U.S.A. Bought and paid for by Corporate America-hey! I thought Teddy Roosevelt fixed that. . .

What? A Republican shill who was and is against health care reform not on its merits (or lack thereof), but instead to maintain the status quo that benefits corporate paymasters and the oligarchy?

That's unpossible.

We NY'ers really need to change how we elect LG's. Patterson was her successor. Enough said.

Will the New York Times cover this? Will the ombudsman ever apologize for not giving it enough attention? Will the Washington Post? When Hell freezes over, I imagine.

this article was in Rollingstone a week and a half ago...

Tell me the last time a Rolling Stone article made its way into the mainstream media.

If John Stewart's takedown of McCaughey didn't affect her "credibility," Dickinson's article won't.

Integral to the company's strategy, the memo observed, was an effort to "work on the development of favorable pieces" with "friendly contacts in the media."

And by "work on the development of favorable pieces", we meant, supply the talking points to be scripted verbatim, and by "friendly contacts in the media", we meant, anybody that will whore themselves out for a few bucks.

How will Sully lie his way out of this one?

Prostitution need not envolve penetration. Betsy McCaughey practices corporate prostitution, and the most recent revelations prove to me she is nothing more than the company whore! -Kevo

Amazing that the Daily Show was the only show to actually question her on the specific language in the bill she relied upon for her death panel lie.

It's beyond shameful. Not unexpected, I guess, but still disgraceful.

I disagree with Drum's analysis. I don't think McCaughey cares a wit about whether healthcare reform passes or not. Rather, she has discovered that there is money to made in opposing reform and no money to be made by supporting it. She is not unike many of our senators and congressman in that regard. I think greed and power hunger gets mistaken for ideological convictions far too often.

If John Stewart's takedown of McCaughey didn't affect her "credibility," Dickinson's article won't.

There's the nub of it, though: credibility is irrelevant. Just yell loudly enough, and the MSM will obediently amplify things further. Hence birthers, deathers, tenthers, etc.

-Z

And if you find this "anonymous" buying of media coverage chilling, you should get double pneumonia when you realize that Justices Alito and Roberts are at this moment doing all in their power to fast track a new ruling which would give corporate America virtually unlimited power to use their vast wealth to sway public opinion in the name of "free speech." The corporation, of course, is a person, and therefore entitled to advocate its positions as an issue of free speech, but drawing upon vast amounts of wealth the average citizen could never hope to amass in support of their own interests.

And what is even better is the likely prospect that corporations will be able to carry out their efforts completely hidden behind anonymous "astroturf" labels so that you will probably never know that the Council for a Greener America" is being mostly underwritten by the coal industry, or that Citizens for A Free Choice while arguing against taxes on unhealthy foods like highly sugared cereals and sodas....is actually underwritten by the industries who produce those same products.

It's a process which has been happening for years, but once the Court passes its expected ruling, the tsnunami of corporate funded anonymous lies will overwhelm us all.

"How soon until a major media outlet once again turns to McCaughey for "analysis" of health care policy?"

Got an egg timer?

So Kevin D. thinks she's willing to "do or say anything" to advance her cause? Isn't that pretty much the credo of the modern right-wing movement in the U.S.? Hasn't that been the case for at least 30-some years? Good to know ol' Kevin finally noticed.

Screw the question of whether it will scuttle her credibility. Let's MAKE it scuttle her credibility. Instead of sitting around passively expecting it to undo her, lets have our people trumpet this bit of information any time she is interviewed or mentioned in the press, and make sure the other media pick up on it.

"This latest disclosure, combined with a previously exposed conflict of interest, should destroy any remaining credibility she has with the media as an expert in health care reform acting in the public interest."

Indeed, it should. But will it?
----------------------

Hee hee hee ... you're such a card!

Re Betsy McCaughey’s writing being influenced by Phillip Morris, didn’t The Manhattan Institute refute that claim with the following statement?: “Betsy McCaughey wrote two articles for The Wall Street Journal on the Clinton Health Care plan and an additional article for The New Republic which was solicited by its publisher. At no time were her ideas influenced or controlled by anyone but the author herself.”
That would seem to discredit the Rolling Stone article.