If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.
Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.
Mitt Romney last week declared his belief that “all moms are working moms,” but he insisted as recently as January that women on welfare need to get jobs, even if they have young children.
Romney defended his wife, Ann, a stay-at-home mother, on Friday after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said earlier in the week that Ann Romney is unqualified to speak for women’s economic concerns because she “has actually never worked a day in her life.”
Romney, himself, has said the “all moms are working moms” argument does not apply to mothers who accept welfare assistance.
“Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work,” Romney said at a Jan. 4 campaign stop in Manchester, N.H., describing his position as Massachusetts governor. “And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’ ”
Take for example Newt Gingrich’s ad attacking Romney for allegedly expanding access to abortion.
Respected journalists Lori Robertson and Robert Farley at Factcheck.org concluded that it was “highly misleading” for Gingrich’s ad to state that Romney “expanded access to abortion pills.”
The “abortion pills” in question are what most people would call “contraception.” Known as “Plan B” or morning-after pills, they are high-dose birth-control pills that can prevent a fertilized egg (or zygote) from thriving in the uterus. In 2005, Romney allowed expanded access to Plan B in Massachusetts.
Factcheck.org reported that because “abortion” was not actually involved, but instead “contraception” pills, then Romney cannot be credibly accused of expanding access to abortion.
I personally would agree with Factcheck.org, and its conclusion is in keeping with current law, but Romney himself would not agree.