“Did you hear? Mitt Romney killed his wife. At least, that’s what they’re saying…”
I was intrigued to see how my home town paper, The Washington Post, dealt with the latest lower-than-low and Nixonian attack on Romney from Team Obama, the “Mitt Romney killed my wife” ad.
If you have been asleep this week or just in the bathroom vomiting over what “Hope and Change” mutates into when it’s time to pay the piper, the TV ad by pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action features Joe Soptic, a steelworker who claims that Romney is responsible for the death of his wife, because Romney’s company, Bain Capital, shut down his steel plant. The facts of Soptic’s case, however, are not in dispute: Mitt Romney left Bain in 1999 to work on the Olympics. Jonathan Lavine, now a top Obama campaign fundraiser, was running the company when it closed the GST Steel plant where Soptic worked in 2001. Soptic was, he now admits, offered a buy-out by Bain, but declined it. He then took another job but declined to purchase his employer’s insurance plan. Soptic’s wife had her own health insurance plan through 2003. In 2006, seven years after Romney gave up the management of Bain, Soptic’s wife was diagnosed with very late-stage cancer, after being misdiagnosed earlier, and died shortly thereafter.
Based on this, Joe Soptic alleges that Mitt Romney killed his wife. He is either lying, or he is nuts. But the point is that he is willing to say it on camera, and has a sad face. That is enough, you see, to justify calling Mitt Romney a murderer.
As with the Bush campaign in 2004, which refused to condemn the unfair attacks on candidate John Kerry’s military record from an outside group*, Obama’s White House. a.k.a President Obama, has similarly been willing to accept the benefits of this outrageous smear against Romney without taking responsibility for it, though there is some credible evidence of coordination between Obama’s campaign and Priorities USA Action. Even reliable Democratic flack Lanny Davis, whose business is helping the party in political battles, has stated that the Soptic ad crosses all lines of fairness and decency. Coming on the heels of Sen Harry Reid’s hearsay claim that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes for a decade and the accusation by President Barack Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter (whose fingerprints are also on the Soptic ad) that Romney commited a “felony” by supposedly misrepresenting his position at Bain while he was running the Olympics, it is clear that the Obama campaign effort has fully embraced Big Lie tactics in its effort to convince half-aware voters that Romney is some kind of rogue criminal. It may be an effective strategy—I’d vote for an incompetent leader over a criminal one—but it’s also an insult to the public and the democratic process.
So how did the Post respond to the movement of the Obama campaign to the Dark Side? With this: a page two story about how both parties are employing “provocative ads.” This is a false equivalency if there ever was one: Romney’s attack ad about Obama’s fiddling with welfare requirements is provocative; the Soptic ad is slander. The Democrats have correctly calculated that the mainstream media will hold Republicans to a tougher standard of honesty and fairness in campaign ads, so outright lies, like the Soptic ad, are represented in the press as equivalent to Romney ads “taking the President’s words out of context.” This is an institutional acceptance of the corruption and deception of political campaigns, with a trap: any Romney ad approaching the Soptic smear in utter disregard for the facts would be the target of an all-out media assault.
Does the Obama-promoting media see anything unseemly, alarming or depressing in the fact that a President whose sole justification for his election to the highest office in the land—given that he had less leadership, management or governing experience than Sarah Palin, and any U.S. President since John Adams—was his promise to bring integrity, honesty, unity, civility and fairness to the government, now that his lack of governing skills have been completely exposed, has abandoned all of those high ideals in order to hold power?
Apparently not.
Meanwhile, conservatives and Republicans, seeing the media endorse a double standard in which politics-as -usual Republican deceit will be countered by Democratic Big Lie slander and called equivalent, are going rapidly mad in frustration, and preparing scurrilous attacks of their own, like the idiotic “Harry Reid is a pederast” meme, that will further degrade the campaign and their own credibility.
I’m not saying that this tag-team alliance between the Obama re-election effort and the biased mainstream media isn’t smart or won’t work. I am saying it is unethical and contemptible, and that any President who allows himself to be re-elected this way is unworthy of the office.
* The so-called “Swiftboating” ads, which Democrats and the media rightly condemned, and which have become the model for Obama’s re-election campaign attacks.
__________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Fox
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
The “killed my wife” video is as bad as you say, although it hasn’t run as a paid ad–only on the internet and by the talk shows. But I don’t understand how you can call the workfare ad provocative. It’s an absolute lie–one that Romney has repeated over and over.
Add to that the lie that Obama is trying to eliminate early voting for veterans in Ohio. And the lie that he said “you didn’t build that” in reference to small business.
I hate the Soptic ad, too, but I disagree that it accuses Romney of murder. It accuses him of not caring, and I think that’s a debatable point–evidenced by his choice of running mate.
The ‘you didn’t build that’ comment was clearly a reference to the small business. If he had been referencing the roads, schools, and other infrastructure he would used the plural ‘those’. So the statement would have been, ‘you didn’t build those’. Why do you not believe he meant what he said, it’s not like he has issued a correction or anything.
Obama’s “you didn’t build that” was either a crazy denigration of entrepreneurs or a stunningly inarticulate statement of the obvious. I agree it was the latter, as I wrote in the post on the topic. But nobody can call the other interpretation “a lie.” It was Obama’s gaffe, and he’s supposed to be a wordmaster and a genius (he’s not, but that what the media is always telling us). It’s fair to hold him to the phony standard he allows himself to be crowned with. Similarly, Romney’s “Corporations are people too” line was 100% legitimate, but he said it carelessly, and if his opponents spin it, its his own fault. Politics ain’t beanbag. It is NOT his fault that Mrs. Soptic died, however.
Jan. Really. Be fair. The ad accuses him directly of being complicit in the woman’s death, and he was not. How can a story about a woman Romney didn’t know, dying for reasons that had nothing to do with Romney, be told for the purpose of accusing him of not caring? How can he care about something he doesn’t know about? How can he care about something he has no control over? What possible policy or act would have saved this woman, under the actual facts? It might as well accuse me of not caring…I had as much ability to save Joe’s wife as Mitt did. None.
I disagree. It does not accuse him of complicity in her death. It accuses him of being in a business where the bottom line rules. And that’s what venture capitalism is. I don’t believe he cares collectively about the people who work in the companies Bain takes over. What he does care about is the shareholders (him being the main one) and the return on their investment. And, surprisingly enough, I don’t fault him for this. I just don’t want a President who runs the country like a business.
Well, then, continue to have the country run by someone who has no idea how to run the country like a business. Like it or not, the US government, with a budget of $2.4 trillion is the biggest business the world has ever known, and it makes ZERO sense to have an amateur running it.
First, the Post called BOTH ads provocative, because they felt it relieved them of the obligation to call the “killed my wife” unforgivable. But you can’t think that Romney’s ad on workfare, which is an exaggeration with some provocation, is anywhere in the same universe as the Soptic ad. I do think Obama’s waivers regarding welfare reform potentially undermines it, though not now, as the ad implies. At least someone could mount an argument that thge ad is fair and accurate, which cannot be done with the Soptic ad. Yes, I think they are both dishonest. In my view, the Romney ad isn’t close to as dishonest as the Obama Bain series and the Soptic smear. You disagree?
Absolutely. Nothing in the HHS letter even opens the possibility of waiving the work requirement. Nada!
Specifically, “to improve employment outcomes,” HHS would exercise its Section 1115 waiver authority to “waive compliance” with Section 407 and authorize states to adopt different “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.” What does this sound like to you?
Sounds like you’re cherry-picking. Here’s the paragraph that you quoted part of, and the one following:
“Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
“Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base.”
The matter is what discretion HHS has in interpretation, and there is cogent argument that this is limited, viz. in part:
“The questions that HHS’s actions raise, however, are (1) whether the Secretary possesses authority from some other statutory source to excuse states accepting TANF funding from full compliance with Section 407’s requirements and (2), if so, whether that authority is limited by any other provision. As to the first question, HHS points to Section 1115’s waiver authority, but as is discussed below, that provision cannot be read to reach Section 407. As to the second, even if Section 1115 were found, standing alone, to authorize the waiver of Section 407’s requirements, it may still be trumped by the more specific language of Section 415, which arguably precludes the waiver of work requirements and, in any case, confirms Congress’s intention that Section 407’s work requirements not be subject to waiver.
This is discussed in detail here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived
Bob’s right, and a more objective analysis can be found at Factcheck.org. which states that the new rules do not gut welfare reform. Both Republican and Democratic governors have asked for more flexibility. Jack has a point that the potential is there for abuse, but even the Republican who helped write the welfare reform bill says there is no incentive to put less people to work. Once again, Romney can’t decide what he believes, because he signed a letter in 2005 along with other Republican governors asking for more flexibility. The ad is misleading, if not an outright lie.
The ad is misleading, and, I would say, unfair.
Romney’s letter while governor is not applicable, however—he was serving as an advocate with a particular state constituency then; there is no reason why he should be bound by positions he took as Mass governor.
Next we’ll read your ethics column on Romney’s Super PAC ads, distortions and lies, right?
When it does something as outrageous as this, you can bet on it. Or you can go commiserate with the right-wingers who said I was in the tank for Harry Reid and Obama last weekend.
But the post was about the media treating an outrageous Big Lie the same as typical attack ad exaggeration and deceit.
And less experience than Sarah Palin? Wow! A mayor of a small town? Barely two years as governor? Trained as a sports journalist? Yeah she was more qualified to be president than Obama. Suuuuure! How about her not sticking to issues and all she did was make accusations? She said she was good enough for foreign relations just because she thought she could see Russia from her place. She has cashed in on her sudden celebrity as well as her family has. And being a celebrity in Alaska doesn’t count. Yeah right! Palin being more experienced than Obama? Ok. Next you will say that Bachmann is more ethical than the Obama campaign. Her accusations are worse than Harry Reid’s. She is tearing at the American fabric of this country making her accusations. She is also a liar in my book.
Obama had less experience than Sarah Palin. You can’t spin that, it’s true. He had no executive experience whatsoever. Every thing else you say is irrelevant.
‘A mayor of a small town? Barely two years as governor? ‘
How long was Obama a mayor or governor of anywhere?
Slightly off-topic; after the right-wing invasion last week, it’s almost refreshing to see you go back to verbally sparring with the center-left.
Now we see why so many conservatives are willing to practice the “fool’s golden rule” .
I wonder why you did not include this in your directory for answers For the “Instalanche” on “Funny! But Wrong: The “Harry Reid Is A Pederast” Rumor”.
I mean, do you really think the “Harry Reid is a pederast” was NOT a sarcastic, satirical response to his idiotic and unfounded charge about Romney?
Oh my….another person attributing Tina Fey’s SNL skit remark to Palin-
‘she thought she could see Russia from her place. ‘ No, she did not say that….
No…ha ha….She didn’t say those exact words. She was asked by Charlie Gibson what insight she had into Russia from the state of Alaska’s proximity. She said they were neighbors and that in some places in Alaska they could actually see Russia. But how does seeing the land of Russia have anything to do with diplomatic relations with Russia? I’ve seen many countries from within and outside the borders including Russia but it wouldn’t make me automatically knowledgable about them. She answered in a way that made her sound like she knew Russia because of her state’s proximity. She was trying to prove her credibility of foreign relations. She failed miserably. And it didn’t take the liberal media to show that to me. She did it on her own. I liked her up until that point.
Was Palin’s statement simply an opening comment, a folksy one, perhaps, but one to be followed by the “meat” of the answer that she was never allowed to give because she was cut off by Gibson? In the early stages of her exposure to the national press sharks, was she simply naive in how to phrase a proper “sound bite?” Just asking.
You’re being frantically defensive, Michael. I said the man was elected without experience, which is true. I mentioned Palin because her lack of experience was harped upon by the press, but she had more experience executive office than Obama in. Pointing out all the ways you think Palin is inferior to Obama is completely tangential to the statement. The experience comparison was accurate; I was saying no more regarding the two.
The larger point is that in the absence of experience, Obama was elected in 2008 almost entirely based on his appeal to idealism, specifically honesty, integrity, unity, civility and fairness…and he has abandoned those nearly completely in his campaign tactics. The press is obligated to take notice of that; instead, it is hiding it.
Rehashing Palin’s misadventures with Charlie and Katie get you nowhere. She’s not running.
Yeah, so what? Every other politician has their every word scrutinized. I don’t want a story on what or what you can see from anywhere. I want to know how you did or would handle diplomatic relations. She didn’t have the experience to answer correctly. That is why…. just because she was a mayor and a hard working mayor who put her city of 6500 in debt doesn’t prove to me that she has enough experience to top Mr Obama.
Did you forget she was governor, too? Why not look to that track record for experience as an executive, as a “community organizer” of a whole state?
Only two years. Where is the loyalty to the state? Sounds self serving to me.
About the same loyalty as the young senator from Illinois, i imagine.
The governor of Alaska gets specific briefings about Russia because of it’s proximity to Alaska.
If she had vital or specific briefings, I think she should be able to answer a question better than how she did.
Oh by the way, Mr Obama has nearly 4 more years more experience as the president now. What does that prove? Nothing.
Right, years spent do not equal wisdom acquired. Just allows everyone to see what a person does with the challenges they face, for those that, thanks to the sycophantic press, were unaware of the gory background details and affiliations that would have allowed us to predict exactly what we got.
What backgound details or affiliations? Are we going back to Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers again? I’ve seen several politicians affiliated with people they never said they agreed with. Really? You are going to acknowlede that every politician elected to office regardless of party doesn’t have some shady acquaintances? Next you’re going to say that torture is a neccessary option to get vital information. And loyalty… where is Mr Obama self serving, At least he wrote his book before he campaigned? He didn’t have much before politics. He wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He recognizes that he wouldn’t be where he is today without his teachers and support.
Proverbs 26:4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.