LOL, this is probably example #3,392 why you should never take Al Sharpton's word on anything.
The full quote (
LINK):
INGRAHAM: Isn't that a hard argument to make if you're saying -- Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we're seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY:
Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth.... at some point it's going to get better, but I don't think President Obama's helping it.
(Bold and underline mine)
So no, it's not a tough argument for Romney to make. Not if you think about what the economy has done the past four years. We were in a deep recession. Now we're in a relatively growthless, jobless recovery. That economy is better off than it was four years ago, but considering where we were four years ago, that doesn't mean the economy is doing well now. Google terms like "economic cycle" and do some research.
Here's what Romney's argument actually is: (
LINK):
In his remarks [Friday], Romney also acknowledged the economy was getting better — something he has said before….
“And [President Obama]’s going to say the economy is getting better,” Romney said. “Thank heavens it’s getting better. It’s getting better not because of him, it’s in spite of him and what he’s done.”
If one is going to talk about someone's argument, saden, shouldn't one at least talk about the actual argument instead of cherrypicking soundbites? Or do you think Al Sharpton on MSNBC can be counted on to report things fairly?