They accepted this “evidence,” even though it was after-the-fact spin from a government agency desperately trying to escape the political landmine it had just triggered. Moreover, the 20% “requirement” was grasped from thin air and backed by no law or rule. These uber-journalists did so without skepticism, even though (1) Obama has greatly expanded the entitlement state, making it plausible that he would roll-back a reform that had the opposite effect; (2) the Administration had every incentive to say anything to make it seem as though the key provision of a popular and bi-partisan reform bill was not being undone by bureaucratic fiat (the word “waiver” could not more perfectly support Romney’s position); (3) no other president has tried such a gimmick in the 16 years since the reform law passed; (4) Obama himself had expressed disapproval of the law when it was passed; and, (5) HHS is full of policymakers whose opposition to the law is well-known.

The Heritage Foundation did some actual work, and explained why the 20% figure is not meaningful. It is likely to increase on its own with economic improvement, and the most sure-fire way for states to meet this “requirement” (and get the waiver) is to put more people on welfare (an alternative is to marginally improve records keeping).

If you still think that this war of words, over a policy yet to be enacted, is something that is easily subject to a four point scale, justifying the publication of statements that a major political candidate is a “liar” (or something akin to that), you’re one of two things: (1) grossly overconfident in your ability to decide political arguments with empirical certainty or (2) in the tank for Obama. I don’t discount the possibility that you are both.

This is exactly why careful journalists don’t go around calling politicians liars without something rock solid. I think a traditional journalist could have easily written about this in an even-handed manner, and left the decision about who is right up to the voters. And, in an instance like this, where there is no real “right” answer (it’s really a debate about how expansive you want the welfare state to be), that’s exactly where the decision making should occur.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/ending-work-for-welfare-bogus-measures-of-success

This is what it would take to prove that kind of claim:
http://voices.yahoo.com/who-worse-democrats-republicans-7584038.html?cat=9

And this is one of the routine sources of antagonism in politics. Each side gets outraged at the other side’s name-calling, but not their own, and then they call for the OTHER side to uphold civil debate, even as they ignore it themselves. This doesn’t inspire civility, it only inspires further outrage at the hypocrisy of your opponent’s call for civility and makes things worse.

The call for civil debate has become empty rhetoric:
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-empty-rhetoric-civil-debate-8601909.html

Is there any politician out there who will openly criticize members of their own party (or even themselves) for resorting to name-calling?