Four years ago the nation was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer

And interesting double-whammy from former Florida repugican Governor Charlie Crist and former repugican presidential candidate Ron Paul.  Neither of whom is terribly thrilled with Mitt Romney.

First Crist, who makes a valid point many have forgotten:

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president's response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

What Crist wrote matters, because it counters the latest repugican talking point, dutifully parroted by Faux's Greta Van Sustern on ABC's This Week this morning:

VAN SUSTEREN: [T]he flip side is, President Obama has now had almost four years. And frankly, if you aren't better off -- we know his economic strategy. And if you don't think it worked, if it didn't make your life better -- it doesn't matter whether you find someone sort of warm and fuzzy that you like, you're like, OK, well let's try something else.

Ah yes, the old "are you better off now than you were for years ago."

Four years ago we all had terminal financial cancer. We were on the verge of another Great Depression, financial death. And President Obama came in and stopped it from happening.

Now, has the patient fully recovered yet? No.

Did we feel better four years ago, just as we were diagnosed but the disease hadn't yet caused any real damage? Yup.

But America is a lot like the patient who underwent chemo. You feel like garbage, but that doesn't mean you were better off when you had cancer but hadn't yet felt the full brunt of the disease.

Then again, Faux is the repugican cabal propaganda organ. And the repugican cabal has never trusted the American people with the truth, because truth has a Democratic bias. So, repugicans have said things such as claiming, falsely, that the stimulus created unemployment because we had a stimulus and unemployment still went up (ignoring the obvious point that the increase in unemployment could have been cut in half by the stimulus (which is the convention wisdom)). So, I understand why Van Susteren is parroting repugican talking points, but as always, they're a convenient untruth.

And now Ron Paul, from the NYT:

Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.

“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”

Ha!