Folks, this is one of those moments we here at Exiled Online have been waiting for all year long: finally, someone found a way to shake up Betsy McCaughey, an American traitor whom I warned you about in early February as someone willing to kill Americans by the thousands in order to enrich herself and her Park Avenue friends. Since then, Betsy McCaughey invented the “death panels” lie to help kill health care all over again: the Daily Beast labeled her “The Woman Who Killed Health Care,” while Jon Stewart was half-thwarted in his on-air attempt to Cramerize her. It seemed that no one could take the beast down. Enter Dylan Ratigan, host of the MSNBC Morning Meeting Show, the R.P. MacMurphy who took down Nurse McCaughey in the Cuckoo’s Nest of American health care we find ourselves stuck in.
You have to watch the entire segment here, to the transformation on McCaughey’s face as it goes from the smug, self-confidence of a top Heather into a scary-looking, vicious snarl, her mouth tightened, her teeth clenched, as McCaughey faces her first ever live-television shaming. It’s almost like a Joe McCarthy shaming moment, something I never thought I’d see, and folks, enjoy it, because damn it’s inspiring to know that even one of the plutocracy’s best shills can be rattled and broken.
According to even the rightwing Politico site,
As McCaughey’s presence on MSNBC suggests, she’s in the process of becomng an asset to the left, as her appearances seem to spur debate mostly about her — and by extension her allies — credibility.
I’m told it got even more bitter after the cameras turned off.
“You are a disgrace to journalism,” McCaughey told Ratigan, according to a source on the set.
“You were a great guest, except that we usually want answers to our questions,” he responded.
And that, folks, is how you do battle with a creature like McCaughey.
Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine. You can reach him at ames@exiledonline.com.
Click the cover & buy the book!
Read more: Betsy McCaughey, Jon Stewart, ratigan, Mark Ames, What You Should Hate
Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.
Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.
Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline
16 Comments
Add your own1. jaduncan | October 6th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Ah, that was indeed inspiring. It’s a rare interviewer in the US who will just flatly point out evasion.
It’s nice to see a functioning area of the media.
2. brian | October 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
in the 2004 presidential election, especially during the debates, Bush kept repeating that line that it’s all the lawyers’ fault – that’s why health insurance is so expensive, so we should limit your ability to sue if the doctor amputates the wrong foot.
Unfortunately, Obama dutifully voted along with the GOP for tort reform.
You know you’re being screwed when the plan mentions “how many Nobel laureates” have worked in the US. I wonder how many of those Nobel winners worked in industry as opposed to universities. Oh that’s right, none.
Ames, write another book and get yourself on the Daily Show. They don’t just have you on for a chat, you gotta be hawking something. Better yet, run for president.
3. WUT | October 7th, 2009 at 12:37 am
HELL YEA FUCK DAT DIZZY BITCH
4. Josephus P. Franks | October 7th, 2009 at 7:38 am
I would make sweet love to that dizzy milfabee with a 10-foot extension. I wouldn’t beat her with one, though.
5. adam | October 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
brian: It isn’t that tort reform is a bad idea, which is why Obama voted for it; the problem is that it’s such a tiny piece of the pie that it’s foolish to focus on it.
A public option would encourage price competition and we would see private insurance rates drop almost immediately. Keep in mind that one good outcome for the public option is for no one to actually use it (!) but for its presence to make private insurance affordable for tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
6. Marvin | October 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Betsy McCaughey is pure evil.
How amazing is it that she claims to be protecting seniors while endorsing a plan move Medicare eligibility to age 70 from age 65?
She wants to reduce competition with the private insurance companies. She wants to give the blood suckers even more customers (those aged 65 to 70) it’s a ludicrously awful idea.
7. Josephus P. Franks | October 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Just the thought of it making love with Betsy McCaughey is making me feel like Hugh Grant in Love, Actually. Say what you will about romantic comedies, that one really spoke to me.
8. Ardesio | October 7th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
McCaughey was outnumbered 2 to 1 in this interview, so it wasn’t a fair fight. Imagine Ames facing two angry and highly articulate arch-Republican women, and the result would likely be similar to what you see here.
(Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight, myself.)
9. T. Hallman | October 8th, 2009 at 6:07 am
It’s always good to see McCaughey get bitch-slapped.
Her solution for Medicare coverage for so damned many seniors: redefine ‘senior’ as 70 years old instead of 65. The solution she’s slowly creeping up on is to define seniors as, say, 120 years old. Sure, retire at 65, then hang on for just another 55 years and get health care. That would actually wipe out the senior population overnight, just by redefining who seniors are.
10. Josephus P. Franks | October 8th, 2009 at 8:00 am
All right, all right, I must admit, that’s pretty “make sweet love”ing funny.
But can I bribe you with a donation to keep from getting my posts fucked, er, “make sweet love”ed with? Or threaten you with a libel suit, because I can think of no worse fate than to be considered a groupie of this vampiric shill.
OK, the threat wouldn’t work, you all are probably judgment-proof, but how about that donation?
11. Scott | October 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I haven’t seen a gang bang that good since Belladonna stopped making movies.
12. mijj | October 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
i think its shameful that poor Betsy McCaughey (who’s obviously intellectually and emotionally retarded) was invited onto the show to be asked questions she obviously didn’t understand instead of being allowed to do her party piece.
13. cw | October 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I think Anthony Weiner would have been enough to take on McCaughey. Why did Ratigan have to pile on?
14. cult of skaro 24 | October 12th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
8. Yes but then you would have to find 2 republican women who were both angry AND articulate. Those two things are generally mutually exclusive. Any thoughts on who? I can think of one or two libertarian women who might fit that bill. Not so much republican.
11. Sasha Grey maybe?
13. Because she deserved it. Jon Stewart if anything let her off easy. Only went after that Death Panel crap. His rope-a-dope routine is satisfying, but sometimes leaves a feeling of incompleteness.
She wasn’t answering the question which was, to sort of paraphrase “okay tort reform doesn’t really do much what do you do?” she was just responding with attacks on her opposition. Say something positive, an actual policy proposal. Don’t need the nuts and bolts, just…I don’t know, some kind of tax credit-y….thing maybe?
15. cult of skaro 24 | October 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
by the way…LOVED Going Postal
will recommend to all friends.
Some things in it about High School just really struck a nerve.
16. Michael | November 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I watched this on a public PC in a hostel with the sound off – very informative. Sometimes the image does say more than a thousand words.
Leave a Comment
(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed