Maddow Continues to Misrepresent Union Campaign Contributions
It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Maybe this is Rachel Maddow's intention behind continually saying the following on the MSNBC show bearing her name (video follows with transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW: The longer it goes on, the clearer it becomes that this whole fight is not about what they say it is about. This whole fight is not about the budget. This fight is about destroying the unions. It is about corporate titans who give lots of money to Republicans and who can get them on the phone for 20 minutes in the middle of a crisis, guys like David Koch wanting to bust the unions, and it is about dismantling a key part of the Democratic base in terms of fund raising. You want to see those numbers from the 2010 elections again? Right. Okay, unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives. Union members also tend to support Democratic causes and they provide a good chunk of the get out the vote infrastructure that Democrats rely on to win elections. The Republican Party more than almost anything else represents corporate interest. The Democratic Party more than anything else represents people who work for corporate interests or people who represent something other than corporations.
As she was saying this, the following graphic was on the screen clearly reading "Outside Groups":

As NewsBusters first reported last Wednesday, Maddow made virtually the same statement on her February 18 program:
MADDOW: Of the top ten outside spending groups in last year's elections, seven of them were right wing groups, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove`s organizations, which are mostly funded by billionaires. Conservative groups like the American Future Fund.
The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten in the last election were the Public Employees Union and the SEIU, and the teachers union, that's it. In terms of large scale money spent in elections, unions are the only competition that Republicans have.
The following Monday she said:
MADDOW: Here again are the top ten big money contributors in last year's elections, seven of the top ten are right wing. The only three that are not are -- ding, ding, ding -- unions.
The following day she said this to Jay Leno on NBC's "Tonight Show":
MADDOW: But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right-wing. And the only three that weren't were unions.
Since February 18, she has uttered this falsehood at least four times on four programs airing four different days.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Once again, here are the facts.
Maddow is actually referring to "outside non-party committees" wherein seven of the top ten contributors in 2010 were indeed conservative, with the only three liberal contributors being unions. These are groups that contribute money for political causes but not specific candidates. That's why they're deemed "non-party."
If you look at all "outside spending groups" for 2010 - which by Maddow's wording consistently has been the implication - you'll find that four of the top ten contributors were liberal with only two of them being unions.
This completely destroys her point that "unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives" thereby invalidating her assertion that this is the reason Gov. Walker is trying to blame the “supposed” deficits on public sector unions in his state.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
What makes this even more absurd is the commercial airing on MSNBC to promote Maddow's program:
MADDOW: News is about stories. It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world.
In the promo for the defacto new face of MSNBC, Maddow claims, "It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world."
Yet at least four times in the last seven business days, Maddow has completely misrepresented the very same thing about 2010 campaign contributions.
Over and over.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
The folks at MSNBC and Comcast should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.
Is there any integrity at this network, or did they learn from Keith Olbermann that such a virtue is unimportant when advancing a cause?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
PMSNBC!
Submitted by blazermaniac on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:30am.
Intregity at that network? Never heard of such a thing!
No matter....................
Submitted by Patriot II on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:47pm.
what this lying pig said, I wouldn't believe it!
One of the hallmarks of the
Submitted by robert108 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:32am.
One of the hallmarks of the pathological liar is escalation; when caught in a lie, they tell more lies to cover it up, or just keep telling the same lie over and over again.
Not to mention that public
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 1:23am.
Not to mention that public employee unions represent a tiny fraction of any state's populace and yet manage to have one of the loudest voices.
Not to mention that public employees were set up by politicians as a way to funnel tax payer dollars into their reelection campaigns.
Not to mention that the very politicians elected by public employee unions are the same ones who are supposed to represent the taxpayer at the bargaining table.
NO WONDER TAXPAYERS ARE FED UP!
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonRe: Maddow Continues to Misrepresent
Submitted by InfidelMan on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:07am.
What? Nothing new here. Just the same, tired socialist comments, you know? Remember how the left said that capitalism was out moded, out-lived its usefulness and how old it was? Well look how much older are socialism and communisim are compared to capitalism? They are touted as being newer and better for the working people?
So, Ms. Maddow is confused, only half confused, about what the current situation is. This passes for news commentary?
So, instead of saying, "We need to take back the country", the call, in my opinion should be, "Time to just ignore the left's siren calls of a utopia." The ones who said, "They were the ones they were waiting for" comment should tell you much about how they haven't yet understood what they're talking about. Waiting for? As in luck? It's far better to return to what's worth keeping: the old ways that worked, not stole and redistributed among those who didn't. That's being conservative and what's wrong with saving what you've worked for, put aside and saved, invested and used as you the individual, choose to? As a 'little guy' conservative and conservationist opinion, nothing! Oh and think about this, how can you have a "level playing field" for imperfect humans to spar on? Can't happen, because the human spirit to survive and continue on against the odds is what makes us human.
"Loon Forward" Rachel!
Submitted by OxyCon on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 2:08am.
I guess throwing paper all over the floor and chewing on Sharpies isn't the right way to go about informing your audience with facts after all.
T U 4 clarifying
Submitted by AGreer on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:13am.
Yes ! Rise up against the American Taxpayer ©, ®, ™, and INC.
The leftards seem to have a problem distinguising between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
I'm a billionaire
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 3:27am.
MADDOW: Of the top ten outside spending groups in last year's elections, seven of them were right wing groups, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove`s organizations, which are mostly funded by billionaires.
So donating to Karl Rove`s organizations means I'm a billionaire?
Who knew!!!
All over America today men are changing their “on line” profile to read “donated to Karl Rove`s organizations”!!
Doing this right takes rigor.....
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 7:58am.
Doing this right takes rigor.....
I would leave out the word "right," but when you consider that the definition of "rigor" is
harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment [apparently in defiance of the facts]
I would say Maddow fills the bill.
"Billionaire" seems to be the meme of the day
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:50am.
There was another journolister this a.m. who said the following (and then kept repeating it).
It's like an old joke, a billionaire, a union rep, and a government official are sitting at a table with twelve cookies. The billionaire eats half the cookies, then tells the government official "the union rep wants to eat the rest of your cookies".
I was shaking my head...say what?
But apparently, we are back to evil corporations and billionaires in the class warfare meme as the democrat talking point. Utterly ridiculous, of course.
For the real information why the unions need collective benefit bargaining....see this. Great stuff!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
this guy
Submitted by tomolson3 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 11:35am.
What kind of parents name there son Rachel??????
Im sure teh billionaire
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 11:50am.
Im sure teh billionaire suppluied 11 of teh cookies.
That unfortunate-looking
Submitted by eolon on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:00am.
That unfortunate-looking young man is never going to find a wife with that kind of attitude.
Best Regards,
e
.::.
Maddow hasn't always been so 'unfortunate-looking'
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:03pm.
This was her in the 12th grade.
LOL - I have no clue what happened. Perhaps she fell into a vat of testosterone or something.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Sorry, Dave,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:13pm.
but that Rowdy Roddy Piper neck doesn't do a thing for me.
;)
SoL,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:04pm.
LOL - Yeah, but at least she looks like an actual girl in that pic - unlike most of the rest I have seen.
Of course, that neck can be of use no matter which way she swings, but I ain't going there.
:-^)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Where are the "smart guy" glasses,
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:49am.
Richard? Or, is it just Dick?
Amazing
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:11pm.
I notice that Maddow never asks questions about the people that came into Obama's cabinet making modest saleries but left millionaires. How is that possible without some form of graft or corruption. Isnt that what journalist do, compile nformation to come to a conclusion? Now they have conclusions and cobble togethter whatever they can to support it. Backaswards as always.
Logic
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:26pm.
Maddow is a "liberal"--ergo, Maddow is a liar!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Does anybody know if MSM
Submitted by StillRight on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:30pm.
Does anybody know if MSM "journalist" are union or not?
perhaps Mz Maddow and Trumka are having-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:41pm.
a thing? he would look very good in Leather wityha ball in his mouth.
if you connect the dots-its very obvious-Union dues are taken from rank and file union members
and used to buy favor with the politicians. Liberal and conservative.
homophobes or
Submitted by stonermc on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:41pm.
Just wondering, are you folks homopobic or just misogynistic?
stonermc,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:46pm.
you do know that "you folks" has been declared a racist phrase. Shame on you.
ok
Submitted by stonermc on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:18pm.
Are folks on here homopobic or just misogynistic?
Stoner
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:25pm.
Fed up with being abused and then expected to be civil in return.
Are you high or just waiting to get high?
strike two,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:57pm.
folks as in 'folksy' as in poor rural people - that is also a coded insult.
A good PC liberal should know better.
I notice
Submitted by stonermc on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:43pm.
folks on here can't give a straight answer.
Try asking a question.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:47pm.
Try asking a question.
come on stonermc,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:50pm.
are you now questioning the sexuality of our answers? You are no PC liberal. Strike three!
I apologize was there an actual question not designed to insult anywhere in your posts?
I posted the link to this and received
Submitted by texasborngranny on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:32pm.
the following from one of my liberal acquaitances:
"So let me see if I got this: Noel Sheppard admits that if Rachel had used the term "outside non-party committees" she would have been absolutely 100% accurate -- but because she used the term "outside spending groups" Noel (and you) claim t...hat she's a big liar.
I'm having trouble with this one, so let me reword it: If she had included the phrase "non-party" she would have been 100% right -- but because she left that phrase out, she's a liar! Even though the statistics presented in the link you just sent me support the point she was trying to make 100%, she's a liar because she left out a couple of magic words!Can you explain to me why the phrase "non-party" is so significant? And why its omission changes her words from an absolute truth to a big lie?
Either you don't (or don't want to) understand the point she was trying to make, or you're so desperate to believe that she's wrong that you'll seize on any point, no matter how trivial, to tarnish her with epithets -- which is always a lot easier than explaining why you disagree with her."