Maddow Joins Media Matters in Cheap Smear of Heritage Overcriminalization Project


On Monday, I pointed out that the lefty activist site Media Matters posted a sleazy hit on the Heritage Foundation's Overcriminalization project. Last night, Rachel Maddow used the same tactics on her MNSBC program.

Like Media Matters, Maddow wrongly assumes Heritage opposes every bill in the "Legislative Watch" section of its website (it's more a clearinghouse of all federal legislation related to crime), then also falsely equates opposition to a particular crime-fighting bill with being soft on whatever crime that bill's authors are purporting to fight. As the Popehat blog points out in discussing the original Media Matters post, that intellectually lazy tactic can be pretty easily turned against the person who is using it.

There are plenty of reasons to support some high-minded sounding bill giving broad new powers to the federal government to fight, say, the use of foreign slave labor other than secretly harboring pleasant thoughts about slave labor. Maddow seems to understand this point pretty well when, for example, she's talking about various powers the government has assumed in fighting the war on terror. I doubt she'd describe herself as pro-terrorism, or soft on terrorists. But toss in the word corporations and the phrase conservative think tank, and she's consumed by smug self-righteousness.

Somehow, Maddow has gotten the reputation for being above cheap partisan attacks. From what I've seen of her show, it's undeserved. And I say this as someone who probably agrees with Maddow about as often as I agree with Heritage.

The Heritage part of the segment starts at about the 5:30 mark.

NOTE: Video embed isn't working. You can watch the Maddow clip here.

NEXT: Politico: What Makes 2009 The Year of Ayn Rand?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This video seems to be breaking the front page of the blog. Which makes sense, because I think my brain broke as a result of listening to her.

  2. Maddow only seemed like she wasn’t a partisan hack when Bush was in power. Since Obama’s been in charge, she’s turned into a mindless partisan. Totally unwatchable.

    1. Indeed. One might have assumed that the left would relax a bit after their gang won the biggest prize possible. Instead, the MSM partisans are behaving like they’re in the wilderness. I truly think they believed their own pre-election propaganda, and now they’re dumbfounded and dismayed that the rest of us have gotten over it already.

    2. She was just as “hackish” when Bush was in office. Madcow makes me sick.

  3. Just because Maddow doesn’t make fun of 21 year old beauty pageant winners (admittingly a high bar for an MSNBC personality) people think she is somehow superior to the typical lefty schmuck. She isn’t. If she could get away with Olbermann’s pomposity, she would.

    1. MSNBC is smearing the beauty pageant girl several times daily. Super-cunts Tamron Hall and David Shuster did it a little while ago. Apparently there were no more fish in the barrel.

  4. Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money.

  5. I dread it when I get forwarded mediamatters and Maddow crap from my buddies in California. When I disagree. it’s always you Bushie, etc… Of course, I hated Bush just as much if not more.

    Although, the sheer unbridled cynicism of the left seems to be pissing me off even more than Cheney, who I always thought of as an ass, but an ass with outspoken principles which I could disagree with. Not this mushy BS that’s coming out of the left now that makes no sense and is hypocritical to the nth degree.

    1. I agree. They are just insane. You can’t argue with them. If they had a coherent set of beleifs and knew how to do anything but engage in ad hominym attacks, you could at least talk to them. But they don’t so you can’t even debate them.

      1. Fuck you John, you blathering douchebag. I am not insane and I have a very coherent set of beleifs you ignorant twit.

        1. Pretty good, but you forgot to make a Chimpy McBushilter reference.

        2. Excellent.

      2. Definition of Leftist = hypocrite.

        That’s about the only thing they believe in: being a hypocrite.

        1. I think leftists arrive at their various positions from an emotion based set of principles. Having such an emotional investment requires them to believe that theirs is the only true and correct way. Their is not much reason in the basis of their positions so they can’t give much of an argument in support of what they believe.

          1. I’m right, you’re wrong. If that’s not a good enough argument for you, then you are obviously a cold-hearted Rethuglican Bibletarian fascist.

            And racist.

          2. A lot of it is about fashion and posing. Leftists love to look down on people. They love to feel superior and enlightened when talking about minorities. They love to look down their noses at people from small towns or who eat at un cool restaurants. It is a way of life and validating yourself rather than a way of thinking. When your political views are the way in which you validate yourself, you are not going to be very receptive to rational argument.

            1. “Leftists love to look down on people. They love to feel superior and enlightened when talking about minorities.”

              You’re going to be alright John, say it with me “I am an important person.”

              1. I see the Kosites have crawled out of their holes.

                1. I don’t go to Kos. just because you are a redstater, doesn’t mean we are all mindless partisans. I am into liberty within a modern government system that can actually function outside of a tract you read somewhere. That means I have plenty to fight on the left and right. If you strongly identify with either you are an enemy of freedom in my book.

                  1. That makes absolutely no sense. You may believe in something. But whatever that is, you haven’t explained it here.

      3. “They are insane” is clearly not an ad hominem attack, because you hate those.

      4. ad homonym attacks? Is that where they attack you using “lead” to refer to a verb and a metal in different parts of the same sentence?

      5. In my FB and blog debates – when I bring up some completely outrageous idea like abolishing licensing or bringing troops home, the righties are as annoying and ad hominem-y as the lefties. Name-calling, insults, derision… some people are so poorly educated they think that is debate.

        Rachel was good on indefinite detention. Reminded me of Oberman on the Patriot Act – I loved it. Haven’t loved much since from him or her, though. Mostly, Maddow is like a democratic Bill O’Reilly: just making points for her side. I can’t watch them live, makes my head hurt from rolling my eyes. I have to wait till something good gets to youtube.

  6. Balko just lost the Ayn Rand contest.

    Couldn’t he have at least recommended a nude wrestling contest between Maddow and Rand?

    1. And people say I’m sick in the head.

    2. Madcow wins…….chunky lesbian bed death wrestler thighs.

  7. Maddow, or any leftist for that matter today, uses dishonesty and cheap, shoddy rhetoric to discredit an evil Republican organization?


    …and she’s consumed by smug self-righteousness.

    I think she was consumed by that long before that mark.

  8. What I want to know is how this relates to Ayn Rand? What would be her opinion of Maddow?

    1. Probably that a good rape would turn her straight.

      1. She wouldn’t think of her.

  9. I almost never watch MSNBC but last month I actually watched Maddow’s show for a few minutes. And that’s how she talked to someone from American for Prosperity

    MADDOW: And I have to tell you?because we’re making this about you and me?is that I personally think that you and the folks that do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans’ fears. And I hope that.

    How can anyone think that Maddow is above cheap partisan attacks is beyond me.

    1. It amazes me that someone as craven and willfully ignorant as Maddow was a Rhoades scholar. They really must have no standards for giving those anymore.

      1. Bobby Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar too. ‘Nuff said.

        1. Jindal is a very smart guy and a very good governor. He is just a pretty strict Catholic. But so what? It is not like he got his Rhoades scholarship for his work in biology. Why are you slandering Jindal?

          1. A “very smart guy” who participates in exorcisms and wants to force public schools to teach intelligent design.

            1. So what? He is a very smart guy who has some excentric views. Big deal. There are tons of smart people who have siances and believe in ghosts. Do you hate them to?

              1. You don’t have to hate Jindal to think he shouldn’t be anywhere near political office.

                1. Again, what do I care what his views on exorcism are? Hillary Clinton was running siances in the Whitehouse back in the day. Millions of people beleive in the utility of recycling even though every serious study on the subject finds that with most household wastes it does more harm than good. People believe in lots of superstitions. It is only the Christian ones people object to.

            2. At least he doesn’t want to force me to buy indulgences to go to heaven unlike ostensibly scientific and intellectual supporters of the cap-n-trade bill.

          2. Jindal does himself in. How many “pretty strict Catholics” spend $180,000 in tax payer money to campaign pray at churches across the state? Well, really, how many Catholics believe in exorcism and faith healing. Jindal sunk his own ship. Maybe he can do some good in backwardsville, but he’ll never make a national impact with his creationist agenda.

            1. You miss the point. The debate is about whether he deserved to be a Rhoades Scholar not about if you should vote for him to be President. I really don’t know Jindal. I do know that he is a better governor than about anyone out there. I think socialist crap holes like California and New Jersey would do well if all of their politicians were creationists and as effective as Jindal is.

              Ultimately, if the guy is an effective exectutive, what do you care what he beleives about creation? He is a politician not a biology teacher. You just hate him because you hate Christians. If he were a Buhdist or a Muslim with dopey views you wouldn’t care.

              1. Maybe I missed the point. Jindal is smart enough to be a Rhodes scholar, and even bizarre religious views like Scientology or exorcism shouldn’t disqualify one from educational opportunities.

                But let’s be clear: Jindal’s problem isn’t fundamentalism. It’s the push to get that fundamentalism into government and into schools. I don’t appreciate the GOP’s religious side, but I tolerate it. Jindal is too much. But, hell, he’s a Rhodes scholar and smart guy.

                1. Maybe Jindal is crazy. I don’t know what he is doing to the schools in LA. I just know he managed to make the government work again.

              2. Please keep calling it the Rhoades scholarship as you make comments on who is worthy of it. That is comedy gold!

    2. “And I have to tell you?because we’re making this about you and me?is that I personally think that you and the folks that do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans’ fears. And I hope that.”

      Namecalling- what a clever interview technique.

      I read the rest of the transcipt and thought she clearly came out on the bottom (which judging by her haircut and baritone would be unlikely to please her).

  10. She belongs to the It-Can’t-Be-Wrong-If-We-Do-It-For-The-Right-(in her case Progressive)-Reasons school of “thought.”

  11. Anyone who takes any of these media “personalities” seriously for even a second is crazy. But you already knew that.

  12. the left seems to be pissing me off even more than Cheney

    Cheney, almost uniquely for a mainstream type, seems to have thought about things, decided where he comes down, and can explain himself. Usually, he makes a decent case, though I don’t share his premises. There’s always a chain of syllogisms, sometimes false, to follow or reject en route to The Cheney Opinion.

    There “other side” passes around a slam book. One with their answers all filled in already.

    1. Cheney may be wrong. But he is smart as hell and he didn’t come to his views based on emotion or the desire to impress anyone. In a sane world he would destroy some nitwit like Maddow in a debate. In our world, she would pull him down to her level and beat him with experience.

  13. Maddow the Cow = super retarded fetus.

    1. JB you need new writers dude. That “retarded fetus” meme is soooooo last year.

      1. Nah, it’s enduring and endearing.

        So many levels of irony and more in two short words.

  14. I gave up watching news on TV years ago. Then I gave up all the websites associated with TV channels.

    So now all that I have left is H&R.

  15. “Somehow, Maddow has gotten the reputation for being above cheap partisan attacks.”

    She gotten the reputation solely from cheap partisans.

    1. There’s nothing cheap about her. Trust me on this… I’m a lecturer in ethics.

  16. I was looking through the “news” yesterday morning and happened across a thing called Morning Joe . I didn’t catch that guys name but I had to find somebody to punch in the face.

    1. I hope your wife forgives you at some point…

      1. She took it as foreplay…

        1. My wife dreams at night of being a kickboxer.

  17. I know instinctively that this has been said before — it *has* to have been said before — but she’s a gay, female Bill O’Reilly.

    1. O’Reilly is one of the very very few of that variety news hour types that I still find tolerable.

      1. No!!! You like O’Reilly? Shocking!

      2. Agreed. I don’t like the social conservative stuff, but other than that I enjoy his show.

  18. Child labor seems to be part of her mantra.

    It is weird when i was ages 15-17 I worked in a fruit packing shed and worked long hours and got payed above min wage during the summer. I made good money and learned how to work in the real world.

    I am pretty sure that the work I did back then and the hours I worked is now illegal under child labor laws.

    Simply because someone calls something child labor does not mean that child is “tied to a loom making pennies a day”. Sometimes it is simply propaganda used to outlaw summer jobs for teenagers.

    1. When I was 13 I got an under the table job at a small metal fabricating job. Making the enormous sum of $80 a week. It was more money than I ever dreamed of and some of the nastiest work. I was so oppressed and didn’t even know it.

      1. At 14 I started working at the local Mayflower agent. $2.15/hour or whatever min wage was in 1978. They paid me cash everyday. 50-70 hours a week during the summer. I loved it and the old man I worked with every day taught me a great work ethic.

        1. When I was eight I picked coal for 18 hours a day, and I loved it!

          1. You got a daughter?

            1. I thought you limited your pedophilia to boys?

        2. Oh God. I dont’ think there is any job I wouldn’t rather do than move furniture. Every day of your life is moving day. What a nightmare.

          1. When you do it professionally you know the little tricks, have good help, and all the right equipment. It makes all the difference. I can’t stand moving my own household.

      2. when I was 13, I was in Keny- I mean Kansas reading my Kora- I mean bible.

    2. Why is this dyke worried about child working laws not like she will be procreating anytime soon. I can’t stomach even a minute of her or Olberman it is no wonder their viewership is about equal to your average car wreck in numbers.

  19. A quick look at the website proves that THIS article is wrong and Maddow was correct.

    1. Fact checking? Really? Clearly signs of your liberal bias. 😛

    2. I think you need to work on your critical reading skills some more. I see nothing at the link you provide that makes any commentary on whether the bill is good, bad or indifferent. It is simply a list of proposed legislation with a blurb about what the legislation is for.

  20. MediaMatters has WAAAAY too much time on its hands.

  21. and she’s consumed by smug self-righteousness.

    Like a whale consuming krill.

  22. I’m a ‘lefty’. I find some libertarian views enlightening and a few compelling, so I like to read these blogs… But this thread seems out-of-character: I don’t see much in the way of thoughtful debate here. Mostly just ad hominem attacks (pot meet kettle), unsupported blanket generalizations, and rape/molestation jokes.

    Why do I take you people seriously again?

    1. You have a well-established Conservative think tank actually becoming concerned with the growing police state. Then, the left attacks them for “being against child rape.” It’s dishonest and Maddow deserves to be criticized for it. Go suck a dick if that’s too much for you.

      1. hey asshole. I didn’t say “Leave Rachel Alone!” Did I? No, my point was that this thread is full of people bashing “lefties” for acting from emotion and name-calling instead of debating, all the while failing to take their own advice.

        Balko et al are right about Maddow in this case. You’re a fucking moron if you think that everything she or the left says is debunked because of one mistake.

  23. When is Maddow NOT consumed with smug self-righteousness? I don’t think she even has any other emotional states.

  24. Why is this dyke worried about child working laws not like she will be procreating anytime soon. I can’t stomach even a minute of her or Olberman it is no wonder their viewership is about equal to your average car wreck in numbers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.