Michelle Malkin » Democrat poster-child abuse, the nutroots’ pushback, and the continued campaign to silence the Right

Democrat poster-child abuse, the nutroots’ pushback, and the continued campaign to silence the Right

By Michelle Malkin • October 9, 2007 11:08 PM

Update 1:40pm Eastern. Bruce Kesler discovers that, despite living in one of the highest cost areas of the U.S., San Diego, owning a modest house in a middle-class neighborhood, with substantial equity, he qualifies for S-CHIP. He says no thanks:

What could we do with an extra $10,000 a year, if we didn’t have to pay insurance premiums, and instead SCHIP and taxpayers picked up the tab? Fix-up the 24-year old house; Buy a new or recent car; Hire baby sitters and get some additional sanity from entertainment; Eat better than at Jack or the Clown; Put steaks on the table; Have a cellphone, at least for emergencies, and faster downloads; and so on.

We make choices, in favor of frugality and self-responsibility, and can thus afford to continue to pay insurance premiums.

Sure, it’s not easy being a parent, or living in a high-cost area. Sure, it would be nice to live easier. But, is that fair to other struggling taxpayers?

SCHIP should include reasonable asset tests. In all but three states, it doesn’t have any.

More: Need vs. want.

Update 1:10pm Eastern 10/10. Snort-worthy conspiracy theory of the day…The tinfoil hatters at ThinkProgress actually believes conservative bloggers were in cahoots with Mitch McConnell, whom I lambasted below. The unreality-based community really does live in a different galaxy.

Mark Steyn, presumably taking his marching orders from Mitch McConnell (snort-snort), hits the nail on the head once again:

Mr Frost works “intermittently”. The unemployment rate in the Baltimore metropolitan area is four-percent. Perhaps he chooses to work “intermittently,” just as he chooses to send his children to private school, and chooses to live in a 3,000-square-foot home. That’s what free-born citizens in democratic societies do: choose. Sometimes those choices work out, and sometimes they don’t. And, when they don’t and catastrophe ensues, it’s appropriate that the state should provide a safety net. But it should be a safety net of last resort, and it’s far from clear that it is in this case.

FastFact: The ‘C’ in SCHIP Is for Children, Except When It’s Not…

According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data

Update 11:50am Eastern 10/10. Here’s the Baltimore Sun’s nutroots-approved follow-up piece on the Frost family, using a single, rotten comment by a stupid RedState commenter to tar all conservative bloggers as hatemongers. Interestingly, the Sun asked the Frost parents to verify their claimed income and the couple declined. Also, the Sun reported that all four of the children attend private schools, not just two. The paper is silent on when the family started receiving claimed tuition breaks and how much the family spent on private-school tuition each year prior to the accident–i.e., at a time when they chose not to buy private health insurance. The Frosts tell the Sun they put their children in the public arena to support S-CHIP. But Harry Reid didn’t exploit the children and the family merely to argue for supporting the existing federal program. Their agenda is massive, middle-class entitlement expansion under the guise of helping working poor children. Keep your eyes on the Democrat ball.

Reader Rob asks: “Why is it when the Baltimore Sun takes photos of the house they are reporters, but when you simply drive by you are a stalker? Why is it when the New York Times calls the home, it’s “for an interview” but when a blog does it for the same reason, it’s harassment?”

Answer: It’s ferocious turf protection, plain and simple.

Video bonus: Don’t miss the flashback clip of John Kerry’s health-care poster child abuse.

***

I received an e-mail from a NYTimes reporter this afternoon:

Writing about blog coverage of the SCHIP debate, including scrutiny of Graeme Frost and plan to include references to your posts. Would like comment if you’re willing. Republicans on Capitol Hill are now saying they think the Frost children are legitimate recipients of CHIP coverage.

Thanks and regards,

David M. Herszenhorn
The New York Times
Congressional Correspondent

I gave him these comments:

The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets. Maryland’ s S-CHIP program does not means-test (correction: I meant to say assets-test>. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.

I also told him this:

As for accusations about “smearing” and “Swiftboating,” I’ll repeat what I said on my blog: “When a family and Democrat political leaders drag a child down to Washington at 6 in the morning to read a script written by Senate Democrat staffers on a crusade to overturn a presidential veto, someone might have questions about the family’s claims. The newspapers don’t want to do their jobs. The vacuum is being filled. If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage. Fight your battles like adults and stop hiding behind youngsters dragging around red wagons filled with your talking points.”

Here’s the NYTimes story, which actually turned out much fairer and more balanced than I expected. An excerpt:

…what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working poor — Medicaid already helps the impoverished — but many Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.

The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often perilous technique.

Some Republicans are too weak in the knees to engage:

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off, glad to let bloggers take the heat for attacking a family with injured children.

An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.

Oh, swell. So he feels “relief” because he doesn’t have to ask the hard questions about the continued entitlement creep approved by both big government parties? Well, wipe your brow and pat yourself on the back! Crikey.

Meantime, Nancy Pelosi seems confident that those weak-kneed Republicans will roll over:

“Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have risen to the Frosts’ defense, saying they earn about $45,000 a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help.“

That’s what should concern every fiscal conservative left in Congress. And it is exactly why the Frosts’ financial situation is so germane–i.e., because Democrats are holding them out as “precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help.”

Dan Riehl has some questions the NYTimes didn’t get around to asking.

Now, before I get into the latest, left-wing attacks on those of us who dare to question the Democrats’ sacred political narratives, here’s my new syndicated column on Dirty Harry Reid’s poster child abuse:

A few weeks ago, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lured two young children to the public spotlight to help him pass a massive expansion of government health insurance. Gemma and Graeme Frost, 9 and 12 years old respectively, were severely injured in a car accident three years ago. Their parents obtained government health care through the non-~~means~~assets-tested Children’s Health Insurance Program in Maryland. President Bush’s veto doesn’t change that. And there’s the rub.

Because liberal lawmakers cannot honestly defend their expansion plans as bona fide aid to the needy, they have surrounded themselves with the Frosts and other kiddie human shields to deflect any tough scrutiny. As they push for an override of the president’s veto, scheduled for Oct. 18, the desperate Dems will shamelessly invoke the Absolute Moral Authority kiddie card to attack their critics for “attacking the children.”

After 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democrat radio address last week, which was penned for him by Senate staffers, conservatives on the FreeRepublic.com forum and across the Internet asked the questions the mainstream media wouldn’t ask about the family’s financial situation. The couple claims an annual combined annual income of about $45,000. Neither the Democrats nor the Baltimore Sun indicate how they verified that assertion before circulating it.

What is verifiable: The Frosts own a home in Baltimore purchased for $55,000 sixteen years ago–and now worth an estimated $300,000. That’s a lot of equity. In addition, the children’s father, Halsey Frost, owns commercial real estate and his own small business, but chose not to buy health insurance for himself and his wife, whom he hired as an employee. She now apparently works freelance at a medical publishing firm, which also reportedly doesn’t offer insurance. Gemma and Graeme both attend expensive private schools; the Frosts have two other school-age children. Reid’s staff says Gemma and Graeme receive tuition breaks. But it’s not clear when those scholarships were instituted and/or whether the other two receive tuition aid as well. Moreover, Frost’s family comes from considerable means. The children’s maternal grandfather was an engineering executive. Their paternal grandparents hail from affluent Bronxville, New York, where the grandfather is a prominent facilities management consultant and chairman of the municipal planning board.

In other words: The public trough is not Halsey Frost’s last and only resort.

The accident was horrible. The children deserve much sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.

The Frosts claim it would cost them more per month than their mortgage, reportedly $1,200 a month, to buy private insurance. But insurance bloggers quickly found available plans for a family of six with premiums as low as $452/month.

“That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the [Baltimore Sun] article,” wrote Bob Vineyard at InsureBlog. “Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?”

When in comes to Democrat health care poster children, the answer is “No, they don’t.” Graeme and Gemma Frost are not the first political symbols to be exploited by the socialized health care pushers of the Left:

In 1996, Hillary Clinton propped up young Jennifer Bush, a seven-year-old with mystery ailments whose mother coached her to lobby for universal health care Jennifer was trotted out to present the Clintons a lucky silver dollar “to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance.” Jennifer’s mother was later convicted of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms.

In 2000, Al Gore propped up elderly widow Winifred Skinner to lambaste high drug prices. Gore repeated her claim that she had to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for medicine. Dan Rather bemoaned: “She’s no child, but she belongs on a poster about high drug costs.” One problem: Winifred’s own well-to-do son, businessman Earl King, debunked those claims.

In 2004, John Kerry propped up Mary Ann Knowles, a breast cancer patient who he claimed “had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family’s health insurance?” The conservative Manchester Union Leader editorial page reported: “Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her chemotherapy because her husband was out of a job…She and husband John did not want to take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary Ann kept working.”

The Democrats sorely resent that they can no longer peddle their Big Nanny propaganda unchallenged. Harry Reid is already throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers who expose their health-care poster child abuse.

Here’s a free prescription for our stunted politicians: Grow up.

The Free Republic member who first scrutinized the Frost case has a follow-up here. He concludes: “This is not a family of renters, they own not only a 3,040 SF home but a commercial property as well. I’m not faulting them for it, I’m not trying to say they are rich, I’m trying to make people aware of what types of families are CURRENTLY covered by S-CHIP so we can honestly debate if the income ceiling should be raised. Hmmmm, I really could use that new bass boat motor and the kids really would like a Nintendo Wii … maybe I’ll change my position.”

And now to the nutroots’ pushback. It’s not just Media Matters and MoveOn.org who lie through their teeth and attempt to intimidate critics through mass thuggishness. It’s militant leftist bloggers who wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip.

On Monday, I did something that has everyone from King Kos on down to the dregs (a short traveling distance, to be sure) screaming “Stalker!” What did I do? I went up to Baltimore and interviewed a tenant at health-care poster parent Halsey Frost’s place of business and drove past the Frost home. That’s not “stalking.” That’s not “harassing.” It’s reporting.

This is stalking.

Why did I take the time to go to Baltimore? Because bloggers raised questions about the Frosts’ financial situation and made specific reference to these pieces of real estate. I did not “harass” the Frosts. I simply reported what the tenant told me and described what I saw after driving by their home. My basic reporting rebutted some impressions left by other bloggers on the right who haven’t been to these sites and assumed they were high-end luxury properties. They’re not. Moreover, I corrected the mistake that some of these bloggers made in overvaluing the house at $400,000-plus. It’s closer to $300,000.

The bottom line remains:

This family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.

The Left is so accustomed to the stenographic servitude of the MSM, it goes bananas when we fill the vacuum. Moonbat bloggers have taken to posting my personal home information again in “retaliation.”

Why? Because they want to make an example: Challenge their narratives and you will pay.

If they can redefine simple reporting as “stalking,” they’ll have their desired chilling effect.

You can’t win with the unhinged mob. If you blog from home and don’t get your ass out of your chair, you’re a navel-gazing pontificator in pajamas who’s a wannabe journalist. If you get off your ass and get out on the street to compare what’s been written with the reality on the ground, you’ll be mauled as a “stalker” and “slimer” and “wingnut Nazi whore.” Never mind the truly unhinged and destructive tactics that the anti-war, anti-Bush Left itself has embraced and perfected.

Context, people, context: This is the inevitable M.O. every time bloggers and commentators on the right have challenged the Absolute Moral Authority of the Democrat poster child du jour. It happened with Cindy Sheehan. And the military recruiter-bashing thugs at Santa Cruz. And MoveOn.org. And the phony soldier saga. Crush Rush is just the tip of the iceberg. Just ask the mom-and-pop Cafe Press owners who got those cease-and-desist letters from MoveOn.org’s lawyers for daring to defend Gen. David Petraeus.

When they cry “intimidation,” they are engaging in classic projection.

This is not about The Children. It’s about the purported adults in the Democrat party leadership, the left-wing blogosphere, and the sycophantic media who can’t debate policy without flinging their peas when challenged.

Financial assets are at the very core of this debate. Schip was supposed to be a bridge to help insure children in poor families who barely missed out on qualifying for Medicaid. The Democrats are pushing the Schip eligibility level to 200, 300, 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The kids’ program is no longer just for kids and may well cover illegal aliens to boot.

Instead of sitting on the sidelines, Republicans need to force the Left out of its ideological infancy and stop this disastrous entitlement juggernaut.

I repeat what I told the Times reporter:

If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.

***

Reminder: The veto override vote is scheduled for Oct. 18. The stakes are high…

Sensing their best opportunity yet to overrule a White House that has stymied them on stem cell research and Iraq, congressional Democrats and their supporters have launched a campaign to override President Bush’s veto of plans to expand the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

With polls showing broad support even among Republican voters to expand coverage to 4 million more children nationwide, congressional Democrats are rallying their allies publicly while speaking to their GOP colleagues privately. Supporters both on and off Capitol Hill are sinking millions of dollars into advertisements and automated “robo-calls” in the home districts of targeted Republicans, urging constituents to add to the pressure.

The veto override campaign pits a congressional majority – eager for victory on a program popular among both liberals and moderates – against conservative Republicans whose base sees the expansion as a step toward a national health plan. With the vote scheduled for Oct. 18, Democrats have given themselves two weeks to build support for a vote with reverberations likely to be felt next fall…

…The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which raises money for the House races, is targeting eight Republicans with radio and television ads. Democrats were joined yesterday by a coalition including MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change and several labor unions, which announced spots that officials said would have an impact on more than 30 Republicans.

Make sure House Minority Leader John Boehner hears from you:

Washington Office:
1011 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3508
Phone: (202) 225-6205
Fax: (202) 225-0704

Posted in: Graeme Frost, Kos, Nutroots

Printer Friendly

comments (176)

trackbacks (63)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#143489

On October 10th, 2007 at 6:46 pm, bear1909 said:

This is another effort by the Dhimmicrats to socialize medicine in this country.

It will not stand if we fight it.

This issue is relevant to about 8 million truly needy Americans.

The facts have been lost in the debate.

Michelle Malkin hit it on the head with her imagery of kids with red wagons loaded with Dhimmicrat talking points.

This is the biggest vote buying boondoggle ever.

Hopefully, American taxpayers are vigilant and cut throat about this looting of the treasury.

Enough is enough.
#143495

On October 10th, 2007 at 6:58 pm, Jim M. said:

Another interesting phenomenon we are seeing with the the hystrionic reaction to Michelle’s and others work is that the MSM and our elected representatives abhor accountability.

We got a very good glimpse of that in the relatively recent efforts to pass no illegal left behind. Despite the villification of those that oppose illegal immigration, the people held their representatives accountable. And it worked. But no sooner had the clamor died down, they tried again. And again.

Fast forward to today. We are supposed to take everything trotted out to us at face value and as gospel. The MSM and Congress have had it that way for so long, they have fits of wailing and gnashing of teeth when anyone tryies to hold them accountable for what they are saying.

The Bush National Guard story. Doctored photos from the war. The string of deceit behind the democrats poster children for healthcare. The buried intel report from Haditha. And on and on.

Think about it. At no time in the past has either Congress or the MSM been taken to task for their words. Now that it is occurring, they don’t know how to act or react. So they keep spinning the same lies with more volume.

In many respects, the internet has unschackled people from the information blackout imposed by the MSM and our electorate. They are in a new age of accountability, and they do not like it one bit.

The MSM is slowly choking to death on its incompetence, outright lies and
hidden agendas. The severely underestimated the intelligence of the American people, believing the MSM had a perpetual monopoly on thought.

Politicians can no longer hide from their past. Reports of those Klan rallies are available in an instant. And they can no longer hide their voting records from the public. The politicos seem truly perplexed that voters have the ability for independent thought, which is a far cry from what all that lobbying money is telling them. Next thing you know, people are going to expect them to keep all those campaign promises.

I love it.

One more thing – Al Gore, thank you for inventing the internet!
#143496

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:01 pm, dakine said:

Some good info, and a generally pretty civil and grownup discussion regarding a tough issue. There are more than a few very smart and well-informed folks around here. Couple of things:

…yes I’m a lawyer, and yes, I agree that lawyers are part of the problem with rising healthcare costs.

…more competition in both the health care industry in general and the health insurance industry specifically makes a great deal of sense to me as a way to bring costs down. Anybody know how to make this happen?

…a couple of folks claimed that health care costs and insurance premiums are not out of control. You guys are living in a different world than I am. My premiums have skyrocketed and every HR person I’ve ever spoken to constantly complains about the cost of providing health insurance to employees. Lots of companies (especially smaller ones) have cut way back on this benefit or cut it out entirely.

…conservativesRus, if I’m understanding your position correctly, that’s pretty selfish and cruel to be quite frank.

…just for the record, the Constitution makes no mention of a Creator or God or Buddha or Allah or any other god.
#143501

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm, iamsaved said:

Dakine – No, the Constitution may not mention a Creator or God but the Declaration of Independence sure does and so do many of the writings of the founding fathers of this country. They didn’t check their beliefs at the door when they assembled to form this government.
#143514

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm, Rusty said:

“Private citizens” do not inject themselves into the forefront of a national debate and hop in front the media via radio addresses, TV and the press. Once they do, they relinquish the private citizen status, at least – if not especially – in the area on which they go public.

Ok, fine. Then you agree that MM was wrong to object to people publishing her address since, by your definition, she isn’t a private citizen? Personally, I find that reprehensable, but if that’s your opinion I hope you’re consistent with it.

Also, great catch by Ezra Klein:

We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.

~Michelle Malkin

Link here.
#143515

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm, Boomer said:

Michelle,

Thanks for a well researched and supported read and for taking the time to make a personal observation of the terrain. Keep a clear eye out for those that might stalk you from the unhinged sector of society. As we say here all good fighter pilots always check their 6. This information really got everybody going. I read some really good discussion points.
#143525

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm, dakine said:

iamsaved, true of course, but I think the accuracy of your comment really underscores the founders’ decision to specifically exclude such words from the Constitution. I’m also sure you know that several of the founders skewed toward non-belief.

One other comment on the “journalist” point. I could be wrong, but I think Michelle is a self-described “point of view” journalist. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but of course, she is then, by definition, biased in her “reporting” (sorry, way to many commas in that sentence).
#143529

On October 10th, 2007 at 8:04 pm, DemsAreDonkeyDivots said:

In all this mess one thing not mentioned is bothering me. The kids were injured in a car crash. Were the Frosts uninsured/under-insured? Seems to me that the Frosts have made quite a few poor parenting decisions. From auto insurance to health insurance, and they want the taxpayer to make up for their mistakes.
#143545

On October 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Ok, fine. Then you agree that MM was wrong to object to people publishing her address since, by your definition, she isn’t a private citizen? Personally, I find that reprehensable, but if that’s your opinion I hope you’re consistent with it.

Has anyone suggested posting their address? At least you don’t agree with that tactic either. I think the point was that there are legal differences between being a private citizen and a public figure. (One of the lawyers here can explain if they wish, I’m not a lawyer.) Once they (in this case) chose to be at least limited public figures, they opened themselves to be questioned about their circumstances. That’s a far cry from publishing their address so that others can go annoy them (or worse.) Michelle drove down a public street to see if in fact they lived in a fancy house, discovered they did not and wrote that they didn’t in order to correct those who thought they did. Sounds objective to me.

What is sad to me is that they chose to make their children public figures as well. Fine for an adult to make that choice, but maybe not the best choice for the kids. But that leads to “journalists” (by your definition) running the “objective” headline that a 12 year old was under attack from the right. All the comments I have seen have been concerning the family and the claims made by the parents – not attacking the boy. And no one would even know who he is had the parents not trotted him out for the Dems. And it’s a dopey tactic anyway since he would be covered by the Bush version anyway.
#143548

On October 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm, conservativesRus said:

dakine: You didn’t answer my question – what shall be the determining factor in who gets what level of care?
#143558

On October 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm, CommentGuy said:

Klein carefully limits the debate scope only to the legislation itself.

All the side issues it impacts are no fire zones in his rules.

A worthless endeavor if he is going the hamstring the issue so much.

He might as well only want to discuss which font the legislation is printed with.
#143573

On October 10th, 2007 at 9:28 pm, CommentGuy said:

Ok folks go read this for how California handles their program

I Could Qualify For SCHIP!

I just phoned California’s SCHIP program, Healthy Families, and found that my family could qualify.

This is the scenario I laid out:
· Husband, age 62 (which I’ll be in 2-years), collecting early Social Security; Wife, age 41;
· Two minor dependent children, ages 2 and 7;
· Currently covered under self-paid individual health insurance (incidentally, costing about $10,000 a year, HMO, with $35 doctor visits and 30% co-insurance payments for other services, formulary Rx’s $20 generic and $35 brand);
· Mutual fund capital gains of $50,000 and ordinary dividends of $30,000;
· Earned income of $2289 a month by wife at job without medical benefits. (My wife is not currently working, being a house-mom.)

Thus, even though having substantial liquid assets, saved through a lifetime of scrimping in order to fund retirement, I would qualify for California’s Healthy Families SCHIP program. Assets and unearned income (e.g., Social Security, capital gains, ordinary dividends) do not count against SCHIP qualification.

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003491.html
#143598

On October 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm, almeehan said:

Rush Limbaugh referenced Michelle Malkin several times on his program, validating her reporting skills which have exposed the Democrats, left, liberal scamming and scheming. She is top notch and should not blink at all.
#143604

On October 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm, purplepeep said:

Rusty said:
Ok, fine. Then you agree that MM was wrong to object to people publishing her address

LOL, Rusty, I suppose it is easier if you make up quotes from others and then respond to them.

Again you are wandering lost in the dark forest of RustyRelativism and desperate to divert attention from the actualities. The Dems embarrassed themselves yet again in offering up this varation on the “Jessie MacBeth Example” type posterchild. They got caught trying to pass it off and so diversion is obviously of the utmost necessity to them.

But I will assist in clearing up your confusion here, Rusty.

Investigative journalists investigate persons and items which become prominent in the news – especially where the person(s) intentionally do so, as in this case. No journalist is to be attacked because of who s/he is, but the story can be judged on it’s merits. You and others are terrified at answering the many questions this story brings up. Being unable to debate the merits, shooting the messenger is all that’s left, I suppose.

The Frosts even refused to let the Baltimore Sun – a liberal newspaper that’s pulling for them – have a peek at their 2006 tax returns. Now, there’s something for more investigation.

As for the moronic link, it’s absoltely meaningless. Unless anybody can cite where Michelle had asked for public assistance. Otherwise, nawww.

The Dems just made another whopper of a mistake by choosing a quite comfortable family as an exsmple of what those of us who are less well off should financially support. I should be in such dire poverty as Mr. Frost. I can’t imagine what the working poor – the real poor – must think of his demand they subsidize his ongoing bad financial decisions by taking even more of their paycheck away from them.
#143619

On October 10th, 2007 at 11:17 pm, flenser said:

A “reporter” is anyone who wants to call themselves that. There is no certifying body administering tests or set of skills which need to be mastered before you become one. Even Rusty could be a reporter if he was so inclined.
#143628

On October 11th, 2007 at 12:01 am, leepro said:

On October 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm, dakine said:

…

One other comment on the “journalist” point. I could be wrong, but I think Michelle is a self-described “point of view” journalist. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but of course, she is then, by definition, biased in her “reporting”

You are comparing apples and oranges, and calling them both pears. A “journalist” can be a reporter, but a “reporter” is no more than that: someone who reports. The reporter goes to the scene, takes down all the facts (who, what, where, when, and why), and writes a “report” on those facts. Period. A journalist, on the other hand, may also go to the scene and do basically the same, but a true journalist has the added capability (with training and a high level of experience, not to mention at least a few active brain cells), that most simple reporters do not have, of dissecting the story, analyzing what happened, investigating and researching the particulars, and even scrutinizing the people involved. The jobs are as dissimilar as the difference between a typist from the steno pool and the Executive Secretary. But their commitment must both be entrenched in high ethics and inscrutable honesty.

Michelle is one of the best you can find anywhere! She is a true journalist in the fashion of “old school” journalism. She has a syndicated column (reporters do not have “columns”; they have “articles” — there is a difference!) and has authored a number of best-selling books. Of course she writes her own opinion! Whose opinion would you have her write? She has more than earned that privilege. Probably the biggest reason she has such a huge following is that we know she’s not afraid to get her hands dirty. She’s not afraid to get down in the trenches and truly investigate until there is no more information, good or bad, to be found! We, her millions, follow her because we trust her. Read Michelle Malkin and you read the truth, thoroughly researched and intelligently evaluated.

As a lawyer, you should know to get your facts straight before you open your mouth.

— newspaper brat, 65 years
#143664

On October 11th, 2007 at 1:20 am, dakine said:

Whoa there leepro…hold your horses cowboy. First of all, I said a few comments up that I think Michelle is very good at what she does. I’m no expert, but I believe she is part of the new breed of internet “reporter”, “journalist”, or whatever the correct term is, who engages in what has been coined “point of view” or “advocacy” journalism. Is that not correct? She blogs on subjects that interest her and does so to advance a particular point of view. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I don’t think she claims to be doing otherwise. How do you like them apples leepro?
#143668

On October 11th, 2007 at 1:34 am, slp said:

According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data

A point worth repeating:

The Frost family is covered under the existing SCHIP program.

The proposed changes would add even more childless adults with higher incomes who decide not to buy medical insurance.