Sunday, October 14, 2012

Ah, The Humanity/Simplicity

Romney's joke (at a campaign stop in Michigan) about not needing a birth certificate - minus one for him. The Obama super-pac's ad that linked Mitt Romney to an individual's cancer death - minus one for them. The Romney super-pac's ad that totally distorted Mr. Obama's record regarding welfare reform - minus one for them. Stephanie Cutter saying that the Benghazi attacks are only a big deal because Romney and Ryan are politicizing it (the senseless slaughter of four American citizens is nothing, I guess) - minus (at least) one for her. Alan Grayson likening his 2010 Congressional opponent, Daniel Webster, to the Taliban - minus one for him. Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert attempting to tie a well-respected State Department official to Islamic terrorists - minus one for them....You see how this works, folks? We judge the merits of something strictly on whether it's right or wrong and, not, NOT, based upon who the perpetrator is. I mean, I know that this sounds utterly elementary and all but it does seem that I have to point it out from time to time. No?


dmarks said...

"The Romney super-pac's ad that totally distorted Mr. Obama's record regarding welfare reform - minus one for them. "

Which part are you referring to? The controversy that comes to mind is the one over Obama eliminating the work requirement. He did in fact eliminate this. I've had people argue with me "no, Obama did not eliminate the requirement. He just made it optional."

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The fact checkers at, politfact, and the Washington Post all seem to disagree with you but I would have to research it more myself in order to debate it with you.

dmarks said...

OK, Will, let's go to, and see them actually lie about this matter.

At the very start of this page:

"A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted “a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The plan does neither of those things.

Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement."

Do the Fact Check people really have such poor grasp of English?

A "Requirement" means something. The Fact Check article (see the second paragraph above) details specifically how there is no Federal requirement anymore. If the states can do anything they want it is not a requirement.

Factcheck's "The plan does neither of those things" statement is clearly a lie, as Factcheck themselves detail exactly how the Obama plan has "[dropped] work requirements".

Will, do you agree with me that if something that was required before is now an option, this means it is no longer a requirement? Isn't this a no-brainer for basic knowledge of English words and their meanings?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The way that I understand it (and I really wish that an Obama supporter and not a Johnson supporter like me would come to his defense here), dmarks, the Obama initiative, while it does provide for waivers (one of which was requested by Romney in 2005 and another by the current Republican Governor of Utah last year), it also retains work as its ultimate goal. And there are in fact conditions. In order for a state to keep its waiver, for example, it also has to show a 20% increase in the number of people getting work. That, and the two year time limit of the original Welfare Reform law remains. I don't know, to me, it sounds like the Romney people are politicizing the issue.

dmarks said...

Politicizing or not, it is clear, even from the Factcheck wording and talk from Obama defenders, that the requirement has been dropped. If we are going on whether someone is correct or not, Romney has won on this issue.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Perhaps but it's still only 2 years and done. Obama hasn't as yet waived that provision.......Look at me, I'm defending the President here. Hopefully somebody other than you will notice this, dmarks (the fact that I've been consistently accused of being an Obama basher by the left, etc.).

dmarks said...

But do you get the point I am making is that changing something from being required to being only a possible option (which might even end up being very common) is nothing other than "dropping a requirement" ?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

According to CNN Money, the waiver is contingent upon that state's welfare to work statistics going up 20%. So it looks like that's possibly some safeguards here.