Do I smell lawyers?
Um, not yet. But this is coming close…
I am requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann apologize and issue a correction.
Mr. Olbermann charges that I, Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. was paid, directly or indirectly, by the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industry, the Hudson Institute, or Cantel Medical Corp. to write my analysis of the stimulus bill or speak about that issue. All these charges are false.
I have shown all these charges to be false in a previous statement except the new charge regarding my board membership at Cantel Medical Corp. I serve on the board of Cantel Medical Corp. as a patient advocate and infection prevention expert. No one at Cantel Medical has ever asked me about the stimulus bill or requested that I address the issue. I have not discussed the issue with anyone in the company. I urge those who are interested to contact Cantel Medical directly (973-890-7220).
I have purchased no stock in Cantel Medical. Like all board members, I am routinely issued options. The options cited by Keith Olbermann were not issued to me in payment for my work on the stimulus bill. They were issued to all Cantel board members at the same time. They are issued routinely and periodically. Unlike the other board members, I have never exercised any options to purchase stock. I do not use those options to make money. The same is true for other boards on which I have served.
Sincerely,
Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D.
Advertisement
February 17, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I don’t know about lawyers yet, but that stench you smell is Olbermann.
February 17, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I love the smell of lawyers after midnight.
February 17, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Nah, it wouldn’t hold up. He accused her of having ties to pharma, which he used to imply bias. You can imply bias to your heart’s content. It’s not a crime.
February 17, 2009 at 10:43 pm
She’s clearly a shill, the only debate is over whether or not she’s a paid shill.
February 18, 2009 at 12:34 am
^
There was NO debate! She wanted to go on Countdown but looks like coward Olby’s too scared to have her on so she has to resort to letter writing.
This is an absolute confirmation this guy is a coward…lol
February 18, 2009 at 7:05 am
The Fuhrer Queef Olberdouche is going to name her the “WPITW” again because no one challenge the Fuhrer Queef Olberdouche with facts and make him look like an ass on TV…
February 18, 2009 at 7:15 am
Nah, it wouldn’t hold up.
That is an irrelevant point to a lawyer…or McCaughey…if they wanted to make a big stink.
February 18, 2009 at 7:40 am
Tis true, Spud.
February 18, 2009 at 8:25 am
I don’t know why anyone even cares about Olbermann, looking at the ratings, no one is watching.
The guy is really good at calling people names and spouting off half truths with no facts. He does his little commentaries that no one cares about anymore. Basically he is a waste of space, kinda like the network he is on.
He is truly a coward. Every time someone confronts him about some garbage he said on the air, he calls them WPITW then tries to ignore them.
KO is a sad excuse for a journalist on a sad excuse for a ‘news’ network.
February 18, 2009 at 8:43 am
I always love how Olby calls hiumself the Modern Day Edward R Murrow, yet the “brave” one won’t even debate a differing view.
Nice.
February 18, 2009 at 10:17 am
This guy is a bomb-thrower to the max!
He sits there constantly saying whatever he wants, about whomever, and when challenged, can somehow just make another snide remark, name them WPITW, and either ignore them or escalate the remarks. But in any case, he is never made to substantiate his remarks.
How long can this continue?
February 18, 2009 at 10:35 am
Gee, I don’t know, Missy. How long can Bill Kristol keep finding people to publish his never-right opinionating? Probably about that long.
February 18, 2009 at 11:36 am
Just have the lady on your show Keith….for once, have someone on that challenges you.
February 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm
She doesn’t deserve to be on the show. Or taken seriously on this issue. She is a shill. While I am sure she is a great lady, she has a huge conflict of interest.
February 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm
If she is a shill, why not have her on the show and challenge her. Keith is great at calling people out from the comfort of his desk. I would take him more seriously on this issue if he did.
February 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Arthur:
what does the Kristol reference have to do with Olbermann ducking a challenge?
February 18, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Eddie, my comment was in reply to Missy’s “But in any case, he is never made to substantiate his remarks. How long can this continue?”
February 18, 2009 at 1:32 pm
What’s the point of having her on the show? She gonna state her case (I’m not a shill), he’s gonna state his (yes you are). Boring. He has his venue, she has hers, everybody hears both sides.
February 18, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Dissenting views are not allowed in Olbermann land. Meanwhile, he’ll slam Fox “Noise” half a dozen times, where alternate views are always allowed.
It’s really pathetic that she challenged him to a debate, and like the douchebag coward he is, he ran away.
Not a surprise at all.
February 18, 2009 at 2:04 pm
But according to the Olbyloons, that’s “Murrowesque Courage”.
February 18, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Arthur:
Then answer her question in a way that doesn’t involve non-sequitors
February 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Eddie, an analogy is not a non sequitor.
February 18, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Read my lips: COUNTDOWN IS NOT A DEBATE SHOW. It’s liberal opinion/conservative bashing, unapologetically. You know that’s what you’re going to get if you go there. If you’re a conservative, you’re not going to like it. If you generally agree with KO’s worldview- and think he was very right about Bush at a time when the press was afraid to question him – it’s a thought-provoking and enjoyable program.
Before Olbermann started blowing his horn, the Left didn’t have a Rush or O’Reilly or Hannity. Loudmouthed blowhards who drew a lot of attention to their POV. Yeah, Keith’s an idiot sometimes, but he speaks important truths loudly and often for one hour, 5 days a week. I have plenty of oppurtunity to hear “the other side”. Having it regurgitated on Countdown is a waste of an important hour.
February 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm
So you justify him hiding?
February 18, 2009 at 2:40 pm
How can you call what he did here “truth”?
February 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I’m not going to debate “the truth” of this. There’s not much direct accusation to debate. It’s the implication she objects to, and whether you agree with it or not, implying bias is common and not actionable. I DO defend what you call “hiding”. Countdown is a show that accuses conservatives of wrongdoing. They don’t do left/right debates. She can go to numerous outlets to refute Olbermann’s implications, including court. Fine with me. I don’t care if O’Reilly or anybody else handles their opinion shows differently. As you know if you’ve read my posts for a while, not only do I prefer Countdown as a liberal-opinion-only show; I like O’Reilly better when he talks to other conservatives. Crossfire shows amount to shouted talking points. I despise them.
February 19, 2009 at 6:08 am
I’m not going to debate “the truth” of this.
Ahh….just like every Olbyloon, hiding from a debate and avoiding the “truth” (this coming from Olby’s own claims he is the reincarnation of the truthteller Murrow).
Oh well. And yet, if McCaughey were to go on Rush or O’Reilly, you and KO would be blasting her for appearing only on an echo chamber show.
February 19, 2009 at 11:50 am
Suit yourself, Eddie. McCaughey went on television to inaccurately blast the stimulus as having some provision in it that has the government at your bedside telling your doctor what kind of care to give you. KO pointed out that she has ties to Big Pharma, including financial ones. That doesn’t immediately imply bias, but it certainly lends more credence to it than “former Lt. Gov.”. Pharma rejects all health care regulation for fear that the next step will be price regs, something most Americans want. Betsy McCaughey is a spokesperson for that fight and should be identified as so.
February 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Then why does he hide (and you support him for it) when she fires back?
Where is the “Murrow” in that?
February 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm
It’s not hiding, Eddie, it’s a business decision that I support. He makes his case on his show, she responds in another forum, he responds. KO has no interest in allowing a Big Pharma shill to waste his time with her stupid talking points. We already know what she’s going to say. What’s the point?
February 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Or are you afraid she’ll school him?
His actions during the 2008 Conventions and Campaign proved he cannot handle even the slightest bit of disagreement or differing views (the “Get A Shovel!” line, for instance), and makes himself look bad.
If you want to defend a guy who cannot handle himself without anything but 100% agreement, then go ahead. If that’s what it takes for a sound business decision, then so be it.
February 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Scarborough earned the “shovel” comment. He was blathering about the McCain campaign gathering steam, which was talking-point BS. Mike Murphy earned his “cut his mic” for saying he believed Bill and Hillary would vote for McCain, like anyone could know that. I agree that KO shouldn’t be presented as an anchor, but I LOVE when he calls mindless talking points.
February 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Oh, that’s right. He has attacked the O-bots for their talking points, right?
In fact, most nights, he reads from talking points sent to him by Media Matters, KOS, or Huffpo.
But I guess that’s different?
February 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Expressing your perceptions is not a talking point. Claiming McCain’s campaign was gaining steam when it clearly was self-destructing day by day is a talking point. Claiming you know a former Democratic candidate is going to vote for the opposition is an unknowable talking point.
February 19, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Then why do his “special ed comments” sound almost verbatim like posts from Kos or Huffpo?
February 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Because Kos and HuffPo share his POV. Maybe you don’t understand talking points. They’re comments intended to spin people in a direction that either the facts do not support, or are a claim that cannot be verified or denied. “McCain is gaining steam” was not supported by the polls, that makes it a talking point intended to convince people of something that wasn’t true. “Hillary will vote for McCain” is a hopelessly unknowable claim, which makes it a talking point intended to convince people that Hillary wanted McCain to win, despite zero evidence.
Let’s try this: Republicans believe lower taxes and cutting spending will help the economy. That’s obviously not a talking point, it’s a well known tenent. Or this: Democrats want this country to turn socialist. That’s a talking point intended to create fear despite the fact that the Democratic Party rejects socialism. Reverse it: Republicans don’t care about poor people. Talking point.