James Fallows has a very interesting take on Betsy McCaughey’s appearance on Jon Stewart:
As I mentioned this morning, I thought Betsy McCaughey was even more blithely disconnected from the world of reality than I had expected — but that she was weirdly “effective” against Jon Stewart, since there was no way to shame her by pointing out that what she said was untrue. She would just smile, mug at the audience in an “isn’t he cute!” way, and say, No, I’m right.
He then goes on to a lengthy discussion of why what she did worked in a weird way, including various emails. He also predicts that Republican operatives will emulate what McCaughey did. It’s an interesting discussion .
From my perspective, it’s all about the prop. Bringing the first 600 pages of the bill in a binder makes it look like there must be some truth to what she’s saying, even though she has trouble finding the right page and much of what she says is directly contradicted by what is in the bill.
This is actually a pretty old Republican tactic. Refer to some official document — whether it’s the constitution or some letter supporting your economic plan supposedly signed by hundreds of economists — even when what you’re saying has nothing to do with what is in the document. Bringing a hard copy of the document along is the next logical step.
I realize we’ve discussed this appearance before, but what what do you think? Did you think B-Mac was also weirdly “effective”?