RUSH: The US economy, and we predicted this, and you probably instinctively knew it as well, "The US economy grew at a slightly slower pace than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending strengthened analysts’ views that output would pick up in the current quarter." That is horribly written. You know, I can't tell you the number of typos, grammatical mistakes, just flat-out errors that now appear in what are supposedly solid journalistic websites. This is CNBC website, and that's the most horribly constructed sentence I have seen in a long time, at least since yesterday. The bottom line here is that everybody was having an orgasm last month when the GDP was announced at 2.5%. Remember that? And we told you it would be revised outward once further information was discovered.
And, lo and behold, it has been revised downward, economic growth just 2%, well below the earlier estimate. Now, let me try this lead sentence again. "The US economy grew at a slightly slower pace than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending strengthened views --" there should be a "that" in there or a comma "-- strengthened views that output would pick up in the current quarter." But they're hoping and praying, there's no solid basis for saying that.
"Gross domestic product grew at a 2.0 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate on Tuesday, down from the previously reported 2.5 percent. While the revision was below economists' expectations for a 2.5 percent growth pace, the composition of the GDP report, especially still-firm consumer spending and the first drop in businesses inventories since the fourth quarter of 2009 set the platform for a stronger economic performance this quarter." They hope, they pray, they wish. So most of this article tries to make the case that this revision doesn't mean anything. Good times just around the corner, folks.
Now, I'm not gonna waste my time analyzing hope and change when the moral of this story is don't trust the State-Controlled Media or government agencies feeding them misinformation when they're first reported, be it unemployment numbers, be it unemployment compensation requests or applications, it's all gonna be revised. What we know is that we were misled. We were told by the regime that GDP was roaring back at two and a half percent, and it wasn't so. What we have here is a 20% error. Try going to work 20% late. Try underpaying your rent or your mortgage by 20%. Try underpaying your taxes by 20%, see how far you get. But you can't trust anything coming out of the regime. These government produced numbers don't mean anything. Unemployment numbers are at least 20% off, which seems to be an acceptable margin of error for public servants. Maybe we can only pay 80% of our taxes and call it even.
From the Weekly Standard, a story here by Jeff Anderson. "Gallup: Perhaps 'Most Competitive,' 'Most Unpredictable' GOP Race in 40 Years -- The latest Gallup poll of registered Republican and Republican-leaning voters shows Newt Gingrich in first place in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, edging Mitt Romney by 1 percentage point (22 to 21 percent)." These polls are all over the place. There's a poll out today that shows Romney up 20 or 30 percent in New Hampshire. I don't know what the poll is. I don't remember it. I didn't read it long enough. It happened at a time of the day where if I can't grab it in the first sentence, I don't have time for the rest of it. But I do know it's 20 or 30% that Romney is up in this particular poll. Don't know what the poll is. Gallup poll has Newt up 22-21 nationally. Herman Cain in third place, 16%; followed by Ron Paul at nine; Rick Perry at eight; Michele Bachmann at four; Huntsman and Santorum at 1% each.
"Gingrich has now also moved into first place in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polling." Real Clear Politics averages a whole bunch of different polls out there for their rolling average, and Newt leads it. "Since early October, Gingrich is up 15 percentage points in Gallup’s polling, making him the only Republican presidential candidate whose support has increased significantly over that span. ... Based on its latest results, Gallup writes that 'the current contest stands to be the most competitive and perhaps most unpredictable for the Republican nomination since 1972, when the parties shifted the power to choose their presidential nominees away from party leaders at the national convention to the rank-and-file voters in state primaries and caucuses.'"
Now, why is this? All of a sudden we got a story from Gallup saying, "Man, this is the most competitive, most unpredictable Republican race in 40 years," and yet the conventional wisdom is that Romney's the nominee and all the rest of this is academic. So which is it? Or could it be both? Could it be unpredictable and the most competitive with Romney ending up as the slam dunk? I know those two things seem contradictory, but if it's so competitive, why is it so competitive, do you think? Do you get the impression that it is? When you hear me tell you that Gallup says that the current contest is the most competitive since 1972, does that reflect the way you look at it? Or are you out there thinking like the conventional wisdom is that it's over, that Romney's the nominee, just a matter of time, the primaries are academic, we have to have 'em, we gotta do 'em, but everybody knows it's gonna be Romney. I can't tell you how widespread that conventional wisdom is. Yet here's Gallup saying, no, no, no, most competitive.
I'll tell you why. If it's true that it is the most competitive and unpredictable Republican race since 1972, it is for one reason, and that reason is that conservatives throughout the country are not rolling over and letting the Republican Party insiders pick another dud candidate. We might still end up with one, and I'm not naming any names. We still might end up with one, but at least for now conservatives are still in the fight. And that's why Gallup is calling this unpredictable. They're calling it unpredictable because of their own poll results. They're out there polling people and they're hearing people, conservatives and Republicans, answer their polling question. Gallup is concluding, "Whoa, Nellie, this thing isn't settled by a long shot." And that's what they're reporting. And if this is accurate, it's simply because conservatives are not rolling over.
RUSH: Willie, Mount Vernon, Illinois, welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey dittos, Rush, from a long-time truck driver. I started listening to you in California when I started there.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: I had a statement that the unemployment numbers in October were a complete farce. The government for every week was saying how there was 400,000 new unemployment claims. So for the month of October that's at least 1,600,000. Then they said they created 80,000 jobs. That's still 1,520,000 that they lost. How could the unemployment numbers go down a tenth of a percent when it shoulda went up five to ten?
RUSH: Very simply. There's an answer to the question.
CALLER: They're crooked.
RUSH: Well, I think the numbers are manipulated, but do you realize that since January of 2009 when Obama was immaculated, from then 'til now the number of jobs that are available to be filled in this country has been reduced by two and a half million. The regime has just erased them. They've just wiped them off the books. They have just said those jobs, they've not identified what they are, they said those jobs are gone. So if the universe of total jobs available has shrunk by two and a half million, then you can play some games with the unemployment numbers, the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate, if the number of jobs was constant today as it was when Obama was immaculated, the unemployment rate, the reported unemployment rate would be 12.3%. The only reason it's nine is because they just erased two million jobs from the total.
RUSH: It's the workforce participation rate that the Department of Labor plays around with. That's the total number of available jobs, workforce participation rate. It is the lowest it's been since 1983, or the worst, and it's just arbitrarily arrived at. They just say, "Okay, this is the number of jobs available." They erase jobs when businesses shut down, stores close, sactories move and so forth. Even if it's real, I don't care how you look at it, we know that there are fewer jobs available in this country. We know that this administration is not just managing the decline; they are organizing it. They're organizing it.
Chris Matthews, we played the audio from his interview on MSNBC over the weekend. It is amazing. He's got a book that he's plugging, a book on JFK. So tables are turned and he's interviewed, and it's amazing when people like Matthews are interviewed, they've got a book to sell, it's amazing how a different perspective comes out of their mouth. What that interview with Matthews showed was that even liberals are scratching their heads, "What is the guy doing? What's on the plate for the second term? What's the agenda? How's he gonna deal with long-term debt?" I had to laugh at that one because he caused it. How's Obama gonna deal with long-term debt, what's his plan for it? To create more. The only logical conclusion to draw. He's already created how many new trillions of dollars in debt. Where is evidence he doesn't like it? Where is evidence he doesn't want to have it happen? There is no evidence. The evidence is he enjoys it. There will be more debt. There will be more deficit spending. That's what's on tap.
And even people on the left, we had that piece from Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, I mean the truth of the matter is, and this was true going into 2010 midterms, there are Democrats, if you can find a couple of adults among 'em, when they get behind closed doors, they talk to each other seriously about what this guy is doing to the Democrat Party. Now, this is as extremist left as the Democrat Party's ever been, and there are a lot of people simpatico with Obama in it, but there are some who understand that the Democrat Party is in the process of becoming a perpetual minority party. They're not so worried about it 'cause they've got their judges in place and the liberals populate the bureaucracy in career positions, so they have election insurance. But it still doesn't mean they want to lose elections. They still want the power of winning elections and that's threatened here.
So when Doug Schoen and Caddell write a piece they are serious. Somebody needs to go to Obama and say for the good of the party and the good of the country you need to stand down. They blew it because he's a narcissist and you don't go to a narcissist and say the problem is because of you. What they shoulda done is gone to Obama and say, "Look, this job is too small for you, Barack. White House? President? You're capable of so much more. We can tell you don't even like the job. The job doesn't energize you. It's so beneath you, Barack, and we know we don't like living in the White House. You need to be running the UN. You need to be doing something like Bill Clinton on an even grander scale." If they want to get rid of Obama, that's how they're gonna have to do it. They can't get rid of Obama by going to him and saying, "Pal, you're destroying our party," 'cause he'll just slap 'em down and he'll sick Michelle on 'em. Nobody wants that. The only people who aren't intimidated are the NASCAR people.