The day Mitt Romney cracked

Mitt Romney has a new TV ad, y’all.

Ordinarily I watch political ads more as an intellectual exercise than as anything I think might actually influence me, because they’ve just gotten so over the top. (Seriously, here – consider TV ads as nothing but starting points for you to do your own research into a candidate’s past votes/positions/statements/possible cult involvement.) But this one I noticed. And not in the usual “Hmm, I wonder which Super PAC is paying for this one” way. (For the record, this one says it’s paid for by the Republican National Committee, authorized by Romney himself.)

Called “Right Choice,” the ad focuses on a little-noticed policy change from last month regarding the administration of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, colloquially known as “welfare.” President Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform created TANF for states to administer themselves under a set of federal guidelines (as opposed to welfare administration coming from the federal level). For one thing, states are required to document that a percentage of welfare recipients are working or attempting to work, and that there are time limits on how long someone can qualify for welfare.

It’s a good thing that states have more flexibility to handle their own welfare programs, isn’t it? Republicans certainly thought so back in 1996, when Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott negotiated with Clinton – pressured him, really – to develop the reform act.

In fact, the Republican Governors Association pushed for even more flexibility in 2005, writing Congress a letter which said in part, “Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.” 29 Republican governors signed that letter… including Mitt Romney (back when he had a job).

This year, states have continued to ask the Department of Health and Human Services for more flexibility on things like what is classified as “work.” Again, this idea that states have different needs and circumstances, and therefore shouldn’t have to abide by one monolithic standard handed down by Washington – isn’t that idea fundamentally a conservative one?

So why, after HHS issued a memo on July 12 notifying states that HHS would be willing to grant waivers of some existing TANF requirements, does a Romney-approved TV ad claim that President Obama is personally dismantling the 1996 reforms? Here’s what the memo says:

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…The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families…Waiver requests must include an evaluation plan.

Basically, states asked the federal government if they could try new, possibly more efficient ideas that aren’t specifically listed in a 16-year-old reform law, and ONLY under the condition that any of these new ideas were as effective as what they’ve already been doing at transitioning welfare recipients to work. And the federal government said, sure. What HHS didn’t say is “If you guys want to just hand your TANF money to whoever, that’s cool.” So why does this Romney ad basically say that’s exactly what the Obama Administration is doing? Why, after criticism of the ad, is Romney doubling down on insisting that Obama’s trying to undo the 1996 reforms?

Either Romney can’t read, or he’s decided that digging up a memo from one government agency to others about a fairly minor policy change (that – AGAIN – these states had requested) is just the thing to make perhaps a whole 32 percent of Americans like him, instead of 31 percent.

When I first saw this ad last night, what I felt (aside from a “WTH” record-screech) was that this was it – that was the moment that I knew for sure that Romney is going to lose this election.

Yes, it’s early August, and elections don’t really heat up until after the nominating conventions a month from now. Yes, Mitt Romney hasn’t even announced his running mate, which (as 2008 showed) can totally change the game. Yes, Romney’s raising more money. Yes, it’s true that an awful lot can still happen between now and Nov. 6. And yes, Obama has a serious issue with the economy and Congressional gridlock on pretty much every domestic issue.

But when you as a candidate stake days of your messaging on an attack so flimsy it can be shot down with 90 seconds of Googling, it’s a sign of desperation. It’s just like in 2008 when the McCain campaign said “we have to start questioning Obama’s associations.” Watch that ad again. Romney’s not warning that changing TANF standards will raise federal expenses or something like that. He’s warning us that Obama wants to help those lazy poors take our hard-earned money. A memo accompanying the ad's release said that Obama "hopes states will consider approaches that remove work participation rate requirements all together." The HHS men doesn't say that, and more importantly, why would it? Why on earth would a president WANT people not to work? For Romney to suggest that of Obama is just insulting. Romney’s going full-on culture war, and with a 20-year-old issue at that. And that is NOT the move of a man who believes that his positions on the issues can win him the election.

The ad seems tailor-made to resonate with working-class white people, especially men. But a) Romney already has them, and b) the ad’s more profound effect will be to alienate everyone who’s not a working class white man with barely concealed race/class resentment issues, and there are many, many more of us. Also, independent voters absolutely hate shrill divisiveness bordering on paranoid delusion – just ask Sarah Palin, reality TV personality, why she’s not Sarah Palin, vice president.

America’s a different place then it was the last time the “welfare queen” myth actually helped someone get elected. This ad feels like an end-game move, the type of thing a campaign would whip out in the last week before the election to try and move the needle before the other side has a chance to refute it with actual facts. For the Romney campaign to go with this line of attack three months before Election Day, when there’s still plenty of time to point out what blazing BS it is… that’s just weird. But it’s the fact that Romney’s so emphatically planted himself in the fact-free camp, at the expense of voters who know better, that’s going to cost him the election.