Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has presented the political world with an important test. I'm eager to see whether we pass or fail.
First, a little background. Some Republican governors this year asked the Obama administration for some new flexibility on welfare standards -- the governors had some ideas about moving folks from welfare to work and needed the White House to sign off. Obama agreed -- existing work requirements would stay in place, but states, if they want to, can take advantage of new flexibility when it comes to experimenting with existing law.
This is the sort of shifting-power-to-the-states policy that Republicans are supposed to love. As of this morning, however, it's the basis for a new Mitt Romney attack ad.
It's important to realize this is as dishonest an ad as you'll ever see -- in 2012 or in any other campaign cycle.
For those who can't watch clips online, the ad shows President Clinton signing welfare reform into law in 1996, "requiring work for welfare." The spot then argues, however, that President Obama "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements." The voiceover tells viewers, "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.... and welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare."
We then learn, "Mitt Romney will restore the work requirement because it works."
Romney's lying. He's not spinning the truth to his advantage; he's not hiding in a gray area between fact and fiction; he's just lying. The law hasn't been "gutted"; the work requirement hasn't been "dropped." Stations that air this ad are disseminating an obvious, demonstrable lie.
All Obama did is agree to Republican governors' request for flexibility. That's it. Indeed, perhaps the most jaw-dropping aspect of this is that Romney himself, during his one gubernatorial term, asked for the same kind of flexibility on welfare law that Obama agreed to last month. Romney, in other words, is attacking the president for doing what Romney asked the executive branch to do in 2005.
The entire line of attack is simply insane.
And that brings us back to the test for the political world.
How are we to respond to a campaign that deliberately deceives the public without shame? This lie about welfare policy comes on the heels of Romney's lie about voting rights in Ohio, which came on the heels of Romney's lies about the economy; which came on the heels of Romney's lies about health care; which came on the heels of Romney's lies about taxes.
The Republican nominee for president is working under the assumption that he can make transparently false claims, in writing and in campaign advertising, with impunity. Romney is convinced that there are no consequences for breathtaking dishonesty.
The test, then, comes down to a simple question: is he right?
The cynical response to an ad like this is that the lies are routine -- it's just something "everybody" in politics does. That's wrong. An ad this dishonest is a genuine scandal and it's time for political observers treat it as such. Reporters within earshot of the candidate shouldn't ask, "What about the gaffes?" They should ask, "Why are you lying about welfare policy?"
Also note the larger context: if Obama were as awful a president as Romney claims, the Republican attack machine wouldn't have to make stuff up -- the truth would be so brutal that voters would recoil and flock to the GOP candidate naturally. What does it say about Romney's strength as a candidate that he has to make up garbage and hope voters don't know the difference?
Postscript: I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention the racial subtext of an attack ad like this one. For decades, Republicans used "welfare" as part of a racially-charged message ("Democrats want to give white people's money to lazy black people who'll get checks for sitting around"). I can't speak to Romney's motivations -- I'm not a mind-reader -- but the language in the ad harkens back to the kind of ugly and racially divisive rhetoric we heard from GOP candidates for far too long.
It's quite likely Team Romney would prefer to spend the next several days debating whether or not his new attack ad is racist -- it'd beat talking about his secret tax returns -- but that's not much of an excuse.
Indeed, it's what arguably makes this ad, not just painfully dishonest, but also disgusting. If Romney has any shame left, now would be a good time for him to take a long look in the mirror and come to terms with what he's become.
Leave a Comment:
People who watched Fox News are misinformed. Fox is not honest to their viewers. People should do their own research than just listening to the media. Watch MSNBC
What I find amazing is that given the comments I've read above, it would appear that you all are being led like sheep whether by Republican leaning media sources or Democrat leaning sources. If Romney is lying you'll never know it by listening to the biased media. The left leaning will say he's lying the right will say he's factual, in the end you're going to believe whoever you want based on your own bias (facts be damned). It sure would be refreshing to hear the same individuals who attack Romney with such vigor attack Obama for his deceit, and vice versa. When I start seeing that maybe I'll start forming opinions based on the medias' reports.
I see. What you're telling us is that you're insight is so inept that you can tell which side is lying and which side is not. Or you can't tell that one side is worse or better than the other when it comes to the truth. Or are you really telling us you're so irresponsibly inattentive to affairs that you have to fall back on the self-congratulatory Fair-Minded Person you are that you assume both sides must be equally bad.
I know. You should be actually BE IN the traditional corporate-owned media. You'd fit right in with your false equivalence and fake even-handedness.
Edit: ...insight is so inept that you CAN'T tell which side...
Please enjoy: http://www.zillow.com/blog/2012-01-24/mitt-romneys-6-homes/
Several of my friends, myself, my spouse, are all voting for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket.
I have friends in Europe and Australia who did not even realize that the USA has more political parties than just the big 2. Isn't that sad? So little is ever mentioned about it in world news that these folks - who normally speak at least 2 more languages than I do and have a much better grasp of Geography and History - had absolutely no clue.
The strangest thing about this election season is that I'm not hearing, "If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you're just throwing your vote away." Instead, I hear, "Tell me more about this candidate," or "Where can I find out who else is running?"
I think those two simple questions speak volumes.
So if you, too, are fed up with the two party system (in my most cynical moments, I call it the "Dumb & Dumber" system), research the other political parties and their candidates. Then vote for the person who truly appeals most to you. (Preferably due to their past political record instead of their awesome personality and overwhelming physical beauty, but hey, I'll take what I can get.)
The only reason we don't have a successfully multi-party system is because WE the Voters do not make it so. Go on - Make It So.
Excellent!! Kook-atarian alert everybody. Thanks for letting us know. We'll know what to expect when you post.
Why doesn't the Obama campaign just sue the pants off of the Romney campaign for libel every time one of these lying ads appears? And while they're at it, they could sue Romney himself for slander for each and every one of the lies in those stump speeches. That's the only way to stop it - get it bogged down in the courts to the point where it will no longer be worthwhile to perpetrate falsehoods in campaigns.
If you Google "Lying for the Lord" you will see why lying comes so easily for Mitt Romney. It is a tactic he knows all to well
Offshore Willy and his handlers are depending on the old adage that the American public has a short memory. Not this time, Willy. We're taking every lie and half truth that you've told into the voting booth with us. Joseph Smith would have been proud of you. He built a religion on falsehoods, and you're trying to build a presidency on falsehoods too.
"The test, then, comes down to a simple question: is he right?"
You know the answer to that: "Mostly, yes, he's right." I'd guess 80-90% of the Republican party voting bloc will vote for Republicans, and only Republicans, under almost any circumstances. If they're proven to be utterly evil or incompetent, the best these voters will do is stay home.
To be perfectly honest, that cuts both ways, too; I wouldn't vote for a Republican short of gunpoint, they've been "The Evil Party" since Nixon, without pause.
He can lie, torture dogs, dodge taxes...they don't care, because what's important to them is he'll stop promoting equal rights, outlaw abortion, and protect white racist America from dealing with the outside world to the best of his ability.
It's insane, of course, and there's enough sane-ish voters out there that he's going to lose hard in the elections. Which, of course, the Republicans could care less about, because they don't like him either. He's a sacrificial candidate for an election the Republicans expect to lose...and since they have nothing to lose, they'll try anything.
So, since we the discussion came up of how
lazy" black people are and we need to "work for our own money and obviously we are fine with just getting a check. I need to say- run the numbers-there are more WHITES on welfare than BLACKS. Check the stats people. The whole image of an uneducated lazy black person getting a check is a FRAUD.
Is there some reason Tim Wise is never asked to be on the Maddow show or tv in general to talk about race issues such as this? He was amazing at Netroots Nation a couple of years ago on this very subject. I'd really recommend him joining the discussion. And I'm not his agent.
people need to click threw to you tube and flag the video as inappropriate. Reason for flag: infringing my rights then other legal claim. then in the comments section: false advertising.
if soap made a claim as bold face as this it would be in trouble with the fcc. This is worse then rhetoric. it is not even poltics. they are trying to see where the lien is on what we will accept. this is not evne remotely acceptable.
if only, during the debates, he was called out by the announcer about his tens of thousands of despicable lies...
Excuse me. I'm new here, but do my research before opening my mouth. You make it sound like Obama never lies. There is a list of 100 lies he's told the American public since he took office. If you check the entire write off, by the white house. It twists and turns terms that give the states more Federal support(control) if they go with the no need to work plan. It's a no win situation for the state to make any changes. Just like the stimulus money a few years ago. Lots of strings attached to that. The same in this instance. The Dem govs. will love it when they implement it in their states. If king Obama gets a second term. This has been a dirty campaign on the Obama side for weeks, I'm glad to see Romney defending himself against all the out-rite lies that the Dems. have been spewing.
Your comment is long on claims and short on facts. At least you could post links to your claims. 100 lies? "out-rite lies that the Dems. have been spewing"? "Just like the stimulus money a few years ago. Lots of strings attached to that"?
So please explain the recent Obama ad that is a complete lie and that essentially calls Romney a murderer because a woman died of cancer. Democrats are arrogant phonies. It' why I changed after voting for Johnson, McGovern, Humphrey & Carter.
The ad your referring to is not from the Obama campaign. The one being discussed here is from the Romney campaign. I am a registered Republican that will be voting for Obama. This country does not need Gordon Gecko (Myth Romney) as POTUS.
You're not going to see any tests passed here. A good percentage of the right are rabid right now and they will take any talking point given to them as rote. I've never seen an environment in my lifetime where facts were as disrespected and intellectual dishonesty so openly embraced. I thought GWB was bad... but I doubt we have seen anything yet.
how true. rabid certainly describes the right wingers. my favorite phrase: the pods have landed.
Where does mutt rumney get this stupidity? Certainly not from his father. He must be so blinded by greed that he'll say anything. I hope he keeps it up, since voters will soon grow tired of his crap.
If we could have monetized Republican lies, we would have already erased the national debt.
I am just entertained that everyone gets caught up in the game republican or democrat. I believe we should get rid of both. I am sick of the bashing adds. What happened to the honest this is what I want to do and why because its for the people. The selfishness, the choices that are made to pad the pockets of the government and the lies and bashing are common for both parties. and when they get in they are so worried about changing everything the last opposing party did and voting against the other party they forget the position is to speak for the people not take advantage of them or make them suffer. We need to revamp the whole system and get rid of the personal views of these people because they are suppose to be representing the people and the competition of the better party and create a government that is for the people by the people like it was and how it was intended to be.
The news isn't that mitt Romney is a liar anyone who is familiar with the truth about anything he's brings up knows that he is a liar. It is that the failure of our news media to point out these blatant lies completely blows away the Myth about liberal bias in the news media and establishes the truth that just like the owners of major media the Reporters of news or those who hold their leashes present the news with a decidedly conservative bias just one more GOP lie exposed
That vast Right-winged conspiracy, inserting minutia acts to play into their concerted efforts to make Obama look bad. It's kind of like Romneyhood meaning taking from the middle class to give to the rich and Obamalony meaning balogna. Both sides are looking for catch phrases to stick onto each other for maximum effect. I look at Obama's accomplishments even with the headwinds he was up against from the TEA-Republican's. He saved millions of jobs in the auto industry, saved America's banking industry and took out Bin Ladin. And Romney is good at making money for himself and his buddies, but realize he is good at extracting existing money and oss-shoring it to keep from paying taxes.
he problem here, is that the Executive branch is taking unilateral action without the legal ability to do so under the law.
If they presume the right to modify laws, without any checks and balances, the idea of Congress goes out the window.
It doesn't matter who made the request or why, there are ways and means to do things in a Republic.
This is just another example of this Administration's disregarding Constitutional protections.
Check out "All The President's Men" where W & B interview Donald Segretti, one of Nixon's campaign team, on the subject of disinformation (read salting the media / lies). .He gleefully chortles as he relates how they used the tactic to affect student governnmment elections in college. It was used again to great effect when they "leaked" that Edmund Muskie had had an affair. Muskie spent lots of time & effort to defend himself against the completely baseless charge but the idea stuck in voters' minds. It definitely contributed to Muskie's defeat. Segretti called it "Ratf*cking." I guess Segretti's spirit lives on in the Republican campaign.
Criticizing the Obama Administration for providing food stamps and other forms of economic assistance to families in need is akin to demonizing the Red Cross for providing food and shelter to survivors of an earthquake or tornado.
There is a fundamental disconnect in the "cause and effect relationship" logic of these conservative, non-empathetic, chest-thumping politicians and pundits.
Furthermore, the prejudicial presumptions and favorite right wing talking points -- that those who are out of work would prefer to subsist on welfare rather than be gainfully employed, and that only unemployed people need food stamps -- are completely baseless and perpetuate the ignorance-based stereotype of people in need as being lazy parasites on society … no doubt a deliberate tactical decision by the callous propaganda peddlers on FOX PAC.
In addition, many conservatives indignantly point out that the United States has the best medical care available anywhere in the world. This may or may not be true, but it totally misses the point.
If people are denied or cannot afford to pay for health insurance coverage, let alone their own preventative medical treatment, then as far as medical care availability is concerned, there's no there there.
Romney and the Congressional GOP to constituents: "Can't make ends meet? No health care coverage? It sucks to be you!"
"The Republican governors of Utah and Nevada have written follow-up letters to HHS explicitly clarifying that the flexibility they requested did not involve the power to water down work requirements at all. And the letter that Romney signed in 2005 did, indeed, ask for increased state leeway to administer welfare. It did not, however, seek waivers to weaken work requirements. (Romney staunchly opposed such efforts as governor, and vetoed efforts to that effect). Crucially, the 2005 letter was directed to Congress, asking for legislative changes -- not unilateral executive waivers, which were clearly prohibited by the 1996 law. There is a substantial difference between trying to improve a law through the democratic process, and tossing out ideologically unpalatable bits and pieces via executive fiat
"The Republican governors of Utah and Nevada have written follow-up letters to HHS explicitly clarifying that the flexibility they requested did not involve the power to water down work requirements at all. And the letter that Romney signed in 2005 did, indeed, ask for increased state leeway to administer welfare. It did not, however, seek waivers to weaken work requirements. (Romney staunchly opposed such efforts as governor, and vetoed efforts to that effect). Crucially, the 2005 letter was directed to Congress, asking for legislative changes -- not unilateral executive waivers, which were clearly prohibited by the 1996 law. There is a substantial difference between trying to improve a law through the democratic process, and tossing out ideologically unpalatable bits and pieces via executive fiat