Mitt Romney’s ads attacking President Obama for a plan to “gut welfare reform” have been criticized by independent fact checkers but, fair or not, their message is resonating with some swing-state voters who say they’ve worked hard for a living and won’t support a president who they believe would enable free riders.
In its original welfare ad launched last week, and in two sequels, the Romney campaign asserts that Obama “has a long history of opposing work for welfare” and that last month, he waived the federal work requirement on people who receive welfare benefits.
Comments
Not a valid news article. all ads by Romney against Obama meet and exceed accuracy and ethical standards set by Obama and democrats. end of story.
*****What's good for the goose is good for the gander****************You reap what you sow*****live by the sword, die by the sword****************One man's truth is another man's lie**********Back at ya**********"I thought you said your dog didn't bite? Not my dog, man.***********************
Every ad, every remark from the repubs lately has been designed to foster an attitude that "they are not like us". When questionedin Iowa this week, Rather than answer, Ryan yelled to the crowd that the questioner must not be a good Iowan. Both he and Willard make me sick.
Pants on fire! Again, these guys can't seem to make a point without lying. Evil swine.
As with many things, the use of this ad could be worth arguing if the writer hadn't destroyed his credibility by making it into a racial issue. Yes, it shows Obama's face: that's who it's talking about! And, all those ads from past Democrat campaigns showing Bush's face? Were they meant to remind everyone that he is white, in order to..... what? The racism thing is so old. I guess that's all their side has anymore.
"democratic"
I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden. Along with the sunshine, There's gotta be a little rain sometimes. When you take, you gotta give, so live and let live, Or let go. I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden. I could promise you things like big diamond rings, But you don't find roses growin' on stalks of clover. So you better think it over. Well, if sweet-talkin' you could make it come true, I would give you the world right now on a silver platter, But what would it matter? So smile for a while and let's be jolly: Love shouldn't be so melancholy. Come along and share the good times while we can.
I feel Barbara258 is ignoring some points made in the article relative to the "racial angle." Professor Mendelberg made clear that it's not just showing the President's face per se which is at issue. A precedent for "coded" advertising would be the "rejection" ad the late Senator Jesse Helms employed against his opponent, Harvey Gantt, in 1990.
This piece raises a fascinating question for me: Do viewers really uncritically believe "attack" ads? (Think of Team Romney's welfare ad or Team Obama's ad about the dying woman.) Although reputable fact checkers have been working overtime to debunk ad claims from both campaigns, I find it interesting voters give such pieces credence to begin with. I always keep in mind Ronald Reagan's famous mantra: trust, but verify.
Cogito: if voters were that smart, we wouldn't have a problem to begin with! :) but then I come from a generation that remembers voters falling for the "Goldwater wants to nuke children playing in a daisy field" ad. I hear that the cancer-woman ad HAS brought Romney's numbers down.
Typical Republican class warfare ploy...pit the middle class against the lower class while cheating them both. This is the strategy and sometimes it works other times it doesn't.