Las Vegas Sun

April 24, 2014

Currently: 59° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

The Policy Racket

Despite his hands-off policy, Romney criticizes Obama for not stopping foreclosures

Image

Associated Press

Mitt Romney speaks to supporters at his election watch party Tuesday after winning the Michigan primary in Novi, Mich.

When he was campaigning in Nevada, Mitt Romney said he thought the federal government should steer clear of the housing crisis, letting the free market work, even if that meant allowing things “to bottom out.”

But in his victory speech after the Michigan primary Tuesday night, Romney was openly critical of President Barack Obama for not doing more to “tackle the housing crisis” during his first term — especially when he had a supermajority in the Senate to help him.

Romney's comments came as he rattled off suggestions of policy endeavors in which Obama might better have spent his time in the early days of his presidency, instead of tackling a health care bill and "putting us on a path toward debt and deficits and decline."

It’s a standard part of his stump speech. The nod to housing, however, is not.

The idea that Obama should have tackled housing more forcefully is a refrain often voiced in hard-hit states like Nevada, even by some Democrats. But it’s a curious paradox for Romney, who has stuck by his assertion that a market free from government intervention is best to restore normalcy to homeowners, lenders and mortgages since he first made the comments to the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal in October.

Romney's hands-off approach to housing is the one area of his policy platform with which many Nevada Republicans, even some who endorse him, have either taken issue or agreed to disagree.

That legacy made Romney's comments Tuesday night all the more surprising.

But Romney's sudden turn to suggest the government ought to have taken a far stronger role tackling the housing crisis was likely more of a sign that he’s feeling good enough to go off-script on the campaign trail, rather than an indication he is re-writing his housing policy.

Romney was not a shoo-in to win Michigan, his home state, which he appeared set to carry by slightly less than a 4 percent margin Tuesday night. It's not exactly what they were looking for, but better than losing to top challenger Rick Santorum.

“We didn't win by a lot,” Romney said, “but we won by enough, and that's all that counts."

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Romney changing his position on any given topic is certainly nothing new. The GOP nomination process is nothing more than pandering to the base by all the candidates. Mitten's "win" in his home state means little, as delegates are proportionately divided between those campaigning in the state. Also, democrats may vote in the primary, and they did, skewing the final results, percentage wise. Mitten's win in Arizona was far more important, as he will get all 29 delegates and have momentum going into "Super Tuesday" next week. The only favorable thing to come out of the Michigan/Arizona primaries is that Right Wing Rick will hopefully be gone after next Tuesday.

  2. No, Romney. You said it before. And you MEANT it.

    You can't walk that back.

    Deep down in his very soul, he intends the business/home foreclosure mess to continue. So it will bottom out.

    Because in his world of corporate mentality thinking, the emphasis is on money.

    Not people.

    It is a sure thing that if Romney becomes President of this great country, he would not lift a finger to help anyone regarding this issue.

    Because in his world of business, and business only, it's all about winning. And winning in the world he openly populates is only about raking in money. That's the bottom line. People are irrelevant. If people end up destitute because of failed economic policies, he has clearly signaled that's of no concern to him. Just hand out the pink slips and fire America. THAT'S exactly how Romney thinks. In his mind, he's not running for President. He's running for Chief Executive Officer of the business called the United States of America.

    And, as CEO of this corporate entity, all the underprivileged, disabled, unemployed and the poor are considered baggage and must be abandoned through willful neglect, indifference and uncaringness.

    The policy of telling anyone anything he thinks they want to hear, and the deplorable habit of deciding what he's going to say in a speech is only determined by looking out and seeing what his audience is composed and what he thinks they want to hear, rather than any deep convictions....will continue.

  3. Re Future. "What Obama should do is enable speedy actions to close sale short and foreclosure. Given the sale is going to happen then the soon the better". What the hell are you trying to say??