She does this stuff all the time: Last night, Rachel Maddow had us rubes very upset with Senator Scott Brown.
After a long and deeply self-involved rant, Maddow began to clue us in to Brown’s latest offenses. Brown has been “very reluctant” to schedule debates with Elizabeth Warren, she said:
MADDOW (6/19/12): Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown, but Senator Brown has been very reluctant to agree to a debate schedule with her. The Boston Globe reporting that the senator and his staff have refused to meet with Elizabeth Warren or her campaign to discuss debate invitations or dates or terms for debating.From that, a person would surely think that Brown has refused to schedule any debates. That person would think that Brown had now tentatively agreed to one debate—although “he had conditions,” Maddow said, conditions which seemed rather odd.
This week, though, Scott Brown says he would agree to a televised debate with Elizabeth Warren, but he had conditions. And he said if his conditions weren`t met, he wouldn’t do it. His conditions are, first, that the widow of Senator Ted Kennedy not make an endorsement in the Senate race. Seriously, that was one of his demands. And two, his second demand, Scott Brown also demands that MSNBC not be the host of the debate.
It was at this point that we saw a familiar pattern emerging. Why would Brown make that “demand” about the widow of Senator Kennedy? Maddow’s story didn’t seem to make sense—unless she was leaving something out, as this rather dishonest person rather frequently does.
Before we explain Maddow's con game this time, let’s enjoy the rest of her rant about Brown’s weird behavior concerning The True Liberal Channel:
MADDOW (continuing directly): MSNBC is not the host of the debate. MSNBC was never going to be the host of the debate. MSNBC never even got asked about hosting the debate.Some of that is related to the first part of Maddow’s full-segment rant, in which she got to mention her own name many, many times. This seems to be Maddow’s favorite activity.
But Scott Brown demands that MSNBC be removed as the host of this debate! And please send him money for him to run against his Senate opponent, MSNBC-TV host Rachel Maddow!
What is going on with Senator Scott Brown? Are other senators like this? Is anybody else besides us at MSNBC having to deal with a sitting U.S. senator constantly making stuff up about their hosts running campaigns against him and saying we’re hosting debates that we're not hosting? Does this happen to other people?
We recommend that you watch the tape of this full segment, which runs six minutes. We’ve never seen anyone on TV who is quite so self-involved.
Back to Brown and Warren:
What did Maddow fail to tell you about Brown’s position on debates? First, Brown has already scheduled two televised debates with Warren. At issue is a proposed third debate—a debate Vicki Kennedy proposed, a debate which would have been held at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
How do we know these things? Because they’re explained right at the start of the news report Maddow used as her source. That news report also explains why Brown mentioned MSNBC, a point Maddow seemed to find mystifying.
The piece was written by Noah Bierman of the Boston Globe. Gaze on the basic facts—the facts Maddow chose to withhold:
BIERMAN (6/19/12): Senator Scott Brown said he will accept a debate at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute but only on the condition that Vicki Kennedy stay neutral in the election and that MSNBC not be included as a broadcast partner.Repeat: Those are the opening paragraphs of Maddow’s stated source. She decided you didn’t have to know that Brown had already scheduled two debates. (In our view, she worked hard to make you think different.) She also disappeared the role of the Kennedy Institute in the proposed third debate. And she failed to explain why Brown had balked at the possible role of MSNBC.
The Brown campaign said in a press release that it would agree to allow former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw to moderate.
Elizabeth Warren has already accepted the Sept. 27 debate, but Brown had previously not committed. The candidates are jointly committed to two other televised debates so far, one in the Boston market and a second one in Western Massachusetts.
Vicki Kennedy, Senator Kennedy’s widow, had proposed a third debate. But she has been an active Democrat, causing some to question whether Brown should accept the invitation. And MSNBC, home to many liberal talk show hosts, had been mentioned as a potential broadcast partner.
(This morning, the Globe reports that MSNBC “had been mentioned in Kennedy's initial invitation as a possible broadcast partner.” Last night, Maddow played viewers for fools concerning that basic fact.)
Should Brown have agreed to a debate at the Kennedy Institute? This morning, the Globe reports that the proposal has fallen through. Sensibly enough, Kennedy refused to say that she would stay neutral in the race. Brown said he wouldn’t debate under sponsorship which was endorsing his rival.
But last night, on the Maddow Show, we liberals got treated like fools, as is often the case on this program. Rachel Maddow just isn’t especially honest. As we’ve told you many times, you have to fact-check every word she says—especially when the story she tells you doesn’t seem to make sense.
Go ahead—reread her presentation. Would anyone think, from what she said, that Brown had already scheduled two debates? Would anyone understand the reference to Vicki Kennedy? And wasn’t Maddow basically lying about Brown’s reason for mentioning MSNBC?
Maddow does this all the time. She tends to play the way Hannity does. We’re surprised other liberals accept this.
Our suggestion: Go ahead—watch the full segment. Maddow’s degree of self-involvement seems to grow by the night.