Romney backtracks on argument that Obama made economy worse

MSNBC ^ | July 1, 2011 | Mark Murray and Matt Loffman

[ejdrapes]

Romney backtracks on argument that Obama made economy worse
By NBC's Mark Murray and Matt Loffman

Over the last few weeks, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has argued that President Obama's policies have made the economy worse.

Here was Romney in New Hampshire on Monday:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that's growing again, and the president's failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse.

And he said something similar at the New Hampshire debate earlier this month:

He didn't create the recession, but he made it worse and longer.

But at his press conference today in Allentown, PA -- where he was highlighting a company that had closed, after President Obama touted it benefitting from the stimulus -- Romney backtracked on the he-made-it-worse line.

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama's policies have made the economy worse -- when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in '09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. '09 -- Romney gave this answer:

I didn't say that things are worse.

[rhombus]

Yeah, I know. They do the same thing all the time with actual quotes from Palin, Bachmann, Cain, etc. especially if it helps their agenda. What’s good about MSNBC and the rest of the MSM is that they telegraph their fear.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

BASF commercial.

[Laserman]

“go away willard. just go away.”

I agree, especially given his absurd endorsement of man-made globull warming!!

[Rational Thought]

I don't like hypotheticals normally, but if Romney is the Republican nominee, I will be as active as possible to work against both candidates.

This perception promoted by both Parties that a Third Party candidate cannot win is false. If given the choice of two Liberals and one Conservative, especially in the economic times we're in, I'm choosing the Conservative. Unlike Democrats, I will remain true to my beliefs versus remaining true to a political party.

Remember your history. In 1860, a Third Party candidate became a President. The President was Lincoln and the Third Party was the Republican Party.

One scenario which seems possible given the dynamics is no one candidate would gain the required 270 Electoral votes. That being the case, the election would be turned over to a Republican controlled House.

[Marty]

I hope Romney continues to back away until he is completely out of the race.

[RonnieFan]

Romney is not my guy but as the MSNBC article went on to point out Romney added, "What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% — and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later." Not the perfect answer; but sadly better than some candidates I do support give when put on the spot.

[A. Patriot]

There are no politicians from Massachusetts who have been successful AND truly conservative. Conservative is a relative term. A “conservative” politician from Mass. is a liberal leaning moderate to the rest of us.

[DustyMoment]

RE-DEFEAT Romney Again!!!

(Department of Redundancy Department)

[sand88]

If that makes me an idiot, sign me up for idiot. ,

I will proudly sit out if this Mitt wit is the nominee. Mitt will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce the power and scope of government. In other words, the progression to a Socialist Hell will not be stopped by this idiot.

It is best to let the Rats completely own the destruction of our Republic.

Mitt is contemptible because he has the heart and soul of a STATIST. Never should anyone who cherishes Liberty vote for a power hungry statist.

[Buckeye McFrog]

this guy flip-flops faster than some of the Democrats

[chris37]

Rofl!

Backtrack whereever you want, Mittens.

You will not be the nominee, you sissy.

[rod1]

Is Romney so stupid he can’t completely reverse the reporter’s premise (e.g. with the food stamp roll data) or is is he simply a mean to Obama’s reelection.

[crosshairs]

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

He needs to have answers for state run media questions like that.

I agree. It was a loaded question, but he needs to be ready for those.

[MissesBush]

That’s not really true. The Whigs had been long since expired when Lincoln was elected.

[Godzilla]

Romney backtracking - who didn’t see that coming.

[Plutarch]

This backtrack thing is an MSNBC invention. In the full quoted remark Romney calls Obama’s economic policy a ‘failure’.

[ebshumidors]

He has his orders.

[esoxmagnum]

There is a good chance he’ll get the R nomination... just like McCain.

Remember, the dems don’t have to vote in a primary because Obama is the candidate, and many states have an open primary, which means, like McCain, they’ll be voting in the R primary, choosing our candidate.

You can bet all stops will be out to shove this jackwagon down our throats.

He knows it too.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Even if he’s a moderate

'Moderate' is an Orwellian term used to disguise an agenda, in this case it means that he will bow to leftist ideas and doctrines, and will compromise with them.