On Friday I asked readers what impact the unemployment figures would have on the debt ceiling negotiations and on the political scene, more generally.

Stevendufresne suggested this was a near death knell for President Obama, writing in part:

The unemployment figures expose how vulnerable Obama really is in 2012. At the end of the day, Obama will not be reelected with unemployment elevated at these levels. Add to this, a record of trillion-dollar deficits, a record for having the record for adding to the national debt, a potentially unconstitutional health-care reform program, financial reform legislation that has frozen lending, and an environmental/energy policy hellbent on destroying domestic hydrocarbon energy production through regulations and cuts in “spending in the tax code” targeted at the oil companies. This record has gone a long way to creating the poor employment environment that has hurt the American people at large. This will only continue, as it seems this administration is determined to raise the debt ceiling, i.e., increase the debt and raise taxes, which will further harm confidence in the economy.

He sure got the White House’s addiction to tax hikes right.

Pablopanadero thinks this is a teachable moment for the left:

Liberal dogma teaches that Reaganomics had nothing to do with the economy’s expansion in the 80s and 90s. According to this dogma, economies go up and down, and government action has little to do with it. Ronald Reagan got credit because he happened to be president when it went up. While not all Democrats believed it, it served them well to pretend to believe it in order to use class warfare to gain power. Obama, being relatively young, has had only this dogma whispered in his ear his entire adult life and is a true believer. Consequently, there was no concern about raiding the Treasury for cronies (stimulus), taking over 17% of the economy (Obamacare), or demagoguing whole segments of the economy (private jets), because the economy will go up because it always goes up after a downturn. . . .

As the numbers will continue to degrade as Obama’s policies unfold, there will be some who cover their ears, but there will be some who reach out to the right side of the aisle for answers. They will find their own [Mikhail] Gorbachev moment [recognizing the failure of communism], and they will affect change in their own lives.

Perhaps. But never underestimate the left’s ability to insist that if only they had spent more all would be well.

Iowahawkeye said it best, suggesting this month’s jobs figures represent a tipping point:

I believe that there was an ‘ah-ha’ moment . . . . Before the numbers came out, [Sen. Marco] Rubio said very eloquently that governments don’t fund themselves through this or that maneuver; taxpayers fund governments. He did what [Tim] Pawlenty should have been doing for the past six months (I know, this makes Washington look strangely effete and impotent, although I have to admire [Mitch] McConnell’s suits.) Rubio asked, “So what creates more taxpayers? Putting more people on the dole, or allowing more people to hire more taxpayers?”

So this jobs report validates a searing, wonderful political soliloquy by Rubio and cements the logic of his polemic. This could well be the inflection point in the next election: Only a moron would assume that more-of-the-same from this hapless administration will produce anything other than more dead businesses. (Watch what the EPA is staging next, preparing to do by edict what could not be done by constitutional means.)

So maybe we should be talking Rubio-Ryan in 2012? The GOP could, and likely will, do a whole lot worse.