Soooooo - did some advocate or operative actually propose responding to the Ann-Romney-Attack-Scandal (I kid) by raising the question of whether welfare Moms should be required to work?
Or did Chris Hayes decide on his own that it was important to expose an apparent inconsistency in the Romney world view? (A fair charge in this case.)
<object width='320' height='240'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl59.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201204150003'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl59.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201204150003' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='240'></embed></object>
Either way, the result may be more reinforcing of the already dominant organizing idea: people on welfare are irresponsible, and therefore perhaps we have to make them work or else they won't, etc. etc. etc. Hayes reveals this problem with his guests.
But, by highlighting the problem - he raised the issue. And now the bad frame is all over the web. Every progressive advocate repeating this wants to highlight the double standard. The problem is that too many people don't see it as a double standard at all.
Progressives can't win any battle by raising the topic of welfare as a defense -- particularly when the case requires agreeing that making welfare Moms work is a bad idea (even when it is).
Exception: Stack empty.