By now we expected to have published our Marco Rubio VP article (that will be our next article). But the obsession this week has been ads. The outrage has built up all week from all sides. “The Romney campaign has really taken “lying” to a “new level,” or something” say the Hopium Guzzlers. But the lying liars are on the Obama side with a truly despicable ad.
The ad is a knot of lies produced by the SuperPac that Barack Obama asks his supporters to flood with donations and run by the deputy press flack in the Obama White House press corpse [sic]. In order to deflect from that bog of lies, the one that even MSNBC is critical of (watch the video: Mika Brzezinski takes Obama campaign to task for lying about cancer ad), the Obama thugs are whining about a new Romney ad.
The Romney ad is brilliant (notice the usual tag line “Obama isn’t working” takes on added resonance here) and entirely predictable. We predicted it more than three years ago. Moreover, the Romney campaign wisely took our advice and is using Bill Clinton liberally in its ads.
Here’s what we wrote in March of 2009 in our article called Tax And Spend Obama Dimocrats:
“Real Democrats understand the need for fiscal responsibility. Real Democrats remember the recession Bill Clinton inherited and how Bill Clinton restored genuine confidence to consumers and genuine fiscal responsibility by paying the bills on time. Bill Clinton did not waste money as policy nor did Bill Clinton ignore the debilitating effects of endless deficits and growing debt.
After Bill Clinton Republicans could no longer attack Democrats as “tax and spend” wastrels. After Bill Clinton Republicans had to retire attacks on “welfare queens”. Bill Clinton enacted responsible fiscal policy and deprived Republicans of their most useful and effective epithets against Democrats.
Now Republicans are calling back to active service those ugly epithets because they describe the Obama economic “plans” with precision.”
Our prediction/warning to Obama Dimocrats, like Cassandra to Agamemnon, has once again proved deadly on target. Mitt Romney’s campaign brilliantly brings to life our predicted deadly attack:
Ed Kilgore, one of those “creative class” types that hoodwinked the Democratic Party with the “demographic destiny” hokum that led Democratic Party “leaders” to gift Obama the nomination in 2008, typically shouts racism in his article “Romney’s Utterly Mendacious (and Effective) New ‘Welfare Queen’ Attack“:
“Americans tend to admire the working poor, so this tack tends to produce an ambivalent reaction beyond the GOP’s conservative base. But by shifting its focus to the old conservative target of non-working “welfare bums,” the Romney campaign is on safer ground, assuming, as you should, that they don’t care if the ad reopens the racial wounds and grievances that welfare reform appeared to partially lay to rest. A line from a memo released by Romney campaign policy director Lanhee Chan in defense of the ad makes its intended audience very plain, calling the imaginary new Obama welfare policy “a kick in the gut to the millions of hard-working middle-class taxpayers struggling in today’s economy, working more for less but always preferring self-sufficiency to a government handout.” It’s the ancient “welfare queen” meme designed to encourage the non-college educated white voters whose maximum support Romney needs to overcome its exceptional weakness among minority and more highly-educated voters to see in Obama all the old hobgoblins that drove them out of the Democratic coalition to begin with.
It may be a sign of Romney’s weakness that he and his team are now willing to openly play with such racial and cultural dynamite. Or maybe it was the idea all along.”
The charge of racism is the cure-all to Obama disasters from the witless. When Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform legislation, after vetoing it repeatedly until it contained the changes he wanted (changes he espoused when running for president and as governor of Arkansas), he was denounced by those who now huddle at DailyKooks and other such methane swamps. Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton’s frenemy recalls:
“During the congressional debate, “the left-wingers who were opposed to a work-requirement screamed ‘racism!’ and jumped up and down,” he said, because they have “a deep, deep, bitter opposition to work requirements.”
But Newt Gingrich has a more important, more historically relevant, more precise explanation of why the Obama “welfare queen” dance is an honest depiction of the state of the law:
“To prevent regulatory loopholes, conservatives wrote a stringent “non-waivable” section into the 1996 law requiring welfare recipients to actually work, Gingrich said. They also defined work narrowly to exclude then-approved “work activities, including bed-rest [and] getting a massage,” he said.
The progressives’ ideological opposition to work requirements means that when Obama “unilaterally issues a work-waiver… our immediate assumption is that he is setting up a dramatic reduction in the work requirement,” Gingrich said.
“It is not just that Obama is a radical – the people he appoints are even more radical,” Gingrich added. “The secretary of HHS is radical… Why would any Americans believe [that] she’s going to enforce a work requirement?”
Obama’s push to relax work-to-welfare rules are part of a desire to make Americans dependent on government, Gingrich said.
“We believe in work and education, they believe in food stamps and dependency,” Gingrich said.”
Tough words but Newt is correct about the “stringent “non-waivable” section” of the 1996 law. It’s a concept that somehow evades the Obama lovelorn such as John Heileman:
Section 407. It’s a “non-waivable” requirement of the law. John Heileman’s vocabulary apparently does not include the meaning of “non-waivable” or “work requirement”.
Is it any wonder that Mitt Romney’s campaign and Mitt Romney himself has pounced on this delicious feast? None.
We saw it coming in 2009 because it was so obvious even then. Republicans had been deprived by Bill Clinton of the “welfare queen” attack. But Barack Obama waltzed right into the trap, tiara firmly on his head.
The “welfare queen” trap was not dug by Republicans or conservatives. Barack Obama “welfare queen” was the gown chosen by Barack himself to wear.
As noted in the above video, Bill Clinton, ever ready to tout his genuine and positive accomplishments as president, issued a tepid/soft and longish statement in response to the ad. The Romney campaign turned that email into gold:
“President Obama was a vocal opponent of the innovative, bipartisan welfare reforms that President Clinton and a Republican Congress passed in 1996. His administration has now undermined the central premise of those reforms by gutting the welfare-to-work requirement. Unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney has a record of fighting to strengthen work requirements. As president, he will ensure that nearly sixteen years of progress aren’t erased with one stroke of a pen.”
Notice how smart Newt undermines Barack Obama by effusive praise of Bill Clinton? That’s now it’s done. As Newt in the video also documents Barack Obama is the anti-Clinton. “Everything Clinton tried to do…. Obama has undone” says Newt. (If this intelligent line of attack persists when Bill Clinton takes to the stage at the Obama Bank of America coronation what grand entertainments we are all in for.)
Mickey Kaus has a detailed account of the “welfare queen” dance. Kaus notes that the “firehose-like stream of defenses” by Barack Obama and his henchmen is based on the effectiveness of the attack.
As Politico bemoaned, the Romney campaign ad must sure have polled well. Who could have predicted that?