Why is Betsy McCaughey on MSNBC?
October 06, 2009 10:23 am ET by Jamison Foser
Yesterday, I noted that the problem with Betsy McCaughey isn't that she's a liar -- it's that the media gives her a platform to lie.
Let's be clear about this: it isn't just FOX News and the New York Post that are guilty of promoting someone whose claim to fame for 15 years has been spreading falsehoods about health care reform.
As I write this, McCaughey is on MSNBC, talking about health care. Why? What has she ever done to deserve such a platform?
(And remember MSNBC's promotion of McCaughey next time someone tells you it is a "liberal" cable channel.)
UPDATE: McCaughey and MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan just had this exchange:
McCAUGHEY: You're not a very fair moderator.
RATIGAN: Well, you're not a very fair answerer, so there you go.
Right. McCaughey isn't a very fair answerer. in fact, she's a liar. We've known she's a liar for 15 years. She's famously a liar about the very topic MSNBC is hosting her to discuss. So why is she on television? Why is Ratigan interviewing her?
UPDATE 2: Ratigan ended the segment by telling McCaughey: "Betsy it was a pleasure, again, I thank you for spending some time with us, and I do hope you will come back."
Why? McCaughey is a proven liar. Ratigan spent the entire interview trying to get her to answer questions and saying she wasn't doing so and saying she wasn't being "fair" in her responses; McCaughey spent the interview attacking Ratigan and basically behaving like Betsy McCaughey. And Dylan Ratigan wants to put her on television again.
This is why public discourse in America is broken.
I'm not implying anything... just askin'.
Kudos to Dylan Ratigan for refusing to allow her to just spew her usual nonsense. She ended up looking like an ill-informed (lying) wacko.
Because it is stinkin' cable "news" where conflict & BS sells $$$$
Rep Weiner from NY tore her a new one in a recent health care debate between the two of them - the story and video are available on Daily Kos.
And I loved watching Rachel Maddow on the Sunday talk show a couple of days ago. She refused to let David Gregory cut her off before she'd made her point, and she pushed back when someone else on the show tried the false equivalency argument that there's a conservative news network and there's a liberal news network. She asked him about Joe Scarborough. She's good. I have never seen Dylan Ratigan.
I think his comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I doubt she'll ever risk going on the air with him again.
------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Now wonder Republicans love her... she's a bald-face lying GOP Corporate Hack.
She is a serial liar acting wholly on behalf of corporate interests while millions go without adequate coverage.It's disgusting.
Beside that very obvious fact, Ratigan really gave it to her. He didn't hesitate to pounce on her when her tactic was blatantly adhere to emotional maudlin of "senior citizen Armageddon." Did anyone notice how she was schmoozing herself to the moderator and veneering her entire argument base on how much she "cares" about senior citizens and how this bill would be the end of Medicare coverage while the question was revolving around how we can cut the cost? The ironic part is that her "solution" was to gradually up the Medicare age, from 65 to 70. Great, the savior of senior citizens plans to coerce retirees out of the Medicare program, into the belly of private insurance industry. You know, the age group that has the HIGHEST premium rate, haha. Same age group that probably by then have a thousand medical complications and perhaps are rejected by the very insurance companies she so desperately shilling for.
The only reason she is pushing to cut the public option out of the equation is that her clients would have to provide lowered prescription drugs in bulk to reduce the overhead. Therefore, if there is no public option, the companies would continue to provide the drugs in smaller doses which result in much larger profit and bottom line.