Quote of the Day
| Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:11 AM PDT
From James Fallows, after watching Jon Stewart's show last night:
I have been far too soft on Betsy McCaughey.
Yep. Here's the conversation I had with Marian last night at about 11:10 pm:
M: Do you want to watch the interview?
K: Who is he having on?
M: Um, some former lieutenant governor of New York or something.
K: Oh shit.
I was appalled that Stewart chose to have McCaughey on, and I agree with Fallows that he was unable to handle her. Partly this was because McCaughey affects a winsome, faux innocent style that makes it hard for Stewart to bully her. Partly it's because she's ruthlessly devoid of scruples. Partly it's because she knows she doesn't have to "win" the debate. She merely has to sew a tiny seed of doubt.
McCaughey is pure poison. She cares about nothing except making sure that no healthcare reform of any kind is ever adopted in the United States, and in that cause she's willing to say or do anything. It was a mistake giving her yet another forum to spread her lies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Interesting contrast ...
Submitted by dcsusie on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:22 AM PDT.
between your take and Steven Benen's - Benen thought Stewart did a good job. I tend to agree more with you - every time you give the wackos a chance to spread their vile lies, they win - seems likes libs can't get over the notion that they are showing their superiority by bringing these folks on, but in reality they are just being played for suckers, unlessyou are willing to really kick them in the nuts. Lawrence O'Donnell showed how it can and should be done with some yahoo Texas congressman last Friday when O'Donnell finished a great week substitute hosting Hardball (far better than anything Chirs "HA!" Matthews has ever done). But if a liberal show host can't bring him/herself to do the same, they should stay away from these contemptible scum. Even Bill Maher can't seem to bring himself to call them on their bullshit. In this game, nice guys ALWAYS finish last.
Well said. Arguing with
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:42 AM PDT.
Well said.
Arguing with demagogues in public is always a losing proposition. They drag you down to their level - and then beat you because you can't play their game and they can.
The way to do it is with sharp TV ads that do not mince words. Make the case that way, not in a fake debate. Serve some liberal red meat for once. Say some sharp things THEY will feel they have to defend against. Go on the offense. Don't just play defense all the time. It doesn't work.
Kevin's point
Submitted by Go, Sestak! (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:57 AM PDT.
I concur. Kevin isn't saying that Stewart didn't do a good job, or that she came across well. Just that she was able to sow seeds of doubt in people's minds. It is insidious.
I don't agree at all.
Submitted by Waingro (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:34 AM PDT.
I don't agree at all. Stewart(and his staff) read the relevant provision and was obviously prepared to deal with her bullshit- McCaughey just came across as a huckster. Her attempts to find sympathy in the audience were clearly forced, and in my view completely unsuccessful.
I'm shocked that Kevin thinks McCaughey actually came across well. She just radiated "I am a huge, fraudulent bullshit artist."
I have to disagree with you Kevin...
Submitted by John Sully (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 3:16 PM PDT.
I thought that Stewart eviscerated her. He showed her to be ill-prepared, a liar, and unwilling to admit to what the clear language of the bill said.
Heck, I was able to find page 432 before she did, and I didn't even have a copy of the bill sitting in front of me. I did have a laptop connected to the internet and Google. Search for hr 3200 pdf, click on first link, enter 432 in the page widget. I read it before they got back from break and knew that she was lying.
I notice that her appearance cost her a job today.
Which show were you watching?
Submitted by Michael (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 4:58 PM PDT.
I agree with the comments above. Stewart did a great job. She came off not only as a lookn, but as a buffoon. And the great thing was he did it with humor and wit, not yelling back at her.
I agree with Waingro
Submitted by Irreverend Moon (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:38 AM PDT.
Waingro said: " I'm shocked that Kevin thinks McCaughey actually came across well. She just radiated "I am a huge, fraudulent bullshit artist." "
I concur. Everything about the woman, from her hair color on down, screamed 3rd Generation Used Car Salesman/Avon Lady.....
---M
You and your friends may be
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:44 AM PDT.
You and your friends may be smart enough to see through her, but used car salesmen and Avon ladies do what they do because it works with a majority of the people.
'04 All Over Again
Submitted by Punditbot on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:48 AM PDT.
You can't win an argument with someone who's only interested in sowing the tiniest seed of doubt. This is swift-boating again, pure and simple.
On TV or online?
Submitted by Aris (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:48 AM PDT.
Kevin, did you watch the truncated version on TV or the whole thing in three parts on the Daily Show site? Huge difference. Watch the whole thing and then decide if Steward was too soft. I thought he destroyed her, while never loosing his cool and never actually being nasty. He did not shame her -- that would be impossible since she's shameless -- but he did expose her as a fraud and the venal person she is.
Watch the whole thing online and then decide.
____________________________________________
But how many people ...
Submitted by dcsusie on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:04 AM PDT.
watch the whole thing online?
Truth be told, given Stewart's demographics, this appearance doesn't matter much. But the nutwing is not handled much better, or not even as well, on the MSM. One of the worst is the oleaginous (sp?) David Gregory on Meet the Press - Russert was no prize in his final years, but Gregory is a joke, might as well have 'this program bought and paid for the the corporate establishment" in the end credits.
"Truth be told, given
Submitted by Napoleon (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:29 AM PDT.
"Truth be told, given Stewart's demographics, this appearance doesn't matter much."
I would disagree with this. From a mass communications stand point maybe, but then again her original piece in The New Republic back in the early 90's was likely read by 1/10th the number of people who saw her last night, but because of who read it it became something that set the debate and got her points in circulation. I suspect that Stewart potentially could have a very similar impact in so far as "trend setters" could watch it, particularly those in the media. If those people come to the conclusion she is a fraud and her conclusions are suspect her bs will not get a free ride this time like they did last time when Andrew Sullivan injected them into the debate.
I have not watched the interview yet and will tonight, but as a general proposition I don't see a problem with having clowns like her on, because someone like her is going to get plenty of play from other outlets. What counts is having other guest or a host who know what they are talking about and will push back effectively.
Make it sew
Submitted by navamske (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:03 AM PDT.
"She merely has to sew a tiny seed of doubt."
Sow.
"You and your friends may be
Submitted by mark robbins (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:08 AM PDT.
"You and your friends may be smart enough to see through her, but used car salesmen and Avon ladies do what they do because it works with a majority of the people."
I really dislike this line of argument. It assumes that the people responsible for governing themselves aren't capable of doing so. That's a dangerous assumption and a really bad way to write or argue policy.
Do you accept the wisdom of
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:30 AM PDT.
Do you accept the wisdom of the US electorate in re-electing Bush in 2004?
Maybe in the fullness of time the people come around to the truth.
But would you agree that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time?
I would have phrased this as
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 12:13 PM PDT.
I would have phrased this as "you and your friends come predisposed to dislike her. Those predisposed to dislike Stewart will side with her. Those truly neutral will need to read the bill for themselves because otherwise the interpretation boils down to he-says, she-says."
It's Reality
Submitted by nepeta on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 12:34 PM PDT.
I understand how you feel, but the argument that lots and lots of people can be fooled by persuasive liars is just common sense, isn't it? In any area where 'opinion' is a major factor in the outcome, then shaping that opinion becomes an art form. An appeal to fears, hopes, selfishness, etc. is often more effective in shaping that opinion than an appeal to facts, logic and one's 'better' self which includes empathy, sharing, etc. And for lots of people politics and government policy-making is at the bottom of their list of interests. That doesn't make them stupid, it just means that they're taking a breather in their role as citizens. Those are the people at risk of being manipulated.
Great job of summing up
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 4:09 PM PDT.
Great job of summing up Hopey McChangey's campaign!
Stewart did just fine
Submitted by kth on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:18 AM PDT.
As for McCaughey: she was every bit as evil as I thought she would be, but I was expecting someone a little smarter.
Given her previous role in nearly single-handedly derailing the Clinton health-care bill (thanks again, New Republic and editor Andrew Sullivan!), I was expecting a Damien-like combination of brilliance and evil. But only the evil lived up to expectations.
I agree with Kevin
Submitted by KathyF (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:17 AM PDT.
If you were a Medicare recipient watching this, you came away convinced this woman is looking after your interests. She was way more convincing than i expected her to be, and I KNOW she's full of it.
But most people don't, which is the entire problem. Fallows was right; no amount of facts will counteract this nonsense. Stewart wasted his time, but fortunately most of his viewers won't need to be convinced.
Sorry, Kevin, but I
Submitted by Michael R (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:36 AM PDT.
Sorry, Kevin, but I completely disagree. I didn't actually know who she was when she came on, or what side she was on. I quickly started wondering what kind of lightweight clown she was.
Here's the thing: she did seem genuinely nice. That's fine. But she also seemed clueless. Don't we all know someone like that? Real sweet, but a dingbat.
You don't have to hate someone to see they're not right. Stewart didn't need to beat up on her. She quietly, nicely imploded on her own.
At least, I hope so. I suppose it does depend a bit on the sophistication of the audience.
"Stewart wasted his time,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:45 AM PDT.
"Stewart wasted his time, but fortunately most of his viewers won't need to be convinced."
Yep. This is the key. We progressives are spending far too much of our time reminding one another how stupid stupid can be, and, again, how ruthless the paid opposition is.
The Medicare-aged voters are the ones who have been holding the "big vote" on this issue and, alas, the Republicans got to them first. Either the progressives reach them in a visceral and convincing way, or the primary money-and-energy-contributing faction of Obama's coalition will face an emboldened Republican minority and, yes, a humiliating loss before midterm elections.
Would anyone care to point
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:58 AM PDT.
Would anyone care to point out what specifically was dishonest about what she said? My feeling was that, even if all of her assertions were true, her conclusions were not very convincing.
But Falllows also wrote "The
Submitted by Steven R. Stahl (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 12:00 PM PDT.
But Falllows also wrote "The exchange demonstrated that if the guest reveals no self-awareness or does not accept the premise of factual challenge, Stewart can't get in his normal licks. Future guests will study this show."
What self-respecting person would want to be revealed as lacking self-awareness or unable to engage in any sort of debate? Stewart wasn't trying to convince cocoon-dwelling idiots that McCaughey was wrong; he was aiming at sympathetic liberals and intelligent people who wondered if McCaughey might have valid points. Revealing her as a buffoon should convince those wonderers that she doesn't have valid points.
It's not useful to suppose that everyone opposed to health care reform is a shill, corrupt, or a parroting moron. No type of reasoned argument will convince such people to change their views anyway.
SRS
doppelganger?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 12:07 PM PDT.
Has anyone seen Betsy McCaughy and Liz Cheney in the same room?
that's the problem arguing with a BS artist
Submitted by idlemind on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 12:13 PM PDT.
A BS artist can invent "facts" to make the strongest possible point. We, on the other hand, are severely limited by our attempts to remain within reality.
thought Stewart did great
Submitted by micahd on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 1:00 PM PDT.
But then I only watched the entire online version. And I care about facts.
Oddly enough the U.S. public does as well, though perhaps not the correct ones. Bush won in 2004 because the economy was doing well. Almost impossible to knock of an incumbent president with a strong economy but Kerry still almost managed to do it which is a testament to the wisdom of the American people rather than the other way round.
I'd really like to see Stewart become the new Charlie Rose. He's way too smart and cares too much about policy to remain in his role as a smart comic. In fact, if I could swap out comics and put him in the Senate instead of Al Franken, I'd do it in a second. Of course, I would also swap him for Harry Reid ...
Disagree profoundly
Submitted by wovenstrap on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
Simply put, if liberals can't win a debate based on the details of the bill, they don't deserve to pass the bill. Stewart may not have been up to delivering a knockout blow to McCaughey, but I don't think that was his intention, or his job really. The idea that liberals have to run from reasoned, detailed discourse on the bill because some of the players might not be as honest as we would like is silly, and it's bullshit. There's been too much focus on McCaughey doing OK in the TDS format, and not enough focus on Stewart's achievement of bringing attention back to the bill. If there is something troubling in those passages, then we need to hash it out, not bury it under the carpet.
not sure
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 4:35 PM PDT.
I don't know if the effect of the interview is likely to be good or bad. I think Stewart handled her well. I don't think she came off as serious and honest. But on a subject as complex as this one, it's always possible to invoke an inference from some other set of provisions. So there's no way to reduce McCaughey to silence, and I'm sure some people could be taken in -- but probably not the people who watch Stewart. So while I'm uncertain of the effect, I'm inclined to think it will be good.
Don't want to go all meta on
Submitted by Steve Paradis (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 6:46 PM PDT.
Don't want to go all meta on you, but the substance is not the issue. It's how she looked. Back when he was still sane Dennis Miller excoriated the people who mocked James Stockdale's demeanor at the VP debate, noting that the man had passed tests of character and honor unimaginable by his mockers--but that he had committed the cardinal sin of the age: he looked bad on television.
Last night Betsy McCaughey looked like one of your mother's friends who was trying to act her daughter's age. She had all the gravitas of Peggy Noonan after two whippets. She's an instant joke, a minor league Sarah Palin, and will still have a career reaching out to that deep but narrow demo. But I think she may be finished with the grown-ups.
Each time she made a specific claim about the bill's language
Submitted by Paul Camp (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 9:13 PM PDT.
he forced her to admit that it said no such thing. The language she said was there she, several times, had to admit it wasn't.
I dunno. I think that's a win.
I knew nothing about Betsy
Submitted by Trippp on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:24 PM PDT.
I knew nothing about Betsy before seeing the show. When she entered I wasn't sure if she accidentally created the firestorm about the death panels and wanted to recant the words or not.
Rather quickly I could tell she was odd. She seemed like a fast talker who had little real data but covered that by talking a lot and mugging to the audience. When she couldn't find the page I gave her the benefit of the doubt, but after that all she could seem to articulate was a very tenuous, tortured thin reed of an argument starting from a somewhat ambiguously worded section of the bill and ending at a hugely divisive and incorrect conclusion.
Once she was pinned down I thought she was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
In the grand scheme of things I doubt Betsy's appearance mattered much. Her argument is not persuasive, and her demeanor becomes quickly tiresome.
Tripp
Betsy Resigned
Submitted by Rainy Day (not verified) on Sat Aug. 22, 2009 3:09 AM PDT.
Betsy's people must have thought her appearance was horrid. They swept her under the rug within hours of the interview going viral.
So Betsy resigned? Wow.
Submitted by Trippp on Sat Aug. 22, 2009 8:16 AM PDT.
I try to refrain from sarcasm but what the hey, it is the weekend.
Betsy resigned? It couldn't happen to a better person.
Years ago my sister had a doll called Betsy Wetsy, but that is neither here nor there.
Heh heh.
Tripp
McCaughey's act
Submitted by Varecia on Sat Aug. 22, 2009 10:56 AM PDT.
While Stewart got in some sharp needling and started off pretty well, I thought he pulled some punches in some key spots as it went on. I think it was just enough, however, to introduce the needed skepticism. Look at her constant fidgeting and her body language--she knew she's lost it.
I am proud that John Stewart
Submitted by Andy Fifth Column Sullivan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 22, 2009 6:33 PM PDT.
I am proud that John Stewart gave that brave truth-teller Betsy McCaughey the opportunity to discuss all the horrible nonsense, make believe, other assorted lies, halftruths and fibs that she claims are to be found in the current health reform bills in Congress.
ATTENTION other planet dwellers
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Sat Aug. 22, 2009 8:05 PM PDT.
I would like to welcome you to the planet earth. I realize you may feel out of place and not understand how things are here. Do not be afraid.
Mr Frank and Mr Stewart are like most humans, they attempt to seek the truth and have little willingness to put up with others that like to live in dreamlands of their own making. I hope you will forgive me for shocking you by noting that Ms McCaughey seems to be one of your own that has been on earth for some time. I know this since she does such a poor imitation of a human adult. Mr Stewart obviously realized this during his show since he was so polite to her and tolerated her lame attempt to appear knowledgeable about our laws. If you are going to attempt to convince us that you are one of us please, at the very least, understand how to find something written on a piece of paper in a reasonable amount of time. It isn't hard, even our young children can do it.
Oh, how do I know you are from another planet ? That is easy. You pretend that Ms McCaughey actually came across as an informed human & not as a complete fool that exposed her cluelessness. Maybe you should huddle with her and help her learn more about human ways. I know some of you are very good at it since you are posting comments here that come very close to being something an actual human would think.
Keep trying and please enjoy your stay.
"...Let's go with wit. Wit wins over rage." - theora jones
It was odd that she did not
Submitted by Hedley Lamarr (not verified) on Sun Aug. 23, 2009 12:13 PM PDT.
It was odd that she did not have little paste-its at the relevant pages. By not so doing she looked grossly unprepared, and that she had only talking points to present.
If only Stewart would get rid of the vapid celebrities, his interviews would be more useful.
I do understand what Kevin
Submitted by Barbara (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 6:20 AM PDT.
I do understand what Kevin and Fallows are saying. And if you were expecting a complete smackdown, this wasn't it. But she came across as so clearly disingenous and -- I don't know -- even crazed, that she was inherently unbelievable.
I think Stewart got the salient point in: that rewarding "compliance" she was scared about wasn't scary because the point was to try to make hospitals follow what the patient wanted, including whether they wanted lots and lots of additional treatment.
Her rejoinder, "but you can change your mind" just seemd so silly, especially if you have ever dealt with anyone at the end of life.
Her flipping through the book for provisions she couldn't find (no attorney in their right mind would bring the entire bill, or if they did, they would, as Stewart said, use post-its to find the important bits), and the fact that Stewart clearly had read the bill made her keep flying off topic.
Also, I think the reason she had to resign her board post at a device manufacturer was her insane statement that she thought we should be spending more on medical care. It's hard to contain a gadfly, but Stewart did the next best thing -- he made it clear that she IS a gadfly, and not a serious person.
Foot detox pads studies done
Submitted by Alger (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 12:53 AM PDT.
Hi all. O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
I am from Oman and too poorly know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "While we follow you comprise, third bamboo pads are not robbed to be a instance, they will normally segregate protect the correlation's black healthy holistic spa think the herbal feet that notice to pulling."
Regards :p Alger.
If you are looking for the
Submitted by monaier (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 9:52 AM PST.
If you are looking for the tall boots,you might as well take a look at the UGG Classic Tall Boots. UGG Classic Tall are in double-faced sheepskin with the durable yet lightweight outsole.These boots are lady-like enough.Most of our Cheap UGGS are made of the genuine sheepskin from Australia.Welcome to order.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
