Just when you thought the Romney is flip-flopping silliness had finally ended, we get treated with yet another claim from the AP’s Glen Johnson. Here is the entire article:
Romney Reverses on McCain’s Economic Credentials
Mitt Romney said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain’s Washington experience counts in drawing up economic policy.
That’s not what Romney said during the heat of the Republican presidential race.
Here’s Romney from Tuesday’s appearance on CNN:
“I can tell you that for a person who’s spent over 25 years in Washington, D.C., working on economic policies from the days of (Ronald) Reagan and throughout the current time, Senator McCain is very well aware of the spending programs in Washington, which ones need to be cut back, which ones need to be grown. He understands also how to relieve the pressure on the American taxpayer,” Romney said hours before McCain, a four-term Arizona senator, delivered an economic address in Pittsburgh.
Here’s Romney on Jan. 25 in Florida:
“Now he’s engaging in ‘Washington talk,’” Romney said of McCain and his self-professed “straight-talk” mantra. “`Washington talk’ says that somehow, because you’ve been in Washington, and you’ve been on a committee, that you somehow know about how the jobs of this country have been created.”
Romney, who bowed out of the race in February, has been mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain.
In a phone call to The Associated Press, Romney said his latest comments in part acknowledged the verdict of the voters.
“There’s no question any one of the three would have benefited from a lifetime of service in the private sector that I enjoyed. That’s why I thought I was the strongest candidate. The voters chose differently,” Romney said of the three remaining candidates, McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
My Thoughts: I may be an idiot but I think there is a difference in talking about cutting government programs and relieving taxpayers versus how jobs are created.
For the attorneys out there, if Romney had been a witness in my trial and had said the first quote, the second quote would not be admissible as hearsay because the exception in CA for past inconsistent statements would not apply.