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!
- Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Months Because Mamilies Were Dropping Private Coverage So Their Children Would Be Eligible For The Subsidized Plan | Right Voices
- Will They Never Learn? « Grand Rants
- Memory Lane: Keith “Left-wing Ranter” Olbermann Rails Against Michael Jackson « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Graeme Frost
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
You are moving them. You said people were accusing the child of lying. Other libs have said the right was attacking the child. I asked you for an example. You have none, and are trying to say you only meant the family.
Watershed -
I didn’t say that they should go without a home or transportation. But perhaps they don’t need three cars, a $300,000 house, commercial property, etc. Changes must be made. They mave have to down-size their home and their cars. They may have to change their jobs. It’s not as though they have no options.
You don’t have to get smug and sarcastic with me. I understand that this is a tragedy and I understand that there will be horrible emotional stress. My younger brother was hit by a car when we were younger, I understand that even without the strain of having no insurance the pain of such a tragedy can be horrible on a family. But this family had the option to provide the insurance and even after the accident they are still living in a larger home than many people here, and own more, nicer cars than many people here. Speaking strictly of this family, it sounds like they had options. Parents will always be expected to sacrifice for their children. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable but I would love to hear what other people have to say. I am open to a rational discussion of this, but the attitude and sarcasm with which you, Watershed, have resorted to speaking to me will not sway my opinion (and yes, my opinion can be changed, I am not as close-minded as you assume I and all others on this site are.)
Additionally, “the financial specifics of this family” are at issue here, in this thread. Because they were the family chosen to represent this bill. They were the ones paraded in front of the media. They have been touted as esactly the sort of family that SCHIP needs to help. And we want to know why our tax money needs to help families who can afford to insure themselves.
#94
Hardly. I have had quite a few examples of this site assuming the family was a well off one trying to pass off as needy, (which of course would assume they were liars),please feel free to go read them.
(Comment 58 is a good start.)
#95
I know tone is hard to read on emails and posts, but please be absolutely assured that I am not being sarcastic in any way. I am honestly sorry if it comes off that way. I am just flabbergasted that a serious suggestion for a family in crisis be one of selling off your only and modest assets.
Hello, Watershed, hello, they were covered by S-chip. Let me repeat, they were covered. The “you meanie conservatives” argument in this case is BS. They were covered, and would still have been covered by Bush’s expanded version.
That said, yes, I personally would expect them to sell one of their three cars (in a 2 driver family.) I would expect their parents to chip in. I would expect them to get a loan. I would expect one of them to get a second job. I would expect parents to get health insurance for their children.
Watershed, you have yet to answer my direct question. While we all feel for someone who has befallen hard times, or experienced a tragedy (as I am sure most of us have), at some point people MUST become responsible for themselves. You berate us because we cannot justify bailing out someone during their “hardships” (knowing that these people continue to live the lifestyle they had prior to the accident). However, our issue is that we feel people must learn to be accountable and responsible for their families (and for themselves) first. No one here would begrudge anyone assistance if they need it, but as I asked you previously, do you honestly expect me to sacrifice for my family so another family that has more material items than I do, can continue to maintain their standard of living? Please explain to me how you deduce this logic?
#95
And I am sorry for your own past crisis. I would downplay it nor wish it on no-one.
Friends?
#97
Watershed, I asked you for a quote where one of us said the child is lying. No one here has attacked the child. No one. You want a civilised discussion – bring the facts.
I love the “bumper sticker”. As for the rest, I’ve hashed out my feelings and was called heartless and cold by the usual suspects. I still stand my ground, insurance is something these people should have purchased.
mike volpe in #69
Interesting that in the letter you posted it says “10 million uninsured and underinsured children” … supposedly in DuPage County …
Well … according to the Wheaton, IL website, which it the county seat of DuPage County, the 2000 census information posted there says the DuPage County population was a little over 900,000.
So … how can someone be expected to believe that the number of “uninsured and underinsured children” there total over 10 times the county population?
Hard to believe someone could be so stupid as to even put out something so easily disproved …
DeseretLover #104:
Good pickup.
Farcical, someone actually writing that the number of uninsured or underinsured children in a particular locality is more than ten times the total population of said locality.
Worthy of a Monty Python deadpan delivery.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
(Oh, wait…! It looks like someone DID make it up.)
This would be hilarious, if this were not part of a deadly serious, mortal struggle for the soul and future of our republic.
And no, I do not believe I exaggerate the seriousness of the stakes.
granite
Since I travel a lot I knew where that county was located, and although it is only about 25 miles or so from Chicago I was pretty certain that number could not be correct.
I can’t always do so but I like to try to get my facts straight before I post. Just surprised no one else had challenged it before that.
#98…???modest assets???
where did you get that?
#99
Like I said before, damn right they were covered. I think they should have been. However the whole point of the debates I have been having is that you, and many others here, including MM, don’t. You are in the tiniest minority, even amongst conservatives, I might add. (The WSJ, etc.)
Hence the argument over what they would do if you had your wish and they weren’t.
At least that’s what I think is going on. I could be wildly off base here!
To number 104. You are misreading the letter. The person says there are 10 million uninsured children in the U.S.
Here is the interesting part. Dupage County is well to do. I suspect that less than one tenth of one percent of that county would even be eligible for SCHIP. In other words, the author and everyone the author knows does well for themselves. They don’t want SCHIP for themselves, but “for the children”. That is why I title my piece Middle Class Guilt. It is like the author and their friends are guilty of being wealthy and they want to do everything possible to help those less fortunate. Except they have twisted things. They don’t want to themselves offer to pay for someone’s health insurance they just want everyone’s tax dollars to do it. It is the elitist point of view. If you aren’t for the programs that help the less fortunate, then you just aren’t compassionate, like them.
Think about the absurdity of their arguement. If Dupage County is affluent, and their rep is supposed to represent them, then why in the world would the Rep vote for something that none of the reps constituents would ever qualify for. Yet, that is exactly what this particular constituent wants the rep to do.
Les,
To be clear, I don’t think it is right for either party to exploit children in this manner. The present situation with the Frost child, however, seems to me to raise the bar for exploitation. Having the child go on the air to read a script prepared by democratic staffers, and now tonight to appear on Larry King, puts exploitation into a whole new realm. Pimping a child for commercial and political purposes.
Perhaps it has to do with the background of the democratic leadership. Harry Reid represents Nevada, where the term “pimp” is a legitimate occupational category. Nancy Pelosi, while hailing from a district where events like Folsom Street don’t raise an eyebrow, is now addressed with the salutation “Madame”. Perhaps they are role playing in true Hollywood tradition.
DesertLover #106:
“I can’t always do so but I like to try to get my facts straight before I post.”
I absolutely agree.
You’re preaching to the choir.
Trouble is, the attitude of so many on the other side of this debate and culture war seems to be, “Don’t confuse me with facts…my mind’s made up.”
#100
I guess we just differ over what standard of living is considered “well-off”. $45K a year with four kids is not “well-off” to me, especially with a major medical trauma added into the mix. In fact in sounds like an “in over your head” kind of situation to me. If it doesn’t to you, and I am not being sarcastic in any way, please believe me, I would imagine the same help schip gave to the Frosts be eligible to you in a similar circumstance.
watershed #108 – I don’t it’s quite so tiny of a minority as you think. In fact, when I ask around, phrasing the question similar to what level should be supported, it’s way way way way lower than what the Frosts have. Admittedly, the people I’ve asked all were gainfully employed so they would be the ones having to pay for it. I suppose if you ask those already getting gov’t support, they would be all for expanding it – and unfortunately, since maybe such folk are already in the majority….
mike volpe said:
In the quoted letter it said: (emphasis mine)
Not an English professor but that sure doesn’t come across to me as meaning in the U.S. as a whole, but rather as meaning in that county.
I can see how you interpreted it as well … so guess we’ll just consider that this “affluent” individual needs to work on her writing skills.
conservatives:
That is the danger with expanding government entitlements. Once a group gets them they are no different than crack. They will never want to give them up. It is much easier for government to expand than to shrink.
I hope that at some point in the campaign, in response to one of Hillary’s plethora of government giveaways, someone uses my favorite Reagan quote.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”
#113 ConservativesRus:
“I suppose if you ask those already getting gov’t support, they would be all for expanding it – and unfortunately, since maybe such folk are already in the majority….”
Your last sentence encapsulates nicely how the fact that, in an election in our republic, every individual’s vote is equal to every other individual’s vote, is both a great strength…and, unfortunately, on some occasions, a great weakness.
#115, if i may chime in,
Yes, conservatives think government can’t do a thing right, and they have spent the last six years at the helm doing their damndest to prove that fact magnificently.
Our founding fathers had it almost right…only landowners could vote. Only those fully invested in success of our country could ensure the future success.
I agree that there has been a huge government expansion under Bush, however the candidate for President will not most likely have been in national office the last six years. If he can distance himself from those policies properly, he can use that quote effectively. Hillary thinks everything can be fixed by the government.
I am in mortgages and her mortgage fix would be an absolute nightmare and frankly the poster child for what Reagan was talking about.
Here is how I saw it…
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/08/hillarys-four-point-mortgage-bailout.html
#117: In no way am I defending the current administration – please however point to successful government programs (I’ll even open it up to state level too) where the project/task was done the most efficient way. I’m hard pressed to find some.
That is the point. Hillary thinks that everything can be solved by government. That is why there is a huge opening for that line.
She can go into a long litany of the ways she will save everyone with government programs, and the Rep will simply respond, you know Ronald Reagan once said,
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”
You also have to play Hillary’s own words back to her. “I have a million ideas but America can’t afford them”….guess what Hillary, then they weren’t good ideas.
#120
You mean ever? Good Lord. You can’t be serious.
Ever heard of rural electrification? Let’s start small.
How about a better one,
“it’s time to end the you’re on your own society and usher in the we’re in it together society”
Last I checked there was a word for that, SOCIALISM.
Don’t worry, my candidate, Rudy, has been doing this and will continue to do this, and by the time the campaign is over the word SOCIALIST will become part of the lexicon. Her words will be used against her, not the least of which is that she helped start Media Matters. That will get plenty of play.
If you follow the link to the cartoon in Michelle’s latest post, and read the comments, prepare to be flabbergasted.
The folks accusing the right of a smear campaign don’t even have the intellectual capacity to understand the idea of buying insurance BEFORE an accident (as opposed to after), and apparently don’t understand the concept of the current value of an asset. At least one commenter there defended the Dems use of the Frosts as an example saying that when they bought their house, it only cost 55k. Uh, irrelevant. Based on the current value of their possessions, they COULD afford coverage. . .it’s a matter of priorities. And yet, some of the liberals continue to delude themselves into thinking that the Frost family is incapable of doing so.
Right, if they bought their house for 55K and it is now worth 400K, then they would have plenty of equity to work with or they could sell it make a pretty penny and move into a bigger place. The reality is that they owe a lot more than 55K which means they borrowed many times against the home because they lived outside their means, and as a result they can’t afford things like health insurance. Because they can’t the government picks it up. That is called CORRUPTION. However, again, we cannot take the lead in saying it.
If we could ever turn this debate into a hyperanalysis of their assets and debts we would win, because they are corrupting the system, however the Reps are too feeble to say anything themselves, and let Michelle and people like me say it for them. That isn’t enough which is why the polls are where they are. They could win this debate. They could crush the Dems but they aren’t fighting fire with fire and allowing themselves to be demonized. What they do is show up in friendly venues like Redstate.com and preach to the choir. They should get some intestinal fortitude and go out into the MSM and call these people for what the are, corruptors of the system.
If you have a home, three cars, a business, and send your four kids to private school, I frankly don’t care how you manage to do it, you are corrupting the system if you then also have the government pay for your health insurance.
MikeVolpe #121
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”
Spot-on correct.
And hilarious.
I’ve more than once heard this line in the company of some of the “Great Lies”:
“This hurts me more than it hurts you.”
“Your check is in the mail”.
“I’ll respect you in the morning.”
“The dog ate my homework.”
But, Reagan’s line is not only funny; it’s accurate!
Attention, everybody (and I have absolutely no financial interest in the following):
For folks who would like additional funny, but accurate fare, I highly recommend the “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” BBC (yes, BBC) series from the eighties.
They skewer government, administration, and bureaucracy.
I guarantee you will be ROTFLYAO.
But, as funny as the series are, they are absolutely accurate.
My advice: avoid eating or drinking while watching the episodes, so you won’t choke while laughung.
P.S.-there is a companion book to each series, essentially consisting of the screenplay, each of which in its own right is extremely funny.
That alone should show you how damned entertaining these series are.
Umm…laughIng, rather.
That is what I am saying. Imagine in the debate re: the health care plans, Hillary goes into her long winded explanation of how the government will do this, and there will be choices, but everyone that isn’t insured WILL be covered by the government, and Rudy simply responds,
“You know Ronald Reagan once said ‘the nine most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government and I’m here to help’ and that is what I think of when I hear about Hillary’s plan.”
It will be what everyone remembers from that debate (sorry to backers of other candidates, I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but Rudy is my guy) and it will make everyone question Hillary’s philosophy.
Watershed (#112) –
I think it’s time this country re-evaluate our priorities. I have thought before that Americans tend to expect too much. Big houses, big cars, many possessions… 3000 sq. ft. (that is what I read their home was) is a large home. I come from a family of six (same as the Frosts) and our home was about 2400 sq. ft. that included such luxuries as 3.5 bathrooms and individual bedrooms for all four of the children. The Frosts could certainly live comfortably in a much smaller, less expensive home.
So tired of these “phony children.”
#123: And you think a) the free market wouldn’t have done it on it’s own, and b) it was done in the most efficient manner and c) electricity is a God given right.
I am sure there are a handful of successful government programs, however there is a plethora of totally unsuccessful government programs. How about we start with Social Security. There is a good one. I think the federal government will be just as good a health care provider as they are a retirement planner. The problem is that small government programs balloon. There is a government program called the Federal Farm Board which was originally created so that the government would buy crops so that the price of crops would be propped up so that poor, helpless farmers wouldn’t lose their farms (does that sound familiar, victims and such). It started as a 600 million dollar program, and is currently projected to reach 171 billion dollars by 2012.
Even in my business, whenever the government gets its greasy meathooks dug too far into the business the only thing that happens is that they wind up contributing to screwing things up. The Illinois High cost law is a great example. I blogged about one particular incident that sums up the situation.
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-business-mortgages-is-frankly-hard.html
More BS. Show me where it is my wish they shouldn’t be covered.
And why shouldn’t they get a second job or sell one of the three cars?
Aloha Guy,
I believe that your wish is that they figure out how to pay for the insurance on their own instead of relying on the government to do it.
I think that if someone figures out how to buy a home, own a business, have three cars, and send four kids to private school, they can also figure out how to buy health insurance for themselves.
It looks like President Bush has become a me-too Republican on this issue — granted that the Democratcs and those Republicans supporting an override are doing even more damage, but we don’t need a president haggling about how much the S-CHIP amount should be raised. Are any of the Republican candidates clearly against this S-CHIP bill, with its subsidies to illegal aliens, in its entirety? If not, maybe the social conservatives won’t be the only ones calling for a third party.
Exactly.
And pointing that out isn’t smearing the family (that the Dems have brought out), nor attacking the children (that the parents have made available), nor wishing the children would suffer.
And I’m sick of the left making those false accusations.
Aha, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. There is another emotional issue. That said, it cannot be posted on a blog and anyone hopes that this will carry us to victory.
Bernie Goldberg wrote a book called “Crazies to the Left of Me and Wimps to the right.”
Unfortunately, he is right. The Reps are wimps. They will sit there and allow themselves to be demonized without fighting back. We cannot be the ones to point out that illegals will be covered by the new bill. That is an issue that will stick with the voters. They have to do it, and they can’t merely show up at a conservative blog and say it. They need to get all over the television sets, airwaves, and newspapers. They need to write editorials, and they need to point out the plethora of corruption that is in this bill. They need to point out that it is not the children they are against, but the CORRUPTION. That will work, but they are too fickle to do it.
Let’s take ‘em one at a time:
“Nothing . . . is solely a Democrat tactic . . .” Perhaps, but you’d be hard pressed to find 1 example of conservatives using these types of sleazy attacks for every 25 the Dems use.
“Your beef is apparently with the political system of communication in general.” No. It’s with the use of propaganda tactics that make some of the N@zi tactics look like amateur efforts. (NOTE: I’m NOT calling anybody a N@zi here – just comparing propaganda techniques – nothing more.)
“You are right, to not to add a billion to something is not a “cut”.” WOW! Think you could teach that lesson to Hillary, Nancy, Harry, etc? /sarc off. They get it – but you’ll never hear them admit that. (See paragraph above.)
“But again, seriously, that is not just a Dem thing, and you’re way too partisan if you say so.” Nope. Don’t think so. In fact, if you’ll do some honest soul-searching (and a little bit of research), the only honest answer is that the Dems EXCEL at these tactics, while Republicans routinely roll over and let them get away with it. If a 1-to-25 ratio qualifies as “not just a Dem thing” or “both sides doing it”, then your own partisianship is showing – drastically.
“And to be honest, I am not quite sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China.” It has everything to do with the situation at hand. And if you can’t see that, then it’s pointless to try to discuss this with you further.
governmentdrone #139:
Well put.
Yet another example of, “If I have to explain it to you, you’ll never understand.”
why are we even having a discussion of expanding a federal program when Social Security is in dire straights, Medicare is in even more trouble. I know, we’re in debt, can’t pay our obligations, let’s buy a new car.
You would think that with as “smart” (open for interpretation) and highly educated these people are that maybe they would reevaluate their tactics rather then just finding a different kid to throw out there.
Just thought I’d quote part of a comment on the 7:30pm update link. These are the people who think we are attacking the Frost children. I guess I missed the blog the day MM told her “rabid crazy fans” to “commit crimes.”
“Smear” anyone?
There is an easy solution to this S-CHIP fiasco, and it comes right out of Mrs. Clinton’s playbook: People will need to buy insurance before they can procreate.
Since they can’t handle this on their own, you know… too many choices…
It is an outrage to exploitany child, let alone a 2 year old, for something like this.
I say “this” because I am not sure what the Democrat’s point is in pimping a 2 year old. The child is already covered under the program in its current version. The Republicans have no problem with renewing the current program. So where is the example at 400% of the poverty level, which would be relevant to the issue being debated in Congress? The fact of the matter is when a family is approaching 6 figures in income, no such examples exist.
This tactic by the Democrats, in addition to highly objectionable use of children as political pawns, has to be one of the most dishonest and disingenuous displays I have ever seen. What is perhaps the most revolting aspect of the whole charade is the utter contempt in which they hold the American people; they must believe that the American people are so unintelligent and out of touch that they cannot figure out what’s going on. Unbelievable.
Perhaps Harry needs to take a look at his recent poll numbers if he needs some feedback on the validity of his assumptions on the collective IQ of the American people.
what will they do next? use unassailable generals to issue their talking points?
If Republicans were smart, THEY would trot out one of those candidates mentioned who would qualify under the proposed expansion. You know, one of those people “who make more than 40% of all the families in America”, preferably one that is 25 years old.
Sadly, Republicans aren’t that smart these days.
In our state, the sales tax was raised on three separate occasions “a penny for the children” (education). After each tax increase, the actual expendatures on education actually decreased!
#139
I can go with you as far as the fact that doublespeak and false framing is a problem; indeed, I already have agreed with you. I think politicians lie like most people eat.
But to just shrug, casually use the word “n@zi”, and say yes, broad brush, it’s ALL dems, well that’s just ridiculous partisan nonsense.
(And somehow I’M the unreasonable one! This site is fascinating.)
#132
Go google Rural Electrification. Seriously. You obviously don’t know a thing about it.
I guarantee you that if asked, every politician, pundit, and political thinker on either side of the aisle who knows anything about the history of this country (even MM, by God) will more than likely say that RE is probably one of the greatest and most succesful government programs in the history of mankind.
I must say, it is senseless being contrary simply for the point of being contrary. This is an easy one. We can agree on certain things like this, and it doesn’t do a thing to change your arch-conservative status. I know for a fact that even the most conservative of conservative politicians do not damn ALL government programs out of hand.
#130
It has already been proven that the Frosts bought their house for $50K, nearly 20 years ago. It’s now worth more. I don’t understand why they should have to sell it. And especially this punishment, that a struggling family should sell the house they lived in for 20 years, AFTER a horrific accident, because you think their house is “too big”.
To paint them as a family who greedily snapped up a huge house, as this site and others most definitely did, is an attack that is unwarranted.
watershed. No, not greedy. The example the Democrats used was illigitimate, undeserved and not a good example. They should have done their homework, and tried to avoid base emotions.
Keith Olbermann just hit a new low. Truly pathetic.
I have not seen anywhere on this site where anyone has come out against the SCHIP program and helping families in need. And the Frost family benefitted from the program in its present form. And they would continue to benefit under the non expanded version the President remains willing to sign.
The real issue here is that the democrats got caught in another whopper. They picked a family as an example for their expanded program who did not need a program expansion for coverage.
They exploited a child for a lie. That lie being that that particular child needed entitlement expansion to benefit. In addition, the example they picked raised more than a few questions concerning their claims. While there is no question their children needed help (and they got it), there does seem to be some strong evidence of abdication of responsibility.
At this point, one really has to question Mr. and Mrs. Frost’s motives here. Again, no one is arguing against a program that helps the working poor. They have benefitted from the program in its present form. So why expose your child to something like this, and why broadcast hospital pictures of that child throughout the Nation?
It is nice that Mr. Frost does not consider his home to be an asset, since it is their home. Unfortunately for the rest of us, our homes will continue to be counted as asets and, if we are not responsible for our debts and obligations, our homes will be taken and sold. I sense there is a major disconnect here on the reality front.
Olbermann’s stunt was truly appalling.
So now they want to reward the Iraq war and Katrina bunglers with a multi-billion dollar contract to provide healthcare to children?
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
“network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house”,no problem.When Michelle drove past the house,she was stalking and harassing.Ah nothing like Liberal logic.Not.
The same logic that can’t tell the difference between questioning the reason to expand an entitlement program, and attacking children.
Since the left is not going to goad anyone into attacking a family that apparently does need help,the left will see that(lack of attack) as proof of their arguement.Totally nuts.
No,I’m not going to watch the Olby vid.How callous and low-life can Olby get to actually show such photographs?I’m no psychologist,but I have to wonder what emotional harm could a stunt like that cause those children.Olbermaniac–The Worst Person Ever.
Has anyone done the math?
$35,000,000,000/4,000,000/12months per year = ~$730/child per month!!!!!!!!!!
D-mn, I could buy some d-mn fine insurance with that kind of money. For the whole famn damily.
Seriously that seems a tad excessive EVEN given it is a government program. Do they really think we are that stupid out here in the heartland? Oh, nevermind…….
USA Today Poll: Mixed feelings on kids’ health insurance…
watershed
Hearing your compassion makes my heart burst. You show such empathy for the family and seem to want to make sure that they are properly cared for in this horrible situation.
I assume you have volunteered your time and services to help care for the children? You have at least sent a check?
The libs call someone who is pro Iraq-War and is all for sending other people there but doesn’t go and fight themselves a “Chicken Hawk.” But what do you call someone who is pro government program and all for spending other people’s money but doesn’t go and help themselves?
I’m just sayin’
Watershed…You and I obviously can’t have an intelligent debate here. You don’t answer the question. There were three question on RE from my side. I will grant you that the program accomplished it’s intended aim – but that does not mean the government SHOULD have done it.
All that aside….I’m still completely baffled by your insistence that their bad planning constitutes my responsibility. Yes, they should sell assets to take care of their family. That is what assets are for. What if their asset was google stock certificates under the mattress that they got on opening day. Should they trade them in for insurance? I believe the answer is YES – but maybe you don’t. As many have pointed out here – this family already is covered so to use them as an example of a reason to expand the program is logically bogus. Many here object to the lie that the program needs to be expanded to help people like this family. Further, once this family was paraded, their situation was/is rightfully analyzed by those asked to pay for an expansion.
Go ahead and call me heartless. I choose to give my assistance to those who can not as opposed to those who will not.
It all boils down to a question of when the public is supposed to bail out a person for their own risky behavior. (and yes, not purchasing insurance is risky behavior). I will grant that maybe there is some level. We could have an honest discussion about what that level might be.
In every field, a very simple relationship exists. Actions lead to consequences. Conservatives learned this a long time ago. It appears liberals refuse to believe this. Without starting from this basic foundational element, then it’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion of what level of assistance is appropriate.
/rant off
Don’t Veto me. What the hell was that crap. Did she get health care before the veto? If the Republicans do not get THAT message across (she received health care before the veto – I had to spell it out – again), they deserve to lose EVERTYHING!
Maybe I should run for POTUS. At least I can still GET IT!
29Victor. Did that for 29+ years, continue in my Church, and volunteer in the State Guard for FEMA disasters as well as state needs. Stop the dodging. There may even be some who have retired after actually working 40+ years. Talk to the subject.
“They exploited a child for a lie.”
Soap: While there have been many Republicans (a political persuasion) in office, unfortunately, there have been far fewer conservatives (a worldview persuasion). The current group by and large is full of Republicans not conservatives. As much as I can wish them all out of office, the alternative in many cases is much much much worse. Not sure how to answer this – would I rather give my country with all it’s liberties away one small step at a time or all in one shot. Unfortunately, that is the set of options we are presented.
#159
Like all internet blogs, we commenters are anonymous. All we’ve got to demonstrate anything real about ourselves and reach others is the words we write.
So, soley going by our words, my concern for the Frost family was met with your sarcasm and scorn. In fact, you sound kind of cruel. (”you make my heart burst”, etc)
Not really a ringing endorsement for compassionate conservatism!
I’m just saying.
Assine fatuity.
Conservatism is compassionate all by itself. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man responsibility (sometimes even by the school of hard knocks) and he’s responsible for himself for a lifetime. Liberalism is not compassionate…keep a person subservient forever.
watershed;
I spent three years in the Peace Corps working on water systems in rural parts of South America. Before that I spent hundreds of hours doing volunteer work with the Red Cross Diseaster Relief Services. I also worked closely as a mentor with a family of Bosnian refugees back in the 90’s for two years. During my volunteer services I met numerous conservatives (and liberals) who were actually doing something. What are your credentials?
Just as I suspected. No credentials. Just lots of compassion.
#160
The reason I said to google RE is that your questions proved that you know nothing about it. The free market is exactly why RE was created. The electric companies did not want to go and give the “hicks in the sticks” electricity, as it was, to them, cost prohibitive.
You are giving rote conservative reactions to all my points, I assume because you think these reactions cover every base. But, I assure you, even the most arch conservative think tank “evil genius” in a bunker somewhere doesn’t automatically dismiss all government programs.
Anyway, I am baffled that you can casually say, as you have, that you would leave a family with no resource after a tragic accident, because for whatever reason, they are without insurance.
Schip is for families that have some means. Many here seem to think that healthcare is only out of reach of the very poor, and that govt assistance is only for the very poor. Which is why I assume everyone here would have this family sell their home before they deserve to ask for help.
The reality is healthcare is so monstrously expensive that the middle class is becoming affected as well. This family is proof of that. Because they “will not” sell their modest assets and become truly destitute before you decide to help them doesn’t mean that they are unworthy of help.
And to be absolutely clear, a Google stock certificate is not a home. I find the comparison absurd. There definitely is a disconnect in our two ideas of what is an acceptable loss.
#167, 168
Wow, I had eleven minutes to prove myself worthy! This is a tough crowd.
I think your resume is great. Honestly. The work you’ve done is truly exemplary.
I am a musician. I teach music, and run my own music school.
Can I remain here on your conservative website blog and still offer my opinions? Hope so.
I observed this first hand from my sister-in-law’s experience as a single mother of two with little or no means. Every effort she made to pull herself out of poverty was stopped by the state social worker. She was not allowed to have a bank account by the fascists because she would have then been able to put some money aside to improve her station. It is all about keeping you down and under the states control. I am all for giving someone a hand-up not a hand-out.
#165
Brief response.
watershed,
Actually was asking for credentals to that demonstrate how much you are willing to help other people with your own time/money. This does not include being coerced by the government through taxation.
#165
Oooh, this is fun. Google “asinine fatuity” and see who’s name comes up!
I will give you a hint. It’s Jesus.
#173
No, you were actually throwning down a challenge to me personally, rather than discuss any of the points I made. But whatever. That’s par for the course here!
#175,
No. I am asking you what are your credentials to lecture conservatives on compassion.
We obviously are not speaking the same language. I hear/read English words but apparently they mean something completely different.
You still didn’t answer my three questions. Or maybe you did. a) You believe the free market doesn’t work. b) You believe Government did it in the most efficient manner, and c) electricity is a God given right. I differ with you on all three of these points.
Further I differ with you on your points about the Frost family. I don’t consider a family that lives in a 3000 sq ft home, and has 3 cars, as a family having only modest assets. A very substantial portion of the people in the world would consider them extremely rich.
I’m all for compassion, and in fact, I think you might be shocked if you knew what many of us here in this blog really do and/or give. I just don’t know where you get off thinking you can demand when, how much and to whom any of us give it. A most arrogant position on your part.
#176
I signed up when registration was open?
#177
We definitely are speaking a different language. This usually happens with people with differing viewpoints like ours. Now I am getting the idea that you think some Americans shouldn’t have electricity. Which just astonishes me.
And astonishment, again, at the idea of considering the Frosts “extremely rich”. And if they are, maybe then the cost of healthcare should be looked at more closely. For if this “extremely rich” family can’t afford healthcare…?
#174….I don’t even know how to respond to that but I’ll try. 1) While google is indeed a tool for searching for things, it is obviously the not always the most dependable resource for information. 2) Assume for a moment Jesus in fact is who he said he was (ie. God), then I’d suggest not being offensive to Him. On the other hand, if you are so smart and all knowing as to be able to conclude Jesus wasn’t who he said he was…then feel free.
There is a “crabs in the barrel” mentality here. By this I mean, when you see a bushel of live crabs, you notice that they keep pulling the one that is nearest to the top back down. Sort of like, if I can’t get out of here than neither will you…
Life is rough and sometimes these things are not of your doing. However, the last time I checked it was the responsibility of the parent to ensure that the health and well-being of their own children.
Lastly and for the umpteenth time…the issue here is the Expansion of SCHIP.
#180
I was kidding, man. It just happened to come up. That’s all.
#174, I rather not. Google isn’t exactly in my good graces these days.
Besides, it won’t change my mind…I’m a Jesus freak!
Hence, the name.
#179…did you read what I wrote? Apparently not so I’ll say it again. I said “a substantial portion of the world…” In my travels, most of Europe, all of Africa, Asia, South America and much of the USA lives way way below that level of assets/standard of living. Yes, much of the world would consider them rich.
#180
And it was C.S. Lewis discussing his conduct.
His giving was so great, it could be seen as asinine fatuity.
Again, just a joke. My goodness.
Keith Olbermann (D)……. enough said
Google “Son of GOD” and see who’s name comes up.
I will give you a hint. It’s Jesus.
If you do not know HIM, you ought to at least keep your ignoracne to yourself. If you do know him, what is your point?
With you 30 – freak here as well!!!