How can you tell when MSNBC cable-show host Rachel Maddow utters falsehoods about Herbert Hoover? If she talks about him.
This is becoming enough of a pattern for Maddow, as I've described previously at NewsBusters, to border on the pathological.
Here she goes again, this time during her show Friday night while condemning Republicans calling for a "freeze" on federal spending for the rest of the fiscal year --
You know who else had the excellent idea to freeze government spending during a recession? This guy! (holds up photo of Hoover) H.H., President Herbert Hoover. His fundamental misunderstanding of how to shore up a failing economy was so celebrated that the great armies of homeless and jobless Americans gave him naming rights for the shanty towns where they all lived in cardboard boxes and burned-out cars during the Great Depression -- Hoovervilles. Hoovervilles.
And now, (House Minority Leader) John Boehner and congressional Republicans are advocating the same policy.
Enboldened by smarm, Maddow went on to say --
In this context (referring to the recession), the Republicans are proposing a spending freeze. They're saying the government should stop spending. And also, rather than put your house fire out with water, they're going to switch the liquid in the firehose over to gasoline.
Much like that alleged tightwad Hoover during the Depression. Maddow at the same fire resolutely douses the blaze with water, regardless of whether it was electrical in origin.
Certain left-wing myths are so impervious to reality -- McCarthy chasing phantom communists, Reagan as amiable dunce, the doomed surge in Iraq -- that arguing with liberals about these sacrosanct beliefs is like trying to convert house plants. The best you can do is open them to sunlight.
When it comes to federal spending during Hoover's single term in office, 1929 to 1933, what actually happened? According to the Office of Budget and Management Web site, Table 1.1, just the opposite of what Maddow repeatedly claims.
Federal spending increased $166 million in 1929, or 5 percent. In 1930, it rose by $193 million over the preceding year, at 6 percent. The pattern continued in 1931, with an increase of $257 million, nearly 8 percent. And for 1932, it rose a whopping 30 percent, by $1.08 billion. All told, federal spending increased 57 percent in this four-year period, according to the OMB.
It was a "freeze" on spending much the way bitter cold is evidence of global warming, another laughable claim from the left.
Not surprisingly, Maddow relies on anecdote to make her shabby claim -- shanty towns dubbed "Hoovervilles" during the Depression -- instead of the "empirical evidence" she touted but never produced, given its pie-in-face potential for besmirking her dogma.
Maddow also gets it wrong about what current-day Republicans in Congress are proposing -- they want to "freeze" spending, which beyond MSNBC is universally understood to mean maintaining spending at current levels. This is hardly suggesting we "stop" spending.
An actual example of a politician determined to follow Hoover's lead by vastly increasing federal spending in an economic slump? Barack Obama.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hoover, the original fat bastard white Republican
March 10, 2009 - 08:12 ET by SickofLibsI can improve upon Dr. Madcow's analogy of switching from water to gasoline to quell the fire...
Mr. Smith got laid off. He is basically flat broke. A pipe bursts in the basement. He finally gets a plumber to show up, and the plumber suggests since he's there anyway, this would be a perfect time to remodel the kitchen and both bathrooms. The plumber's helper is also a landscaper on the side, so they suggest this would also be a good time to redo all the landscaping with new sod, shrubbery, pavers and driveway.
Mr. Smith, being new to the homeowner thing, signs the contract.
Someone
March 10, 2009 - 08:18 ET by kongneeds to kick her balls!
Every time I see Maddow, I
March 10, 2009 - 08:23 ET by motherbeltEvery time I see Maddow, I am more convinced that she and Keith Olbermann are twins separated at birth.
What is it with the face-mask schtik ?
I guess they went to the same "really journalism" school.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Although I will not resort
March 10, 2009 - 08:28 ET by oldArmyAlthough I will not resort to name calling since this is a very familiar tactic by the left.....I have to point out that this is just another example of the DIMS to rewrite history in their favor. Luckily, Maddow doesn't really have much of an audience...however...this mind-set is evident throughout the old media. Which is very sad for America. It's getting to the point now where I can't even watch people (for amusement) such as Maddow any longer. Just makes me sick to my stomach.
While I'm here.....this is the same party that is taking away SECRET ballets from people in favor of unions being able to bully people into a decisions they will now fear to oppose!!
THIS IS AMERICA!!!
WAKE UP!!!!
Although they have a small audience ...
March 10, 2009 - 09:02 ET by legacyrepublicanI have come to realize that although they have a small audience, that audience includes all of the MSM who use their errors to support their own.
It then becomes trickle-down lies and distortion.
That is why our time looking over their errors is so important. I have found by joining Newbusters and reading the daily posts that I am more effective in dealing with those I want to fail -- yes, said FAIL.
Pick up a history book!
March 10, 2009 - 08:38 ET by Franklins_LockeLiberals really need to study up on their history. This misrepresentation of the facts is just plain embarrassing. Even though this may be deliberate, the results are the same. This looks like a complete idiot and lacks any credibility. And…these networks wonder why no one watches them and watches FoxNews. http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Franklin..yes, but they
March 10, 2009 - 09:59 ET by celatorFranklin..yes, but they have to pick up a history book that describes history that actually happened (I know you've embedded that point, but I just want to exphasize it).
What's often written in some of these "history" books is:
Hoover=depression=Republican=bad
The corrolary, of course is:
Roosevelt=National Recovery Act=Miracle Worker=Democrat=good.
Both arguments, of course, are simplistic and ridiculous, but the Old Media, schooled in this "history", spout them off gleefully when it suits their purposes.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything which the government does not first take from somebody else. Dr. Adrian Rogers
No Surprise Here
March 10, 2009 - 08:41 ET by FormerMarineOfficerShe's still trying to comprehend the difference with the hole in the ground.
this guy
March 10, 2009 - 08:49 ET by tomolson3This guy needs to interview her parents on the air to find out why they named him "Rachel"
Q. Are you an Historian?
March 10, 2009 - 08:53 ET by Wineguy13A. No, but I listened to Rachel Maddow Last Night (Or NPR, or BBC World Srvice)
This sort of 'journalism' works with the people who survey their news sources, rather than actually take the time to learn. Maddow talks confidently about people they have heard about but aren't real clear on, and that is enough for them. Sadly, we really are all Keynesians now, and it makes sense (to the marginally informed) that government spending is stimulative. Although if the money the Government is spending doesn't exist...oh well, whatever.
I used to like Maddow, but she has become more smarmy and unhinged after being given her own show. I think she should spend more time researching and then sounding spontaneously brilliant, like Dennis MIller.
Who is she and why is she there?
March 10, 2009 - 09:12 ET by zachlindLet’s be clear about Rachel Maddow’s presence at MSNBC. She was brought on to satisfy a “certain” constituency. You know, shore up the MSNBC “base”. Now whether or not that effort has been met I can’t say. But, given her struggle with, and acceptance of established history, that could be biological issue.
You're correct
March 10, 2009 - 09:44 ET by ArminiusLike Bathtub Boy and Matthews, she's there to provide molasses for the cockroaches.
What's the saying?
March 10, 2009 - 09:19 ET by Meredith1966This revisionist, tunnel-vision history propulgated by folks on the left reminds me of the saying, "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story." Can't remember who said that, but it sure applies to left-wing reporting.
"The words of a President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately." - Calvin Coolidge
Either it's stupidity or outright lying
March 10, 2009 - 09:22 ET by KC MulvilleIf Maddow wasn't speaking to her own echo chamber, her analysis might cause some damage. But since she's isolated to the MSNBC audience, it won't really hurt anyone. If an MSNBC host falls in the forest, does she make a sound?
Byron York has a great piece today, on the same general topic. The spending freeze, obviously, is trying to put a brake on spending trillions of dollars before anyone has a chance to review it. If nothing else, take a breath before taking on decades of debt.
Maddow's smart-ass approach proves that she's nothing but a smart-ass. Like Olbermann, all she can do is mock other people. She even mimics the stupid-guy voice when she discusses other people's views.
Actually, my question is if
March 10, 2009 - 09:32 ET by SRPwrdActually, my question is if an MSNBC host falls in the forest, how long does it take to hear the sound of someone on a keyboard making a "BUSHITLER DID IT!!" website?
"two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century" - PreBO
"Roads" Scholar Maddow
March 10, 2009 - 09:44 ET by NortoTime for her to be cut loose, like the Hughey guy.
The poor lady is mixed up
March 10, 2009 - 09:45 ET by marvlThe poor lady is mixed up about everything, including her own genitalia. It would be pathetic, except she's an arrogant prick like Olbermann.
She's perfect for
March 10, 2009 - 09:53 ET by marpelShe's perfect for MSNBC...she's mentally ill, and is totally confused about what the hell gender she is...sort of like Olbermann. I think Olbermann is really a woman and is failing miserably in pulling off the charade...Maddow is much more of man than KO....
Maury Povich puts out
March 10, 2009 - 10:25 ET by dborschjr68Maury Povich puts out better facts than this chick. I can't understand why MSNBC allows her to continue making the liberals look so ignorant. She only helps Conservatism, every time she "reports" on any issue.
Don't misunderstand me, I love that she is helping us.
But seriously, folks at MSNBC, don't you actually hear what your talk show personalities say? I mean, c'mon now. The longer she continues to spout such nonsense, the more your ratings will drop. It's simple TV politics. Maddow, Olbermann, and Matthews are turning your organization into the laughing stock of America. No one takes you seriously anymore.
sigh....(shrug)...okay, whatever. Thanks again for helping Conservatives. I'll be sure to add you to my Christmas Card list.
F**K Socialism.
Species that can't be named See, species that can't be named Do
March 10, 2009 - 11:12 ET by slickwillie2001Those in the liberal media are simply taking their cue from the Liar-in-Chief. He tells whoppers and the ignorant masses nod and mumble old campaign slogans. So the liberal media figures they can do it too.
Maybe
March 10, 2009 - 15:51 ET by BondPlainBondRachel is a Road's Collar and not a Rhodes Scholar, huh? Maybe.