies the long held suspicion Republicans only care about people with money, callously disregarding the plight of the poor. This verification will be played over and over during a general election if Romney clinches the nomination. To the right, it verifies that Romney is as liberal as they fear, complacent with the welfare state as it currently stands.

David Kahane tries impersonating a parody Democrat to make the same point to National Review's editors:

If you and a few buddies with names like T. Coleman Andrews III made pots of dough by starting up a venture-capital firm with other people’s moolah and then spent the rest of your life living off the "carried interest" proceeds at a low, low, low tax rate of 15 percent, upgrading your $12 million vacation home in the ritzy San Diego suburb of La Jolla and running for president because you can’t get elected to any other office, you wouldn’t be either.

The WSJ's Daniel Henninger is starting to panic after realizing that Obama's Osawatomie and SOTU speeches might, you know, work. Ponnuru sums up the NRO view:

The Corner consensus seems to be that Romney’s remark—you know the one I’m talking about—was a foolish message badly expressed. I concur.