One should believe Bill Clinton in anything?
The Romney people might do well to avoid trying to use anything Clinton ever said or did because Clinton can turn any truth into a lie with a lot more expertise than their ad people can muster in telling either.
One trusts they have learned their lesson.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us for the 247th time, shame on us.
That ad indeed has to be one of the most “misleading” political ads I have ever seen. Republicans are always going around saying they want to give states more flexibility. And Obama is giving states more flexibility to move more people from welfare to work. He does not simply want to hand out welfare checks. The states are not exempt from requiring work in their plans. I wonder if the ad was partly meant to drive a wedge between Clinton and Obama. Obviously it didn’t work in that regard. Perhaps Bill Clinton will have more to say when he speaks about it at the Democratic Convention. And I pray the American voter comes to see what this ad really is.
Newt Gingrich probably pushed harder for welfare reform than Clinton did
I think it would be so much easier to evaluate the EO, Romney’s (or the superPac’s) claims against the EO, or Obama’s defense of the EO…
if we could read the original EO!
But it is not posted at the White House website.
Does anyone have a link to the actual document in question?
A good analysis of the ad is provided here:
The article cites Romney as among eight GOP governors who in 2005 said that “increased waiver authority” and other features of a Senate bill were “important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.” He was governor of Massachusetts at the time.
In other words, Romney is attacking Obama for making policy decisions that he and other Republican governers requested in 2005. Hypocricy? No more than Republican criticism of Obama’s health care reforms, including the individual mandate.
More misleading than “Romney killed my wife?” (7 years later…)
Overall, I thought Phyllis Schlafly had a nice article from this morning on the welfare changes being made by the Obama administration.
“Obama Sabotages The Republicans’ Welfare Reform Of 1996”
As I recall, the GOP pulled Clinton kicking and screaming into the act. He was opposed to it. Thank goodness for the GOP. Whether the ad is totally truthful or not, I will leave to others. But after the ad against Romney which is a total fabrication and a shameless attempt to damage his character, they deserve what they get. I am just sorry that the GOP seems too timid to really let Obama have it.
That’s my recollection as well. Same with Clinton’s (only mildly fabricated) “balanced budget”. He battled Repubs against that numerous times; shut down the government, etc. I think it was only when he just simply thought he couldn’t avoid such things that he gave in on them and claimed credit for them. He was good at that.
Really? That’s pretty short-sighted of you.
Isn’t it possible to see the problem with false ads on both sides? :shrug:
Without any perspective at all one loses credibility and simply becomes an ideologue.
Well said and totally accurate.
It makes me wonder who is helping him with his campaign. He should know better than to mess with the “Big Dog”. It seems that many republicans are scratching their heads and wondering who’s in charge.
I wonder what the Thursday gaffe will be. it seems to be a daily occurence. Now, even Rush has had it. Oh wait, I’m hearing from Ann Coulter too. Not good.
Yes even more misleading than that one. I’ve known people who have succumbed to the dreaded disease of cancer within mos. I’ve known others who have survived yrs. A family member for 6 or 7 yrs. A friend for 10 or 11 yrs. Those two had good health care coverage though from what I know. Others become cancer free with adequate care. And that one was not an Obama campaign ad but an outside PAC one. The welfare ad is an actual Romney campaign ad. And while I’m not going to defend the way the outside group’s ad was presented, the woman for instance had health coverage of some type thru her own work until she lost her job too. But at least it didn’t come out and directly say “Romney killed my wife” even if that’s what you or I or another might read as it’s implication. So if that’s all you get from that ad, you entirely miss the point of how corporate greed can affect and harm families, causing them to lose health care insurance for instance. It depicts the feelings of her husband. The Romney welfare ad OTOH actually falsely states the Obama plan ends welfare work requirements. So yes I give it an extra pinochio.
Ad from Romney is not misleading. Clinton is speaking at the DNC convention, he has an interest in defending Obama, he vetoed welfare twice before signing, he is not non partisan. Washington Post gave 4 pinnochios, they are biased, they have been against welfare reform and opposed Clinton when he signed it into law. PolitiFact quotes ‘left leaning Centre of Budget and Policy Priorities’ and they say, ‘the center supports the plan.’ Biased.
The bill Clinton signed specifically said you have to be employed in a job to collect welfare, and it specifically says you can not change or expand the definition of work beyond what is in the bill. Obama, likely illegally, expanded this to mean job education, training, apprenticeships, all sorts. Clinton welfare reform took power back from the states and Obama said you may consider work if it is training, going back to school etc. Specifically lists what the states may do. Obama’s changes empower states to do a list of specific activities that replace work which guts the key part of the welfare bill, it changes the welfare bill. Obama’s changes may be repealed in court
As good a defense of the complaints against the ad as I have seen so far.
And, of course, “corporate greed” had nothing whatever to do with the woman’s death.
Romney ad gets four pinnochios.
And before the “doesn’t count because they’re liberal” get’s thrown out there. The Obama super-pac ad also gets. . . . . four pinnochios.
Both the Romney and the Obama super-pac ad are grossly inaccurate.
Let’s be fair and not show ourselves to be ideologues here, for the words of ideologues are hollow and empty.