Then why do we keep re-electing the worst offenders? Why do we keep re-elcting those that bring home the most portk why complaining about pork in budgets?

I will grant you that thee is a question of leadership here and the direction in which publlic
figures lead us. It’s dangerous, though, to point the finger at Washinton and say that ‘they’ are to blame, and we are all just innocent victims.

I would much prefer that you were right than for me to be right. But my devil’s advocate postion is necessary for clear vision, I think.

It’s mush like the Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh influence. We all denounce them, but we all enable them by tuning in to be infulenced by them.
It’s a vicious circle, but at least one finger of blame has to pointed straogjt bacl at is/

You’re right that we need to look in a mirror first, but then we need to look at each other and realize that disagreeing doesn’t make any of us bad people. We’re really not as different as the politicians tell us we are. We’re mostly good people doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

You’d probably find Rick Moran quite reasonable on certain topics. He’s pro gay-union, as I recall, and he thoroughly lashed the crop of GOP White House contenders for missing the ethnic-sponsored debates. He doesn’t drink all of the Kool Aid, not by a long shot. In fact, he’s reasonable enough on many issues that the “Nuthouse” in the title of his blog is something of a wink and a nod, I think.

That said, he did tow the line on SCHIP (and apparently global warming).

So like you, I’ve started to read even more on SCHIP. Found out this morning, for instance, that not only did my Democratic US Senator vote for the vetoed bill, so did my Republican US Senator. Net, I’m inclined when I’m in Washington next week to meet with their staff to learn more about their reasons for supporting the bill and their views on the W.H. talking points. I might also try to get time with some of the other offices (especially R’s) that supported the
vetoed bill, like Hatch, Roberts, Collins, Smith (Oregon), et. al.

Much more to be researched and reported here; stay tuned.

I also followed the link to Rightwing Nuthouse. It really is rightwing nuthouse. The first thing that I noticed is that while he might be right about Graeme Frost himself not being smeared, isn’t it smearing his family to basically accuse them of willfully choosing the situation they’re in? I love the implication that everyone can find a good-paying job that has health insurance. This of course means that over 40 million Americans have made that choice. Somehow I just don’t consider that a reasonable viewpoint. Then I saw Rick Moran’s take on Al Gore, his Nobel Prize and the subject of global warming in general. Rightwing Nuthouse, indeed.

“This is of course the problem with your claim that the Republicans have a case. You’ve bought into the White House lie about what the bill really does. Do more research, Pete. Including about the cost of living in New York, the only place that applied for a waiver to cover some people up to that level.”

Jim — Point taken. I did not know that detail and assuming you’re correct (and I have no reason to believe you aren’t), and similar resolve is applied elsewhere in the bill, I stand humbled by my lack of information and will further revisit this subject, as you suggest. See: the search for balance works!

“What is this air that everyone talks about and thinks is so important? I just don’t see it.”

This is of course the problem with your claim that the Republicans have a case. You’ve bought into the White House lie about what the bill really does. Do more research, Pete. Including about the cost of living in New York, the only place that applied for a waiver to cover some people up to that level.

The arguments about how terrible it is to let people see someone like the Frost childen seems to be that we must always keep the debate about abstract notions, we must never ever actually put a face on those who suffer and die because of notions of the appropriate role of government that are based on what our society was in the past, not where we and our economy stand now.

Net: Please know I’m NOT trying to make excuses for the mudslinging. I think the Republicans could find a much more effective and decent way to make their case than attacking the Frosts and questioning their finances. My decision to include Moran’s post was quite simple: Part of the basis for the CoA feature, as it says up top, is to “improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.” Multiples posts at TMV over the last 24-plus hours defended the Frosts and lambasted the R’s. That’s fine, and many of the R’s deserve it. But in every argument there is another side, and perhaps we could all learn something by considering that other side. Moran took a bold counter-position and was relatively decent and calm in constructing it, so I thought it was worth adding. That’s all really.

And again, if you want to know where I personally stand in all of this, it’s pretty simple.

SCHIP is a great program and should be enhanced, but the vetoed bill was not the best way to do it. Unfortrunately, republicans have no credibility on spending issues after the last six years. Despite that lack of credibility, they should have found another way to make their case on S-CHIP rather than going after the Frosts. I also think the Democrats should have found another to defend their position than sticking a 12-year-old boy on the air. The tactic is trite and though it’s not mean-spirited, it is exploitative.

One of them belonged to Graeme Frost. And ironically enough, one of them belonged to Michelle Malkin!

I suppose that post by Rick Moran was the best you could do, once you decided you had to make excuses for the mudslinging.

Another outrage!! I will not be ignored!!

PS I disagree with you about the Frost debacle, but
I acknowledge you right to be wrong. .:)

Hahahaha

Don’t put me to far up on the pedestal of knowing better; I’ll probably disappoint you.

Seriously, I think everyone has mud in this. The Dems for trotting out a 12-year old. The family for allowing themselves to be thus exposed. The R’s for not fact-checking better and forgetting that we’re dealing with real people here — and frankly, for not coming up with their own fresh examples of the potential abuse rather than simply (once again) attacking the Dems talking point.

The whole thing’s a bloody sad mess.

Finally, while I personally think S-CHIP is a great program and probably could/should be expanded, I also think handouts to people making $60-80K annually (that’s more than Frosts, obviously, but still allowed under the vetoed bill, I think) — is a step too far. A little compromise here would be a good (no, great) thing.

Which is precisely why I zeroed in on Libby’s post today, domajot’s comments notwithstanding.