Listen

The attempts of liberal media types to distract from Obama’s failed record as President by creating scandals and issues from nothing is leading them into some embarrassing moments.  Take for instance what happened to the esteemed “policy wonk” of the left, Rachel Maddow, when she appeared on Meet the Press this last Sunday and tried to hammer away at the non-existent Republican “War on Women.”

Unfortunately for her, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos was there to provide something known as context and clarity to Maddow’s intentional misrepresentations:

RACHEL MADDOW: Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make. So if--

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Not exactly.

RACHEL MADDOW: Women don't make less than men?

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Actually, if you start looking at the numbers, Rachel, there are lots of reasons for that.

...

RACHEL MADDOW: Right now women are making 77 cents--

ALEX CASTELLANOS: And litigated--

RACHEL MADDOW: --on the dollar for what men are making, so--

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, that's not true.

RACHEL MADDOW: --so--

ALEX CASTELLANOS: If so every--

DAVID GREGORY: All right, let Rachel make her point.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: --greedy businessman in America would hire only women, save 25% and be hugely profitable.

A fine point that liberals always struggle with.  If women are so mistreated by their bosses in the workplace that they only make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes for the exact same production, it would seem that women would be dominating the work force.  Unless we have idiots running businesses, paying someone 77 cents instead of a dollar for the exact same quality and production is a no-brainer.  Particularly in the Obama economy, no?

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK

Something’s not adding up here.  Kay Hymowitz (a woman, by the way) explained the liberal deception over at the Wall Street Journal:

Most people have heard that full-time working American women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Yet these numbers don't take into account the actual number of hours worked. And it turns out that women work fewer hours than men.

The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap.

The main reason that women spend less time at work than men—and that women are unlikely to be the richer sex—is obvious: children. Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage.

Now, here’s an honest question: do you think Maddow – the brilliant one on the left, we’re told – is honestly unaware of this reality?  Perhaps she is, in which case the left needs to revisit the decision to confer upon her the title of intellectual policy wonk.  Personally, I believe she knows this information without question.  Which means what?  It means that she is intentionally withholding critical information in her calculation just to cook the books and distort reality for the sake of a political movement.  Or maybe for the sake of a political candidate.

Honesty, schmonesty, when there’s an Obama to re-elect, eh Rach?