In early August, when Mitt Romney was questioned by the media about the factual haziness in some of his television ads, he said that he believed “the various fact checkers”, not the media, should decide what was appropriate and what was not. By late August, he had changed his mind, with Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse stating “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers”.
what eye thynk: Right! Why let facts get in the way of a little campaigning? Truth is for losers!
The whole truth vs. falsehood argument came to a head in late August after the Romney campaign began airing vitriolic television ads claiming that President Obama had “gutted” the work-for-welfare requirement. Fact checkers from every spectrum have condemned this claim as completely false.
What President Obama did was give states some leeway in applying the work requirement. This is the same type of flexibility that Republican governors asked for seven years ago, including then Gov. Mitt Romney.
http://whateyethynk.blogspot.com/2012/08/romneys-hypocritical-welfare-argument.html
But the fact that these ads are based on an out and out lie will not deter the Romney campaign from continuing to air them. They plan on ignoring media criticism and will spend vast amounts of money on them because, as Ashley O’Connor, advertising strategist for the Romney campaign, told ABCNews, the welfare ad is “our most effective ad”. In other words, truth is irrelevant if it gets you what you want. (I wonder if that’s something Mr. Romney learned in Mormon Sunday School. Maybe the Book of Mormon only has nine commandments?)
It is like the Republicans live in a parallel universe that only they can see; a universe where up is down, black is white, where facts are malleable and where attaining power is a panacea to be treasured above all else--even if it means giving up your soul to achieve it.
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Romney's Hypocritical Welfare Argument
In Des Moines on Wednesday, Romney continued his attack on President Obama and welfare saying that when the work requirement was first argued in Congress, then Senator Obama voted against it, (which is true). Mr. Romney went on, “Now he's President, and just a few days ago he put that original intent in place with a very careful executive action, he removed the requirement of work from welfare”.
what eye thynk: First, let’s get the facts straight…the work-for-welfare requirement has not been removed. Then, let’s call Romney's latest attack what it is…hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services granted all states some flexibility in the work-for-welfare requirement first put into effect in 1996 under President Clinton. Following the President's signature, states will now be permitted to extend training periods as well as grant some exemptions. Each state must show that they have a plan better suited to their individual needs and must ask for and gain approval before making any changes. This is the exact type of flexibility that was sought by twenty-nine Republican governors in 2005 -- INCLUDING THEN GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY.
Last year, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, (Republican) asked for and was granted an easing of the work rule. Some families in that state can now be exempted from the work requirement for six months while officials work with them to stabilize their household.
More recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, (Republican) asked that refugee families be treated differently because of cultural barriers to employment.
The President, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, has given states exactly what they have been asking for for seven years, but Romney refuses to acknowledge that the impetus for the changes originated with Republicans like himself, choosing instead to vilify the President in the hope that his sanctimonious outpouring of outrage will drive a wedge between President Obama and blue collar voters.
The numbers of white and minority welfare recipients are currently fairly equal, but why allow facts to get in the way when ignoring them can be used to feed the latent racism of this country’s conservatives? And what better way to do that than to malign our first black President by portraying him as coddling his own?
what eye thynk: First, let’s get the facts straight…the work-for-welfare requirement has not been removed. Then, let’s call Romney's latest attack what it is…hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services granted all states some flexibility in the work-for-welfare requirement first put into effect in 1996 under President Clinton. Following the President's signature, states will now be permitted to extend training periods as well as grant some exemptions. Each state must show that they have a plan better suited to their individual needs and must ask for and gain approval before making any changes. This is the exact type of flexibility that was sought by twenty-nine Republican governors in 2005 -- INCLUDING THEN GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY.
Last year, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, (Republican) asked for and was granted an easing of the work rule. Some families in that state can now be exempted from the work requirement for six months while officials work with them to stabilize their household.
More recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, (Republican) asked that refugee families be treated differently because of cultural barriers to employment.
The President, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, has given states exactly what they have been asking for for seven years, but Romney refuses to acknowledge that the impetus for the changes originated with Republicans like himself, choosing instead to vilify the President in the hope that his sanctimonious outpouring of outrage will drive a wedge between President Obama and blue collar voters.
The numbers of white and minority welfare recipients are currently fairly equal, but why allow facts to get in the way when ignoring them can be used to feed the latent racism of this country’s conservatives? And what better way to do that than to malign our first black President by portraying him as coddling his own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)