Anderson Cooper reports on an ad created by a pro-Obama super PAC that features a steelworker who was employed at a plant closed by Bain Capital. He appears to blame Mitt Romney for the death of his wife after he lost his health insurance when the plant was shut down.
In an interview with Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, Newt Gingrich acknowledged there is no proof to back up claims about President Obama's welfare policy in a controversial Romney ad.
The ad has been widely criticized for inaccurately stating Obama wants to "gut welfare reform" by "dropping work requirements." The narrator tells viewers, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Gingrich defended the ad and repeated a line similarly used by Romney in campaign speeches. "This is an administration which has maximized the increase in dependency, maximized the number of people on food stamps, maximized the effort to get people to rely on the government."
Mitt Romney surrogate Newt Gingich talked with Anderson tonight about the uproar over the Romney campaign ad that claims Pres. Obama is "gutting" welfare reform.
You may recall, back in 1996, when Gingrich was House Speaker he worked with Pres. Clinton to get welfare reform passed by Congress.
Fast-forward 16 years to today and there are accusations the Obama administration is trying to change the law.
"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check," the narrator of the ad says.
At issue is an Obama administration proposal sent in a memo last month that allows states to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."
Reporter's Note: I write to President Obama every day, and I have done so since he took office. I could have done it 15 years ago, but that would have been very peculiar.
Dear Mr. President,
As I continue touring colleges with my younger daughter, I want to speak in praise of merit scholarships. Yes, yes, I understand your dedication to the idea that many young people who cannot afford educations need encouragement. I quite agree. But there is also something to be said for encouraging those who are simply the smartest, most talented, and the most dedicated of our young people.
Think about it: Are athletic scholarships given because...oh say...some kid simply wants to play football and hasn't had the chance? No, and coaches all over the country would have strokes if you even suggested such a thing. We can argue about the right and wrong of athletic scholarships in general, but at this moment the fact remains that they are almost without exception handed out entirely on the basis of talent.
So why don't we see that with academics more often? Why do so many top schools seem to pride themselves on telling the best students that they off no aid whatsoever based on merit?
We speak a great deal in this country about urging on the best and the brightest, but when it comes to this critical link between high school and college, in too many cases we turn a blind eye. Simply put, if America wants to thrive; to continue developing excellence, innovation, and imagination; I think we need to reconsider this equation.
Yes, we should do what we can to help those who are struggling, but for our own nation's future, we must find ways to offer more recognition and encouragement to those who excel...no matter what kind of means they come from, or what financial need they may...or may not have.
Hope all is well with you. Call when you can. I'll be back in D.C. tonight.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with