S-CHIP and the Democrats’ human shield campaign; Update: The Dems choose another shield; Update: Olbermann coaxes Frost family to display children’s accident photos; Update: New poll results show a majority of Americans are “meanies,” too; Update: The Wilkersons made a choice
Update 10:30am Eastern. “Meanie” Mark Hemingway reports on the Democrats’ new poster family, the Wilkersons:
While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay’s Most Photogenic Baby holding up a crayon sign that says “Don’t Veto Me,” Dara and Brian Wilkerson are real poster children — for irresponsible decisions.
On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix. But not knowing about future health problems is the reason we have insurance in the first place.
Now, pause for a second. Are you reading this at your computer at work, in a job that you don’t particularly care for or even downright detest because you have a spouse and child that depend on you? You wouldn’t be the first or last person to make that choice.
For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don’t have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they’ve made. We know that Dara is at least capable of getting a job with insurance — so why does she not have one now? Even if it is difficult insure her child’s pre-existing condition, what about her and her husband’s health? Perhaps it’s rude to ask that question, but I think it’s rude to accept huge amounts of public assistance and then express gratitude by asking taxpayers to extend a Children’s health program to cover college-age kids who come from households making more than $80,000 a year.
Update 9:20am Eastern 10/16. According to the latest USA Today poll, most Americans support President Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP expansion:
52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.
Democrats have gone on a full-court press to get this legislation passed, and then to get the veto overridden. They have used two families as fronts for the expansion, even though the children of both families qualified for S-CHIP prior to their expansion. They are running ads even now, showing toddlers with large, staring eyes, that claim “George Bush vetoed Susie,” and so on.
And they have lost the argument. Despite Bush’s low polling numbers and their political advantage on domestic policy, the Democrats have not convinced Americans to subsidize health insurance for middle-class families. In fact, the USA Today poll used the less-outrageous annual income limit of $62,000 for the description of the expansion (some have it at $83,000), and Democrats still lose, 52%-40%. It isn’t even close.
Update 9:45pm Eastern. The Frost parents finally made a wise choice and decided not to put their son on Olbermann. Instead, they appeared to field Olbermann’s softball questions about the “lunatic fringe.”
Olbermann prodded the family to supply pictures of their children in the hospital recovering from their terrible accident. The photos were displayed as Olbermann and the couple complained about the Right’s “distraction” techniques.
It really doesn’t get much lower or much cheaper or much sadder than this.
Then again, the Democrats are putting a toddler on stage on Capitol Hill tomorrow.
There’s always tomorrow.
Update 7:30pm Eastern. I didn’t have time today to respond to a Politico reporter wanting to bait me somehow over the Dems’ latest S-Chip poster family. Like the Frosts, the new spokesfamily has a tragic personal story and is a curious example of the supposedly pressing need for S-CHIP expansion…because the family already qualifies for the existing program and nothing President Bush or the Dems propose to do would change that.
The Baltimore Sun blog says the new toddler-aged human shield will speak on the Hill tomorrow:
Now meet Bethany Wilkerson, the latest youngster enlisted by congressional Democrats or their allies to help build support for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Having suffered from heart failure as an infant, USAction says, the Florida toddler would not be alive today but for the government-funded program for moderate-income families not poor enough to qualifty for Medicaid.
Now Bethany is scheduled to speak at a Capitol Hill rally Tuesday evening, according to a release this morning by Americans United For Change.
There was no word on what the 2-year-old plans to say. But she joins a flurry of 11th-hour activity in advance of the attempt by House Democrats on Thursday to override Bush’s veto of legislation to expand coverage to 4 million more children at a cost of $35 billion over five years.
McQ weighs in: “How do to the Wilkersons argue for the expansion of the program that the Democrats are trying ram through that could include families 400% over the poverty level and “children” who are 25? They don’t. So other than emotional appeal and an attempt to pretend the Wilkersons are the sort of family the fight is about when it is not, why are we seeing the Wilkersons at all?”
Perhaps Harry Reid and his minions realize what a poor choice the Frosts were and are flinging new human shields in front of them as distractions.
Funny how we don’t see any poster families who are 400% above the poverty level being pushed forward as examples of the kinds of people the $35 billion expansion of S-CHIP will help. Why not? Since the original parameters of the S-CHIP program enjoys the overwhelming support of Congress and the President, why trot forward families like the Frosts and the Wilkersons who qualify under the current rules? Why not bring to the fore those families at the high end of the expansion requirements and let the American people decide if they want to subsidize insurance for them?
The answer is obvious; a family living 400% above poverty are not as sympathetic as those, like the Wilkerson’s, who couldn’t get by without S-CHIP. In fact, pushing forward people who make more than 40% of all the families in America as the poster family for S-CHIP expansion would probably torpedo the bill then and there.
I note that this time around, the Democrats were careful to push a family forward whose choices regarding health insurance couldn’t be questioned. In that respect, if they’re waiting for conservatives to attack the Wilkerson’s, they are going to be sorely disappointed. The Democrats just don’t have a clue about the true nature of the opposition to their S-CHIP expansion. For that, they would have to give a fig about the tradeoffs we make between dependency and freedom every time they get some not so bright idea about “helping” those who can usually be counted on to help themselves.
BP has more.
Update 5:15pm Eastern. More adults-only perspectives from Tom Blumer and Dave at Wide Open.
Grown-up Jeff Goldstein weighs in:
The entire dustup over SCHIP has never been about the Frost family — except insofar as cynical Dems were willing to use an injured child already covered by the program as an emotional beard to demand an increase that would cover those making close to twice as much as the boy’s family.
Or, to put it another way, it was a carefully designed emotional appeal crafted by craven politicians looking for a stepping stone toward socialized medicine — providing incentives for the already insured to drop private healthcare in favor of healthcare paid for by tax dollars, and administered by a federal bureaucracy.
The backlash against those who “smeared” the messengers (who, given that the family was already covered, weren’t really the messengers for what it is supporters of the increase are demanding), therefore, represents the kind of faux outrage of the criminal caught red-handed who cries foul over the way his crime was exposed.
Hence, the defensive nature of the discourse — and the trajectory of the debate toward the emotional, with no regard for the substance of the issues actually under pressure.
And here’s the latest from the White House:
Bush has already vetoed legislation that would have raised spending on a popular children’s health insurance program $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase and he defended his position again in his remarks in Rogers, Ark.
Bush has offered to accept a bigger spending increase on the program to get a deal done with Democrats. But he and his aides won’t say how high he’s willing to go.
“We’re not going to negotiate through the media on this,” deputy press secretary Tony Fratto told reporters on Air Force One on Monday. “The goal has to be to get the policy right — what are the principles behind the policy — and then see what the numbers are.”
Update for adults only: The Heritage Foundation has a comprehensive S-CHIP policy analysis page here.
***
If you thought for a moment that Harry Reid and the Democrats might have obtained some wisdom and maturity over the weekend and put down their child-sized human shields, think again. The presidential veto override vote on the S-CHIP entitlement expansion is set for Thursday. Though they admit they probably don’t have the votes, Democrats are already crowing about this “defining moment.” They have vowed to introduce yet another bill if their override fails. Meanwhile, their universal health care minions continue to inundate the airwaves with noxious “Bush vs. the children” ads. Hollyweirdos are cursing their heads off at critics of the massive government expansion. And the questionable poster parents hand-picked by Harry Reid are keeping their child on center stage.
Liberal blogger Jeralyn Merritt writes on her blog Blogger “Last Night in Little Rock” over at Jeralyn Merrit’s Talkleft blog reports that young Graeme Frost is scheduled to appear tonight on King of Cable TV Moonbats Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show.
That is just unspeakably sad.
Yet, instead of standing up to Harry Reid’s crass human shield campaign and calling out the poster child-abusing adults hiding behind grade-schoolers to defend their socialized health care Trojan Horse, some Beltway Republicans have grown queasy and are sighing to the NYTimes about “partisan bickering” over the $35 billion public health expansion.
If Republicans don’t have the stomach to do battle over fundamental policy questions–like, you know, who deserves government-subsidized health insurance– what are they doing in office? More “partisan bickering” could have spared us McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, and the hugetastic Medicare expansion boondoogle. If not for “partisan bickering,” shamnesty would be the law(lessness) of the land.
We need more “partisan bickering,” not less.
***
This just in…Harry Reid’s favorability ratings are now lower than President Bush’s in Nevada among most likely voters. Order up some more human shields!
***
Darleen Click notes the Frost parents’ apparent change of heart on parading their children in public and wonders: Where are the adults in the Left?
As for the mindless mantra that we’re attacking a child, attacking a child, attacking a child, attacking a child, attacking a child, I challenged the lefties to quote a single instance on my blog of a single negative, ad hominem word I’ve written attacking the Frost children. The response? Nothing.
Amy Ridenour gets to the heart of the matter at hand:
What’s regrettable about the SCHIP debate is not that the Frost family received national attention after seeking it out, but that so many important parts of the debate are being glossed over. Nothing in the Reid-cum-Frost radio presentation, for instance, mentioned that the Reid-Pelosi $35 billion SCHIP expansion plan is underfunded.
The big-spending expansion proponents urge Congress to adopt a 61 cents per pack cigarette tax increase to pay for expansion. But as Michelle C. Bucci and William W. Beach of the Heritage Foundation have pointed out, there aren’t enough smokers to pay the SCHIP expansion tab. Bucci and Beach say new tobacco tax funds may be sufficient for no more than two years’ worth of the expansion, and certainly not much more. What will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do then? Start running public service announcements asking people to take up smoking, because the Frost family needs help?
…Another inconvenient truth left out of the Reid-Frost presentation is the bitter little fact that whatever funding a tobacco tax increase provides will be highly regressive — even as the SCHIP expansion makes that program less regressive. As David Hogberg in his paper “SCHIP Expansion: Socialized Medicine on the Installment Plan” for the National Center for Public Policy Research pointed out, if the expansion plan is adopted, “it is not inconceivable that a parent with one child with an income of $13,690 will be funding benefits for two children in a family of four with an income of $82,600.”
12-year-old Graeme Frost probably doesn’t know the SCHIP expansion he’s fronting for would tax the poor to fund the middle class. What’s Harry Reid’s excuse?
Ernest Istook looks at the left-wing groups propping up their kiddie human shields for the Dems:
Americans United for Change (AUC), MoveOn.org, and the Service Employees International Union (which claims over one million hospital workers as members) are spending millions on the effort. Also coordinating and mobilizing people are groups such as the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, the AARP, and the American Medical Association. Sadly, rather than supporting ways to make medical bills more affordable, many in health care are pushing to have government pay those bills.
When costs are too high, what do we fix by having government pick up the tab?
AUC says the coalition will generate one million immediate contacts from constituents to lawmakers who opposed the bill. They promise to make this a major issue in congressional campaigns next year. Says AUC President Brad Woodhouse, “We’re taking this on … as epic a battle as the battle to end the war.”
Propaganda is an integral part of warfare, and this group is making it their main weapon. Families USA, for example, presents the issue using cartoonish rhetoric in website headlines such as “Bush vs. Kids” and “President Bush to Children: “No Health Care for You”“
The rally organizers are pulling out all the stops, too. As one e-mailed rally invitation noted, “If you have kids, definitely bring them, too!”
For the Children. Of the Children. Behind the Children. Dodging every step of the way.
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
- The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Why Should Dems Stop Using Child Props On Healthcare?
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Everything You Want To Know About SCHIP, But Your Congress Is Afraid To Tell You
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Psst! Dems Hint They Haven’t the Votes to Override SCHIP Veto
- Lump on a Blog » Blog Archive » The Poetry of Capitalism - UPDATED
- Riehl World View
- Michelle Malkin » Do you like this cartoon?
- Bill's Bites
- "Truth about Bush's SCHIP veto doesn't match harsh rhetoric"
- Right Wing Nut House » BAITING ANOTHER S-CHIP TRAP
- RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage
- Blaming The Victim: A Conservative Rhetorical Art Form | Reno and Its Discontents
- The Democratic Daily
- Balloon Juice
- Liberty Pundit
- Neocon News » S-CHIP Polling
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » SCHIP Works: Bethany’s Story
- ZuDfunck
- Think Progress » Right-Wing Gleefully Smears Two Yr-Old SCHIP Recipient Bethany Wilkerson
- java
- java » Oh Hell, Just THINK!
- SCHIP- Two days to go. Have you made your phone calls yet? at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.
- Radio Left
- Damn those sick kids: here we go again « Bad American
- Ankle Biting Pundits » Blog Archive » The Bizarro World Of Keith Olbermann
- appletree » Blog Archive » Wednesday Outrage: Business Edition
- Nom De Guerre - Bethany Wilkerson fights for SCHIP !
- Michelle Malkin » New Democrat strategy: We must stimulate the amygdalae!
Somewhere along the way - partisanship became bad. I’m not sure why though because last time I checked, I thought it meant something along the lines of “Have a position and stick to it”. I actually do know why it became bad - precisely because of it’s definition as the libs want EVERYTHING to bend with the wind. The weak knee republicans need to lose. We need politicians who have a position and stick to it.
I am a father of one and planning on more. I would never even consider using any child of mine as props for my politcal beliefs. What sort of parent would do this? These people are shameless.
Call me cynical, but if the email written to Karen Tumulty was actually composed by Mr. Sign It Myself, I’ll eat my hat. It was scripted as much as Graeme’s initial address. Pure political boilerplate.
Cradle to grave for all. Screw incentive. Screw improving ones self. Screw it all. Just let government do it.
I stand up and cheer for Republicans who are NOT bi-partisan. It means that they are willing to stand up for traditional conservative values, and that is exactly what I want in an elected official. You can’t reach across the isle anymore because
DemocratsInsane-o-crats have completely lost their collective minds. Its like the old adage says: “give them and inch, and they will take a mile”.Bullseye!
“Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.”
JSR, what sort of parent would do this?
The neurotic, drama-queen liberal type, and yes, shameless.
PLEASE! Give me a Republican willing to call down the Democrats for exploiting a minor for their despicable, wicked, vile, anti-American agenda!!
I want to se a Republican to stand against the SCHIP and tell Americans to become responsible for their own lives.
Since the government runs everything so efficiently now, why not expand this program? I’ll gladly up my tax bracket another 10-15% to pay for liberals and their shields. Why not? It’s only money. I only have three of my own children. My wife is only a stay-home mom. I’m only self-employed. Why shouldn’t someone with three wonderful automobiles much newer and fancier than mine with a larger home and more assets than me be entitled to my money? After all, I’m the one who earned it–but since I’m a good, caring Christian, I should give it all to the needy.
They’re obviously needy, Harry Reid said so. He’s an elected official. He can’t possibly be deceiving me. Please, Harry, bring your liberal friends to my house and I’ll joyfully write you a check for the little that’s left over at the end of the month so your rich shields can have medical care, too. If you don’t mind, I’d like to be able to write it after I pay for my own family (to the tune of $700+ monthly) and their care, but hey, you’re the boss. If you want first dibs on my money, just ask.
I have a 22 year old son and a 20 year old daughter in College, which I am paying for. Of course that left no money for other things. I need SCHIP because I only make $70,000/year and I don’t want to give up my new cars:(:( Oh yea, I forgot. I have private insurance (HSA Nancy). Guess I will have to give that up so that I can stand in a longer line with no guarantees. Sounds like a plan Nancy…..you go girl.
The fanaticism of the Left on this point is being driven by e-mail alerts from MoveOn.org and other supporters of the Democrats’ SCHIP plan, including unions.
The upside? Bush was willing to compromise with a $5 billion boost to SCHIP. The Democrats’ insistence on $35 billion might torpedo the reauthorization altogether, thus, no more SCHIP!
Don’t throw me in that briar patch, Brer Fox!
I ran out of cigarettes!!!!!! And I cannot afford anymore. I have let down all the children of this nation for not being selfish enough to die earlier than planned. If it were only a 59 cent increase I’d be good for another two years…..hack hack
Ooooops. I got so riled up in the conversation that I forgot I don’t smoke. No one can feel more guilty than I for this blunder. Today I start a two-pack a day habit for the kids. A few carbon offsets and I am free of guilt for the year. Yeehaw. I made it to personal freedom!!!!!!
geminicontender:
Burning tobacco gives off carbon so you will be worsening global warming. But then you’ll die sooner so this might actually reduce it. On the other hand the children will live longer and…
I’m so confused!
The more the leftwing democRats pull these stunts. The more they dig their own grave. They don’t realize that the vast majority of US citizens are sick and damned tired of hearing about “the children”.
This latest gambit is being played out only for politics… obviously. It’s an issue that grabs womyn (left leaning females). Gives the Rats a great excuse to up taxes, too… win/win for the Rats.
They gotta keep these grrls interested, or they won’t vote. Illegals also fall into that category, and we know how the democRats look forward to garnering the illegal vote.
Gutless republiCant’s tick me off too. What a bunch of spineless snakes in the grass. From the so-called President, on down!
And we have kids dieing overseas to protect these “bipartisan” dirtbags on both side of the isle?!?!? Un-Frickin’ Believable!!
Errah. John Boehner correctly pointed out that in some places 60 percent of the benificieries currently getting S-CHIP are adults. If the Republicans will just accomadate us Democrats and increase the funding from the current levels of 5B to what we want 35B we’ll be happy. We’re just trying to move Hillary’s socialized healthcare along and this incerase to S-CHIP and current Medicare benefits will just about seal the deal. Errah.
Thanks for the laugh!
You creep. All these years, you could have been smoking and helping children. Instead, you selfishly kept all that money for yourself — and only now you’re starting to smoke for a cheap partisan advantage. You should be ashamed! (I’ve been smoking 2 packs a day since I was 17.)
But thanks for pointing this out. Now we know why Michelle Malkin doesn’t smoke: She hates sick children!
Yes Ali-Bubba….I kept all that money for years. My Liberal Elites said I could. However, I see that you are a true caretaker of children with your long time habit. Have you been using SCHIP too? You have paid into it.
This reminds me of a song by the band Red September called “Killjoy” that talks about being bossed around by the Nanny State in the name of “the children”.
The smiling face of Evil approaches the people
Tells us that we’re living wrong in every way
With what we’ve known both then and now
How can we believe anything he’ll say?
From bombing peasants to bring them peace
To bobbing interns on their knees
He stole our bread and gave us crumbs
Convincing us he cares about our every need
And they say it’s for the Children
It’s only for their good
But, just because something’s possible
Doesn’t make it something that you should, so
Don’t eat that, don’t drink that, don’t smoke that
Stop having fun
Then a vegan, Commie, junkie, movie star
Junkets in from the Left Coast
To bless us all with all the knowledge
That’s she’s learned while researching her roles
From apples to Zappa, children under attack
And we just might have to make some changes, son
“You’ll live forever with our new plan.”
Who wants to live forever if it’s no damn fun?
Cuz they say it’s for the Children
And who could be against that?
But, all I hear is propaganda
Not much resembling proper fact
Don’t eat that, don’t drink that, don’t smoke that
Stop having fun (2X)
Don’t need that, don’t want that, can’t have that
Stop having fun
Don’t dream that, don’t scheme that, can’t have that
Stop having fun
Solo
And they say it’s for the Children
I say, “Hey, man…f*ck the Children!”
Cuz life’s too short to live on nothing
But rules, regulations and dirty tricks.
Their MySpace page doesn’t have it, but I think it’s on iTunes if you want to hear it. They were mentioned by John Miller at NRO as a conservative rock band back when he was doing that list.
One element of the entire health care debate must be the astronomical cost of health care in this country. I’ve noticed that in discussions people seem to accept this as some kind of inevitability, and then move on…without really understanding the root causes, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with actual health caregiving…
discuss…:)
Don’t dream….? No DREAM Act. Don’t scheme that…..very unlike a Lib. Stop having fun!!… not as long as there are kooks like the Dems. I am having the most fun in a long time and it’s all on the Dems backs.:):):)
I was thinking about all the back-and-forth on this subject.
Conservatives taking a real look at the Frost family’s assets and need. Liberals, just reverting back to hiding behind the sad nature of the injuries of the Frost children and claiming cruel conservatives like Michelle are spying on them.
So, I decided to follow the suggestion that someone posted last week, and log in to the Democratic Underground to see how open they are to discussions including conservatives.
I put on my Hazmat suit, held my breath, and visited the DU. When I clicked on the link to register, I only got as far as reading over the rules:
But how are disruptors defined?…
Now, take a look at this rule and try not to laugh…
I just thought this was interesting. I see dissenters on MM and welcome the discussion that they spark (Rusty, lgm, and Mike B. come to mind.) DU apparently does not wish to listen to the conservative side at all. I picture a child putting his fingers in his ears and chanting “La la la. I can’t hear you!”
The DU rules may be fully known to all of you already, but I am quite new to the world of politcal blogging and was fascinated to read it.
Except for a very few Republicans I believe the RNC practices spine removal before allowing anyone to become their parties candidate for any office. At least that is what I have observed from the last couple of years.
only as long as you don’t smoke in a car with the children present
Max: Actually the two fastest growing cost categories in this country are the ones most highly government regulated/subsidized. Health Care, education. The fastest way to minimize the actual cost of health care is for the government to get their grubby paws off of it. I’m very certain the market would ensure supply and demand are efficiently balanced and costs would be in line with benefits.
One thing not mentioned at all in this whole fiasco is, is it really necessary to “insure” every freakin kid in America? While what happened to this kid is terrible, the vast majority of kids in this country don’t suffer the same fate. I would be curious to know percentages or numbers because I find it hard to believe this reaches a level of NATIONAL/FEDERAL concern or subsidy. Anybody got stats??
errah what’s 35B in a trillion dollar economy anyway? my bar tab after surgery the other day or nasa’s budget is half that! errah
ConservativeRus…
i think you’re right…Gov. regulation is one of the main factors contributing to spiraling costs…
there are others…it’s a swollen “medical industrial complex” to be sure.. way out of control…
I’ve had the opportunity to see a little of how health care is practiced in Thailand… costs there are very low, most (granted not all) people can afford it when they get sick…and care is good (of course, people over there generally seem to actually “care” about each other, so that might be a factor)…
If Reid’s favorability ratings are so low, why do people in Nevada continue to send him to Congress every six years so that he, and his accomplices, can continue to sell-out this country?
Only a wholesale fumugation of the Washington elites can save this country.
The whole ramp-up in medical cost started with the Great Society, remember LBJ? At its beginning, major healt care providers inflated their cost in order to recieve higher returns from the government. Ever look at a hospital bill. You are charged $400, your insurance pays $213, why? Because the price was negoiated between the health care provider and the insurer. Stop and think what will happen if S-Chip goes through. Everyone will be going to Mexico for health care (say, not a bad idea).
errah. My good friend and errah personal injury trial attorney errah, specializing in medical malpractice errah; John Edwards ehhhh, has errah always been concerned about doctors errah and ehhhh the actual “care” they give their patients errah. Eh John errah ehhh he recently had to eh sell his home in Washington DC errah and move back to North Carolina to a 6m errah, 28,200 square foot home eh; where he could ah; afford to be closer to the people errah. Talk about two Americas errah. There’s the aahhhh one I live/drink in; errah annnd the one errrah one I’ve heard about. errah
#22
To be fair, this site frames liberals as “moonbats”, “kooks” (and worse), Democrats as “Insane-o-crats” (and worse). As a liberal, I know going in it’s not exactly a welcoming atmosphere.
As far as “attacking” the Frosts, I think that this site’s take was with the vanguard of conservative sites in that for the first few days there was an opinion that they were somehow falsifying their financial status, with such examples as “The family is not as destitute as the MSM has made them out to be,” “How many working poor couples get wedding announcements in the New York Times?”, making assumptions about the cost of their house and their school costs, putting “working family” in quotes, etc, when in fact they were being honest about their income and means. So that there wasn’t an ad hominem “attack” on the child, the idea of assuming and then accusing the child and his family of lying, then spreading false allegations and hearsay about their status, is in my mind and apparently many others minds, including the very conservative WSJ, an attack, or a smear.
I’m sorry, that’s how I feel. I assume I will be banned now. I hope I am not.
Whoops, I was responding to #23.
errah Michelle
I uhh, keep picking this “Need help?” errah and nobody shows up!
Is it 12:00 yet??!! hic
From Darleen Click’s post: “…While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don’t want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.”
If anyone can find a liberal blog that chastised the mainstream media for “stalking” the Frosts, I’d like to see it.
____________
Until Thursday, I think that “VolvoCare” would make a good talking point. What do you think?
Dear watershed,
Libs ban people for saying things they don’t like. Conservatives do not. They argue points with brilliance and fact. Do not think you’re welcome here anymore. On the contrary:)
Watershed, you will not be banned, the rules of MM’s site allowing varying opinions.
This site is definitely conservative and most of the people who comment here are conservative. However, no matter how many times you see the word “moonbats,” opinions like yours (as a liberal) are not completely kept from the site. And, hopefully, you and other liberals serve to spark interesting and more full discussions than there would be if this was just a bunch of conservatives repeating and rewording the same argument again and again.
[Open question: I thought the term moonbats was used in reference to certain, crazy, out-spoken liberals (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) and not just as a blanket term for all Dems. Is that not true? I'd never seen the term until I first visited this site a couple of weeks ago.]
#5 The Raging Republican:
“You can’t reach across the isle anymore because Democrats Insane-o-crats have completely lost their collective minds. Its like the old adage says: ‘give them and inch, and they will take a mile’.”
Correct.
“Bipartisan” now means nothing.
Literally, nothing.
(In the following, “party” does not necessarily refer to “political” parties; but, rather, to two parties, or participants, in the general sense. God knows so many Republican politicians are spineless and useless.)
“Bipartisanship” might be possible if two parties generally agreed on morals, principles, worldview, and the like; but differed only, say, because one party favored spending 2.7% of the budget on a particular program, while the other party favored spending 3.1%.
If that were the case, one could “reach a compromise”, “reach across the aisle”, “work together”, be “bipartisan”, blah, blah, blah….
But, how can parties conceivably work together if they hold utterly, completely, diametrically opposed world views?
If one party discourages and opposes individual initiative and responsibility, while the other supports and lauds them?
When one party holds that everything - everything - is relative and situaton-dependent, while the other believes there are certain universal, eternal truths?
When one party does not believe in making judgments at any time, upon any item; while the other one feels that some decisions, at some times, have to be made based on a judgment(s)?
When one party’s position is virtually, completely, 100%, the complete, exact, irreconcilable (I think I’ve run out of descriptors) opposite of the others?
Answer:
It can’t happen.
“Compromise” in this case is not in the sense which I originally learned it in school lo, these many years ago - that it is a good way for reasonable folks to see the good points of the other good folks’ position, and a way to achieve a reasonable, workable situation to the general benefit of all.
No, “compromise” in this case seems always, unavoidably to be in the connotation of “compromising one’s principles”, of selling out, of acting hypocritically for gain.
So sad….
Perhaps this discussion of the way politicians act these days can be illustrated by the old joke:
A man asked an attractive woman if she would sleep with him if he offered to pay her a million dollars (shows you how old the joke is).
She says, eagerly, “sure”.
He then asks her if she would sleep with him if he paid her two hundred dollars.
Indignantly, she says, “Certainly not! What do you think I am?!”
To which the man replies, “We’ve already established that…now, we’re just negotiating the price.”
Ever wonder why the adjective “meretricious” is not infrequently applied to lawyers and politicians?
Look up the derivation.
“Meretrix” is Latin for prostitute.
Is it possible that the Dems are feeling a little pressured to start getting this kind of garbage passed? Are they beginning to worry just a little bit about their majority?
It’s starting to feel that way to me. Not that I’m much happier with our RINO’s, but I believe people are rethinking their decision to put Dems in the majority and hopefully we’ll see some Blue seats switch to Red seat in the next election cycle.
As for using “The Children”(TM) as intellectual human shields, one must remember that in liberal minds, the best way to “win” a debate is to not have one at all.
The primary liberal way to shut down debate is to change the subject. Questioning the moral or humane characteristics of those expressing a different opinion blunts their arguments by forcing them to waste time explaining why they aren’t racists/bigots/homophobes/misogynists/child abusers.
The beauty of it (for liberals) is that by changing the subject of the debate in this way, they “win” no matter what: nobody gets around to addressing the real issues, and no amount of self-exculpatory “I’m not a child-hating monster” language from conservatives is going to change their minds, anyway.
It’s a two-fer for them: Avoiding facts, logic and reasoned discussion, while at the same time “proving” that those who don’t agree with them are less-than-human (and therefore don’t need to be debated with).
The best way to work against this tactic is to keep pointing it out. Not that it will shame any liberals into good faith debate, as they are incapable of shame; but to show anyone following the matter with an open mind how one side is more interested in manipulating their emotions rather than persuading their reason.
Regulus #41:
Outstanding explanation!
Correct!!!
watershed:
I sincerely doubt you will be censored here for expressing you opinon. You must be used to the liberal blogs that have a rather Stalinist view of dissent
Responders,
I used the word “smear” in my post, which was expressly ruled a ban-able offense, by Rick Moran. Go look it up
Responders,
I used the word “smear” in my post, which was expressly ruled a ban-able offense, by Rick Moran. Go look it up
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/#comment-145099
I am so upset that my so-called conservative senator Kay Bailey-Hutchison is supporting the veto override for this bill. I called her office today and was told she supports the sCHIP bill. I asked the woman why??????????? I told her it’s fiscally irresponsible, and was told she would relay my opposition to the senator. Local friends, conservative women, postulate she is in support of it because she wants to run for governor of Texas. If she expects conservative support, she needs to BE conservative! It’s ridiculous that Republicans think they have to pander to the left. If they would just BE CONSERVATIVE, they’d still be in power in the congress!
I used to think they got spinectomies when they went to DC, now I’m thinking both their spine and their brain are removed upon arrival. I think we need to make these weenies telecommute so we could physically keep them in line after we elect them!
re: Teddy Kennedy:
Er…ah, Teddy, i uh, i’d ah, just like to erah, say this to that… (hic) i eruh, “WHEN I RETURHNED MARY-JOE AND THE CAHR WERE GONE..” (hic) oh, erah, where was I, uh… health care… uh…iyah,
Granite #39: Thank you for your very well reasoned thoughts. You have stated it very well
Michelle,
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, and her plans, oh Hillary you got some splainin to do!!!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/15/imus-returns-will-avenge-hillary-s-shameless-exploitation-rutgers-con
OK Watershed, no one is banning you for being liberal but please…
quote one comment from here that accuses the child of lying.
conservativesRus #49:
Both Thank you and
You’re Welcome.
BTW, you are dead-on correct in your post #1.
Watershed…It seems to me you are having trouble with the english language. Rick did not say you’d be banned for using the word smear. He did say you’d be banned for accusing “us” of smearing. At the risk of name calling - I’d say most kids graduating from 3rd grade could understand that concept.
While i wait for Watershed to search for an example…
No one here is accusing the child of lying. No one here has tried to smear the child. You are now accusing us of doing so, knowing Rick has said anyone who says we are would be banned. I assume you want to falsely accuse, get banned and then go back to your lib friends as a martyr. I think you’re stuck with us. Say anything you like here, but be prepared with facts instead of those stupid talking points.
Using a child in this manner is purely and simply child exploitation, which in my book is child abuse. The Democrats have resorted to pimping children for political gain.
We used to have statemen in elected office that had moral courage and character. Now we have characters with ammoral courage. What an utterly sad indictment of our government.
All,
Exploitation and Pandering is the name of the Game…they are not Statesmen, they are Politicians…how many were Lawyers before they went into Politics? anybody have those stats? I know the Clintons are Lawyers, and the Edwards…you know there is a song by the Eagles called “Get Over It” from their Hell has Frozen Over, CD., that says it all for me. Check out the lyrics if you get a chance or the tune is on my player, on my page it is the first tune.
All,
What I am stating is this, we are becoming a Nation of Victims, it is the perpetuation of the Victimization Culture, where we don’t have any personal responsiblity, and we blame everyone else. We are in a period of American History where the Government wants to be our Mommie. Is this what the founding father’s had in mind? If the Republicans don’t agree to the Democrats proposed legislation on this Bill, that means they are against Children getting health insurance coverage- Really? This is about making American people even more dependent on a Government, we don’t have confidence in the first place.
#51
Do you mean find a quote where someone literally says the word
“lie”? To try and sway the debate by being purely literal is a poor tactic. I am saying that there was an assumption on this site that the Frosts were dishonest about their needs. Why? Reason number one: because they had a, quote, “$400,000″ house. Another assumption and quote: “Like why a “working family” in need of government-subsidized health care can afford to send two children to a $20,000-a-year-private school.”
Of course, it turns out they can’t afford to send their kids to private school without the scholarships they get, and their house is NOT 400,000 dollars. Do you see the uninformed assumptions about the Frosts with these questions?
The goal posts have been moved since, to be fair, not only here, on other sites as well. Now the debate isn’t “are they needy”, it’s “are they needy enough”. But the original assumption is still there if you look for it in past threads, and I feel it was unwarranted, and yes, and attack.
#54
I don’t know what you mean by “martyring myself” for my “lib friends”. I am alone here, trying to discuss the situation. That’s all, man.
#53
I will respectfully not mock your intelligence, and maybe you won’t mine. Deal?
The basic premise of responsible people is that they are responsible for themselves. The Frosts chose not to be responsible for themselves. The liberal position is that nobody should be responsible for them…only the government. Last time I checked, we don’t seem to have the best and brightest in our government. At least not as far as the policies and actions are concerned.
It further turns out that the Frosts have a lifestyle not in line with their income. In this blog, much of the discussion revolved around the definition of need. If the people won’t take care of themselves (ie control their spending) why on earth should the rest of us do it for them.
As much as you would like it to, it has NOTHING to do with the child.
Watershed -
The post you linked does not say that the house is worth $400,000, it says that the house and commercial property together are worth around $400,000.
In my mind, the debate is still “Are they needy?” You can’t make a choice to buy cars and commercial property over insurance and then expect others to pay for it. And, ignoring the Frosts altogether, will government involvement in healthcare benefit society and lower insurance costs?
Not a deal - you need to go back and re-read Rick’s post before you make silly accusations.
#62
I think if you look back further, you will find that there were some assumptions that their HOUSE alone was $400,000. I am not making this up. The reason MM went drove past their house was to see if that indeed were true, and she said: “I corrected the mistake that some of these bloggers made in overvaluing the house at $400,000-plus. It’s closer to $300,000.”
#63
Be as disrespectful as you wish then. It’s not my way, but feel free to make it yours.
Watershed:
I won’t get into your whole screed about “uninformed opinions” because most of those arguments you made were dispensed with very early on . . . at least on this site. Shoot, Michelle herself shot down the value of the house in one of her first posts on this subject.
No, what I want to say to you is simply this:
I, and most conservatives I know, have a problem with the fact that either this kid’s parents, or the Democrats, or both basically made a conscious decision to send this kid out into the world and lie for them in their efforts to expand SCHIP.
Yes, I said lie.
The had him go on tv, etc. to say that “George Bush and the eeeeevil Republicans are wanting to take this program away so that poor unfortunate kids like me won’t be able to get the help they need.”
This is a lie right up there with some of the other all-time classics like “Republicans want to take away your kid’s school lunches” or “Republicans want to force your grandmother to have to eat dog food in order to afford her blood-pressure medicine”.
That’s right, I called them lies. Because they all are/were.
GWB and the eeeeevil Republicans don’t want to end SCHIP. They wanted to add $5B to the program to insure that the people the program was intended to help would continue to get that help. GWB vetoed a $35B expansion of the program which would have brought people into the program that were never intended to be there.
What you folks on the left here seem to conveniently leave out of this whole argument is the fact that the Frost kids got the care they needed.
That access to the SCHIP program is now in danger . . . not from GWB and the eeeeevil Republicans, but from the Socialist Democrats who greedily want to expand the program to cover people who really could do without the help - all in an effort to buy yet more votes.
They bought house, commercial property, cars, private education, not health care insurance. All about priorities.
But the fundamental question is the last line of #62. Most of us here answer that question with a resounding NO. We may “quibble” about the exact level that constitutes real need, but we pretty much all believe it’s way lower than the example given.
Watershed -
If you’ll read my comment completely, I was referring to the post you linked in #46 and said so. And that is all I said about it.
But that’s a trivial point anyhow. The house is just one of many places they have put their money instead of insurance.
Plus, I should have mentioned that you seem to have fallen prey to the liberal sound bites that claim this about attacking “the child” and calling the family liars. When, in fact, it is about criticizing the parents for making poor choices and then expecting the govt. to pick up the slack.
Michelle, you are right and it is sad. I personally love to argue. I can’t imagine that someone gets into Congress and doesn’t enjoy the debate. The Reps are being demonized by the left as being against the children and they can’t stand up and fight back and say they aren’t against the children, but against bloated government and corruption, and the poster child the Dems used is a perfect example of the corruption that we are talking about. ]
The only way we are going to win this debate is to use the emotional arguements against them, and we are not going to win if you are the one leading the effort to expose this family for the corrupting force that it is. I want to draw everyone’s attention to a letter that I have quoted here before. This is a perfect example of the kind of non sensical, totally emotional, yet very effective arguement that the left uses
Again, if we are going to counter the we are against the children and with the drug companies, insurance companies, and doctors, nonsense, we have to fight fire with fire, and attack the very attackers they are using.
The Frost’s own a home, a business, three cars, and they send four children to private school and yet they get their health insurance on the government dime, that is called CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION.
Michelle can’t be the only one screaming it, Boehner et al must lead the way and get out front and point out the corrupting nature of bloated government programs.
Here is how I analyzed the whole thing.
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/schip-middle-class-guilt.html
One once protected children by putting them behind one’s skirts.
Jim M #55 - “Using a child in this manner is purely and simply child exploitation, which in my book is child abuse. The Democrats have resorted to pimping children for political gain. “
Both political parties have used children to further their agendas. As a proof point, recall President Bush’s veto of the stem cell funding bill in 2006. He was surrounded on the stage by children, most of whom were so young that they had to be held. Here’s a quote from his speech: “Each child on the stage, he said, “began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. . . . .”
Different issue, but child exploitation nonetheless to further a political agenda. I’m not condoning what the Democrats did with the Frost child, but let’s be honest, they all do it. You might want to google “Bush stem cell veto” and search the pictures; there are some great pictures of the day’s events.
#66
The uninformed opinions “screed” was my actual point. Rather than discuss policy, the initial reaction here and elsewhere was to assume and accuse the Frosts of being dishonest about their needs. That was debunked, and excoriated by almost everyone, including the WSJ.
Your argument is different, and the site has changed its tack and become more like yours since the original attack on the Frosts. That argument being that somehow a lower middle class working family is unentitled to govt help because they haven’t sold their house and cars to become truly destitute and then finally deserve govt help. Hell, I can and gladly will argue against that too. But my point was that that was NOT the original take here.
Like I said, the goal posts were moved.
#69. I have one line to the end of the letter…where they said “we owe it to our children”. I say “Do I owe it to your children - how about if I’m responsible for my children and you be responsible for yours”
And Mike - I agree corruption is the emotional issue that we can use going the other way. I however hope are enough responsible people when it’s explained to them that they would be paying for irresponsible people, they will balk. Not sure though about congress as they seem quite content giving other people’s money away.
Most of us here still believe them to have been dis-honest about the need to expand the program. Some of here still believe them to be dishonest in their need of the program in it’s old form. Goal posts haven’t moved.
Watershed -
Do you really believe that without the three cars they would be “truly destitute?” And have you read a comment here where someone said they should sell their assets and become destitute? What people here are saying is that they should have provided insurance before they bought the extras (no family needs three cars to survive.)
#75
And if they for whatever reason did not buy insurance?
I refer a prior back and forth with a commenter:
My question:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/#comment-144991
The response:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/#comment-145060
Do you feel that way?
Watershed- Our home is much more modest than the Frosts, we only have ONE car per licensed driver in our home, and we can no longer afford to send our children to private school because we CHOOSE to carry health insurance on our family. So for clarification, you feel that I should NOT have any issues with carrying health coverage on my children, AND paying for insurance on the Frost’s children, sending my children to public school so they can send their children to private school while I, as a taxpayer cover their children’s health insurance, and although I live in a house that costs far less than the Frost’s, it is okay for me to pay their children’s health insurance too? Do you think maybe, just maybe, the Frost’s should take a long look at their priorities CONSIDERING their current financial situation? Or are you saying it is okay for me to sacrifice so that the Frost’s can maintain their standard of living? I make choices daily to ensure that the greater good of my family comes first. Material items are great, but are they really a necessity vs. health insurance?
Careful Watershed. That wasn’t my argument at all. Maybe some others, but not mine. Doesn’t mean that I might not agree with the argument, but that was not the point I made.
The Frosts qualified for and got the assistance they “needed” - and yes, “needed” may indeed be debatable. However, they qualified under the rules.
My point is that the left has been rather disingenuous in their argument - like they always are when Republicans want to fund a program. When Republicans go to fund a program, somehow any increase that isn’t as much as the Socialist Democrats want is suddenly attacked - relentlessly - as a “cut in funding”. They know it isn’t true, but their longstanding complicity with the MSM always, ALWAYS, means that these stories are presented to the American public as “The eeeeevil Republicans want to take away (insert Socialist Democrat cause here).”
I for one, am tired of it.
It doesn’t matter which one of these issues we choose to make a stand on, we (conservatives) are going to take our lumps. The encouraging part is that no longer does the MSM have a monopoly on dissemination of information.
The sad part is, we still have an education system that either can not or will not teach economics in the context of either the way things work in the real world, or how economic data can be manipulated for political gain. We do not foster independent thought in our children, but rather the agenda for “education” is set by the highly liberal, and highly Democrat teacher’s unions.
For conservatives, the road is a long, hard one. But we must start fighting the battles now, and we must persevere until the debate in this country is fought in the arena of ideas, not emotions.
Watershed -
But the children were taken care of.
I am sorry but in my book, owning a home, three cars, a business, and sending four kids to private school is not destitute. Once the government starts to provide for more than the really destitute, those that really have nothing, then the government gets bloated. After that, we have corruption, and then our entire society is threatened.
As Michelle pointed out in 46 states, a trust fund baby could qualify for SCHIP. Those are the arguements we need to make. Show some pictures of Paris Hilton et al and say do you want them to receive free health care? That is an arguement that can work, but again, it can’t come from us. Boehner et al need to stop being the wimps they are and debate this matter. I am sick and tired of the Dems demonizing every issue: free trade, health care, tax cuts for the rich, spying on Americans.
The reason this happens is because the Reps don’t stand up and debate the issue.
That is not all that different from what happened in California in 2005 when actor/director Rob “Meathead” Reiner — who had built his political reputation on sponsoring successful initiatives that punitively taxed tobacco to pay for anti-smoking and child advocacy programs — opposed another initiative that jacked up tobacco tax even more to prevent the closure of more emergency rooms and trauma centers. What did Reiner have against more tax on those nasty cigarettes? Because studies proved that MORE taxes meant FEWER smokers, and a shortfall of tax to Reiner’s pet programs. So the guy who played Don Quixote against the tobacco industry turned on a dime because he would have to share the state’s shakedown with another worthy cause!
seems pretty clear cut to me…
Mr. Frost: self-employed… two kids… no insurance… three cars…house, commercial real estate…
kids in private schools (Mr. and Mrs. F. savvy enough to obtain scholarships, etc. to pay for schools)… parents of some means (I suspect rich parents, but nobody seems to be able to report how much money they receive from mommy and Daddy “gifts.”
AND YET…
although Mr. F. seems perfectly capable of finding the resources to accomplish all the above-mentioned…and is still le (i think not willing) to sacrifice some of his freedom to find a 9-to5 that covers his family with insurance?
No watershed it is not about them selling their house, cars etc. it is about the fact that they bought the house, cars etc and NOT health insurance.
They made very poor choices, if they did not have the money to buy all that stuff and buy health insurance then guess what, if you are a responsible adult, you don’t buy all the stuff you WANT so you can buy what you NEED. They can buy all the stuff they want but if they choose not to buy health insurance becasue they over extended themselves with other stuff they wanted then it is not my responsibility to pay for their insurance. There are things I would love to have that I don’t need but I have two kids in college so right now I don’t buy those things so I can pay for their college. The father or mother could have gotten a second job to pay for insurance, they could have bought a smaller house, etc.
It comes down to choices, if you do not make responsible choices you have no right to ask for other peoples money. As I said in another thread even when I and my wife were in college full time, married, making almost no money we paid our bills, bought insurance, paid off the deductible the insurance did not cover when my wife went in the hospital and asked for no help. Before the surgery we usually had enough to go out to eat and to a movie about every 6 weeks or so, after the surgery we had to give that up to pay the bills. We didn’t NEED to go out, we NEEDED to pay our bills. I didn’t care that we had to give that up, I had just faced the prospect of losing my 19 year old wife of 6 months, heavy stuff for a 21 year old, I would have given up everything, taken on another job, quit college for a while, whatever it took to make sure she was taken care of.
I am not responsible for other people’s irresponsibility.
In Minnesota 92% of all SCHIP funding is spent on ADULTS. To say SCHIP is for the kids in Minnesota is a bold-faced lie!!
Watershed -
As to my feelings… Gun to my head, forced to give an answer now without further research…
I would say that in a situation where parents have means but misallocate, buying a large home, commercial property, three cars, etc. and no insurance and then have a child in a terrible, tragic accident; of course the child should not go without care. However, neither should the rest of us have to take care of it. The parents should be parents and make things work. If that then means selling the cars and the commercial property and working full-time jobs and changing their lifestyle, then so be it.
Parents must take care of their children as best they can. It was incredibly irresponsible of the Frosts to fail to provide for this situation in the first place. Perhaps they did not see the danger of going without insurance. But once tragedy struck and they were faced with a difficult situation like this, it was time for them to be adults, to realize that the blames lays on them for the lack of coverage and they now need to sacrifice to take care of their family.
Concerning Amy Ridenour’s comments -
When the wicked witch of the west (Pelosi) was installed as head of the Supreme Soviet, didn’t she say there would be no more pay-as-you-go?
Isn’t that what the Socialists are doing with this S-Chip expansion?
Just my heavily-taxed 2 cents…
Opinion here: We already have way too many social safety nets. Far too many jump into just because they can w/o crashing completely. The downside isn’t bad enough. Kinda like the people who go commit a crime, then sit there and wait for the cops to take them to prison so they can get a bed, meals, heat…
#85
So you would expect a family, after a tragic accident, with two children in major physical and medical need, to literally sell the house they live in and the cars they drive in order to pay for the enormous financial burden that will befall them? Where do they live? What do they drive?
To simply say “they should have thought of that beforehand”, as I have heard in many forms on this site, is to me unthinkably cruel.
(And I should of course not mention the devastating, soul-sucking level of emotional stress that particular idea of yours would have on a family, as I will get flamed for being a bleeding heart. Hell, I assume I already will.)
#83
No-one is claiming the Frosts go out to dinner all the time, they claim that they have a house. They claim that they, in that inimitible American way, tried to start a business. How in any way these things are irresponsible is beyond me.
I know that bringing up the quote from MM where she says something to the effect of she