In this week's NEWSWEEK magazine, well-known columnist Howard Fineman asked Romney if George W. Bush has been a good economic steward.

Here's Romney's response:

"Yes. I think George Bush has faced some extraordinary challenges that have tested his mettle. The first was a declining economy when he came in, which shortly thereafter got hit by 9/11 and the Internet bubble burst."

He says a little bit more, too...but this part alone has me baffled. I'm not all that old, so I can't say I'm an expert on how the economy was under Bill Clinton. But I think I've heard enough to know that the economy was actually pretty good in the 90s. Am I mistaken, or didn't we have a surplus and an increase in jobs? I'll apologize if I'm wrong on that, but that's what I've been taught.

Second, how can Romney say Bush has been a good economic steward? Look how much debt we're in because of the war. Look at our economy right freaking now!!! It's so bad the government wants to give us all money to spend so we can avoid, if possible, a recession.

Is Romney just off his rocker or am I way off base? Can someone explain?

__________________
Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. ---- Mark Twain

The battle between Romney and McCain essentially comes down to Bush supporters within the party vs. Bush opponents within the party.

Romney's base are people who think Bush has been a good President. He can't alienate them and win.

__________________
chicken butt

Close. The economy was great under Clinton right up until about 6-9 months before he left office. We were already beginning a recession when Bush took over and the stock market had been declining for 6 months. The Internet bubble had started to rupture. All the big .com's were dropping like flies. 9-11 made things much worse but the tax cuts eventually bailed us out.

Its kind of like what we see right now. We've had 4-5 years of > 3% growth and < 5% unemployment but that is all starting to change, in this case about 12 months before the election. House prices are dropping, interest is going up, unemployment is up.

These downturns are always blamed on the president but actually, they are partly caused by economic cycles. Neither Clinton or Bush had anything to do with the .com crash or 9-11. Bush had to deal with it though.

So I agree with Romney on this one. While the economy had been quite good for most of Clinton's presidency, the one Bush inherited was facing some serious challenges.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

However, I would like to throw in that Congress, more so then the President can effect economic cycles and good times and bad then any President. Remember Congress passes the laws, all the President does is sign them. The President always gets blamed for what the economy is, but in reality, Congress creates the tax laws and business laws, not the President. In the 90s we had a Republican Congress win with conservative platforms. The President doesnt balance budgets, Congress does by cutting spending, increasing taxes, etc. In the Bush 43 admin, the Congress has been spending like crazy, which in turn led to defceit spending which is why they lost Congress in 2006. Now the Democrats are in power and they havenot curbed it either, so we continue on in defecit spending. The President can present policy all he wants, but Congress must act on it and pass laws on that policy. If the laws are bad, then the President, not Congress, usually gets the blame.

The fact is our federal government is to big. Congress spends on stuff they shouldnt, and it sends us into big problems. Economic cycles will always be around, Congress should allow them to happen, not try and prolong the good times artifically. Congress is not doing what is necessary to produce the best economy b/c of our tax structure, spending habits, etc. The President being the CEO has some say in this, but it still takes Congress passing good legislation, not just grandstanding legislation, that really doesnt change anything, to get it done. We have 3 seperate branches of government. The Legislative, can act independent of the Executive anytime it sees fit and vice versa. But only the Legislative can create laws that are either good or bad. And the states have the right to fight those laws as they see fit as well.

That is partially true. There are 2 camps, Old Guard Republicans who like McCain mostly because he's been one of them for 25 years and conservatives who don't because of his policies. I am one of the latter.

It really has nothing to do with Bush at least for me. I feel outside of the tax cuts he was anything but conservative on domestic affairs. No Child Left Behind? Massive expansion of prescription drug bennies? Allowing record pork to be added to bills right up till (finally) his last SOTU speech which is too little too late.

Romney was our defacto choice because he's the strongest candidate who isn't McCain. Now its over. McCain has used the media to circulate lies about Romney after getting drubbed in the campaigns and that has helped him reach the tipping point where everyone is endorsing him he will roll through Super Tuesday.

There are 2 camps, Old Guard Republicans who like McCain mostly because he's been one of them for 25 years and conservatives who don't because of his policies

There are many conservatives who do like McCain. It all comes down to what your most important issues are.

McCain may not be a down the line conservative, but on the issues where he is conservative(the war, spending), no one disputes he'll fight harder than anyone else. And that's my biggest problem with Romney. He folds. Maybe it's a Massachusetts thing. But trust me, if Romney wins the Presidency, he'll fold for the Democratic Congress again and again.

__________________
chicken butt

Now its over. McCain has used the media to circulate lies about Romney after getting drubbed in the campaigns and

Let's stop making excuses now. McCain did not win Florida because of his one lie. He led in the polls before that, then he started to lose ground, and then Crist endorsed him, which gave him favorable press for the last few days.

As a McCain supporter, I don't even believe Bush's much more severe smear campaign did him in in 2000. McCain lost in 2000 because he made some boneheaded moves such as attacking the religious right and unilaterally taking down his attack ads.

Romney is losing because he's a fake. Simple as that. He's only gotten as far as he has because he has money and conservatives are so desperate for a real conservative candidate that they have no choice but to believe his transformation.

__________________
chicken butt