PLANK AUGUST 15, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It so happens that when Mitt Romney came to Ohio yesterday that I was able to catch one of his appearances, speaking to hundreds of coal miners in Beallsville. As expected, Romney hit President Obama for his “war on coal” (never mind that Romney in 2003 stood outside a coal-fired plan in Salem, Mass. and said that it “kills people.”) But he got his biggest applause during this riff:
I want you to know I heard something the other day that really surprised me... What I heard is that the president is taking the work requirement out of welfare. (Boos.) Yeah. We value work, our society which celebrates hard work, we look to a government to make it easier for jobs to be created and people to go to work. We do not look for a government that tries to find ways to provide for people who are not willing to work. And so I’m gonna put work back into welfare and make sure able-bodied people can get jobs.
Romney proceeded straight from this into a retelling of Obama’s “you didn’t built that” line, but even that did not get the applause the welfare riff did. After the speech, several in the audience told me that their favorite part had been Romney’s calling out Obama for weakening welfare work requirements. Yes, one of the more depressing parts of the job of being a political reporter is watching an audience fully absorb a blatant and knowing lie. Which is, of course, what this is. Countless factcheckers—here is one of many—have unequivocally rejected the assertion that Obama has ended the work requirement. His administration has instead granted more leeway to states, including several with Republican governors, to explore new ways to get people onto welfare into jobs, with the proviso that their new approaches must increase the share of recipients with jobs.
But this has not stopped Romney (the son of a pro-safety net former HUD secretary!) or Paul Ryan, who is also using the line on the trail. Meanwhile, the campaign has launched two ads with the welfare charge, which are running in heavy circulation. Clearly, the campaign has reason to believe the attack is working, and why not? It’s no secret that working-class Americans deeply resent those just below them on the economic ladder whom they see as getting undeserved assistance; it’s also no secret that politicians have been especially effective at stoking this resentment among white working-class voters, such as the all-white audience in Beallsville, toward an unseen nonwhite other.
But at least in the glory-days of welfare-bashing, the attacks had some grounding in reality—the system had grown rapidly was in need of some sort of reform. Now, at a time of drastically reduced welfare rolls, the attack is utterly unfounded. And Romney just keeps using it, at stop after stop, in ad after ad. How can this be possible? Well, maybe because very few of my colleagues in the press seem all that troubled by it. Unless I’ve missed it, none of the national papers or networks or Buzzfeeders have done a comprehensive report on Romney’s persistence in playing the welfare card. It’s as if it was enough to have the factcheckers offer their initial scolding, but after that, hey, anything goes. I saw no mention in dispatches from yesterday of Romney’s successful use of the welfare line in Beallsville—instead, the stories were dominated by Romney’s declaration of outrage, later in the day, over Obama’s campaign of “anger and hate.” This referred, apparently, to everything from the Obama SuperPAC’s boundary-pushing ad about the death of the wife of a steelworker laid off by Bain Capital (which has barely aired on TV) and Joe Biden’s use of the word “unchained” in talking about Wall Street reform in southern Virginia. A psychoanalyst might see in Romney’s outrage over campaign excess more than a little Freudian projection. But a smart political analyst would settle for the more mundane explanation that Romney is seeking to distract attention from his own very effective and mendacious offensive with welfare. Though I’m not really sure that distraction was necessary, since as far as I can tell we were already letting it pass unnoticed.
*Addendum, 3:30 p.m.: I should give credit to Dave Roberts of Grist for coining the "post-truth" term in a terrific piece for Grist back in April 2011. The phrase has now seeped so deeply into our vernacular to describe contemporary political mendacity that I did not realize how recent its invention was.
*Also, a further thought on all this to make the point that I generally have a pretty high bar for outrage over campaign rhetoric: when Newt Gingrich called Obama the "food-stamp president," I didn't think it was as terrible as many others did. Yes, it was a term loaded with obvious insinuations, but in contrast to Romney's welfare lie, it was actually based in a semblance of reality. Food stamp rolls have gone up a lot under Obama (continuing their rise under Bush.) We can argue about why that it is, and whether or not it's a good thing. But there's something there to debate. With Romney and welfare, there is nothing but pure, cynical fabrication out of nothing.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
23 comments
Argh. I know I am totally channeling Mickey Kaus here, but WHY were Sebelius and the Obama administration so stupid as to expand state waivers under the welfare law to open themselves up to this charge? Saying "Oh, it just gives states more discretion, including some with GOP governors" is no answer. States ALWAYS want more discretion under federally funded programs. The whole point of the work requirement in TANF is to get away from "job training" etc. as substitutes for work requirements. These waivers bid fair to let that kind of BS right back in the program. Politically, the Obama administration completely led with a glass chin here. Kaus's guess is that unreconstructed Peter-Edelman-types at HHS tried to sneak this through this weakening of the work requirement under the "waiver" rubric, and they've been caught out. I hope Obama is smart enough to revoke the new waiver rule before he loses Ohio and Michigan and maybe even Virginia.
- rriley
August 15, 2012 at 10:45am
(Sigh.) Never underestimate the laziness of the US media, complemented by how easily the Right intimidates it into doing nothing more than reporting he said/she said. Every responsible article on this Romney attack should feature the fact-check consensus. (Sigh again.)
- Thunderroad
August 15, 2012 at 10:48am
If Romney were honest, he would say:
rriley, So Obama should do absolutely nothing for the next 90 days, because anything he does can be turned completely inside out and used as the excuse for a lie by Romney? I doubt even that would work, since one can always (and Romney sometimes does) just fabricate stuff out of whole cloth.
- IowaBeauty
August 15, 2012 at 11:03am
Last weekend, Candy Crowley asked David Axelrod why the Ryan plan was objectionable if Democratic Senator Wyden signed onto it and today one of the commentators on Diane Rehm also mentioned that Wyden supports the Ryan plan. Details about Wyden were overlooked. Wyden only supports the Ryan/Wyden white paper, which, he said to Ezra Klein, assumes the ACA is still in effect and only will cost more for married seniors with incomes over $170,000.00 (single $85,000.00). Obviously, using insurance for Medicare under the risk spreading ACA is not the same as insuring seniors without it. Doesn't the Wyden issue also require attention in the press?
- Nusholtz
August 15, 2012 at 11:11am
This is fairly bottom of the barrel as far as lying gop attacks are concerned. Welfare in this country is pared down and inadequate and we treat people who want it like animals, or worse depending on your state. I doubt many voters care at all about welfare and probably consider it an issue "solved" in the Clinton years. People citing a crank like Mickey Kaus for strategic policy advice make me even less worried about this creaky line of attack by Romney.
- Pnaut
August 15, 2012 at 11:16am
This lie is a lovely piece of highly effective propaganda. Expect more of this ruthless stuff. As for the media, they would have to be outraged to call him out. But they're too busy pretending to be disinterested. BHO is going to have to defend himself. This is the perfect lie, it tells people what they want to believe and has the perfect shading of oblique racism.
- Vogelfam
August 15, 2012 at 12:26pm
pnaut, I wish that was true, but recent experience demonstrates that it is not. Here in DC, not exactly a conservative locale, the Examiner ran a front-page story months back saying that Obama had expanded the welfare rolls by millions, had expanded "welfare spending" by 300%. Ludicrous, completely fabricated, and...totally unchallenged. So far as the public at large appears to believe, welfare "reform" of the 90s simply didn't happen. Any help to the poor=welfare, in their minds, and since public housing still exists, food stamps still exist, it doesn't matter if the program has a different name, or it's help given by the feds, the state, the county or their neighborhood, it's welfare, and almost certainly going to undeserving shiftless layabout minorities who need to either pull themselves up by their bootstraps or just go ahead and starve to death.
- janus
August 15, 2012 at 12:59pm
then Democrats have to run ads and call Romney what he is, a sociopath, run ever contradictory statement, every idiotic bumbling statement, run an ad where he has his arms around Ryan saying what a big mistake he made (and cut him off then). Pound the sociopathic evil bastard that is Romney into the ground. And Obama has to go to those coal mines and say that Romney will repeal every safety regulation there is and that those coal miners had better get good life insurance because if Romney wins many of them will be dead within the next 4 years, and point to the safety record in West Virginia as proof.
- blackton
August 15, 2012 at 1:18pm
Romney's unpredictable hypocrisy has no end: "Romney steps away from Paul Ryan's Medicare cuts" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-paul-ryan-medicare-cuts-20120815,0,3351545.story That's this week. Next week he'll appoint Ron Paul economic adviser.
- arnon1
August 15, 2012 at 1:37pm
Maybe a silly question, Alec, but did you mention to the people you were interviewing that it was a lie? And if so, what did they say? I know one has to be careful as a reporter not to push a particular line, but a question like "Did you know that several Republican governors have been enthusiastically requesting this waiver?" might trigger a second thought.
- ironyroad
August 15, 2012 at 2:23pm
You know the word "sociopath" has crossed my mind too (in re Romney). Is that too harsh? Accusing Obama of things he absolutely didn't do, rewriting his speeches for him to suit GOP agendas, stirring up hatred and divisiveness then accusing Obama of stirring up hatred and divisiveness and telling him to go back to Chicago with his hate - omg. I've watched some of Obama's moments out campaigning. He's funny, he's the opposite of the demagogue. Romney got nuts because Obama had a moment of humor about the windmall on the car vs (you know who) on the car and Romney goes nuts? Anyway the lies are NOT funny, then there is the constant flip-flopping. One minute this, the next minute that.
- Sophia
August 15, 2012 at 2:25pm
Maybe there's something I don't get, but don't the response attack ads write themselves? "Mitt Romney has falsely claimed that President Obama has taken work requirements out of Welfare. When Mitt Romney was Governor, he requested exactly the change he is now criticising. Mitt Romney - what will he say next?" "Mitt Romney has falsely accused President Obama of gutting Medicare. Instead, President Obama is cracking down on fraud and abuse. Want proof? Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's budgets keep those cuts. Mitt Romney - does he even know what's in his own budget? What else are they hiding?"
- Nari224
August 15, 2012 at 2:54pm
Incidentally, I think rriley makes a good point above regarding how this was done -- the better plan would have been for the president to surround himself with a bunch of highly visible GOP governors when making the announcement.
- ironyroad
August 15, 2012 at 3:01pm
Agreed, Nari. And in the ad call Romney a liar, outright. Then in the debates when R puffs himself up and asks indignantly how the president could be so base as to use the L-word in an ad, Obama puts on his trash-talking, basketball court smirk that he does so well and says, "Mitt, take a good look at yourself. A liar is a person who makes a habit of telling lies. At stump speeches here, here and here you said this. It was a lie. At speeches here, here and here you said that. It was also a lie. Anyone with an Internet connection can research these statements of yours and know they are lies. So, unless you can persuade us that you didn't say those things--and you can't because they're captured on video--I'm gonna continue to call you a liar. I say, if the shoe fits, wear it."
- AaronW
August 15, 2012 at 3:10pm
There's another nearby TNR article about Wesley Clark and "reality show" war. How about Romney fighting in a real war? Or how about instead of all the expense, commotion, and bother of a real election, we have Romney and Obama fight to the death, in the nude, on national television? Or tag team style with the VP candidates? Who needs truth, when we can have gladiator games instead. The next year we can have a riot at the United Nations, to replace all wars.
- skahn
August 15, 2012 at 8:32pm
"With Romney and welfare, there is nothing but pure, cynical fabrication out of nothing." Shows how bankrupt their campaign. I heard some of these Republicans say that people with disabilities are "welfare cases." I would like to see Obama/Biden bring this up during the debates. Thank goodness for Biden. The guy knows how to fight.
- arnon1
August 15, 2012 at 9:23pm
I'll bet some of the people with disabilities were coal miners.
- Sophia
August 15, 2012 at 11:05pm
I would imagine most miners after a lifetime underground will end up with some kind of serious disability if they are lucky to come our alive.
- arnon1
August 16, 2012 at 12:07am
Democrats tilt or shade the truth in political ads; Republicans, especially at the national level, simply make up lies out of nothing. What wasn't mentioned in the article is that, since whites still outnumber all other races combined in America (by a fast-dwindling margin), MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE ARE WHITE. I saw a documentary last year about a Mormon-offshoot cult leader. He bragged about fathering 125 children, and "more are on the way." How does he support almost all of his children? THEY'RE ON WELFARE! Why doesn't somebody tell these white idiots who cheer Romney's lies this simple truth? They must know that they still outnumber non-whites. But I don't think the truth would matter to them. They don't want to think. They just want to resent somebody. And they can't resent the group they belong to. Romney has become a demagogue. Southern Democrats used to be good at that. Now it's the GOP's turn. And now it's nationwide.
- magboy47.
August 16, 2012 at 12:07am
There's another thing - the right is divided between guys who look like Romney and working class or poor white guys. The latter haven't yet figured out the former. They better, asap.
- Sophia
August 16, 2012 at 12:57am
Sophia, There are a lot of white working class women on the Right, too. I've met a lot of them in my life. They can be just as nasty and mean-spirited as the men.
- magboy47.
August 16, 2012 at 2:22am
Thanks magboy for your comment. I had the stats ready to post to make the point. Statistics vary, but you have it spot on. Readers can google "Percentage of welfare recipients who are white" and choose their favoriate sources. The vast majority a r e white.
- kras
August 16, 2012 at 3:09am