Coaches Suspended for Saints Bounties
RUSH: The coach of New Orleans Saints is gone for a year, Sean Payton. The former defensive coordinator of the Saints, Gregg Williams (who had been hired bit St. Louis Rams) is suspended indefinitely. According to the NFL's own investigation, he was the architect of the bounty program: Paying players additional money to take opposing players out of the game. It's always gone on. In fact, the money I think was incidental. It was a hundred bucks, a thousand bucks. It was the recognition these guys got for accomplishing the job, and Williams denied it for a long time in the investigation before coming clean. The general manager of the Saints, a guy named Mickey Loomis, is suspended for eight games.
The owner, Tom Benson, didn't know what was going on so he's safe. Plus, the Saints have been fined half a million dollars and they lose their second-round draft pick this year and next year. That's punitive. That's a punishment that affects the competitive balance in their division. So, Brian, you ought to be happy, being a Tampa Bay fan. Now something gives them a chance.
Tebow to the Jets?
RUSH: Then you have Tim Tebow going to the New York Jets for a fourth-round draft choice. I think that's pretty insulting. I think the Broncos could have gotten Jeremy Lin thrown, too, from the Knicks, for Tebow. (chuckling) So now they made a public display of being interested in Peyton Manning. That shook up the confidence of Mark Sanchez. Now they go get Tebow under the Rex Ryan circus at the New York Jets.
Oh, it's fascinating.
This is one of the most active, engaging off seasons in the NFL that I can remember.
30% of Young Adults Have Moved Back Home
RUSH: From the Washington Times, headline: "Number of Adults Returning to Their Family Homes Growing -- About 30% of young Americans..." This from the Peeeew Research Center, P-e-w. "About 30% of young Americans age 25 to 34 who once left their family homes have moved back in..." Thirty percent who left have come back! Now, some of these adult children may be happy with the arrangement. They may think that they're better off than they were when Obama took office. I want to know how these people are gonna vote. These are people who have had to move back home or who have moved in with a friend or family due to deteriorating economic conditions.
You know, Democrats are always out there asking for sob stories in order to sell their latest idea. They have an endless parade of victims they bring up either to their congressional or Senate hearings or photo-op displays, public appearances. How about people write in to the RNC and tell their stories about not being able to get a job, losing their home, and then moving in with relatives. Was that the change people were hoping for? Here's Obama, Mr. Hope and Change, and what's the change? People get educated, they get jobs, they leave home. Obama gets elected and after three years, they move back home! It's the only solution some of them have.
How about those young Obama voters who were in college or grad school back in 2008, especially those who campaigned for him and lectured their parents about The Great Barack Obama. And then two-three years later, they move back into the old bedrooms in those silly "hope and change" posters are probably still on the bedroom walls. Sounds like the premise of a movie. Oh, except they already did a movie on this: Failure to Launch. It had nothing to do with Obama, so they could redo Failure to Launch, and this time make it about Obama! Let the Republicans do a movie about this.
Anybody who moved back in with their parents and then helps Obama's reelection campaign needs to go home from an organizing meeting and find their clothes on the front stop of mommy and daddy's house. Mommy and daddy need to kick 'em out of the house if they show up at an Obama campaign rally. "Dear Son: You have been evicted due to a failure to grow up. See you for Christmas Dinner." Now, Pew! You must know, I've read the story. Pew did not ask if the parents are happy. The Pew Center tries to make this sound like it's a great development, folks. When you read the story, the Pew people think, oh, this is wonderful for families and wonderful for family gatherings!
Remember when the first huge wave of unemployment hit shortly after Obama was immaculated, we started getting stories about the wonders of being unemployed. Oh, how wonderful it was! What a great opportunity being unemployed was. They even had a slogan for it. I've forgotten what the slogan was, the name for these people. But there were stories after story after story of these people that are, found each other, found new friendships, and had time now to really explore the meaning of life without having this hassle of job or of work. It was like back in the nineties when Clinton was lying every time he opened his mouth. We had stories...
Funemployment! That's what it was. They called it funemployment. People who were engaged in funemployment. Yeah, it was the thing to do. Just two years ago. It was like in the nineties. Clinton was lying every time he opened his mouth and we had stories about how lying is good for us. "Lying is helpful. Lying spares people hurt feelings. It's actually a wonderful thing."
Obama Fundraising Down
RUSH: We have been discussing Obama's fundraising troubles in connection with the Washington Post piece that ran on Sunday about the deal last summer and Obama telling all the Democrats in Congress (paraphrased): "I'm not giving you any campaign money from my stash," because he doesn't have enough to give away. This is the point. All this stuff about Obama raising a billion dollars, it isn't true. Yesterday, Ed Morrissey from Hot Air was breaking down a story from the Politico. "Obama Fundraising 28% Off 2008 Pace -- Politico breaks it down further to find that the actual total money raised for Obama by three different committees in February comes to $39.4 million -- far off of the pace of his 2008 fundraising."
Remember last Friday, they had five or six fundraisers, and they came in about $1.5 million below their expectations. Now, "Don't forget that Obama also had some competition for Democratic contributors in February 2008, too. Hillary Clinton raised $34 million, not much below what President Obama raised in a field all by himself last month." He doesn't have any fundraising competitors, and he's way below what he was with Hillary also competing for dollars. Overall, Democrat presidential fundraising (not just Obama, but the whole operation) is off 55.7%. And I only mention this to you in order to keep everybody's spirits up. It's a daily assault on us.
I'm not talking about what happened to me. I'm talking about the daily assault on conservatism. The daily assault on conservatism in the media is actually nothing more than a bunch of daily lies about the strength of the economy and how great Obama's doing and the Keystone pipeline. He's going to Oklahoma tomorrow and he's gonna supposedly authorize the Keystone pipeline. It's all a bunch of pap. It just isn't happening. The unemployment numbers are suspicious. There is no great economic recovery, and everybody living in this country knows it and yet the reporting each day is the exact opposite. "There is a recovery. It's really booming out there!"
There's some curiosity about why there isn't any economic growth than there was. I remember when the stimulus was first passed in February or March of 2009. They then talked about the fact that we should look for a jobless recovery for a while, which had us all scratching our heads. "What's a 'jobless recovery'? How can you have a recovery with no jobs, no new jobs?" Well, guess what now? Now they're reporting that unemployment has gone down. "A bunch of new jobs are being created but where's the growth?" They're all asking, the Democrats and their economic experts and people in the media, "Where's the growth? Where's the economic growth?"
So we've gone from a jobless recovery to a recovery-less job growth. Neither one make any sense. But the efforts that the media are going to to find any shred of bad news and turn it into good news is happening. They're taking every opportunity to do it, and it's designed to dispirit you and to keep Obama's base enthused. I'm not saying he's gonna lose. I'm not saying it's in the cards now he's gonna lose. I'm telling you it's not inevitable that he wins by any stretch of the imagination. And the fundraising might take care of itself later on as his side becomes aware of the fact that he's not a shoo-in, or it could well be that the energy for Obama won't be what it was in 2008.
Well, it isn't what it was in 2008 and it may not even get even close to it again. The things that have happened in this country are real. The economic destruction is real. Obamacare is real. The fact that people are going to lose their health care plan is real, and people know these things. The fact that they can't find good-paying jobs, that's real. So all these efforts by Obama and the media to tell people that what they know and feel is not true, it isn't going to work. But they're still going to keep trying.
Media Furiously Spinning the Obama Economy
RUSH: This is from Reuters, a great example here of what I was just talking about: The effort to do whatever they can to try to accentuate the positive under Obama.
"Permits for homebuilding neared a 3.5-year high in February, suggesting..." Suggesting! (chuckling) It's a news story! Suggesting? It's "suggesting a budding recovery in the housing market was still on track even though groundbreaking activity slipped." Okay. Permits to build homes hit a 3.5-year high in February. That's no great shakes, by the way, when you go back and compare it to February of three-and-a-half years ago. "Permits," pieces of paper are up, but "groundbreaking activity slipped," means nobody is building them. They got the permits, but they're not breaking ground. But the good news is there's a lot of paper out there that says people can if they want to!
The actual number of housing construction starts went down. We're gonna hear later that they went down by 1.1%. That starts on single family houses, which is "the lion's share of the housing market," went down 9.9%. "New building permits surged 5.1% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 717,000 units last month, the highest since October 2008..." Yip yip yip yip yahoo! Now, why are building permits "seasonally adjusted"? We know the unemployment numbers are, but why are building permits seasonally adjusted? Isn't that a real, countable number? The number of permits is not a guess like the unemployment figure is.
"The jump in permits, which exceeded economists' expectations for an advance ... reinforced views the housing market was improving and that home building would add to economic growth this year for the first time since 2005." Well, they're not breaking ground, though. See, they casually just throw that in. Now, we have noted for some time how Reuters, AP, Washington Post, New York Times (you name 'em) constantly accentuates the positive in their economic reports with Obama in the White House. Now, while Bush was president, it was just the opposite. In this case here in this story, they emphasize the news that home building permits are up 5.1% in February.
They bury the fact that housing starts were actually down for the month. In fact, housing starts for single-family homes were down by 9.9%. So why wasn't the headline: "Single Family Home Starts Down 9.9%"? Why focus on seasonally adjusted PERMITS? 'Cause they want to be able to suggest that there might be forthcoming economic boom activity in the housing market. Reuters says here: "Permits usually lead home construction by about a month, meaning that starts will likely reverse their slide in March."
It's a guess, using historical patterns.
It's more evidence that there is not conclusive evidence or an indication that the economy is roaring back.