« | »

AP: Romney Continues ‘Discredited’ Welfare Ads

From the Associated Press:

Romney pushes on with discredited welfare attacks

By JULIE PACE | Wed August 22, 2012

MIDLAND, Texas (AP) — Mitt Romney claims he’s got a winner with his criticism that President Barack Obama is giving welfare recipients a free ride. Never mind that aspects of his argument against the Democrat are factually inaccurate.

Remember, this is supposed to be a news article. This claim is just asserted. The Times does not bother to back it up.

Those flaws aside, Romney’s team is pressing on with the charge that the president ended a provision requiring welfare recipients to work. Romney aides insist the argument is helping them gain ground with middle-class voters anxious about the economy and independents who see Obama’s welfare changes as an indication that he is a typical liberal, not a moderate. But the campaign offers little evidence to back up those assertions.

Gosh what liars they are. But are we supposed to believe they are continuing these ads even though they aren’t helping him gain ground? Why would they do that?

Obama’s team, in turn, says Romney’s welfare charges are dishonest. Numerous independent fact-checkers, including The Associated Press, have determined that Romney and his surrogates are distorting the facts.

These fact check articles are remarkably fact free, if you bother to actually plow through them. The Washington Post’s inane fact check piece is a prime example. It says: "There is something fishy about the administration’s process on this memorandum, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign’s over-the-top ad."

And they give it "four Pinocchios for being "over the top." Not for being dishonest. They point to no material facts that it gets wrong. They simply say "the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules."

By the way, the Post only gives its candiate Barack Obama three Pinocchios, even though they caught him in a blatant lie, when he claims Romney sought a waiver on the work rules. He did not. Nor did any of the other Republican governors. (As we have pointed out previously.)

"Everybody who’s looked at this says what Gov. Romney’s saying is absolutely wrong," Obama said Monday. "They can run the campaign they want, but the truth of the matter is you can’t just make stuff up."

But that criticism has done little to persuade Romney and his aides to abandon the welfare issue or even tweak its assertions.

The White House says the waivers Obama approved for states last month would only allow them to drop the work requirement if they can accomplish the same goals using different methods, a move Obama aides said was done at the request of both Republican and Democratic governors.

The Times is stating a blatant lie as a fact. As we mentioned above, the letters from the Republican governors did not ask for waivers, as even the Washington Post had to admit: "Yes, the letter speaks of “increased waiver authority,” but this refers to language in a pending Senate bill updating the welfare overhaul, not to a waiver of work requirements. Indeed, that bill would have increased mandatory work requirements, from 50 to 70 percent, while at the same time adding flexibility to the states in terms of countable activities."

And mind you, this is what every one of the other so-called fact checkers cite as proof of the falsehood in Romney’s attacks. And it is simply untrue.

Romney’s welfare push comes with risk for the presumptive GOP nominee. Focusing too heavily on welfare, which had barely registered as a campaign issue before Romney began pushing it, could turn off voters who want to hear the candidates offer specific prescriptions for job growth.

What a crock. Every other word out of Mitt Romney’s mouth is about his prescriptions for job growth.

It could open Romney up to criticism that he is injecting race into the campaign and seeking to boost support among white, working-class voters by charging that the nation’s first black president is offering a free pass to recipients of a program stereotypically associated with poor African-Americans.

So the ad is ‘discredited’ because "it could open Romney up to criticism that he is injecting race into the campaign"? How handy.

But lest we forget, our first black President, Bill Clinton, ran for election and re-election on welfare reform. He signed the welfare reform into law. Is Bill Clinton a racist? Then why is he being allowed to speak at the Democrat Convention?

Besides, it is The Times who are displaying their racism here. The majority of people on welfare are actually white.

And Romney runs the risk of denting his credibility with voters by peddling an argument that has been widely debunked

Again, the argument has never been debunked. It has been lied about by others in the press, who are in effect part of the Obama re-election campaign. But, once again, the man who actually wrote the welfare reform bill, Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, says the argument is accurate.

Clinton, seeking to steer his administration toward the political center, signed a welfare reform law in 1996 that replaced a federal entitlement with grants to states. It also put a time limit on how long families can get aid and required recipients to go to work eventually.

Clinton is among those who have called Romney’s welfare attacks dishonest and false.

Why should we believe a racist? And a convicted perjurer?

Meanwhile, when have we seen any articles from the Associated Press on Obama’s discredited campaign ads, which have been legion? (Hint: never.)

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “AP: Romney Continues ‘Discredited’ Welfare Ads”

  1. untrainable says:

    “…independents who see Obama’s welfare changes as an indication that he is a typical liberal, not a moderate. Are you kidding me? Who believes for a second that Obama is a moderate? And if there are people out there who believe Obama is a moderate, how could a few welfare changes (like defining getting a massage as work) make them any more aware of reality?

  2. Right of the People says:

    There are lies then there are damned lies. Anything that comes out of the White House I automatically assume is a damned lie.

  3. mr_bill says:

    “Focusing too heavily on welfare, which had barely registered as a campaign issue before Romney began pushing it…”

    The Orchestrated Press is admitting (barely) that Romney has the ability to set the agenda and shape the issues of this election. The Orchestrated Press does not like that. Emperor nerobama and his media stenographers are supposed to be the ones who determine what issues are important to us voters.

    They can’t have an opposition candidate bringing up issues that capture voter interest. That could force Emperor nerobama to respond to something outside of the scripted narrative his campiagn is selling through the “news” media. The MSM and liberals swept in with a perfect set of circumstances in 2008. That same old garbage isn’t working this year and it infuriates the heck out of Emperor nerobama and his media surrogates. They can’t figure out why the people have soured to the liberal message. Their desperation is palpable. Emperor nerobama will not relinquish power gracefully. Imagine how petty, unhinged, and unbalanced he will be between November and January after he loses. I can’t think of many things more dangerous than a desperate narcissist with a bruised ego.

    • Right of the People says:

      That’s why I’ve stockpiled ammo. When Barry loses it will probably unhinge him and he’ll do something incredibly stupid like declaring martial law. Lock and load people, it’s going to getting bumpy.

    • mr_bill says:

      RoP, that’s a darn fine idea. Even if Emperor nerobama doesn’t go completely nuts immediately, the parasite class is going to riot after they see the election results.

  4. JohnMG says:

    …..”Numerous independent fact-checkers, including The Associated Press,”……

    Including the AP?!

    Oh, my aching sides!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »