rachel maddow: Page 1
Democrats, far-left praise Marco Rubio's immigration moves (NCLR; Sharry; IPC; Obama and Gutierrez spox) - 01/20/13
In a January 18, 2013 press release, Marco Rubio lists some of the supposed conservatives who support his immigration amnesty plan ( peekURL.com/zycdzeU ).
To be balanced, here are some positive mentions of his plan (or at least support for his actions on comprehensive immigration reform) from those Rubio should be opposing on immigration: the Democrats and the far-left.
Republicans won whites in Tuesday's national House vote by a 22-percentage point margin (60 to 38 percent) according to exit polls. In 2006, Republicans won whites by a mere 4 points. Whites shifted at three-fold the rate of Hispanics between the two midterms, while the black vote remained steady. Democrats faired even worse than in 1994, when Republicans won whites by 16 points (58 to 42 percent) and with them, a landslide.
Rachel Maddow and others are implying an absurd claim: that Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 - that state's new immigration law - in part to profit Corrections Corporation of America. CCA has a contract with the Department of Homeland Security's ICE agency to provide immigration detention facilities, and two people linked to Brewer are also linked to CCA. For background from far-left illegal immigration supporters, see this and this; the Morgan Loew report from KPHO is here; Brewer's campaign manager responds here .
On the video at peekURL.com/v19y5iz (transcript here) Maddow states:
The uptick in anti-immigration stuff isn't really about immigration at all. It's about what makes good politics for anti-immigration  politicians. And, it is about what makes big profits, apparently, for some very well-connected people.
The claim that Brewer signed the law to profit CCA is absurd on its face. Under Maddow's scenario, Brewer and her advisors would have otherwise been opposed to signing the law, but lobbying and contributions by CCA would have changed their minds. Does that make sense? If there were no connection between her advisors and CCA, can anyone imagine her not signing the law? If CCA stood to benefit from her not signing the law, and that's what she did, Maddow's smear might be a bit more believable.
Maddow's smear might have legs if the bill in question were something more obscure and the signing of which was a bit odd. That's not the case here: SB 1070 was national news before Brewer signed the bill and the bill had already generated wide support across the nation.
Further, SB 1070 was originated by Russell Pearce, a "true believer" in curbing illegal immigration. He also originated a bill intended to prevent reconquista-style classes from being taught in the public schools, and Brewer signed that bill as well. Would Maddow like to claim that CCA stood to profit from that? How about the two dozen or so other states that are considering Arizona-style immigration bills; did CCA get to them too?
What Maddow gets right is that this is political: some politicians are waking up to the fact that a large majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration.
It's also political in an ironic way: the only reason Maddow is smearing Brewer is because the Democratic Party sees illegal immigration as a source of political power.
And, Maddow and others spreading this smear have almost zero likelihood of following the money on who profits from illegal immigration such as low-wage employers, banks, and countries. Rather than opposing exploitative companies and crooked banks, Maddow is in effect enabling them.
Now, the above doesn't mean that Brewer's advisors shouldn't take steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety and it doesn't mean that there aren't major issues with private prisons. It just means that - once again - you can't trust what Rachel Maddow tells you.
 Morgan Loew of KPHO interviews Caroline Isaacs of the American Friends Service Committee and uses her in the role of "the person who says the things the reporter would like to say". Loew only describes the AFSC as a group "which advocates for social justice issues". He doesn't reveal that they're far-left supporters of illegal immigration with an indirect link to the Mexican government.
 Maddow also misleads with her terminoloyg. There aren't too many "anti-immigration politicians"; there are very few politicians who oppose both illegal and legal immigration.
On May 20, Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times offered "Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights" (nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html), containing this completely false (and still uncorrected) statement about Rand Paul's appearance on the Rachel Maddow show:
Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”
He didn't say "yes", but "yeah", and only in the sense of "now that you're finished speaking let me get a chance" or similar. The "yeah" wasn't a response to Maddow's question, it was just throat-clearing, and it was followed by "I‘m not in favor of any discrimination of any form." Please watch the video yourself; scroll ahead to the 8 minute mark: peekURL.com/vqcalnm
If you spot someone giving the inaccurate Paul quote, please send them a link to this post or to the video and help discredit those who make outrageous charges without bothering to verify those charges.
The video at peekURL.com/vzfn684 shows Rachel Maddow lying to her viewers about the provisions of the new Arizona immigration law. She says:
It's remarkable legislation that requires police officers in Arizona to demand the paperwork of anyone they think looks like he or she might be an illegal immigrant... ...[Referencing Jan Brewer's comments] There will be no racial profiling in Arizona... except for the part where police officers now have to stop you if they think you look illegal.
Maddow also references legal immigrants who "aren't carrying all of their immigration paperwork with them at the time", gesturing as if it would be a large amount. Contrary to the impression she's trying to give, a green card is actually a small document. Further, as already pointed out, legal immigrants are already required by federal law to carry their green card or similar.
Tea Party Nation cheap publicity stunt? Say they banned Rachel Maddow, but she never joined - 01/07/10
[UPDATE: I changed the title of this post from "Tea Party Nation bans Rachel Maddow seven minutes after she joined; no dissent will be tolerated!" to the present because Maddow says the person who they banned wasn't her: link. I assumed that Teaparty Nation had verified it was her either by doing a reverse DNS or through direct communication. Either they didn't do that, or - as Maddow says - this is just an attempt to get publicity. In either case they don't look too good and me either for not confirming it.]
Tea Party Nation sent out the following email today. They're the group that will be holding their first national convention in February featuring Sarah Palin. The email is entitled "Liberal Troll Alert!"
Please be advised that over the coming weeks, as the National Tea Party Convention draws near, we will in all likelihood be invaded by liberal trolls looking to disrupt the site.
Rachel Maddow joined this morning and we banned her 7 minutes after she joined. I have little doubt she will mention this on her show.
Per our FAQ's:
Note to Prospective Liberal Trolls: TPN does not tolerate liberal trolls. If your sole purpose is to join this site in order to disrupt the flow of constructive dialogue against liberalism, you will find your time here very short. You can and will be banned for being a liberal. If you wish to debate the virtues of liberalism (as though there were such a thing), there are many other sites on the web who will tolerate you. TPN is not one of those sites.
One possibility they aren't allowing for is "trolls" who would do things in a smarter, subtler way: nudging them just slightly even more to the fringe. Or, encouraging them to do things in an even dumber way than they're doing already. Those would be almost impossible to detect.
As was discussed here back in June, Rachel Maddow smeared Rush Limbaugh by falsely claiming that he'd said that James Earl Ray deserved a "posthumous Medal of Honor" when that quote had simply been made up by someone at Wikiquote. Now, finally, four months later, Maddow has offered a non-correction "correction". Per this, on last night's show on MSNBC she said (bolding added):
And finally, a quote falsely attributed to talk show host Rush Limbaugh recently it resurfaced during the debate over whether or not he would or should be part of a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams football steam.
On June 3rd, as I was reporting on opposition to then-Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, I was among the people who erroneously referred to the quote if Mr. Limbaugh had said it.
To set the record straight, Rush Limbaugh apparently never said that Martin Luther King Jr.`s assassin should receive the Medal of Honor. And I was in error when we reported that we had. Mea culpa.
"Apparently"? A real reporter - or a pundit with any sort of integrity - would take actions such as contacting the book's author (Jack Huberman), his publisher (The Nation), would look through Lexis-Nexis, and would take other actions so no "apparently" would be necessary.
Wikiquote - affiliated with Wikipedia - is using as a source for an almost assuredly bogus and highly inflammatory Rush Limbaugh quote a book that was published 10 months after the unattributed quote was added to the same Wikiquote page.
The 06:01, 20 July 2005 revision of en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh (by someone using the IP address 188.8.131.52, more at ) was the first appearance in the entry of this supposed Rush quote:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
No source was provided, but a "source" would be forthcoming just 10 months later. The book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America" by Jack Huberman (published by The Nation on May 23, 2006) contains that quote and is used on the current version of the Wikiquote page as the source.
In other words, an unattributed quote that appeared out of nowhere was then published in a book ten months later. Now, the only source of the quote that Wikiquote provides is... the very same book.
Note that the date of the supposed quote was first given as 2/21/03. Just three minutes later, the same IP address changed the date to 4/23/98. Note also that the quote is currently in a "Disputed" section, but the same IP address was at least until recently still actively editing that entry and has moved it out into the main part of the page at least twice. In fact, the 00:22, 10 December 2008 edit by that same IP address includes this note:
The book claims Limbaugh as a primary source for over thirty quotes. Therefore, the book uses a primary source. Vidiot, please review defs of "primary" and "secondary."
The book page containing the quote is here. Amazon's page on the book, listing the publication date, is here. The copyright date is listed inside the book as 2006. And, in a June 3, 2006 entry on the Huffington Post, the author himself referred to it as his "just-published book" (huffingtonpost.com/jack-huberman/whos-screwing-america-bat_b_22140.html).
In the book, Huberman lists several quotes, saying that many of them "come from just the short period that Media Matters monitored", providing as a footnote May 2, 2004's "Meet the New Rush, Same as the Old Rush" (mediamatters.org/research/200405020008). The Ray quote doesn't appear on that page, and no other source or specific date is provided in that section of Huberman's book.
6/20/09 UPDATE: I haven't received a reply to either email I sent to The Nation asking about this. Maybe if enough people asked them they might respond: nationbooks.org/p/contact_us
10/13/09 UPDATE: The update above was mistakenly given as a "2/20/09 UPDATE"; that was a typo and the update was actually posted on 6/20/09. I never heard back from The Nation.
10/15/09 UPDATE: See also this post discussing why this matters and related issues, and note also that the Huffington Post has issued a non-correction correction.
 The IP address might now be banned at Wikiquote. It might be a dynamic address, but that doesn't seem likely. A person using the name "michelleknows" used the same IP to post three messages at a forum; her user page is at forums.s2smagazine.com/member.php?s=e9403090394eaf26f99ec5bc853bfad7&u=13499
"Melissa & Rob" posted a message using that IP address to disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=222664;article=6520;title=Ludwig%27s%20Doodles%20Chat however, they might have been using that IP address as a proxy server; the originating IP is different.
Just because I run a site about Air America doesn't mean I actually listen to them. So, it's understandable that I've only seen Rachel Maddow - now of MSNBC - two times. The first time was for a lightweight supposed "take down" of Pat Buchanan which was just a use of smears and innuendo rather than any sort of attempt to counter his points.