Skip to comments.Romney's Relentless Push for Independents Waters Down His Welfare Reform Argument
Posted on 08/08/2012 7:50:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
RUSH: Okay, this gonna be one of those hard days. I have to tell you, I think that sound bite could have been so much better. Why is it important to say Bill Clinton and the Republicans who were in Congress at the time came together, bipartisan basis? It's this relentless push for independents which have abandoned Obama already, or at least they had. I don't know where they stand now. I think poll to poll they're still pretty much with Romney. And they did it on their own. You didn't have to promise independents bipartisanship or any of this other rotgut...
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
Romney is not pushing to enlarge his reach, he is pushing to replace the conservatives that he is trying to drive into irrelevance.
Anti-conservatism became his agenda early in his life, it was his parents crusade, and Mitt is bitter at the defeats and humiliations that his parents endured for their liberalism and lack of success in ousting the right from the GOP.
Reagan’s success was a bitter pill for the Romneys and Mitt formally left the Republican party in anti-Reagan disgust in 1979.
Just before reading your comment similar thoughts were running in my head.
Sarah Palin's not going to be at the convention (unless Romney's numbers dip to a point of desperation).
My advice is this:
Somebody from the right (like Sarah Palin) needs to leave the Republican party the day after the election (if Romney wins) and the next 4 years the possibility of being primaried in 2016 needs to be held over his head starting on Jan 20th 2013.
Some say, she (or nobody else would win as an indenpendent) the most they would do is split the ticket and allow whatever democrat who runs win the election against Romney in 2016.
Exactly! This time we need to rid this nation of Obama. In 2016 we need to bring conservatism back to the White House even if it means booting the fake conservatives out.
Liberals such as Romney who lie and claim to be Conservative do much more damage to the Conservative movement than any liberal honest about themselvs could ever do.
This damage is done by redefining what conservatism is.
2012 is not an election to teach the GOP a lesson because it's not the GOP vs democrat. It's socialism vs America.
Once Obama is gone, Romney needs to be the next to go unless some sort of miracle happens and he mysteriously becomes a conservative.
Conservative Republicans need to choose their "Independent" conservative candidate now for 2016 just in case that miracle does not happen.
2012 is a fight for conservatism in Congress. After that we're going to take the WH.
We may need to add on that extra insurance policy that he coud get Nadered from the right if he gets out of hand. And there can be no secret about it. It won't work if it's a secret. The mere threat could keep him in line.
It is odd that almost no republican voters know that Mitt DID leave the party, and that he became a financial supporter of democrats and a democrat fund raiser, and voted democrat in the early 1990s, only reregistering republican in October of 1993.
It is amazing what people do not know about him and his hatred of conservatives, a secret that the GOP kept pretty well.
Sorry. Sarah Palin and Conservatism is much better than that. I'm at the point already where I don't want her to speak there. She should have been the first choice. The fact that she was not is telling enough.
Palin has done much more for the Republican Party than Romney could ever think of doing. And for the Conservative movement, no comparison.
Better that Palin is not seen as part of this campaign or administration. She will be more valuable to us staying outside with the whip.
The bases are already decided. Romney has to go for indies to win, it’s that simple.
That said this welfare reform thing is a crock. Obama did not strip the work requirement. Reading is hard. And trust me my hate for Obama is quite real but this entire argument is b.s.
Lets make sure us conservatives push a lil harder on the break as we head over the cliff....
Agree for the long run, but in the meantime, Romney may need to bring a rock-ribbed conservative like Paul Ryan on the ticket to send a strong message about what kind of agenda he will have - else there may not be a Romney adminstration.
Im with you. TANF is in full effect. However, we do need another newer version of welfare reform. We need to change this crazy mentality. People need to get off their ass.
Well, Romney is out there making speeches and spreading that "crock" and "BS. Certainly not a good way to go after the Indy vote.
ROMNEY: "It was an extraordinary success. Back at that time, then Senator Obama was opposed to putting work together with welfare. Now he's president, and just a few days ago he put that original intent in place. With a very careful executive action he removed the requirement of work from welfare."
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich today made the following statement on President Obamas dismantling of bipartisan welfare reforms:
As an architect of the historic and bipartisan 1996 welfare reform bill, I am disturbed and angered that the Obama administration is undoing the acts central concept of a welfare-to-work requirement. The hugely successful reform saved billions for taxpayers.
More importantly, it began to dismantle the culture of dependency that welfare had fostered: two out of three people on welfare went to work or went to school. The Presidents decision to cater to the radical left wing of his party and undo welfare reform is one more reason why it is critical to defeat him at the polls this November.
Last week the Obama White House admitted the removal of the requirement of work from welfare. They blamed republican governors for requesting that it be removed.
Reading is hard, yes. But I'm willing to read what you have that proves Romney is spewing "crock" and BS" about Obama and Welfare Reform.
It would indeed be the first thing Obama did NOT do wrong if you can provide the reading material here.
“El Rushbo can stuff it. None of this comes as a surprise to conservatives who pay attention. He glossed over Romney’s warts during the primaries and is now pissing and moaning about what we have. Screw him.”
Dude, you should take notes from Rush if you ever want to be a popular conservative radio host. First, you help get RINOs into office by agreeing with their lies and letting the real candidates collapse. This way you can get fame and money from those who sit in the big chairs. Next, you win back your conservative audience by pretending to be outraged and taken by surprise by things that were either predictable or utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. This way you can have your cake and eat it too.
Obama, believe it or not, is giving more power to the states in this case. A fairly unbiased review is here:
People need to read the actual order.
I don’t think the Romney ad promises bipartisanship. It says welfare reform was a bipartisan achievment which Obama is dismantling. The goal is to paint Obama as an ultra liberal.
The Washington Post is not unbiased, and what Obama did was give democrat states the “power” to gut the welfare work requirement. Dick Morris was explaining this on tv tonight. One of the main purposes of the welfare reform law was to prevent exactly this.
If Romney chooses Paul Ryan it will be to shut him down - get him away from the budget and his austere cuts.
This latest thing -- concern trolling masquerading as show prep -- yesterday, Monday, and the Monday before it (it's actually getting to be a regular Monday feature). He's so put off by this Fluke thing and having to grovel a bit (FreedomWorks has notably, predictably stepped up into some prime air time).
Just needs to stop mailing in every third show...
The real outrage is not Palin’s exclusion but McCain’s INclusion as an RNC speaker. He proved he is an out-and-out traitor with his defense of the Muslim Brotherhood and attack on fellow Republicans trying to merely investigate MB ties to officials.
I do NOT trust you...you have only been here for 3 months. You must earn our trust....especially when you DEFEND OBAMA. Not a good start.
Yes, exactly. So the line, “gutting the work requirement” is not true. It’s more complicated than that. I support the original law and the federal rules on the work requirement. I do not support Obama’s executive order. That said, the argument needs to be framed correctly. When we dumb things like this down we open ourselves up to “they’re lying about this” and they would be half correct.
Appreciate your points, but they (Washington Post and Obama) are not even half correct. The Washington Post knows that Americans will be VERY upset to know the work requirement has been removed from welfare reform. So they have to come up with, well it’s left to the states.
This is federal welfare and the REQUIREMENT has been removed. States can now ignore it, and states want as much money flowing in to their people as they can get. So the states will allow people to get welfare without working. The work requirement by the federal government is gone.
In addition to paying off his supporters, Obama is doing this to remove more people from the work force, in an effort to reduce the official unemployment numbers.
Dick Morris explained the whole purpose of the welfare reform they negotiated was to create work requirements that the states could not get around. Welfare reform is now gone as is the work requirement.
As I further have heard it explained, this was illegal because the law was written in a way to prevent the executive from doing this. Obama is removing the requirement because he is allowed to adjust reports the states make to the federal government. Just because he can adjust their reporting requirements, he is using that to change not just what they report but the substance of what they are doing.
The Romney ad is completely accurate and further based on direct experience the existing work requirement already was being evaded.