Jon Huntsman appears to be coming to terms with the fact that he won’t be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. Ordinarily, competitive candidates who still expect to win wouldn’t openly question their party’s sanity in an on-the-record interview.

In an interview Friday, the Utah governor turned China ambassador said bluntly that the GOP had lost its equilibrium in the Obama era but predicted it would eventually return to its bearings — and vindicate his own brand of pragmatism.

“I believe in the ideas put forward by Theodore White, the cycles of history,” Huntsman told POLITICO. “I believe we are in one such cycle. I think that cycle ultimately takes us to a sane Republican Party based on real ideas.”

Suggesting that the GOP currently is something other than sane isn’t the best way to win the support of Republican voters and may stir speculation that he’s preparing to launch a third-party bid.

Huntsman is probably confusing Theodore White and Arthur Schlesinger, but the larger point is what matters here. Huntsman returned from service in the Obama administration, working under certain assumptions about the state of his Republican Party. What he came to realize is that the GOP of 2011 and 2012 is just not where he thought it was.

This is a party so radical that an anti-abortion, anti-tax former governor who’s vowed to eliminate Medicare is considered a center-left candidate, unworthy of consideration.

Huntsman looks forward to the eventual reemergence of “a sane Republican Party.” I suspect he’s not the only one with that wish, but this is not the year for such a development.

About 10 hours after last night’s debate, the six Republican presidential candidates met again this morning for another debate, this time sponsored by NBC and Facebook.

This one was far livelier than its predecessor — maybe the GOP field is made up for morning people? — and one line in particular jumped out early on: Mitt Romney made the case that electoral politics is for wealthy people.

“I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old,” Romney said. “He had good advice to me. He said never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference, and don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

It’s an odd line for a candidate regularly accused of out-of-touch elitism. Only those who already have considerable wealth should “get involved in politics”? Really?

Here’s the follow-up question: if there’s some blue-collar worker in Ohio, who cares about public service and is thinking about asking his neighbors for their vote, should he or she stand aside and allow some rich person to “get involved in politics” instead?

Indeed, Ben Smith noted the exchange “brought out Romney at his most tone-deaf, and echoed his offer of a $10,000 bet to Rick Perry in an earlier debate.”

I rather doubt this was a planned line; Romney probably just said what was on his mind. It’s why “just be yourself” probably isn’t good advice for this guy.

One of the more noteworthy exchanges in last night’s debate came about mid-way through the event, when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney about, of all things, contraception. The question was a bit of a mess, and the back and forth seemed to annoy just about everyone, but the exchange wasn’t completely inane.

Stephanopoulos asked, “Gov. Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Romney feigned ignorance about the entire subject. “George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising,” he replied. “States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception.”

This led to an awkward Q&A; that eventually drew howls from the audience.

STEPHANOPOULOS: [D]o you believe that states have that right or not?

ROMNEY: George, I — I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no — no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on…

ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court — has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

This went on for a while, before Romney eventually said he wants the Supreme Court to “overturn Roe vs. Wade.”

For most folks watching, I imagine this seemed utterly meaningless. But that’s only because Stephanopoulos raised the issue in such a clumsy and unhelpful way.

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a state cannot deny couples access to birth control. The 7-2 ruling immediately became controversial because of its rationale — the justices based the ruling on a “right to privacy” that is not explicitly in the Constitution and had not been embraced by the court beforehand.

Eight years later, the Supreme Court used the Griswold ruling as a stepping stone for Roe v. Wade — Americans’ right to privacy extends to include the ability to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The Roe ruling in 1973 used Griswold as a foundation. As everyone involved in the debate knows, one ruling led to the other.

Romney surely understands this. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975. But Romney was probably playing dumb last night because he knew the question Stephanopoulos was getting at, but didn’t ask: was the high court wrong on Griswold? Or more to the point, does the Constitution include a right to privacy or not?

Because Stephanopoulos flubbed the discussion, we don’t really know the answer to those questions, though his desire to see Roe overturned is noteworthy in and of itself (most Americans take the opposite view).

Here’s a better way to word the question, for media professionals who may want to follow up: “Governor, in a case regarding access to contraception, the Supreme Court ruled in 1965 that Americans have a right to privacy. Were the justices right or wrong?”

Rick Santorum was asked last night about the 1,800 same-sex couples who are married in New Hampshire, and what would happen to them if he succeeds in adding anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He replied:

“If we have a — if the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman. And — and, therefore, that’s what marriage is and — and would be in this country. And those who are not men and women who are married are — would not be married. That’s what the Constitution would say.”

So, in this case, a “pro-family” candidate wants to use the Constitution to break up families, on purpose. Americans who are legally married would be told, “Sorry, the government has decided you’re not married anymore.”

Later, in the same debate, Santorum was contrasting his vision with that of Mitt Romney.

“[T]he governor used a term earlier that — that I shrink from. And — and it’s one that I don’t think we should be using as Republicans: ‘middle class.’ There are no classes in America. We are a country that don’t allow for titles. We don’t put people in classes. There may be middle income people, but the idea that somehow or another we’re going to buy into the class warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something that should not be part of the Republican lexicon.”

So, in Santorum’s mind, married couples shouldn’t necessarily be “married couples,” and the middle class shouldn’t necessarily be called the “middle class.”

Wow.

And to think his former constituents didn’t want this guy representing them in the Senate.

Before every recent debate for the Republican presidential candidates, I think to myself, “OK, this will finally be the one in which the GOP field goes after Mitt Romney.” And after every debate, I think to myself, “Do these guys not understand how this game works?”

Last night’s gathering in New Hampshire was supposed to provide all kinds of fireworks. With time running out, and opportunities dwindling, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman would have no choice but to make the case why Romney is the wrong man for the job.

Except they did have a choice — they could just throw a few mild jabs and let the Romney coronation continue.

Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — who battled Romney to a virtual draw in last week’s Iowa caucuses — offered relatively tepid criticisms of Romney about three quarters of the way through the debate, but had otherwise held off heavy criticism of Romney.

“I do think there’s a difference between a bold Reagan conservative model and a more establishment model that is a little more cautious about taking the kind of changes we need,” Gingrich said in comparing his jobs plan against the former Massachusetts governor’s.

“I don’t think Governor Romney’s plan is particularly bold, or is particularly focused on where the problems are in this country,” Santorum said.

Hmm. Gingrich spent the week breathing fire whenever Romney’s name came up, but when offered an opportunity to contrast his vision with the former governor, the disgraced former House Speaker came up with “a little more cautious.” Santorum, eager to make this a two-person race, threw the “not particularly bold” punch.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

John Dickerson’s reaction was spot-on.

The Romney campaign has the best voodoo operation in American campaign history. This is the only conclusion I can draw after yet another debate in which the front-runner went unscathed. Before the Saturday night debate in Manchester, N.H., Romney’s opponents promised they were going to attack him. They had an opportunity, and they didn’t take it. This has happened repeatedly throughout the GOP primary season. In some room at the Radisson, aides in Romney fleeces and headdresses must have been controlling things with little dolls.

I’m at a loss in trying to explain this. It’s not as if there’s nothing to criticize Romney over. The guy used to support abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, and combating climate change. He distanced himself from Reagan, attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers, and helped create the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act. He supported taxpayer-funded abortions and taxpayer-financed medical care for undocumented immigrants.

Do these non-Romney candidates not realize they’re losing? Are they reluctant to go after him because they want to be his running mate?

At this point, I’m tempted to think the GOP field is just going through the motions, after having decided a long time ago to just let Romney win the nomination.

In about 15 minutes, the remaining Republican presidential candidates will

In about an hour or so, the six remaining Republican presidential candidates will take the stage at St. Anselm’s College in New Hampshire for yet another debate, this one co-sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo News, and WMUR. It takes place, of course, just three days before the nation’s first primary.

While it may seem as if this endless stream of debates has been endless, I’d note that this is the first since Dec. 15. The lovely reprieve, alas, is over, and will get worse — there will be another debate tomorrow morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

In any case, we’ve seen several instances in which candidates have talked tough before a debate, vowing to take on frontrunner Mitt Romney, only to back off once on the stage. If I had to bet $10,000, I’d say tonight will tell a different story — if any of these guys are going interrupt Romney’s coronation, they’re going to have start making an effort to bring him down a notch.

That said, since Romney is a lock to win the primary, there’s also likely to be some tension among the other candidates, too, since each is trying to be the leading anti-Romney. Pay particular attention to the attacks directed at Ron Paul.

I’ll probably have some thoughts on this in the morning. In the meantime, the floor is yours.

When it comes to the Democratic strategy against Mitt Romney in 2012, the party has a few themes to choose from.

The first is that Romney is a far-right ideologue who intends to give millionaires tax breaks, end Medicare, privatize Social Security, give Wall Street free rein, and screw over the middle class on everything from health care to taxes. A vote for Romney, this argument goes, is a vote to take the country backwards, thanks to his Bush-on-steroids-style agenda.

The second is that Romney is an out-of-touch plutocrat who got rich laying off American workers. With so many still struggling and feeling the effects of the Great Recession, the argument goes, there’s no point in electing the champion of the 1%, a man who doesn’t even know what the middle class is, and a candidate even Republicans see as being “in the hip pocket of Wall Street.”

And then, of course, there’s the flip-flopper. No politician in modern American life has ever changed so many positions on so many issues. It’s almost impossible to find an issue on which Romney hasn’t taken both sides, and in nearly every instance, the reversals have been insincere, unprincipled, and politically motivated — Romney bases his beliefs on whatever way the winds are blowing at the time.

The question then becomes whether this third avenue would be an effective choice for Romney’s opponents.

Matt Yglesias argued the other day that it would not: “Flip-flopper argument against Romney will be bizarre in a general election. ‘Beware of Mitt, he’s more reasonable than he sounds!’”

The New York Times ran a piece raising a similar point, arguing that the flip-flopper charge carries risks for Dems, because it would remind voters that Romney used to be moderate and mainstream — qualities that many voters might find appealing.

Kevin Drum this week was thinking along similar lines:

My guess: the flip-flopper charge probably won’t get much traction. It’s mostly a problem for conservatives, who don’t fully trust that Romney is one of them, but by the time summer rolls around they’re going to be his most fire-breathing supporters. They’ll have long since decided to forgive and forget, and independents won’t care that much in the first place as long as Romney seems halfway reasonable in his current incarnation.

It’s possible that Obama can do both — Romney is a flip-flopper and a right-wing nutcase! — but if he has to choose, my guess is that he should forget about the flip-flopping and simply do everything he can to force Romney into the wingnut conservative camp. That’ll be his big weakness when Labor Day rolls around.

I’m torn on this. The argument against the flip-flopper charge is fairly compelling, and as a stand-along charge — “Don’t vote for Romney because he flip-flops” — the attack feels thin, regardless of accuracy.

But I’m also not inclined to dismiss it just yet. The point, I’d argue, is to incorporate the criticism into a larger critique: Americans just can’t trust Mitt Romney. It’s a broader charge, but a single theme: the flip-flops, the lies, the cowardly dodges, the poll-tested non-answers are all evidence of someone lacking in a fundamental integrity, too eager to say anything to anyone to advance his ambitions.

David Axelrod said this week, “Taking two positions on every issue, one on the left and one on the far right, doesn’t make you a centrist. It makes you a charlatan.” It’s not about Romney’s policy reversals; it’s about his lack of character.

I often think about the interview Romney did in late November with Fox News’ Bret Baier, in which the reporter asked, “How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?” Romney struggled with the answer.

And therein lies the potency of the criticism. “Flip-flopper” may not be the most compelling attack, but once a candidate has been deemed “untrustworthy” by the American mainstream, it’s tough to win an election.

But I’ll concede it’s a judgment call, so let’s open this up to some discussion. Is the flip-flopper charge ultimately a losing argument against Romney, or is this something Romney’s detractors should embrace in the coming months?

Rick Santorum argued earlier this week, with a straight face, that President Obama has “sided with our enemies.” The same day, Santorum also accused the president of engaging in “absolutely un-American activities.”

The New Yorker’s George Packer raised an excellent observation about the way in which these allegations were covered. (thanks to D.K. for the tip)

[T]his kind of gutter rhetoric is so routine in the Republican campaign that it’s not worth a political journalist’s time to point it out. In 2008, when Michele Bachmann suggested that Barack Obama and an unknown number of her colleagues in Congress were anti-American, there was a flurry of criticism; three years later, when a surging Presidential candidate states it flatly about a sitting President, there’s no response at all.

Certain forms of deterioration … become acceptable by attrition, because critics lose the energy to call them out. Eventually, people even stop remembering that they’re wrong…. How many times and ways can you say that the Republican Party has descended into unreality and extremism before you lose your viewers and readers?

There was a point not too long ago when the standards of our discourse included more meaningful norms. Accusing the president of the United States, leading during a time of war and crisis, of “siding with our enemies” and engaging in “un-American activities” was just about the most extreme accusation imaginable.

Indeed, the phrases themselves suggest that the accuser believes the president is literally a traitor, guilty of treason.

The idea that a leading major-party presidential candidate would throw around such rhetoric without proof was, up until very recently, madness. The idea that such a candidate would face no pushback whatsoever, with journalists barely finding it worth mentioning at all, was unthinkable.

But as the Republican Party has become radicalized, such rhetoric has become routine. GOP officials and their allies have no qualms about using labels like “socialist,” “communist,” and even “fascist” — without any regard for what those words actually mean — and after a while, we just roll our eyes. There they go again, accusing Americans they don’t like of sedition, disloyalty, and national betrayal for no apparent reason. It must be a day that ends with “y.”

But here’s hoping that the tide will eventually turn, that ridiculous accusations will stop being acceptable by attrition, and that Americans will start remembering that they’re wrong.

We talked yesterday about Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital and the millions it made while crushing a Missouri steel company called GS Technologies. Reuters called the fiasco the “steel skeleton in the Bain closet.”

MoveOn.org has a new video highlighting some of Romney’s victims. One is Donny Box, whom we met on Thursday, and the other is Glen Patrick Wells, who spent a generation at the Kansas City steel mill Romney helped shut down.

“I spent 34 years in this steel mill,” Wells tells viewers. “They walked out of here with millions. They left us with nothing.”

What’s especially noteworthy about Wells is his political background. Greg Sargent talked to him yesterday and found that Wells is a self-identified conservative who voted for Bush and McCain. He’s so disgusted with Romney, though, that he’s willing to work with MoveOn.org.

Greg raised a related point that’s worth watching in the coming months.

As I’ve been saying, the battle to define Romney’s Bain years will be epic, as central to the general election as the war over the meaning of John Kerry’s war service was in 2004. And it’s already looking like there will be a cast of the layoff victims themselves who will be willing tell the story.

Indeed, if Dems have their way, these layoff victims will be this year’s version of the Swift Boat Vets — without the mendacity, that is — materializing out of Romney’s past to set the record straight about this central and defining episode in Romney’s life and career.

Quite right. It’s one thing to hear in the abstract about the mass layoffs Romney is responsible for, it’s something else to see these individuals, hear their stories, and consider their personal consequences after the Republican “job creator” entered their lives.

It’s not just two or three people, either. There’s a long list of Romney victims who will likely be eager to tell voters that if Romney does for America what he did for GS Technologies and companies like it, we’re all in a lot of trouble.

For quite a while, Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor and leading Republican voice, has been pining for new entrants into the Republican presidential field. But this week, the GOP pundit seems to have found a new love — who happens to already be running.

[Rick] Santorum can hope to win. He has been running to win. And after what he pulled off in Iowa, it’s foolish to suggest he doesn’t have a chance to win. His Iowa performance, and his speech Tuesday night, were impressive enough to suggest to primary voters in subsequent states that they should make an effort to judge both his capacity to win and his capacity to govern.

Organizational and financial advantages often prevail. But isn’t the story of America that they don’t always determine the outcome? And, by the way, if the candidate with those advantages does prevail, won’t he be better off for having faced a serious challenger? […]

Santorum — and anyone else in the field, or anyone who may still enter — deserves “an open field and a fair chance” to compete for the “big White House” that Lincoln occupied. All American history is saying, and all we are saying, is … give Rick a chance.

That’s a nice sentiment, and given Kristol’s role in Republican Party politics, his appeal to “give Rick a chance” is pretty interesting. If The Weekly Standard editor starts taking steps to promote Santorum and encourage his political allies to do the same, it might actually have an impact on the race.

But Kristol has to know it would have been infinitely smarter of him to have made this pronouncement, say, two months ago. Four days ago, Romney won Iowa; three days from now, Romney will win New Hampshire. The latest polls show him as the clear favorite in South Carolina. Republicans can “give Rick a chance,” but so long as Republicans are giving Mitt their votes, this race appears to be over.

The only credible avenue left is for the various anti-Romney factions — Kristol and his allies, the religious right, the far-right netroots, etc. — to quickly settle on one candidate and start pushing everyone else out. But so long as Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry are dividing the right, Romney has reason to feel confident.

First up from the God Machine this week is a word from on high as to who will win the 2012 presidential election.

Most of us will have to rely on polling, projections, trends, and some guesswork, at least until the first Tuesday in November, but radical TV preacher Pat Robertson claims to have a direct line to the divine. This week, the televangelist told his national television audience that God whispered the election results in his ear.

“I spent the better part of a week in prayer and just saying, ‘God show me something,’ some things I’ll share with you. I think he showed me the next president but I’m not supposed to talk about that so I’ll leave you in the dark — probably just as well — I think I’ll know who it will be.”

I especially liked the part in which Robertson said he’s “not supposed to talk about that” — as if God spoke directly to the radical TV preacher and said, “OK, I’ll tell you, Pat, but don’t go spreading it around.”

Robertson also told his viewers that God believes President Obama “holds a radical view” of the nation’s direction. So there you have it — pay no attention to the historians and political scientists who note that Obama’s agenda has deep roots in the ideologies of both parties going back generations; Pat Robertson heard the opposite directly from God.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* State lawmakers in Tennessee are working on anti-bullying laws, but want to create a loophole that will allow religious youths to pick on gays.

* Gabino Zavala, an assistant bishop of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles, was forced to resign this week after acknowledging that he has two teenage children. Roman Catholic clergy, of course, are supposed to be celibate.

* Speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George apologized this week for comparing an annual gay rights parade to a Ku Klux Klan rally.

* And an entity called the Church of Kopimism, focused on electronic file-sharing, has been officially recognized as a religion by the Swedish government. (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

Four years ago, John McCain ran into a little trouble when he owned so many homes, he forgot exactly how many and had to check with his staff. Mitt Romney is not quite in the same boat, but the issue does come from time to time.

Take this exchange last night in New Hampshire, for example.

Here’s the transcript for those who can’t watch clips online:

VOTER: I’m a middle class American, like a lot of people here. We’re all hurting, we really are. We New Englanders, we know that you should help your neighbors. It’s a little hard for me because I know you’re a multi-millionaire, I read this morning you have like four houses. Would you be willing to give up some of that so that we middle Americans can get some tax cuts?

ROMNEY: (Laughing) Well, that’s an idea. Okay, that’s right. Um, let’s see. Well, I don’t have four houses, that’s number one — although it’s a good idea, thank you for the idea.

For the record, Romney’s response was correct. He had four houses, but now, he’s been reduced to only three.

There’s the $12 million oceanfront residence in California (the one Romney is quadrupling in size); a $10 million home in New Hampshire; and a townhouse in Belmont, Mass. There’s also the nearby mansion, where one of Romney’s sons lives, and where Romney was registered to vote as recently as last year, but it’s technically not one of the candidate’s houses.

There was also the $5 million ski-house in an exclusive area in Utah, but he sold it in 2010.

Not bad for a guy who jokes about being “unemployed.”

Arguably more important, though, is what followed Romney’s initial response. After clarifying the fact that he doesn’t have four homes, he rejected the question’s premise and dismissed the idea that the very wealthy should be asked to pay a little more.

“I know that there are some who say, ‘Let’s just get more money from the higher-income people, let’s just tax them some more.’ And I understand that’s popular in a lot of people’s minds,” Romney said. “But just don’t forget that old Margaret Thatcher line: ‘Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.’”

I understand the philosophy, but I have a follow-up question for Romney: even if you don’t want to ask the wealthy to sacrifice, is it really necessary to give rich people more tax cuts, while raising taxes on those already struggling?

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Amazing rescue: “In the middle of a tense standoff between Iran and the United States, the crew of an American destroyer patrolling the North Arabian Sea rescued 13 Iranian fishermen who had been taken hostage by Somali pirates more than a month ago, the Pentagon announced on Friday.”

* Syria: “A bomb tore through a densely populated neighborhood in Damascus on Friday, killing 25 people and wounding dozens more in the second attack in the Syrian capital in two weeks, Syrian television and other state news media reported.”

* Encouraging step: “The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Friday that it was making a major change in how it settles some securities fraud cases, telling companies that they will no longer be allowed to neither admit nor deny the commission’s civil charges when, at the same time, they admit to or have been convicted of criminal violations.”

* A new defense footing: “President Obama has for the first time put his own stamp on an all-encompassing American military policy by turning from the grinding ground wars that he inherited from the Bush administration and refocusing on what he described as a smaller, more agile force across Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East.”

* I think President Obama made a mistake last year when he called for a federal pay freeze. I’m glad to now see him move in a better direction: “President Barack Obama will propose lifting a pay freeze for U.S. federal workers in his budget plan to be unveiled next month to give government employees a 0.5 percent pay rise, a White House official said on Friday.”

* It’s a good thing Obama didn’t listen to Republicans on the auto industry: “Chrysler will add 1,250 jobs at two Detroit factories next year — another sign that the once struggling automaker appears to be making a comeback.”

* An overdue change: “The FBI is changing its long-standing definition of rape for the first time to include sexual assaults on males following persistent calls from victims advocates who claim that the offense, as currently defined in the agency’s annual crime report, has been undercounted for decades.”

* The Obama administration is clearly aware of the progressive criticism over the NDAA bill, and officials have prepared some responses to common concerns.

* The White House launches Summer Jobs+, a worthwhile summer-jobs program that will create “nearly 180,000 employment opportunities for low-income youth in the summer of 2012, with a goal of reaching 250,000 employment opportunities by the start of summer, at least 100,000 of which will be placements in paid jobs and internships.”

* C’mon, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). I think you’re better than this.

* Liz Cheney will now be paid political commentator for Fox News. What a shock.

* Liberty University, a Virginia school founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell, appears to be throwing its support to Newt Gingrich.

* NBC’s “Community” is not yet dead.

* Fox News’ Neil Cavuto wonders whether President Obama can be impeached over his recess appointments. Yeah, give that a shot, Republicans. See how it turns out.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

For the most part, Republicans responded to the good jobs report this morning with quiet bemusement. They don’t want to say it’s encouraging, because Republicans don’t want to give the impression that the economy is improving. GOP officials and candidates don’t want to seem discouraged either, for fear of looking like they’re rooting against the country.

One Republican presidential candidate tried to split the difference.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, campaigning in New Hampshire, managed to claim credit for Republicans.

Santorum, who has harshly criticized Obama on the economy, said he was “very gratified” that hiring had picked up but suggested the boost was tied to voters’ optimism that a Republican would win the White House. “There’s a lot of concern still,” he added. [emphasis added]

Oh my.

I rather doubt even Santorum believes this, but in case anyone’s inclined to accept such nonsense, the idea that employers would start hiring hundreds of thousands of workers in December 2011 based on vague political expectations about the party of a president who might take office in January 2013 is … how do I put this gently … stark raving mad.

I’m not unsympathetic to the GOP’s plight here. When someone sees a strong political benefit to economic suffering, it’s hard to know what to say when an economic recovery starts to pick up steam.

But that’s hardly an excuse for Santorum’s nonsense.