Pants On Fire Analysis

677 Words3 Pages Homework investigated a statement made by a former republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 in a convention speech that Obama is ending work requirement in welfare. This statement that was made several occasions in the past on the campaign trail by then Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney too. Background Summary The claim that Mr Obama was gutting or ending the work requirement in welfare was often sited in many prominent republican speeches during the course of the 2012 campaigns and politifact gave it a “Pants on fire” "This summer he showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare," Santorum said Tuesday in a speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. "I helped write the welfare reform bill; we made the law crystal clear -- no president can waive the work requirement. But as with his refusal to enforce our immigration laws, President Obama rules like he is above the law." Politifact gave this statement a “Pants on fire” rating because researchers found the claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By…show more content…
Mr Santorum knew this was a distorted statement as he had voted for the bill when Congress passed landmark welfare reform legislation in 1996 as then a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. The Republican National committee (RNC) realized it was a powerful statement that would move voters as evidenced by Ashley O'Connor a strategist with the RNC was quoted saying "Our most effective ad is our welfare ad,” Another statement made by Romney pollster Mr.Neil Newhouse. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” meaning they knew the statement they were putting out there was wrong, but went ahead

More about Pants On Fire Analysis

Open Document