The War Against Graeme Frost: Get That School Kid
The war is continuing.
It is a brutal war. It’s now in a “take no prisoners” stage. It involves sending more troops out to the scene. It’s taking up lots of time as people find new ways to denounce the enemy. It will not end until the enemy is defeated and cannot raise his head to be a problem again.
No, that isn’t a report about the latest Iraq strategy, it’s a summary of the apparent war now raging against Graeme Frost, a 12 year old boy who the Democrats arranged to deliver a counter radio address to President George Bush, on the children’s health care issue.
Bush has been seemingly marginalized in opinion polls showing 70 percent of the American public support the BIPARTISAN SCHIP child’s health care plan he vetoed. But as long as the President has a veto, he can never really be marginalized, especially when he has a hard-core group of loyalists who would say a cabbage is a diamond ring if Bush said it was so.
These loyalists do NOT represent all members of the Republican Party, as polls increasingly show. There are some Republicans upset over this administration’s policies and its slash-and-burn political style. But the loyalists give Mr. Bush the ability to be a President who in essence has become The Faction President.
So what did the Democrats do?
They picked a kid to deliver the counter address. We wrote THIS POST that noted how effective it would be and the kind of media coverage it would get — putting a human face on a problem that Mr. Bush and his most loyal followers are trying to frame as a matter of ideology (we don’t want people turning to government insurance) or numbers debates. Or just a partisan ploy. Except it’s hard to explain Orrin Hatch — or did he recently switch parties — supporting it.
No matter. When I wrote that post I had a snarky paragraph in it — which I cut out.
The cut-out paragraph noted that now that this kid has come forward in 21st century America he was certain to be demonized — with every facet of his family history investigated, talk show hosts latching onto the slightest thing possible to discredit him, his parents’ parking tickets revealed, his trips to the office for talking in class revealed, and quotes appearing that he pulled the hair of the girl in front of him in class. Video cameras could secretly record him walking home from school, catching him as he jaywalked. Perhaps one of his parents had a DUI years ago — it would come out and be PROOF that what he said on radio had no merit.
But I felt it was too cheap a shot, too snarky, too uncharitable to the way politics works these days — and too unbelievable and it would spark the inevitable “how can you call yourself a moderate or a centrist” emails and comments that people make who apparently don’t read polls which show that moderates, centrists and independents do indeed reach strong conclusions — and vote for one party or another. So I sighed and I cut it.
But now I see it isn’t far from the truth.
You have people setting aside seconds of their finite lives to trying to discredit this kid. They deny that’s what it’s going on — but that IS WHAT IT IS and everyone knows full well that’s what it is.
Why? Because he made some points ABOUT POLICY. And rather than talk about the points, they are trying to discredit him and his family because that would (they feel) erase the points he made. It’s easier doing that then finding someone who can give counter arguments with facts and figures to negate Frost’s points.
One conservative writer now says it’s OK to go after kids — if his kid did something wrong he’d be slapped down.
Rather than link to that on this site, we’ll give you THIS LINK which also has a quote at the end that is quite fitting to the “level” of what now passes for political debate.
I would have included that quote here, but then I would have thought it was too snarky — but perhaps this time I would not have deleted it.
Uh, oh, Joe…here come the emails and posts saying you’re a liberal, a Democrat, you support Dennis Kucinich.
That is the way American politics now operates.
IGNORE the issue. IGNORE the debate on facts, figures, trends and what often-contradictory experts say.
Go after the people who dare to differ with you personally. If you can’t destroy then, then discredit them. Negatively label them in public, or send emails to others to try to get them to go after you.
But there ARE issues here. And the Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, notes how Mr. Bush’s veto not only makes no sense politically but as a matter of POLICY. Here are key portions:
Critics have called President Bush heartless for his veto last week of a compromise bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. True enough, but the president didn’t seem to be leading with his head either. In purporting to defend against a government takeover of the insurance industry, he blocked one of the best options for lifting families from wholly government-paid entitlements like Medicaid and into private insurance paid for in part by parents.
SCHIP isn’t welfare. In California, it is Healthy Families, the highly successful program that matches every state dollar with two from the federal government and entices parents to obtain and contribute to health coverage for their kids. Families that earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal (the California incarnation of Medicaid) but not enough to buy insurance on their own use Healthy Families to get their kids off to a good start in life and correct any problems that, left untreated, would turn into a larger taxpayer burden down the road. Those parents also get into the habit of making health insurance part of their budget, which is exactly what opponents of government-provided healthcare want.
There’s more but here is the ending:
That figure doesn’t cut it for California, where successful outreach has pulled thousands of new kids into the program and could target thousands more. At the level of funding Bush is willing to accept, those kids would be left without insurance — or in programs that increase the burden on taxpayers — nine months into next year. Every year after, coverage would lapse earlier and earlier. That would deepen California’s healthcare crisis even as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats attempt to cut a deal to expand coverage.
Congress will try to override the veto later this month. If a few more members get clued in to the wisdom of using government help to introduce families to private health insurance, they will do a world of good for thousands of children.
Those who support Bush and the group of win-one-for-our-team might perhaps focus their efforts countering arguments such as this. Then you’d have an actual back-and-forth debate over issues and come up with policy (which might be different from the existing bill).
But no, it’s easier to go after a 12 year-old. After all, these days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore.
Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again.
This time it has been lowered so far, it has struck oil amid the sleaze.
There was a more innocent time when kids raced to their TV sets, to turn channels to find their favorite such as Howdy Doody and Paul Winchell and Jerry Mahoney.
They’d sit at their sets — and kids would zealously go after the puppets and dummies.
We won’t add a snarky comment about how in early 21st century America, this has been seemingly and lamentably reversed.
To read other posts on the Internet on this issue representing other views GO HERE.
89 Responses to “The War Against Graeme Frost: Get That School Kid”
Not that anyone should really be above criticism, but this is pretty disgusting.
But you shouldn’t be surprised Joe, these are the same people that said that the Daily Kos was no different from the KKK or the Nazis. They have no decency, just an unwavering allegiance to the monied powers that line their pockets.
Joe,
Since you’re so pointedly referencing the Republicans who support the SCHIP expansion bill, and stressing the bipartisan support of it, why do you not feel it’s fair to acknowledge that plenty of people who oppose it are NOT Bush syncophants? By lumping the opposition that way (not to mention the crass characterization of such people as contributing to the illness and even death of children) rather than talking about what’s actually in the bill, there’s no honest discussion taking place.
The people continuing to whine about the veto the S-CHIP expansion bill need to grow up.
The issue has receded from the news (as opposed t o the cyber-space playpen) as reasonable people know that Congress is working to try to arrange an override of the veto, and there’s little to do but wait and see if they succeed. Wait and see if there is a veto. If there is, fine; you win. If there is not, expect to see a compromise bill. Yes, details in the bill that opponents correctly recognize as defects (new benefits for pregnant women and for parents of children who currently have employer-based insurance; raising income limit to 300 per cent of the poverty level; tobacco taxes as the revenue source) should be removed or reduced or changed. Expect a lower total amount from the current $35 billion. (Bush had wanted $5 billion originally, the bill’s authors $50 billion originally.)
Bush’s idea of a compromise bill— 5.5 billion annually. Uh, he has already proven he doesn’t believe in compromise in any meaningful way. Plus the Democrats have already compromised- as you mention.
To get back to the point of the article (as has been so ignored):
Go after the idea, not the kid.
I agree with CS about this:
“there’s no honest discussion taking place.”
For starters, the bill is ‘discussed’ by its opponents as if it existed in a vacuum. People dislike feature A about the bill, but they blatantly ignore what the cosnequences would be for not passing the bill. The costs of the provisions are trumpeted non-
stop, but no one so much as mentions the costs of not having the bill.
Phase 2 is to refer vaquely to the need for ‘better’
legislation. which is purely imaginary as no such thing is in the works. What we have In the SCHIP
bill is already a compromise. So, what this is essentially syaing is either a) we want to compromise by getting 100 % our way, or b) we’d rather starve the governemtn so that it becomes totally deaf and blind to the needs of the nation.
There is this same false premise acreoss a wide spectrum of issues It consits of concentrating on every potential negative clause of a proposal, without even a cursory galnsce at the consequences of killing the proposal.
There is a pervasive frame of mind among some, that iwhen in a leaky boat, they would rather not paddle ti to shore, if the colors of the oars didn’t meet their ideologically correct standards. Thsi also ignores the fact that it might just be better to worry about hauling aboard those who are floundering in the lake wihtout either boat or paddle. NO. The orars must be red, or it’s no go.
So, if it’s an honest discussion thye want, bring on realistic alternatives for the problems of TODAY and doable TODAY, or stop pretending this is about an honest disucssion.
The democrats brought this on the boy and his family by choosing to use him for the address. Furthermore they chose poorly because at least superficially, he appears to come from an upper-middle-class family.
They held him up as representative as the kind of people that are helped by SCHIP. Of course his background is going to be looked into. And at first glance he appears to be wealthier than perhaps he really is. The Dems should have anticipated this and chosen a more clear-cut lower-income example.
C Stanley, while I can’t pretend to know Joes mind, I think that he’s raging against the people attacking the kid, not necessarily everyone against the bill. As he’s mentioned, you can have an actual conversation about whether you think the bill is a good idea or not based on policy, but it takes a special sort of person to decide to attack the messenger when it’s a child.
Mind you, I think the Democrats were frankly exploitative in using a 12 year old for the task. They are fully aware of current methods of character assassination, and I don’t believe for a minute they didn’t consider this when choosing the boy. By choosing a child they win either way. Either they deflect character assassination because no one dares do that to a child or (politically even better) someone is stupid enough to attack the child elevating his victim status even more. They knew, and his parents either knew or should have known. That doesn’t make what’s being done one iota less despicable though.
Doma,
If you don’t think that Bush’s proposal went far enough, then that’s a fair opinion- but how can you make assertions that there’s no counterproposal on the table?
And for those who don’t feel Bush’s proposed 20% increase in funding is enough, he’s already said he’d compromise on the amount- but not on the eligibility requirements. Would it not make sense to craft a bill that stayed within the intent of the original program (covering those in the 100%-200% of FPL range, instead of the bracket creep which would put funding toward families with higher incomes before we even take care of the poorer families?) but increase the funding so that a greater number of the poor kids can get coverage? On what basis would anyone oppose that?
Frankly, Lynx, I think it takes the sort of person who’s incredibly disgusted that the child was used as a method of blocking real discussions, since once this method is used anyone who points out the weaknesses of the bill is accused of not caring about that kid.
You know, like the people who were aggravated that some members of the GOP grandstanded with Terri Schaivo? Who wanted to attack a helpless braindead woman? Did those who pointed out the demagoguary want her to die? I certainly don’t think so, nor do I think that those who are pointing out the family finances of this kid really wish him any harm.
I’ve already said elsewhere that I think it’s unproductive to ‘attack the kid’, but I think it’s absurd to act as though the Democrats didn’t realize this would happen (come on now, is anyone REALLY shocked? If so, what planet have you been living on?); it was a win win strategy, since the opponents would either be silenced by the fear of being branded kid haters or they’d ‘attack’ and look like kid haters for doing that. It’s a trap, and some of the right wing bloggers and talk show hosts fall for it every time.
Oops, I responded to your first paragraph before reading your second, Lynx- I see we’re pretty much on the same wavelength.
As to Joe’s motivations, I can’t presume to know them either- I can only say that I find it offensive to be branded as a Bush loyalist for opposing this bill, and I imagine there are a lot of other small govt conservatives who feel the same way. If Joe is only intending to criticize the Republicans who are blindly loyal to Bush, then he ought to clarify that IMO.
Getting back to eh post,
The truly psychopathic turn that some activists with blogs have taken is much too serious to be passed by with a lame ‘I don’t approve’.
The present case has also brought to light, how Washington uses blogs to spur these wars, thus bypassing responsiblily for doing so. Apparently, e-mails from some GOP staffers have been uncovered to show how the ‘people’s news’ of blogs can be the handmaidens of government entities rather than being the ‘people’s voice’ as is claimed.
This case just brings the problem to the front burner, and it’s not new, and it’s been going on across party lines.
I am becoming seriously concerned about the attack-and=destroy mentality acrross the nation.
It can no longer be shrugged off as ‘just politics’. because the ‘just politics’ phase takes no vacation.
It’s how every topic under the sun is talked about.
The extremes may be what starts this trend off, but then the observers and commenters, drive the public to the extremes It’s like a wheel of hate, picking up more speed and rancor as ti spins along.
I really hope that ‘I don’t approve’ will be replaced by ‘this is worng, and it’s wrong no matter who does it.”
.
I really hope that ‘I don’t approve’ will be replaced by ‘this is worng, and it’s wrong no matter who does it.â€
I’m not sure what the difference is there, unless you’re just making the point that the condemnation has to be one of principle, applied to both parties rather than condeming it when the other side does it (which I certainly agree with).
I’m saying that the condemnation should also include the use of human shields, the political practice of using vulnerable individuals as anecdotal symbols for a policy position, which has the intent of silencing opposition to the policy. Will others join me in condemning this practice?
for my part, i’m sick of incremental socialism being passed off as compromise. the Democrat expansion of the bill would cover kids who have no business being covered by government health care. the kid the Democrats propped up as an example is… indeed an example. his parents have plenty of money invested in property, that it’s hard to understand why they wouldn’t have invested in private healthcare.
the kid should be discredited. it’s not his fault, though, its the Democrats who used him as a ploy, like the use and abuse minorities, women, and the impoverished to expand their political power.
many parents really cannot afford health care insurance, and they should really be helped by a program like this. Bush expanded the bill slightly as a reflection of this. (Why have the Democrats lied by saying that his plan is cutting back on the existing program?) however, the Democrat plan will cover kids from families who can very well afford health care. in fact, there is talk that kids who already have private health care would be pushed into the SCHIP program. for the Democrats, this has nothing to do with helping children: this is about incrementing us further towards socialism.
“I’m saying that the condemnation should also include the use of human shields, the political practice of using vulnerable individuals as anecdotal symbols for a policy position, which has the intent of silencing opposition to the policy. Will others join me in condemning this practice?”
Here here! i was thumbing around looking for the right word. that is it. this boy is being propped up as a human shield. the boy did nothing wrong, he only read the speech prepared for him. if anyone thinks the Democrats deserve any sympathy for this horrific tactic, their moral compass is so screwed up it’s a wonder they can find their car in the morning.
his parents have plenty of money invested in property, that it’s hard to understand why they wouldn’t have invested in private healthcare.
They had a combined income of $45,000 last year and they bought their house for $55,000 in 1991. What other property do they own? Their home has appreciated to $250,000 (or so) but that’s not what they paid for it. Even with taxes and insurance I’m sure that whatever mortgage they have on $55,000 would be far less than rent in the same area. Unless they have some cache of other property they aren’t living in, what do you intend for them to do with the value of their home? Private insurance isn’t cheap when you have pre-existing conditions, you know.
CS-
Your argument now shifts from i’it’s the family’s fault’ to ‘it’s the Dem’s fault’.
This continues the cycle of argue-by-attack while pretending to want to discuss ‘the issues’.
As you said, on another thread, Bush’s snowflakes were ‘different ‘ So, it’s only exploitatiion if someone else does it, but legitimate if it backs your opinion.
Part of what is driving this mad ness is the double-whammy pf excusing a tactic when it works for you and condemming it when it doesn’t.
I don;t see anything in the tactcs to condemn at all.
I think both Bush’s snowflakes and the Use of the SCHIP child were exploitative but legitimate practices in marketing ideas.
Which message presentation isn’t exploitation to some degree? The only fool-proof method would be to have monotone voice-overs and a blank screen.
Or get into free-speech issues.
These are peripheral issues, and a diversion, rather than a discussion of the real issues. The only standard for marketing messages should be the accuracy of the content.
This family has a yearly income around 45K and never over 50K. Their two kids have severe injuries, and their medical and educational needs can not be met in neighborhooed public schools. The house was bought a long time ago for $5K. He has a vehicle that suits his needs as a private welding contractor. If it turns out he has a secret account in a Swilss bank, we should revisit the legitimacy of choosing this boy to speak. Until that time, going on about it, is a just a ploy, a transparent ploy.
By way of discussing the issues, let’s consider what it would mean if governemtn help was not extended to this ‘wealthy, milddle class’ family.
With pre-existing conditions, the family would not be be able to afford heal h insurance for the children or appropriate heatlh care for them. Instead of growing up to contribute to society, and pay taxes, they would be a drain on society and on each of us individually each time they needed to go to the ER for routine care or be hospitalized for serious incidents.
Alternatively, they could have sold their house, which would only delay the collapse of their personal finances, not avert them
In the meantime, what of the parents? Would it really be better to drive them into bankrupcy, so they too can join the lines of those who can’t pay their own way, and thus we have to pick up the tab?
The ‘issues’ aren’t clouds of words floating above our heads. The “issues’ are what they do to people, the nation, and the economy in all aspects, not just a conveniently cherry-picked few.
Is it OK if I attack the kid’s parents for thrwoing him onto the national stage as a human shield and punching bag in the partisan* political wars? Those who readily took him and handed him a tailored speech, then crouched down behind him to let him take the fire?
Because, as a parent, I find that despicable.
[*--You can say "bipartisan" all you like, he was placed on the target range by the Democrats in a partisan event.]
I’ve made this point elsewhere, but it deserves to be made again.
Graeme Frost’s parents gambled. They skipped paying for health insurance to put their money into home and business and maybe even lifestyle. Millions of young and healthy people do, and it’s a statistically good bet. Except when you lose, as they did. They do bear some responsibility for their predicament.
Their position now is a good example of many of the glaring problems of our health care system. It’s a good example of why people with pre-existing conditions should have access to susbsidized level-premium policies. It’s a lousy example of why SCHIP should be greatly expanded, as compared to maintained as is.
CS-
My answer to your ‘human shields’ is in my previous port.
Human shields, word shields, those are all part of how policy messaging, or produsct sales, is done
The domonizing aspect is ethically wrong in both advocacy and the response to it, IMO.
Neith Bush’s snowflakes nor the SCHIP child lied
This is not part of the ISSUES.
[...] Clark The War Against Graeme Frost: Get That School Kid » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Your argument now shifts from i’it’s the family’s fault’ to ‘it’s the Dem’s fault’.
No, please stop putting words in my mouth. No where did I say that use of the snowflake babies was ‘different’. If it needs clarification, here it is: I was making the point that I think the general use of discussion of a population (be it snowflake babies, or kids without health insurance) is sometimes legit- but NOT the actual physical presence of these kids/babies/what have you. You can call that marketing all you want, but if anyone tries to pretend that the intent of that form of marketing isn’t to silence (or entrap) the opposition, you’re either naive or you’re lying. So I’m sorry, marketing or not, I call foul- and I apply that principle to both parties. I call on both parties to stop misinforming through these ‘marketing ploys’ which distort the actual issues involved- and I wish the voters would stop falling for it or excusing it.
Tully
“Is it OK if I attack the kid’s parents for thrwoing him onto the national stage as a human shield”
NO NO NO IT’S NOT OKAY
IF a mad dog attacks your child on the street, are the parents to blame for letting him out of the house?
Who could have predicted a whole herd of rabid dogs?
So, an investment msitake has been unearthed!?
Let’s pay the costs of throwing the family in jail, and pay the costs of total educational and health needs for the family while behind bars.
There can be no disusssion if it’s going to be all about punishment and denial, instead of considering the overall costs and benefits for everyone, including you and me.
I didn’t know about the investment, BTW.
I’ll wait for the next installment, revealing how the husband cheated on his high-school seetheart.
Not only that, but it may come out that he has poor taste in neckties.
If
CS-
your continued complaints about being silenced are either sincere but deeply flawed, or another trick-of the-month ploy to shift debate.
One party stating X in no way prevents another party from stating Y. ‘Being silenced’ is not how I would describe the raging response on this issue.
This is sometone screaming at the top of one’s lungs to complain about being silenced.
A modicum of logic, please.
LMAO. Did I read that right? You’re comparing Graeme Frost to a rabid dog?
He’s a 12 year old kid whose parents helped throw onto the target range as a human shield in partisan political battles. Yes, they did that. Yes, it’s despicable. Yes, their situation is partly of their own making. Yes, they are now struggling.
Waving the bloody shirt doesn’t address the issues. It’s a demagogical trick meant to prevent examination of the issues.
Oh please. I’m not personally in the least bit frustrated by these tactics, as I do believe in focusing on the issue at hand. I’m not complaining of being personally silenced, I’m simply pointing out that there is a deliberate attempt to make it very uncomfortable for politicians to take a stand against this policy. I think that’s a shame, because as is repeatedly being displayed here, there doesn’t seem to be any desire to actually discuss whether or not the policy is a good idea- it’s all about emotional cries of whether or not we ‘care about the kids’. You keep telling conservatives that you don’t think we want to actually debate the issue, even though I only see conservatives bringing up the substance of the bill itself- and when they do, I rarely (if at all) see anyone from the other side actually engaging in a discussion.
[...] have even pissed off Joe Gandelmen, which I didn’t think was possible. The harshest language I have ever seen him use is [...]
BTW, Doma, since you’ve insinuated that I might be trying to deflect from an actual discussion of the policy, how about you join me back at the other thread where I’ve pointed out that I have yet to hear your reasons for supporting the bill (according to the guidelines you’ve set for us, to show how it would be an improvement on the status quo).
CS,
Re putting words in your mouth;
‘And no, Rudi-I don’t think it was OK for Bush to use the snowflakes babies in that way, either (THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAIR ENOUTH IMO TO BRING UP THAT THESE CHILDREN ACTUALLY EXIST ……..),
Bush made the point you are making by using his snowflakes. He was markeiting his idea. So, what should he have done? Make a dry speech that no one would listen to?
You, on the other hand, can’t help adding a reinforcement of the message while in the process of discussing ‘the issues’.
The difference is?
Good one. Though a 10% increase over what he originally wanted is generous. *wink*
Yes, they compromised with with the Congressional Republicans (who are likely to vote to override the veto) with respect to the stupefyingly ambitious original goal, but the bill is still defective. It needs to be shrunken; the deliberate-crowd-out option to include people who currently have private insurance should be scrapped (along with the part of the bill claiming to reduce crowd-out, which is to do an up-to-eighteen-month study on the issue); the new pregnant-women option should be scrapped; the income limit should be reduced from 300 to 250 or even 200 per cent of the federal poverty level, or even lower if other programs have certain levels (particularly also for children, which has a logical appeal, such as Head Start, which is probably substantially lower than 250 per cent), and replace or revise the tobacco tax increases.
I suspect the Democrats will reject most of these needed reforms, however. Maybe they’ll drop the income limit from 300 to 260 per cent (to spite Bush by keeping above 250 per cent) but retain all the other defects in the bill.
Bush made the point you are making by using his snowflakes. He was markeiting his idea. So, what should he have done? Make a dry speech that no one would listen to?
I’d prefer a good speech that some might actually listen to, but yes, that’s what I was advocating. To not exploit individuals or use them to demagogue, but to actually mention that certain groups might be overlooked and the public ought to be aware of them. I assume that’s what you feel the intent of the use of Graeham Frost was, and I have no problem with that discussion as a generality either- but I do find it offensive when kids are used in that way by either party (and ditto for braindead women, Gold Star mothers, paraplegics, or any other person who’s put in the limelight because they are above criticism).
You can’t have it both ways, Joe. Whoever developed the radio address on behalf of the democrats should have taken a page from the ‘Harry and Louise’ playbook. That ad was effective in that it got the message out, put a ‘face’ on the message, but left no real person to be demonized, just caricatures. That was not the case with the Graemes.
You see, by putting an actual face and by extension a family with a history on the rebuttal, the writers made it near impossible for the rebuttal to be refuted without involving the Graemes. That is not the fault of those who wish to argue against the expansion of the program use the kid as a reference point.
I mean, we don’t fault the papparazzi when Britney Spears makes an ass of herself do we? No we fault her parents for putting her out there as a child as a public figure. Wouldn’t the Graemes then fall into the same category as the Spears?
Tully-
Repetition does nto make an opinion any more correct.
If you would bother to read what I’ve said before, it would save me from having to repeat the
debunking stage. From my domment at 11″31:
“I don;t see anything in the tactcs to condemn at all.
I think both Bush’s snowflakes and the Use of the SCHIP child were exploitative but legitimate practices in marketing ideas.
Which message presentation isn’t exploitation to some degree? The only fool-proof method would be to have monotone voice-overs and a blank screen.
Or get into free-speech issues.”
Your insistence on discussing the tactics in this one case is an attempt, IMO. to deflect from talking about SCHIP in the context of options in the case of families like this.
This is family is using up tax dollars. If you stop there, the’issues’ are strangled at birth.
How many tax dollars whould they use up with no SChIP, and how many dollars would the children fail to contribute to the company as a resulr?
Your type of argument bars the doorway to really discussing any issue at all, by setting narrow limits on what is and is not pertinent.
I don’t buy in this store.
Fine logic but–poor example. Head Start is limited to 100 per cent of the poverty level. An advocacy for raising Head Start’s limit points to an alternative, the Medicaid qualification. And as Bush already has used the 250 per cent figure, that’s probably where a revised bill should place the income limit.
It leads to a complicating issue: If the Dems took the defects out of the bill, what if they chose to make it truly a “poor children’s bill” and add to it an upward revision of the Head Start income limit, as part of a “compromise”? Were it vetoed, then “Bush wants kids not only to be sick, but to starve, too!”
So, you’re complaint is that we’re not addressing the personal situation of this one family, yet you’re simultaneously accusing us of framing the issue too narrowly?
Go for a wider view. For this particular family, the alternatives aren’t necessarily just “having SCHIP if the current bill passes” or “not having coverage if Bush has his way”. For one thing, it’s not at all clear to me why this family would lose its coverage even if Bush makes no further compromise- since his proposal adds 20% funding, it doesn’t cut the budget at all.
If it is a matter of the eligibility criteria, I’ve already asked repeatedly why we don’t consider expecting the states to pick up the extra cost for families that are being strapped due to high housing costs in their states? If NJ, NY, CA, MD or whatever other state wishes to fund SCHIP for families up to 400%, 500% or whatever limit, then why are they not willing to fund this? With high real estate prices, they have a higher tax basis from which to draw revenue; what are their priorities for the citizens of their states? Could it not be that they are using funds that ought to be used to give relief to these families that are caught between the cracks?
Now, let me know if you think any of that is pertinent, or if you’re going to choose to ‘shut the door’ on the discussion, Doma.
“his parents have plenty of money invested in property, that it’s hard to understand why they wouldn’t have invested in private healthcare.”
That makes no sense at all. Owning a home is part of the american dream, and having a place to live certainly ranks up there with health insurance priority wise for a family. Usually that property investment you speak of so casually is the financial centerpoint of a family’s income and doesn’t imply they have leftover cash for insurance.
What DOES imply they have leftover cash is the Suburban they supposedly drive. You don’t get to claim you dont have enough money for your kids and own one of those. My sympathy and indeed my support for the raised income levels in the bill itself start to go out the window at that point.
Also, I’m with Tully about using a kid for this. I think it was a cheap tactic intended to score points with sentimentalist fools. Also, knowing what unmititgated bastards the right wing attack machine is comprised of, you knew they were going to excoriate this child and his family. GOP bastardry mixes so well with Democrats hamfisted attempts to get things done.
CS-
You think X is demogoging
You think Y is exploitaton
We can express what are our impressions and perceptions , but judging any issue can not depend on personal impressions and perceptions.
Who would, then, judge which is demogoguing and
which is not? Not much chance of consensus there.
This is just another one of those Edward’s haircut and Romney’s dog diversions. Very mean spitited Imo, and dirruptive in disvourse.
If you think it’s a diversion, then drop it. You’ve stated your opinion on the tactic, I stated mine, and we disagree. I have no problem with moving on to actually discussing the policy, whenever you’re ready to do that.
C Stanley, I may have missed it in this long comment threat, but who exactly oppose the bill and are NOT bush syncophants? (your own emphasis).
Because I can see a hell of a lot of Bush syncophants opposing the bill, but among it’s supporters, not so much (yourself not included of course).
Davebo: I doubt that any answer I give would convince you unless we could agree on how to define someone as a Bush syncophant.
The first person that comes to mind that you might agree with, is (if I’m not mistaken) Nic Rivera who sometimes posts here. I’m pretty sure he’s weighed in on one of the previous threads saying that he opposes this expansion on principle. There are a number of other libertarian and fiscally conservative people who do as well.
And if you do agree to exempt me from that charge, that also should include a lot of other private citizens who feel as I do. The point is, that very few people even seem to be aware of what is in the bill, and very few substantive discussions are taking place about it, and partly that’s because people are being lumped into “for the kids” or “against the kids but for Bush” categories unfairly.
Federal assistance should be uniform and should be minimal, in deference to the principle of federalism. Though it’s not an actual issue here with S-CHIP (what’s being contested is the growth of the program and changes to its nature), there’s really no case for federal government interventionism at all. (The states enjoy the federal matching funds and would be delighted to have others “contribute” toward insuring more of their own children.)
Of course it was a cheap tactic intended to score points with sentimentalist fools. The same is true with all the references to “children” in this controversy.
check…
I understood the main point of this post to be about going after the kid and his family.
If I recall what I read correctly, Michelle Malkin has actually been out to these peoples’ house. She’s made a practice of posting her adversaries’ names and addresses to facilitate more direct contact between these adversaries and her supporters.
But don’t you know, right wingers really only want to “discuss the issues.”
[...] course, the Republicans would NEVER do such a thing, so that makes it OK to attack the child when the Democrats do [...]
I clued into the sleazy nature of right wing media folks over a decade ago when I heard Rush Limbaugh actually enjoying himself for making jokes about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was. That a grown man would do that to a teenage girl, and that this man’s opinion was respected by millions really struck a cord in me about the nature of him and his listeners.
From Balloon Juice: (btw, John Cole also opposes S-CHIP):
CS
“So, you’re complaint is that we’re not addressing the personal situation of this one family, yet you’re simultaneously accusing us of framing the issue too narrowly?”
NO NO NO
I was using this one family, since they are being disected here, as a way to demonstrate how the issues of health care (and other social programs) need to be addressed, IMO.)
The kind of choices and problems this family faces are symptomatic of myriads of individuals and familites across the country.
What voters need to decide is whether the benefits to the nation are greater going one way or the other. Is it more productive to assist certain families to secure a future for their children or not?
In that vein, we need to look at what it would cost to NOT expand prograns like SCHIP .
About ‘let the states’ pay. The answer would require too much research to be truly authoritative, but based on what I do know, I can say that states incur costs that don’t necessarily begin or end at state borders, (which have no fences, BTW.). The work/home situation is so intermignled, there is a good reason why there is a ‘tri-state’ area in the NE,
People are mobile, they gravitate to where they can get services. Yet the residents, especially home owners, have to pay the cost for all comers.
It’s not nearly as easy as some would have it to demarcate between a state responsibility,, an interstate responsibility and a national responsiblity.
The horse and buggy days of living and dying in the same country, and economic areas defined by state lines are gone.
Getting beck to our famillies under the microscope,
let’s assume the worst and let’s say that they are guilty of making MISTAKES( pasp) in decisions to do with finances. What dp we do? Punish them? Make them spend their last penny, and go bakrupt before assisting the children?
That’s short-sighted, IMO.
I’ve presented my general view so many times, I can’t repeat it again. Between rewarding irresponibitlity and adopting punishemtn as the modus operandi, there is a perfectly sound, rational apporach. What would be best for the country?
The Democrats weren’t the first- a 9 year old in 2005 was out stumping for Social Security issues on the Republican side- even went so far as to make a few appearances on the Tonight show, the precocious tyke.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/politics/26lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Yet it becomes faux outrage ,an 11 year old and his family get swiftboated because a boy DARED to endorse the positive effects of this plan has had on his family. While you quibble about the family’s net worth, just remember- people like Malkin and Coulter will gleefully get off at how the Democrats “put him up to it”. Hogwash. Just like the Republicans put lil Noah up to it as well. Let the hypocrisy train roll on through.
I see people posting about how the parents are to blame for letting their son be used in this manner.
No. That is nonsense.
The people to blame are the rabid dogs on the right who are slandering this poor boy and his family.
I see people posting about how the Democrats are to blame because they used this boy as a spokesperson to put a real face to the issue.
No. That is nonsense.
The people to blame are the rabid dogs on the right who are slandering this poor boy and his family.
The fact that this kind of vicious slander has become a common political tactic does not shift the blame from the practitioner to the target, nor to the target’s family, nor to the people the target is speaking for. The fact that the Frosts should have known, and probably did, that this kind of assault was in the offing does not make them culpable. If anything, it makes them more courageous for standing up for their beliefs in the face of the hideous reaction that has come from the wing-nuts on the right. All fault for this lies solely with the wing-nuts who are actually engaging in this base, disgusting act of spite.
Whether we realize it or not, politics is *never* about mere issues or party. It is about people. It is not just fodder for the tv pundits or the blog writers; it affects our lives. It is perfectly fair for politicians to actually show the people policy has an effect on, and for those people to be given a voice. Indeed, it is not merely fair, it should be *required*.
I applaud the Democrats for giving the Frosts a voice, I applaud the Frosts for using that voice, and I defy anyone who says this was wrong. And yes, I say the same thing about Republicans. When they give people a voice to put a human face on policy and politics, it is just as appropriate.
The secret for us is not to get caught up in the theater, but to examine the substance. For example, I was quite easily able to see that Bush was completely full of it about stem-cell research, and my realization didn’t require base attacks against the kids he used in his photo ops.
The right-wing attack dogs, by contrast, can’t seem to resist the temptation to drag the Frosts’ good name through the mud. And yet many people here are blaming the Frosts or the Democrats.
No. They are not at fault. Stop blaming the victims.