Remember Betsy McCaughey? She's Back

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:43:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein and James Fallows note that Betsy McCaughey is back spinning her falsehoods again on health care. Fallows writes:

In 1994 [McCaughey] wrote a cover story in the New Republic "revealing" a number of hidden dangers in the Clinton plan that less careful analysts had somehow missed. Unfortunately for McCaughey, most of what she wrote was false. Unfortunately for the Clintons, most of what she claimed was echoed uncritically and became part of the conventional wisdom of why the bill couldn't pass.

. . . Why bring this up now? Because McCaughey has sprung up again to "reveal" another hidden danger in another Democratic administration's plans. . . . [W]hat is wrong with her "analysis" this time[?] [They are] flatly disprovable lies.

More . . .

Now, you know who should be screaming about this? McCaughey's Dr. Frankenstein, Andrew Sullivan, who published her original 1994 falsehoods as TNR's editor, despite knowing them to be false:

Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic's then-editor later acknowledged "I was aware of the piece's flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation to debate.")

What has Sullivan said about all this? I mean he writes at The Atlantic, and Fallows posted his piece on Marc Ambinder's blog. Surely he has seen it. Anything to say about this Sully?

So far, crickets.

Speaking for me only

< Rahmbo: From Now On, Policy First, "Bipartisanship" Second | Stimulus: Longest Congressional Vote in History >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Remember Betsy McCaughey? She's Back | 66 comments (66 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Stimulus stuff... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Salo on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:52:57 PM EST

...is probably a skirmish in comparison to GOP plans for shenanigans about healthcare.

There won't be a skirmish over (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:27:34 PM EST

healthcare if people like this woman go unchallenged because the GOP PR effort to derail the debate before it has started will have had its desired effect. The Democrats will be behind in the public opinion arena and will defer the initiatives.


Major pressure (none / 0) (#12)
by WS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:05:36 PM EST

need to put on the Maine Senators and Sen. Specter to get universal health care.

By the time universal health care is up, Franken should be there and we'll need just one Republican. This time make sure the Blue Dogs and/or Nelson don't go off the reservation. Threaten them with institutional punishment if they have to. UHC is that important.


If Edwards were President, he'd (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:23:31 PM EST

be threatening Specter's health coverage, which would certainly get Specter's attention.


I'd almost be tempted to pull a Jeffords (none / 0) (#20)
by Salo on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:10:47 PM EST

with Specter.

I'm surprised a few GOPers have not shifted party loyalty.


: Hmmm (none / 0) (#27)
by WS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:18:18 PM EST

the Democrats would have to promise non-existant Democratic competition for Specter to switch to independent.
If he switched to Democrat, would Democratic voters vote for him in a primary?
Kos had a post and the PA wingnut Republicans look like they're ready to primary Specter.

Their strategy is completely (none / 0) (#18)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:08:48 PM EST

predictable: they will say "deal with SS first. After we handle that fiscal time bomb, we can discuss ways to encourage more people to get health insurance"


We can tie UHC (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by WS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:13:45 PM EST

with fixing Medicare. Medicare can't be fixed or will be very hard to fix without solving the entire health care system.


I think the right answer lies in (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:21:34 PM EST

telling (true) sob stories about the horrendous things that can happen to people without insurance---or even to those who have it, for that matter. The myth that US health care is superb must be shattered in the public's mind.
In fact, the US has abysmal health care, on the whole, delivered at an exorbitant rate


Poppycock. (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:56:15 PM EST

suo, you want to find someone to sell me (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by Teresa on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:01:45 PM EST

health insurance? I'm deemed high risk so I'm just out of luck. We have good care if you can afford it, and I can't and there are a lot more like me out here.


Should we tear down and rebuild the entire house (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:10:34 PM EST

becuase the front door sticks? Or should we just fix the front door?


I hate argument by analogy (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:15:13 PM EST

as an analytical tool for discussing public policy. It is completely, utterly worthless.


But you're a big fan of bloviating your opinon (none / 0) (#71)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:19:32 AM EST

as fact, cuz that's the right way to argue?

the US has abysmal health care

: It's abysmal as measured by (none / 0) (#78)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:06:42 PM EST

various measures of outcome, duh.
Apparently that point was too difficult for you to grasp.

Well right now, I know more unemployed (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by Teresa on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:18:30 PM EST

people, by a long shot, than I do employed and the ones who are eligible for Cobra can't afford it. Now is the time to fix it for everyone. We can't get in the door, and if you open it for me, I still can't pay for the rest of the house.


You're just being dismissive ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:24:24 PM EST

... without offering any viable alternatives on your part in this debate, so there's no risk on your part.

It's always easy to say "no" on a given matter and not listen to others' arguments when your mind is closed on the subject. "Poppycock" and "just fix the front door", indeed! Got any other unctious and shopworn sayings for us?

Tell you what, Dorothy. If you have a better idea about solving the country's health care problems, one that's based in fact and reason, and not dependent upon clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together three times while repeating "There's no place like home, there's no place like home ...", then fine, let's hear it, right here and now.

If you don't, then I'm calling you out, and telling you that you bring absolutely nothing to this discussion but a lot of trash talk and a pre-determined but unsupported opinion. While I'm certainly no expert on health care, I know right-wing shuck'n'jive when I hear it.

And if that's the case, then I would suggest you take your negative attitude and corrosive vibes elsewhere, perhaps to a sympathetic fact-free zone where obnoxious online behavior, lazy thinking and wholesale delusion are truly appreciated, like Fox News.

Aloha.


: Yeeaaah. (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:24:50 AM EST

It's always easy to say "no" on a given matter and not listen to others' arguments when your mind is closed on the subject.
Ya mean like this comment from ThatOneVoter?
The other part of my comment is inarguable, though.
Oh, you agree with his opinion, so it's ok...

if it costs a million dollars (none / 0) (#66)
by cpinva on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:24:53 AM EST

Should we tear down and rebuild the entire house becuase the front door sticks? Or should we just fix the front door?

to fix the front door, vs half that to raze and completely rebuild the house, then yes, tear down and rebuild the house.


My strategy is poppycock? (none / 0) (#42)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:01:19 PM EST

Possibly so---I'm not good at predicting successful political strategies.
The other part of my comment is inarguable, though.


Hardly, but I've been through this too many (none / 0) (#46)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:09:20 PM EST

times here on TL before and I don't have the energy to do it again.

HC in the US ain't nearly as bad as all that but will deteriorate significantly under just about any UHC plan proposed so far.


By what measure is the US health (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:14:22 PM EST

care good? Our cost per capita is about twice that of other industrialized countries, while we are dead last (out of 19 countries) in mortality amenable to medical care.
Our infant mortality rates in particular are an embarrassment---last i read the US ranked 40th in the world (from the best) in infant mortality.
Do some people get good health care? Sure.
People with a lot of money eat well too, but I wouldn't measure how well people are fed in this country by looking at rich people.


It is the Bill Kristol strategy (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by MKS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:32:18 PM EST

deployed in 2004: What Health Care problem?

Ah, those rich Republican folk never do notice the little people, do they? What are emergency rooms for, anyway?


: Deployed in 1994 (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by MKS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:34:09 PM EST

: My wife and I spent half a decade (none / 0) (#75)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:35:20 AM EST

- and not so very long ago - w/o health insurance. In fact, we're thinking of dropping it for the whole family now. It's looking cheaper to just pay for what we use...

By what measure? (none / 0) (#77)
by sj on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:39:29 AM EST

By the "measurements" taken when one's own health care needs are being met. In general, that means an employer based health plan coupled with good health.


That's like saying everyone is well fed (none / 0) (#79)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:08:02 PM EST

because you just ate dinner.


: I hate argument by analogy (none / 0) (#80)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:07:31 AM EST

I hate argument by analogy (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 03:15:13 PM PST
as an analytical tool for discussing public policy. It is completely, utterly worthless.

Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by Steve M on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:24:10 PM EST

If we allow everyone to buy into Medicare if they choose to, in what way will that make health care worse?


: In what way will it make it better? (none / 0) (#74)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:30:37 AM EST

I'm pretty sure it was Obama who I heard (none / 0) (#55)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:37:59 PM EST

say that he won't stop until all Americans have the same coverage as congress.


You sure that wasn't Edwards? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:40:26 PM EST

: Might have been (none / 0) (#59)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:56:03 PM EST

Then, my confusion could be based in his speech in Raleigh shortly after JE gave his grandstanding endorsement when Obama, with both John and Eliz in the front row, said Elizabeth would have a prominent place in his administration writing the UHC policy.

and, (none / 0) (#68)
by cpinva on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:29:46 AM EST

Hardly, but I've been through this too many times here on TL before and I don't have the energy to do it again.

you've been wrong every time. according to the world health organization, and nobel prize winning economists, health care in the US doesn't even rank in the top 10 of industrialized nations, in terms of quality of care, and cost per capita.

i'll take them over you, bill kristol and rush limbaugh.


: And if you think we will, with UHC, (none / 0) (#73)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:27:11 AM EST

you're dreaming.

Well, given Obama's friendship (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by dk on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:54:28 PM EST

with Harry & Louise, maybe she'll end up as Daschle's replacement. Peas in a pod, right?

Odds Are That It's (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:58:09 PM EST

More likely that Hillary and Bill will seek additional marriage counseling from Rev Wright.


That would be bipartisanship (none / 0) (#8)
by dk on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:02:52 PM EST

in a different form, I suppose.


: Whilst looking at all the "humorous" (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:24:57 AM EST

birthday cards today, I not only saw a few featuring President Obama, but another making fun of Hillary and Bill Clinton's as to their sexual relationship. Boo. Hiss. And this was in my favorite independent bookstore, of which I expect so much more.

Integrity and Honor (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by weltec2 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:42:33 PM EST

mean nothing to these people. How do they sleep at night?

: They sleep just fine. Like my old boss (none / 0) (#33)
by Teresa on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:47:25 PM EST

said, he's not worried about keeping a roof over his family's head or feeding them. He lives on the lake. His family could live on his boat if they needed to.

: It all goes back to social issues (none / 0) (#54)
by MKS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:37:11 PM EST

with most of them.
Hoping for a Great Depression so that the Republicans can win the next time around, so that they can criminalize abortion and make "certain" people go back in the closet. That is really what it is all about. There is a reason that states like Utah and Alabama are the reddest states....

Why are the people who believe and (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by Anne on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:47:05 PM EST

are scared by someone like McCaughey, who warns that the evil liberal Democrats are trying to sneak provisions into the stimulus bill to allow the government to make health care decisions for us, not aware and not angry about the insurance companies and HMOs that have been doing that for years and are fighting like hell to make sure they can keep doing it?

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal most mornings as I'm driving to work, and I can never get over the people who see more evil in universal health care than they do in what already exists. And what's so funny, in sort of a darkly ironic way, is that a lot of them are people who are on Medicare - a single-payer, government health care program.

As long as I live, I will never understand the utter joy some people seem to take in knowing that millions of people do not get health care because they cannot afford it; they see the ability to access and pay for health care as yet another measure of someone's worth, something that elevates them above the great unwashed.

And I don't know what people like McCaughey add to the debate, except to serve as examples for the kind of thinking that has led to our having a badly broken health care system; the sooner people stop listening to and believing the lies of the McCaughey-ites, the sooner we can head down the road to being a country that cares about the health of its citizens and realizes that it has an economic interest in having a healthy populace.

Sorry for the rant.

I'm comfortable with McCaughey (none / 0) (#4)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:59:00 PM EST

contributing to this debate. Republicans have good ideas, after all.

I really hope this is nothing more than snark. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by cal1942 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:49:09 PM EST

If it's not then let me get this straight.

You'd welcome the input of a known liar and feel that her blatant misrepresentations would somehow benefit the debate? You feel that a party with a record of utter failure, a party that's damaged the nation, a party that's degenerated into nothing more than a repulsive cult has good ideas?


: Someone I know keeps on saying (none / 0) (#36)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:54:16 PM EST

Republicans have good ideas to offer.
I think the quality of McCaughey's ideas is pretty typical, so I assume that person wants her input.

I thought you didn't have an opinion (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:00:50 PM EST

on healthcare reform?

I have an opinion on lies (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:01:33 PM EST

and people who publish them.


I know (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:03:20 PM EST

Just needling you.


LOL... you still don't get BTD's (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:00:05 PM EST

point, I see. The "strategy" McCaughey embodies is telling flagrant lies about Democrats' bills. Do you see any sentence saying "Look, I'm lying---that's what our strategy is now"?


: If I understand your reasoning (none / 0) (#58)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:56:01 PM EST

anything a Republican says in promotion of a policy is an example of "discussing GOP strategy".
A rather broad definition, IMO.

: What they are doing is EXECUTING... (none / 0) (#76)
by sj on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:39:03 AM EST

... their strategies. Not discussing them. That's the difference between what BTD says and what you think he says.

Sully is the Topic (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM EST

Why miss a chance to stick it to him.


Not having an opinion (none / 0) (#9)
by BernieO on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:03:03 PM EST

does not mean that you think that blatant lies should be overlooked.


Did she give up the "Ross"? n/t (none / 0) (#15)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:06:41 PM EST

: I think he gave up her (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:13:20 PM EST

Like crack for wingers (none / 0) (#19)
by MikeDitto on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:09:51 PM EST

Betsy's nutjobbery has all the wackos going insane. All you have to do is read the comments on any Obama or healthcare-related story online and the Limbots are all over it. Fascinating.

Maybe lies are best fought (none / 0) (#31)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:30:05 PM EST

with lies. Think about how John Edwards would respond to claims like this. Do you think he would stick to the whole, solid truth?

The Village... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Pacific John on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:06:17 PM EST

calls out lies from the left, no matter how inconsequential, and mocks them relentlessly. From the right, lies are merely provocations for the debate.

This is why any Democratic president needs the demonstrated ability to succeed in the face of a hostile press. Let's hope Obama can demonstrate that ability once he gets around to pushing strongly Democratic policies.


You (none / 0) (#35)
by cal1942 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:53:12 PM EST

really do advocate for enlightening debate.


: Let me give an example. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:05:10 PM EST

Suppose Larry Craig were still in the Senate, and still in the closet. I would have no problem with the tactic of strong-arming him to vote a certain way, in exchange for keeping his secret.
Is that unscupulous? I suppose. So what?
One of the things I liked about Obama is that he seemed willing to get rather dirty to win (IMO).
If he would apply the same lack of principle to passing bills, I'd like him much better than with his ineffective bipartisan shtick.
What do you think LBJ did to get the Civil Rights Act passed? You think he didn't threaten people??

: The goal is not to win debates: (none / 0) (#39)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 05:58:05 PM EST

the goal is to pass desired pieces of legislation, with public support.
I'm all for telling the truth about what our policies will do, and I don't advocate lying about policy. Outside of that stricture, I don't object to playing dirty--short of breaking the law, of course.
Edwards was the most effective candidate in advocating for UHC, but overall he was by far the least truthful of the major candidates. He's very skillful at slipping in lies.

I Remember Betsy (none / 0) (#41)
by daring grace on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:00:56 PM EST

Not for any policy she might have weighed in on over the years but for the daffy picture she presented at that infamous standing-during-Pataki's-State-of-the-State address silliness when she was his Lt. Gov:

"Perhaps Ms. McCaughey Ross's strangest offense, at least in the eyes of the Pataki administration, was her decision to remain standing throughout the Governor's entire speech to the Legislature in January. Yesterday, Ms. McCaughey Ross tried to explain the events leading up to what she called a "silly, trivial mistake."

"Ms. McCaughey Ross got off to a bad start that day, she said, because the state trooper assigned to pick her up at her Albany hotel and take her to the Capitol for the Governor's address never showed up. After an hour of fruitless calling to find him, Ms. McCaughey Ross gave up and hitched a ride with a lobbyist for Coca-Cola. Flustered when she finally arrived at the Capitol, Ms. McCaughey Ross said, she nonetheless stood up on directions from a television cue and introduced the Governor, as planned and on time.

"Only the Governor did not appear," she said. "And several minutes went by, and I was standing at the podium before this live television camera, and it was clear to me that it was not my place to say anything. But it was unnerving."

"The Governor finally arrived five minutes later. "I was so glad," Ms. McCaughey Ross said. "I was so glad to see him come up there and start to talk, that I just kept standing. I forgot to sit down."

"In retrospect, Ms. McCaughey Ross said, "why didn't someone tell me to sit down? Joe Bruno was to my left, Dennis Vacco was right behind me." She said she was puzzled by the reaction: "Is this a substantive error that would hurt the people of New York state or embarrass the Governor? No." "

I live in the Albany area, and in this overheated company town atmosphere that exists when the Legislature is in town, lemme tell you: Betsy will forever be known for this goofy gaffe. Hard to take her seriously even if she wasn't coming off as a Fox News shill.

I say this as a woman: only a woman (none / 0) (#69)
by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:29:51 AM EST

would go to such lengths to so publicly explain why she made a mistake.


: I Think You're Right (none / 0) (#70)
by daring grace on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:10:56 AM EST

And you know, back in the '90s when this was happening, as a woman, I felt kinda sorry for her being hung out to dry by all these silly, pompous men making such a big deal out of it.
But I also felt mortified by her continuing it with all her excuses. I felt even more: SHUT UP, Betsy. Move On!
I mean why not just toss it off as: Oh, who cares? What's the big deal?

Need to understand (none / 0) (#60)
by SOS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:11:55 PM EST

that with people like Betsy, in order for her to do her kind of work, she needs to believe she's doing something right. (As in believe your own lies)

Good luck trying to reason with that.