You can tell Romney's welfare ad is working by its opposition

Ann Coulter:
Poor Mickey Kaus. He’s the liberal intellectual (not an oxymoron — he’s the last known living “liberal intellectual”) lefties on TV are usually stealing from, but now that this welfare reform maven has concluded that Romney’s welfare ad is basically correct, liberals refuse to acknowledge his existence.

The non-Fox media have formed a solid front in denouncing Romney’s welfare ad for daring to point out that Obama has gutted the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform bill.

The New York Times claims that Romney’s ad “falsely” charges Obama with eliminating work requirements. CNN rates the ad “false.” Underemployed hack Howard Fineman says Romney’s ad “is just flat out wrong on the facts” and “that every fair analyst, every fact checker” has said it’s “just factually wrong.”

When a campaign ad induces this much hysteria, you know Romney has struck gold. On closer examination, it turns out that by “every fair analyst,” Fineman means a bunch of liberals quoting one another.


It is striking that everyone who actually knows something about the 1996 welfare reform law says that Romney’s ad is accurate.

One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate.

Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements.

Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads.

A lot of Americans don’t support waiving the work requirements, even for “job training.” Mitt Romney thinks they should know that that’s what Obama is doing.


By viewing the work requirements as optional, subject to her waiver, Kaus says, the law has been “altered dramatically”: “Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are … requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants — but, hey, you can trust her!”
Sebelius will keep on acting in a high handed unlawful manner until she is replaced by a new administration.  Perhaps the liberals have fooled themselves into believing what they are saying, but that does not make it so, and the facts don't support their analysis.  That analysis seems to be based on the premise that the ads are hurting Obama and therefore they have to be wrong.  A fallback position is that the ads are racist since liberals just assume that talking about welfare is an attack on blacks.  Never mind that the work requirement has lifted millions of blacks and whites out of poverty.  Obama is here to reinstate dependency and they resent any effort to stop him.  If Obama ever answers questions again from the media someone should ask him whether he now admits he was wrong to oppose the original welfare reforms.  His answer could inform those who question his intentions.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Liberal fascists strike against Trump supporters in Berkeley

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?