http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.html

But Obama’s real gaffe was showing up at the bridge in Cincinnati in the first place.

Reminder of the $787B Stimulus?
Bad idea.
What’s there to show for it?

Where’s the next Hoover Dam?
The new Golden Gate Bridge?
High-speed rail?
Solar-powered—- whoops, never mind….

Compare in your home town: 
Obama Stimulus vs. FDR’s WPA/PWA
My bet: after 80 years, there are still more WPA/PWA buildings, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, post offices, airports, government buildings or libraries standing than Stimulus projects, started or finished. 
Cost?  $20 billion for FDR, about $260B in today’s money.

“We used to have the best infrastructure in the world
here in America. We’re the country that built the
Intercontinental Railroad …”

At least he hasn’t been to 57 states with 2 more to
go….

JohnM—
The US housing market peaked in June 2006.
Some markets peaked earlier: October 2005 where I live.
Home prices were level to drifting lower well before July 2008.
Between 2005-2008, as the graph from your link shows, oil prices mvoed steadily higher, but it’s quite a stretch to say prices at the pump caused mortgage defaults.

Santorum (Fire!  Ready!  Aim!) got it right on the 2nd hop—oil prices were a factor, not a principal cause of the housing meltdown.

http://blog.american.com/2012/02/is-santorum-right-did-high-gas-prices-trigger-the-great-recession/ 

Is Santorum right? Did high gas prices trigger the
Great Recession? 

But there is some evidence that Santorum has a point.
In a 2009 paper, economist James Hamilton found that
big oil price shocks—such as the ones associated with
events such as the 1973-74 embargo by OPEC, the
Iranian Revolution in 1978, the Iran-Iraq War in
1980, and the First Persian Gulf War in 1990—were
each followed by a global economic recession. You can
see that phenomenon on the above chart.

Now, oil prices doubled between June 2007 and June
2008, the economist notes, a bigger price increase
than in any of those four earlier episodes.
Hamilton’s conclusion: “Had there been no increase in
oil prices between 2007:Q3 and 2008:Q2, the U.S.
economy would not have been in a recession over the
period 2007:Q4 through 2008:Q3.”

But what about the role of housing? Hamilton points
out that housing had been an economic drag before oil
and gasoline prices surged. Yet the economy continued
to grow. Here’s where oil enters the scene (bold for
emphasis):

At a minimum it is clear that something other than
housing deteriorated to turn slow growth into a
recession. That something, in my mind, includes the
collapse in automobile purchases, slowdown in overall
consumption spending, and deteriorating consumer
sentiment, in which the oil shock was indisputably a
contributing factor.

Second, there is an interaction e?ect between the oil
shock and the problems in housing. Cortright (2008)
noted that in the Los Angeles, Tampa, Pittsburgh,
Chicago, and Portland Vancouver Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, house prices in 2007 were likely
to rise slightly in the zip codes closest to the
central urban areas but fall signi?cantly in zip
codes with longer average commuting distances.
Foreclosure rates also rose with distance from the
center. And certainly to the extent that the oil
shock made a direct contribution to lower income and
higher unemployment, that would also depress housing
demand. For example, the estimates in Hamilton (2008)
imply that a 1% reduction in real GDP growth
translates into a 2.6% reduction in the demand for
new houses.

Eventually, the declines in income and house prices
set mortgage delinquency rates beyond a threshold at
which the overall solvency of the ?nancial system
itself came to be questioned, and the modest
recession of 2007:Q4-2008:Q3 turned into a ferocious
downturn in 2008:Q4.

“After the event, however, Santorum sought to clarify his remarks with reporters and described gas prices as a “factor” in the crisis, not necessarily the cause.”

Santorum steps in it again, then wastes more time wiping off his shoes. 
No wonder the MSM loves going after him & the Dems would love him as Repub nominee.

And yet, yes, he could STILL beat Obama 1-on-1 if the economy suffers a setback. 
The recovery is fragile, Obama’s domestic policy is weak and the suffering is real.