The Revenge of Rick Santelli

When Rick Santelli expressed doubts about the drop in unemployment, he was eviscerated by the mainstream media.

When the September 2012 jobs report came out reflecting a drop in unemployment from 8.1 to 7.8%, some people believed there was something fishy about the numbers. One such person was Rick Santelli of CNBC, who said at the time he had no doubt the unemployment would come in under 8% and that the numbers would "feel funny."

Santelli was eviscerated by the mainstream media on both sides of the aisle and labeled an "unemployment truther."

Tuesday the NY Post reported the surprising drop in last September's unemployment rate was in fact based on manipulated numbers and that the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew all about it. This gave Rick Santelli the opportunity to get his "revenge" on the media, which not only bashed him, but ignored a host of news that may have changed the course of the 2012 Presidential Election. 

It was a classic Rick Santelli rant. He started by explaining the NY Post report and playing the clip of his reaction to the September 2012 unemployment numbers:

There was no doubt in my mind a month ago it would be under 8%. No doubt in my mind five minutes before the number it would be under 8%. Take it any way you want!

Then he launched into his rant:

Well, maybe I could have said that in a more calm fashion. I'm calm now. I think the time for shouting is over. But if we only knew now what we knew then really is the theme.

Think about what turned or determined the outcome of the election. The economy was huge. What part of the economy was everybody paying attention to? Jobs, jobs, jobs! So if it turns out that these claims are true, I had a sense it didn't feel right -- Jack Welch definitely had a sense it didn't feel right. If we knew now what we knew then. It wasn't only about the economy, it was about health care. It wasn't polling well. It was the reassurances about the unknown, if you want to see what's in it, you have to pass it. It was that unknown that had to be addressed. If you want to keep your doctor. If you want your policy. All of the "periods." If we knew now what we knew then would the outcome have changed? I can't tell you that. And it's not only about these issues and the election; it's about the Fed. It's been five years. Think about it. If we knew now -- if before we embarked on giving banks $125 billion, we'd known there'd be a $16 billion settlement, or when one bank bought sloppy banks, it would come back to haunt them, or we'd still see the amount of people out of work for more than 27 weeks, where it is five years later. Would it have made a difference?

I think all outcomes would have changed. How many times has Warren Buffett said, when you wake up in the morning you are supposed to look at your positions and fall in love with them every day or get rid of them. Think about the logic to that.

I don't know how high it went up -- and we're forgetting the biggest one -- the IRS. Okay? Taking the voice away from the conservatives that may have been born in February of '09, maybe the part known as the tea party, all of these changed outcomes. America, you really need to think about where we've been and where we're going. In the media, you could do better.