About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Beck falsely claims "SEIU" is "number-one visitor to the White House"

January 07, 2010 2:59 pm ET — 47 Comments

On January 7, Glenn Beck falsely suggested that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Andy Stern is the "number-one visitor to the White House." Politifact has rated Beck's prior claim that Stern was "the most frequent visitor at the White House" as "false."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the January 7 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Don't you see how well-orchestrated this is to overwhelm the system. You can't tell me that organized labor, with as much as they control this country now, that the number-one visitor to the White House and meeting with President Obama is SEIU. And they're against this, and their case is "we will not be able to afford the Cadillac health tax. We'll not be able to afford the health plans for these pensions if you pass this." There shouldn't be anything else on the agenda. If he's meeting with President Obama -- SEIU and organized labor -- they shouldn't talk about anything else, every time. "You must not pass that. You must not pass that. You must not pass that."

Fact: SEIU's Stern is "not the number-one visitor to the White House"

Politifact rated as "false" Beck's previous claim that SEIU's Andy Stern was "the most frequent visitor at the White House. In a December 7, 2009, post, Politifact reported:

We found the source of Beck's claim. When the White House released its first batch of visitor logs on Oct. 30, 2009, as part of a pledge to bring more transparency to the White House, Stern's name did indeed appear 22 times, more than anyone else listed, including Clinton, who was listed three times.

But that's not the whole story.

Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment).

Among those who visited more frequently than Stern, according to the combination of the two logs, were Lewis (Lee) Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secetary Timothy Geithner, with 92 visits; associate attorney general Tom Perrelli, with 49; Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski with 47; Spencer Overton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, with 38; and Health and Human Services office of health reform director Jeanne Lambrew, with 27. (Stern visited twice more during the period covered by the second batch of data, giving him a total of 24 visits.) [Politifact, [12/7/09]

Stern appeared four times* in the visitor logs the White House subsequently released on December 30 for the period from September 16 through September 30.

*Correction: This item previously stated that Andy Stern did not appear in the visitors logs and has been updated to reflect the fact that his name does appear four times. Media Matters regrets the error.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 3:12 pm ET)
      2 9
      So all those who frequented the WH more than Stern were all staffers in his administration?

      Organized labor certainly has much of Obama's ear, that is undeniable. Why is MMfA wanting to keep that like quiet or downplay it somehow? It is what it is. Liberals love the isn't what it is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 07, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
        7 1
        It's not downplaying it, it's called telling the truth about it. SEIU's Stern was NOT the person who visited the most.

        It's called, you know, reality.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 3:24 pm ET)
          2 6
          It's called hair splitting to deflect away from the broader point being made, something MMfA clings to all the time, nothing new here.

          And as I said, all the others were staff in Obama's administration, so they should actually be classified differently for those who keep tabs on this sort of thing.

          So what anyway, so this union guy visits the WH a lot, it's Obama's WH now, he can have anyone over for as many times as he wants.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by PurpleState (January 08, 2010 8:55 am ET)
            2 1
            It's called "telling the truth".

            Beck should try it some time. And you should listen to the truth some other time.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Max Credits (January 07, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
          5 1
          Let's see... right ON says Beck's claim is "true" and Politifact reports that it's "false". Man, this sure is a thinker; do I believe Beck and right On and their "facts" or do I go with the very clearly laid out facts of a non-partisan fact-checker? What to do, what to do...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
            1 7
            "right ON says Beck's claim is "true"

            Why the quotes for "true"? And where did I say that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Credits (January 07, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
              6 1
              Oh sure, now you'd like accuracy. Haha.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
                1 7
                From people of character, I don't expect it from you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by benjr (January 07, 2010 7:58 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  Clearly you didn't bother to read the politifact article.... If you had you would have come across these very pertinent points:

                  Another complication is that the first batch of data -- covering the period from Jan. 20, 2009, to July 31, 2009, which found Stern in the lead -- is not a complete accounting of White House visits during that period. It only includes data for visitors whose names were first requested by the public. If no one requested a specific name, that name would not appear in the database. So there's no way of knowing whether Stern actually had the most visits for that period; he simply had the most of anyone whose name was requested by the public


                  So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect


                  You wrote,
                  And as I said, all the others were staff in Obama's administration, so they should actually be classified differently for those who keep tabs on this sort of thing.

                  If you had bothered to read the article you would realize that there is no way to verify your claim. I could have been to the White House 200 times but you would never know until someone asked for me by name. Beck's claim is untrue and indefensible.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (January 07, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
      4 1
      Thank you for updating your post with some facts, MMFA. I did some research myself, and I found a boast by SEIU tauting the 22 vistis, but their point was that labor and labor unions had been ignored by the Bush Administration. Glenn wants people to think that unions, and SEIU in particular, are bad for the working man. Glenn has no room to talk. He has made a very good living, usually much better than the average DJ for decades, and he has always made more than the average working guy. For him to sit there and tell some working stiff that they would be better off if they did away with unions and union benefits is ridiculous and hypocritical.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 07, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
        5 1
        As someone once said. You like 40 hour work weeks? Thank a union member.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (January 07, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
          2 1
          Absolutely!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (January 07, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
            4 1
            The Great Expansion, with the economy growing, and standards of living growing, across the board, coincided with the years of union power and the "social contract." The Great Compression, with working people losing ground, wages stagnating, etc. has coincided with unions' loss of power. To say that they wield disproportionate power today is, as Beck is wont to be, ridiculous.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (January 07, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
              4 1
              True, union workers were 35% of the workforce back in those days. They are about 12% of the current workforce. If unions had more power, workers might very well be doing better. Younger workers have no memory of just what unions were capable of doing, so they don't join, and we all suffer for the decline in membership and power.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 3:46 pm ET)
                1 7
                "Those days" included far more manufacturing jobs than today, so of course the union workforce isn't going to be what it was. Apples to oranges. As for younger workers, perhaps they feel they don't need the union which is why they don't join. Unless you have a link to support their reasons, you really don't know.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (January 07, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
                  5 2
                  Oh right, my experiences of talking to younger teachers about joining the union is completely non-existent because I don't have a link! And one of the reason we don't have as many manufacturing jobs has to do with Republican support for breaking union contracts, tax breaks for companies building new plants in non-union areas, and tax breaks for shipping factories and jobs overseas. The Reagan Administration spent a lot of time telling Americans they were better off loosing all those factory jobs, because they would do so much better under a free market, financialized, service economy.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
                    1 8
                    You failed to mention anywhere about your personal anecdotal experiences, and I wasn't speaking to the reasons for the loss of manufacturing jobs. I was merely putting your percentages in context.

                    Touchy.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by epkklk851 (January 07, 2010 4:36 pm ET)
                      6 1
                      A young worker of today (25), would be without any knowledge of the heydays of unions, which were when their parents were children. Labor history isn't taught in schools beyond mentions of unions during the Industrial Era. The rise and sucess of unions in the 20th Century is not taught. I used to teach History. I was the teacher equivilent of a shop steward for several years. I took a course in Labor History in college. My husband's Masters is in Labor History.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by markbfoot199 (January 07, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
                        1 8
                        Why join a Union, they control your pay and career. I would rather negotiate my own pay and prove myself against my peers. Yes, Unions help shape our current laws with Employment, but their time has come and gone. Unions do Contract negotiations on behalf of employees, you then find out that each person makes the same wage. SO the slacker makes the same as the hard worker, NO Thanks.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 4:55 pm ET)
                          1 8
                          It's all part of the liberal ground crew out to level the playing field.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Conchobhar (January 10, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
                               
                            So you don't mind running the ball uphill?
                            All right, if you think a level playing field is silly, let's tilt the field in favor of the worker, for a change. Corporations have had the advantage long enough.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 08, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Mark, based on your clear lack of intellect when you post here, I would encourage you not to negotiate anything. Get an agent.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by Black Ops (January 07, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
                       
                    Living in the past. What about the great job that Our president is doing today.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by GreenLantern (January 07, 2010 10:27 pm ET)
                     
                  Every time I argue facts with a repug, they always say "apples to oranges" there are service unions too! They weren't always manufacturing............ Since there is no bargaining against monopoly giant corporations they own you and treat their employees like Wal-Mart does now. (When Wallie started, unions couldn't get in cause they treated employees well, it took the take over of the founders son to use monopoly power to then ruin the workforce) soon every job will pay and have benefits like Wal-Mart! 1% rich, 99% destitute! In subservience for money for a meal.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (January 07, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
      1 6
      Among those who visited more frequently than Stern, according to the combination of the two logs, were Lewis (Lee) Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secetary Timothy Geithner, with 92 visits; associate attorney general Tom Perrelli, with 49; Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski with 47; Spencer Overton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, with 38; and Health and Human Services office of health reform director Jeanne Lambrew, with 27. (Stern visited twice more during the period covered by the second batch of data, giving him a total of 24 visits.)

      Wow, so what branch of government is Stern, looks to me that the above are employees of the government, where as Stern is a Visitor.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 07, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
        4 1
        You don't actually think that all federal employess work in the White House, do you Markb? I mean, it's a pretty big pad, but not that big.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 6:50 pm ET)
          1 4
          I think he meant they most likely have official business there, whereas Stern, as far as I can tell, does not.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Max Credits (January 07, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
            3  
            I assume you mean "official" in the "democracy" sense.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 07, 2010 7:15 pm ET)
              5  
              Maybe Stern is just taking a lot of those guided tours. RightOn seems to have done some research that shows no official business. As far as he can tell.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Max Credits (January 07, 2010 7:20 pm ET)
                4 1
                Maybe he's just concerned that fundamentalist Christian leaders such as Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Gary L. Bauer, of American Values, Wendy Wright, of Concerned Women for America, Louis P. Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage and the Free Congress Foundation, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, Donald Wildmon, of the American Family Association, and Jerry Falwell aren't hanging out there anymore to tell the President that Jesus wants him to lie to Americans.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (January 07, 2010 11:03 pm ET)
            2 1
            Stern can also have official business there as well. It's not unlikely that a leader of a major labor Union does have business in the White House, meetings, and so on and so forth.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 07, 2010 11:27 pm ET)
              3 1
              But Righton has already established that Stern had no official business there ... as far as he can tell. And I think he can tell about as far as he can see.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 10:58 am ET)
                1 1
                Why are you liberals so defensive about it? Geesh. I just said above so what? Now you all are rushing to try and say maybe he had official business there, well so what? It's Obama's house, he can anyone he wants, right?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Max Credits (January 08, 2010 12:08 pm ET)
                3 1
                defensive = mockery

                I trust you've been updating your dictionary w/ right ON's 're-definition-of-the-day' updates, Col. He gets mockery if you don't keep up with his new meanings for stuff.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 08, 2010 12:37 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  They must get this from Boss Limbaugh. He does the same thing, says really dopey stuff, and when people laugh at him, he calls them "unhinged", "obsessed", defensive". Remember another important right wing definition; Free Speech = uncontested and unexamined Free Speech (for them)
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Max Credits (January 08, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Why are you shouting in angry at Boss Limbaugh and denying him his right under the constitution to spit pastry crumbs onto a golden microphone? Geesh.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (January 07, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
      5 1
      Another Christmas wish for the New Year comes true. While the GOP are counting visitors and having conniptions over ACORN, the Democrats are getting work done.

      PLEASE, please continue to focus on SEIU and ACORN, GOP. The country desperately needs the right to marginalize itself by harping on irrelevant issues.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ingemar (January 07, 2010 5:28 pm ET)
           
        What exactly is the party with a super majority in Congress "getting done?"
        Not trying to imply that they havent done anything....just asking for a clarification.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by HotWings (January 07, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
      1 2
      If SEIU Boss Andy Stern is visiting the White House as much as members of the President's own administration, don't you think that kind of makes Glenn Beck's point?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 07, 2010 8:01 pm ET)
        2 1
        Only to the very gullible.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 07, 2010 11:09 pm ET)
          2 1
          And, they can't tell us why it's bad that Stern was at the White House, other than, the evil union is trying to take over the country!!!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 07, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
        2 1
        No, it doesn't, and he hasn't visited as much as members of his administration, he's not at the top of the list. Beck's point was that Stern was the top visitor, he wasn't, Beck's wrong, and so are you.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (January 08, 2010 2:59 am ET)
      1 3
      All of the other visitors are O employees, are they not?
      Would anyone be uncomfortable if Steve Ballmer had visited 0 as often as Stern AND the Feds made a new committment to Microsoft Office? How about the president of RIM (Research In Motion) and a sudden government interest in Blackberry's?

      Stern is obviously being given very high level access to 0 because he took money from dues paying union members and gave it to 0's campaign -- a very large amount of money. Anyone who gives that much money gets paid back. Access and the Employee Forced Choice Act are the paybacks.

      Is no one on this site concerned about the scale of in-your-face corruption going on? [Lousiana - $300M,Nebraska - free Medicaid forever,SEUI campaign contributions,8% increase in pork in revenue bills].

      Honest open government seems to have been thrown under the bus.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 08, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
        2 1
        Actually, printing the names of the visitors in public would be the definition of an honest and open government. Do you see how stupid your statement makes you look?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ILikePizza (January 08, 2010 8:07 am ET)
         
      Why is it okay, the American way really, for companies to buy up their competition in an effort to acquire market share and more control of their price, but when individuals do effectively the same thing it is a sign of the ruination of America? Why do "conservatives" cherish entities over people?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 08, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
      2 1
      I'm missing something. Why is the fact that Democrats get support from and discuss issues with the labor unions a story? Is it a story when the Republicans crap on them? I don't think so. This has been the political landscape for several generations now.

      I would say kudos to Obama, though, for making his visitors public. I haven't noticed Jeff Gannon's name on the list. Was he mentioned in Rove's divorce settlement?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RedStateDem (January 08, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
         
      Right.. Obama does what the unions want.... like the Cadillac Plan tax
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.