« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

For Newt after Santorum goes stark raving, March ‘improving economy’, Mad(ness)

The Whippersnapper snapped when he accepted the Democratic Party media fiction while The Legend’s campaign is as much against the media as it is for the GOP presidential nomination

Thankfully, former Speaker Newt Gingrich is every bit a social conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania, and so would have that historical advantage that, along with the “It’s the economy, stupid” rule, regularly results in the election of Republican presidents and congressional majorities.

So how did the young whippersnapper who previously won our Super Tuesday endorsement by avoiding anti-Bain venture capitalism-pile-ons while also contrasting his unblemished record against individual health care mandates as opposed to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts RomneyCare  and 2009 advocacy for the individual mandates in ObamaCare? Unprompted, he essentially took the economy off the table for the fall election against President Barack Obama based upon seasonally adjusted employment fictions from the administration:

“You hear now the media starting to say, oh well, looks like the economy is getting better,” Santorum told supporters in Missouri Saturday night after winning the Kansas caucuses. “You know, the economy may be getting better and Republicans may lose their edge on that issue. Well, if that was the only issue in this race, that may or may not be the case, we don’t know.”

You heard that right. The man that pointed out the danger of a Romney candidacy that takes ObamaCare off the table against the Democrats, volunteers to take the economy off the table based upon the bogus hurrahs for a fictional economy built at the Bureau of Labor Statistics that changed decades of procedures last year by rejecting state employment statistics in favor of the federal government’s own best estimates. One wonders what the senator would say if the MSM reported that Americans are happy with ObamaCare.

When asked about Young Rick’s concessions yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) yesterday recited economic reality:

Well, no, I don’t think he’s right at all. This is an anemic recovery as a pretty long recession, 37 months in a row over 8 percent unemployment for the people in the United States, the longest streak since the Great Depression. Last month in February, $229 billion monthly deficit, the highest deficit in the history of the nation. When you look at the stimulus package two years ago, they projected unemployment at 6.5 percent. Obamacare said that everybody’s premiums would be lowered by $2,500; they’ve gone up by $2,200. And we’re producing less oil on publicly held lands than any time in the nation.

So the economy is not — is anemic at best, and the policies of the president are going to make it impossible for this country to recover. Big things haven’t happened very well on his watch.

Doesn’t the man so well-informed about the evil details of O’RomneyCares understand that:

  1. the raw numbers of Americans working last month are nearly two million less than those working when the Democrat president was elected in November of 2008;
  2. the 227,000 number of “new jobs” allegedly “created” last month is a fiction based upon seasonal adjustments;
  3. the U-3 unemployment rate of 8.3% produced by bureaucrats in D.C. sans data from states was flatly contradicted earlier last week even by liberal Gallup (9.1%) and the week before by the Congressional Budget Office (10%);
  4. 8.3%, in any event is unacceptably high after three-plus years of between 8-11% as Obama has presided over second the longest such period of high unemployment in American history; and
  5. the Gross Domestic Product over the last year has been  barely above a pulse at an average of less than 1%.

Yet, somehow because ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and even Fox News Channel report government propaganda as fact, Republicans could somehow lose “the edge” on the economy this fall? Well yes, if we concede issues for incoherent reasons, we would lose the edge, not because the voters buy it (polls show that majorities reject the rosy scenarios and Obama’s performance on the economy); but rather because too many voters would again see a cowardly Republican against a courageous Democrat and stay home.

Therefore, despite Newt’s personal and non-personal baggage (Cave-ins to Bill Clinton while betraying promises to republican colleagues, Couching Pelosi on the  science fiction of man-made global warming, Bain attacks etc), we are satisfied with his mea culpas and are confident that he won’t shift campaign strategy based upon what John King insists is a booming recovery, when the numbers rely upon writing off 1.2 million people that failed to file their 5th application for work at the corner McDonald’s for four consecutive weeks.

We just hope that a Gingrich nominee would also not have to fight with some timid conservative websites that also seem to want to make Green Rooms at CNN more palatable by also faking a smile about fictitious improving economies.

We also hope that those anti-social conservatives don’t pull their support when the media reminds of Newt’s very strong, you might say religious right-strength, social conservative views as expressed in his 2009 book, “Rediscovering God in America”; positions against judicial supremacy mainly on religious freedom issues; railings against the ABC TV show, “Christian Bitches”; and boldly and accurately describing then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” as support for legalized infanticide.

Prior to Santorum’s weekend remarks conceding economic issues to the failed Democratic incumbent, we thought we had cast our Stone Mountain of Georgia precinct primary vote for the best candidate to evict the American economy wrecking machine, also married to Michelle, from the  White House. Our trust was betrayed.

Hopefully, our present advocacy for Gingrich that we hope is heeded by Alabamians and Mississippians voting in Tuesday’s next installment of Newt’s I-85 Primary, won’t be betrayed before the sun sets on March Madness after the Kentucky Wildcats finally deliver a national championship to Coach Calipari.

But if Newt transgresses, he will be called on it by the DeVine Law Gamecock by rooster crowings before April Fool’s Day. Would tea partiers expect anything less? No, and while I think either of the top three could and would defeat Obama, we are interested in the issues and a mandate to fix what ails us. We will continue to hold our fellow conservative Republicans accountable.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    FWIW, nothing about Santorum changed in March, a tad more just melted off the guy. He’s no less conservative than he was in February and no less conservative than he was when he gave Pantaloons a million bucks to deliver the Iowa caucuses. The guy is nothing more than a big-government right to lifer, see the utter stupidity of continuing to tinker with the tax code for manufacturing rather than rewriting and simplifying it from scratch.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …if I ever were to run for office. It’s the kiss of death.

    Mitt supporters here should be rejoicing. :)

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Newt is still my #1 choice among the survivors, but we’ll have to see if the voters agree tomorrow. In any case, it’s hard to see a viable path to the nomination for him.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Well done!

    smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    term depending upon whom and what government the target is being compared to and that certainly Newt is not immune to the charge; and I’m not as convinced that the tax code shouldn’t be used to provide incentives either. That said, Santorum’s, and the other flawed candidates’ respective actual performances on the campaign trail is what has seemed to me the more relevant criteria given all their respective flaws.

    I’m happy to finally be in Newt’s camp. I almost voted for him on Super Tuesday…more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    right!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    candidate!

  • Aaron Gardner

    I may end up supporting him, but I voted for my guy and have no dog in the race anymore.

    Out of the three remaining, Newt would probably pick the best VP though. Probably be best on judges too.

  • Flagstaff

    There seems to be more than a name similarity between Mike DeWine and Mike DeVine. (^:^)

    Seriously, the behavior that Mike writes about is pretty much what has kept me from buying into the Santorum mystique.

    I contend that Rick was done a huge favor by the Obama mandate that Catholic hospitals must provide insurance against pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. Their mistake was colossal, and he jumped on the opportunity to polish his brand. Sec. Sibelius moved to switch the issue from one of religious freedom to one of women’s health–contraception. Timing was such that it worked well for Santorum–the primaries came and went, and he had moved way up in linear inches of NYT verbiage and video footage on CNN, Fox, and the alphabet networks.

    Timing was also such that he almost immediately had an opportunity to squander his gains. He followed the rabbit trail, buying into the contraception-as-health-care debate. He didn’t keep his eye on the ball. Neither did the others, maybe, but we wouldn’t know because the MSM was only interested in shining its spotlight of relative truth on one candidate–Rick Santorum.

    Rush Limbaugh has, in an unusually ham-handed way, yanked that spotlight away from Rick and pointed it at himself. As a result, the contraception-as-health-care issue has become conflated with a fictitious war-against-women, and that doesn’t help Santorum. Rush changed the narrative from contraception and religion to “why should we be paying for any of this, and if we should be, why aren’t we being asked to pay for everything else which is peripherally related to human health?” He also turned all the liberal guns on himself, taking them off of Santorum, which may have helped Rick a little, but not much, and he turned Sandra Fluke into a liberal heroine, which may actually work to our advantage before November.

    This in turn has left the constitutional issue of religious freedom sitting out there, fair game, waiting for another candidate to pounce on it if and when it will work for them and against Obama. Santorum has lost it, because he can’t get past the “anti-woman” label he pasted on himself, and even mentioning the topic raises his negatives.

    If Gamecock is right, if Santorum is another flameout in the pantheon of 2012 Republican shooting stars, I will find myself somewhat satisfied that two of our best three conservative spokesmen (and yes, Mitt can be the third best one) are still standing (although I do hope the voice of #2, Herman Cain, will join with the eventual winner on the campaign trail).

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I marry her….

    Oh yes, now I remember the Vermont path to Perry’s resurrection/nomination…do brokers prefer the Texas Rick?…smile

  • Aaron Gardner

    Now that you are for Newt you are more than willing to defend him by mocking the guy who endorsed him going into SC.

    Campaign season brings out the most fickle judgmental people.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    touche?

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I submit that politicians are fair weather friends as well, and anyone who expects much more than that will be disappointed to say the least.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    will be a great asset on the campaign trail.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    catch Beltway Fever. I treat Pols like barbers. I revisit barbers based upon the quality of the haircut, not the patter.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I have noticed throughout this campaign season that you have been strutting around with a judgmental chip on your shoulder. I don’t know if this is borne out of your own self importance or just some petty jealousy. Either way, it has completely consumed the Gamecock I first met here.

    The fact that I point out that you are the epitome of the fickle voter – which has ruled this chaotic mess of a primary – and you reply with a response intended to mock me, and my candidate of choice by virtue of being my choice, is a reflection on you and your choices this.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Im fickle about pols and justifiably so.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Kettles black. You rival scope as the most rude and mean people here. And mean people suck

  • APA Guy

    …just ideologically discerning :)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Nt

  • rednation

    Begin by reviewing Santy’s speech in AL today. He was not and is not ceding the economy in the fall. He was noting that a 1 dimensional candidate like Romney has the justification for his candidacy removed if the economy significantly improves. And not everyone arguing it might is part of the liberal media.

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Republican-Candidates-Campaign-in-Birmingham-Alabama/10737428947/

    We have to have someone who can debate Obama on social issues, foreign policy, the economy, and character. Santorum provides the best shot for this due to a host of particulars…

  • littlehouse18

    I’ve been arguing this myself lately. The economy could very well pick up a bit due to natural pent-up forces, not to mention anticipation of the election. And if it doesn’t, expect the media to tell us it is anyway, and give us whatever numbers the administration wants out there.

  • littlehouse18

    Santorum started out seeming a little tired and off his stride, but when he got to Obamacare and freedom and God-given rights, it was pure eloquence, dare I say, Reaganesque? And the guy does this all off the top of his head! Responses to the panel were great too. He would shred Obama in a debate.

    Any (rare) time my confidence in Santorum starts faltering, all I have to do is listen to him give a speech and I’m back to inspired.

    C’mon, GC, three sentences and you’re done with him? Please give him another chance, and listen to rednation’s link above.

  • garfieldjl

    Even you admitted that. First thing I learned in debate class, the opening few minutes is key. That will often determine what people think of you.

    Today those whom live in Alabama and Mississippi, need to vote Gingrich, even if you are Santorum supporters.

    Santorum can’t win the nomination on his own, Gingrich can’t do it on his own.

    However, the two of them could make sure that Romney can’t get the nomination and gather enough delegates between them to ensure they are the nominee/VP and not Romney.

    Remember Obama is a very skilled liar, and the media will be trying to avoid covering Obama’s baggage like the plague. Newt Gingrich has shown he can force Obama’s baggage to be covered and shift things back to being a referendum on Obama.

  • littlehouse18

    I think he will be raring to go in a debate and will be sharp as can be.

  • Common_Cents

    but I don’t see him having the goods to win. He tends to want to be a martyr, giving away on points then saying well, at least he did x,y,z. Giving up solid ground should not be a part of self deprecation. When challenged in a debate or by heavy negative ads he resorts to being whiny. Santorum just doesnt have the depth to back up his rhetorical attacks either, especially on the economy. He’s only pushing the manufacturing button, not quite enough.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Santorum’s speech was good. Newt’s was better and moved some Santorum supporters into his camp.

    My assessment of the forum is here.

    And there’s a link to Newt’s speech which was chock full of solutions.

  • littlehouse18

    I was just too tired to keep watching the video last night.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    That concedes the last 3+ years of suffering, including mine. I want a candidate that sets the agenda and defines the debate and not one that simply parries with the media’s definitions.

    more later and as I wrote, I already voted here in Stone Mountain of Georgia on Super Tuesday for Santorum. But If I could vote today in Alabama or Mississippi, it would now be for Newt. But Santorum remains the 2nd best option now by far, imho.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    This economy has been so bad for so long and still is and no matter what happens the next few months would not change what Obama has done to wreck the private sector, even if money finally comes off the sidelines out of desperation. It matters what Obama did for 3+ years and he must be fired for that and that it be seen and understood that he is being fired for economic destruction (regs, debt killing the dollar, etc) first; then ObamaCare, foreign policy etc imho

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and others that seem to want to accept the improving economy lie and urging Republicans and conservatives to fight back with the real numbers and not forgetting 3+ years of destruction and that one of my themes for 8 years has been to let the MSM set the template…what choice did I have when Rick contradicts all that in 3 sentences?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of the past 3+ years nor the Democrats of the past 50, especially not their 30 year crusade to destroy the energy industry in the US. Obama has driven so many out of business and set up a hostile environment for business formation and skyrocketed the debt, thus putting limits on what we can achieve going forward. The GOP candidate must not concede these points for 5 seconds. Newt won’t, I suspect. But if he does…GC is committed to no man. I am committed to the GOP and conservative remedies for what ails us. And I left the Dem Party 12 years ago knowing that they are the enemy of prosperity and peace. That is #1.

  • littlehouse18

    although I can see where his second sentence gave you pause. His first sentence tells me he knows the media can shape this issue, and I agree with him that it cannot be the only issue because of that. But you are absolutely right in urging Republicans and conservatives to fight back with facts. Santorum needs to do that to be an effective candidate.

    I too, am disturbed to hear folks with a microphone accepting the reporting on the economy. I just don’t think Santorum is actually one of them, and I hope he proves that, or I’ll have to re-evaluate.

  • jamesm

    Santorum was not accepting that the economy is improving. Clearly he has said that we do not know what the issues will be in November. We all know that the Obama administration will do their best to obfuscate the numbers. But what happens if their is a major war in the Mideast? What happens if gas prices skyrocket because Iran chokes of the Strait of Hormuz? What he was saying is that Romney’s venture capital background may not help the nominee in November. The issues would change. Santorum and Gingrich have foreign policy experience.

  • jamesm

    to control the message on the economy. That much is a given. If gas prices go up then Obama is in trouble whoever the nominee may be.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and that he will make damn sure it is. We don’t need sound bites like the ones he provides at times. What Obama and the Dems have done to the economy in non-election years don’t get to NOT be the issue in November of Leap Years because of some fickle media or what happens for a few months.

    Brothers, MY LIFE HAS BEEN WRECKED by this recession! It will be the issue for me and the candidate I support. Obama must pay.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    ObamaCare and foreign policy the issue in that order.

  • jamesm

    have dropped 10 points in the past month. This election will be about the economy, healthcare, gas prices and foreign policy. Iran and Syria could explode at any minute. Obama must be defeated. The only reason some people could give for nominating a venture capitalist is the economy. This does not play in Gingrich’s or Santorum’s favor with some people. That said the economy will be an issue against Obama in the fall. I am firmly Not Romney. Gingrich is the best at taking it to Obama. But he has not withstood the bombardment from Romney as well as Santorum. Newt needs a viable path to the nomination. His only hope is a contested convention.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    remains THE issue and that maybe, just maybe, the rosy scenario talking up of the economy by Obama and the media may have triggered the poll backlash against Obama.

  • falconrap

    Newt is the better pick. He knows how to cut through the cra…err…fog and lay reality on the line in an easy, concise message that voters can understand. Santorum has his moments, but he’s off and on. Newt tends to be on most of the time and is able to quickly turn the tide in a debate, and, make no mistake, many moderates will make their decision based on a single debate performance. It about all the effort they give in these races.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I love The Whippersnapper and I’m glad to see the state of the homes and birth and my ancestors (Gadsden) to make a Roman Catholic a winner and vote in large numbers for a Mormon. Its about the issues for Evangelicals too. God bless America.

  • Flagstaff

    “Brothers, MY LIFE HAS BEEN WRECKED by this recession!” Although you seem to be on the rebound personally. (^:^)

    What many may not know is that you don’t have to be living from hand to mouth, one step ahead of foreclosure, to be in a bind from this recession. Some of us who are retired and living on what we saved while working are now wondering if our savings will last. The subject of selling the home has come up, but not ready or able to do that in today’s market. Even with the recent bounce by the stock market, fears are not assuaged, because too much has been liquidated since 2008.

    I have been disappointed by the mean-spirited comments of both Newt and Santo. I haven’t seen the ads they have objected to; perhaps their comments are justified, but they both sound nasty as compared to Romney. Santo sounds particularly weak, blaming his problems on the press and claiming that Fox News is shilling for Romney. At least Newt hasn’t fallen into that trap.

    For me, Job 1 is to remove BO from office. Job 2 is to fix the economy, in all aspects. Job 3 is to get national defense under control, to be accomplished simultaneously with Job 2.

  • Flagstaff

    BO is either the unluckiest, the stupidest, or the most devious President we’ve ever had. I pick devious because he isn’t stupid, and because he doesn’t claim to believe that there is that much wrong–just that he inherited a mess.

    If I can ever get the time, I’ll write about it, but I wish someone else would research all his policy decisions and describe in detail how they support an argument that things are progressing exactly as he wants them to, and why.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    more later

  • honoraryintern

    Garf, that explains sooo much. I hope debate class was a long time ago. In the world outside debate class, the life a person has lived has much more carry than winning a point. I always suspected the ‘former debate class’ population were solidly behind Newt.

    Rick can win with or without Newt’s help. Either Rick will have won outright or be neck and neck with Mitt once they get to Tampa. This election has had more bumps than a mountain jeep trail. Newt’s press corps has been pulled as of Tuesday.He will be competing with Ron for significance. The shine is sliping from Mitt’s inevitablity argument. 76 and 80 all rolled into one.

    Game, is there an award for having the most diverse group of ‘recommenders’? If so I want to nominate you. This ‘endorsement’ lasted all of 24 hours? ! Surely funny. Do people laugh as you spin through the possibilities in the real world?

  • joeydavis

    Back up the bus here….

    Santorum stated a fact to make a point about Romney’s one dimensional campaign. He took nothing off the table.

    The fact of the matter is the economy IS getting better and it MAY be even better by election day. It’s still awful and it’s still a blemish for the Obama campaign.But IF it continues to improve it may not be the strongest issue for Republicans.

    Romney’s argument is he’s best suited to fix the economy because of his business background. He has nothing else. That’s Santorum’s point.

    In September, there could definitely be bigger issues in the middle east. Obamacare is going to be an issue. Energy prices may skyrocket to the $5 range instead of the $4 range.

    Santorum was simply pointing out that his more rounded resumee is stronger than Romney’s purely economic resumee. He has a valid point.

    So get back on the reservation…

    The “whippersnapper” knows what he’s doing.

  • garfieldjl

    I’m not a Santorum supporter (yes everyone here knows I really don’t like Romney), but the point is Santorum is making a valid point.

    He didn’t make a personal attack on Romney, to be blunt he was only stating the blatently obvious.

  • elizaliza

    “?It?s the economy, stupid? rule, regularly results in the election of Republican presidents ” ?????

    That line was made popular when a SITTING republican president LOST the election, so ….. ???
    I am all for rewrites when they’re warranted, but this one is simply not true.

    “Obama has presided over second the longest such period of high unemployment in American history ”
    Oh well. It all depends on who gets the blame for that one. Dems might get away with pointing at the Boehner led Congress. Who knows? Having Romney as a candidate might work out for us, cos who can argue that millionaire lacks knowledge on the economy? No doubt that a millionaire can teach the country a thing or two about getting rich. That’s the reason Italians elected Berlusconi, and they’re doing okay. Silvio had to go because he couldn’t keep his you know what in his slacks, not cos he didn’t know how to run the economy. And he’ll come back.

    ?You hear now the media starting to say, oh well, looks like the economy is getting better,? Santorum told supporters in Missouri Saturday night after winning the Kansas caucuses. ?You know, the economy may be getting better and Republicans may lose their edge on that issue. Well, if that was the only issue in this race, that may or may not be the case, we don?t know.?

    This is ..XXXX… hilarious!!

  • elizaliza

    We were doing really fine in 2008, but in 2010 all hell broke lose.

  • elizaliza

    btw, interesting quote by Malcom X, there, who knew? He does have a point when it’s applied to Obama.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    seriously, but I had to make a point about that rhetoric – The economy is the issue and I don’t think the MSM can win this for Obama no matter what they say, Obama says and probably not what we say. Obama is going down, and praise the Lord, and as an Irish-American, I’m gonna start celebrating even before March 17…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the winner and that when conservative Republican principles are adhered to and run on, that we usually win. Clinton and Obama won based upon this rule as well, I stand corrected on those grounds.

    more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    his and Democrats’ complaint for the past 45 years is that Republicans kept them from spending even more money! Obama and his super-majority Dems deserve what they got in 2010 and what they are going to get this November. Accountability bites.

  • Flagstaff

    I’ve never seen anyone, on either side, claim that there wasn’t a big problem hitting the fan in 2008.

    How big, and whether the right solutions were applied, those are the issues about which many disagree.

    I believe that if there was NOT a big problem in 2008, we were all taken for a ride by Obama and Bush and Hank Paulson. (If you look at that article, don’t forget your grain of salt. It mentions neither Barney Frank nor Chris Dodd.) I think it’s most likely that there WAS a problem, but they didn’t know what to do about it.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    .
    .

  • Agelaius

    by pouncing on Obama on access to birth control. This can be a major wedge issue to use with Catholic voters against the democrats in November. I agree with that. Santorum admits reality – that the economy is getting better. What is missing is an analysis of the cause. Economies work in cycles, and what we need to do is to hit the cycle at the right time. I wonder whether there might not be some way to slow down the economy before November – some way to use Keynsian jujitsu against them. Like, perhaps, forcing a showdown on the debt ceiling agreement that causes large-scale causing federal layoffs or work stoppages that would result in less money flowing into the economy and cause the employment numbers to tick down a bit. Government needs to shrink. We all know it. Forcing a debt ceiling crisis or a suspension of virtually all non-defense spending might do that, It might bend the numbers down just a little at a key point in both the electoral and economic cycles. They persist in Kenyesian economics, so we should use that against them.

  • garfieldjl

    If our economy is really starting to improve which is questionable. Santorum is making the mistake of conceding this to Obama.

    Gingrich would praise John Boehner for putting the brakes on Obama’s destructive policies and he would praise the American people’s ingenuity for getting back on their feet DESPITE Obama’s destructive policies.