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
Legal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine Explodes
Weekly Standard
» Obama's Talking PointsSister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate Bill
#184
Yes, we Americans are fortunate. This argument is not one that would happen in other countries. That’s a good thing.
#187
See #185.
Asinine Fatuity is an extracted term from the book Mere Christianity…a must have.
Anyway here’s more.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541889/posts
#187, ET AL.
I was making a humorous observation, that my posts here have been dismissed at asinine fatuity, and since Jesus’s name came up with that particular google search, I thought I was in good company. That’s all.
This family is not proof of that. You keep bringing up that canard of having to become destitute. They have a 3000 sq ft house. There is absolutely no reason that they could not sell that house and move into a smaller one to help pay the bills. They could also sell one, get that, one car to help also. That would be responsible. People here have been called selfish and greedy for not wanting to pay for irresponsible behavior. I submit it is the Frost’s who are selfish. They want to keep all their all their stuff and have someone else pay for insurance.
All that aside the main point is the fact that they should not have found themselves in this situation. If you had enough money to buy three cars, a 3,000 sq ft house and investment property had enough money to buy insurance if you had not bought all that. They could have bought a smaller less expensive house and used the money to buy insurance. That is not what they chose to do, they chose to make insurance and their children’s health needs a low priority. If you don’t have the money to have all the stuff you want and health insurance then the responsible thing to do is not have all the stuff. The point is they did not make responsible decisions with their money and it is not the governments responsibility to pay for irresponsible behavior.
watershed, my initial post did not pertain to anything you posted. It was my response to the column itself.
Watershed:
Like Michelle, when the idea that you can use JESUS’ name in vain (although I do get your point very well) you will get some swift (and not always positive) attention.
conservativesRus #180
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.
ConservativesRus – I would suspect that Jesus would be offended by the majority of comments that have been posted here on this topic.
Watershed – I must compliment your tenacity. You are operating under one misconception though, that what is wanted here is an intelligent discussion amongst people of differing opinions on this or any other topic.
#195. Please clarify your statement that you believe Jesus would be offended by the majority of the comments on this topic. Offended by which comments about which topic?
ConservativesRus #196, I won’t spend my time going through all the post on the Frost family and Schip. I’ll just mention one that comes to mind. There were several posts on one of the initial threads on the Frost that talked about the possibility of the Frosts not buying health insurance because Ms.Frost spent the money on an operation to enhance her “ta tas”. Ta Tas was the term that the poster used (not sure I’m spelling that right, and assume it meant her breast). There were then several posts about how nice those purchased ta tas were. Need I go further?
PS, the ta ta example can also go to further my point of the lack of a desire for an intelligent discussion.
#194
Cherry picked, the data was cherry picked I tell ya.
Look, we wouldn’t need Jesus if we were perfect. What I don’t understand is why liberals tend to bring up Jesus when the topic isn’t about Him.
It seems the tactic is used to stifle debate…it does not foster intelligent discussion.
PSS, ConservativesRus, On my soap box, and 30pcs – I would like your opinion? Do you think Jesus would find an open discussion of a mothers breasts as it relates to whether she properly provided for her family by buying health insurance offensive?
This is your example of “majority”?
les, give us all a break and don’t portent to know what offends JESUS. I am a freak to the ‘nth degree and I do not even begin to know what offends HIM. I do defend HIM though.
Les:
Since I didn’t read the posts to which you are referring, I can’t comment on them except to say – I’d guess the comment(s) was/were in reference to priorities. If indeed the allegation is true that she did receive breast enhancement surgery while keeping the kids uninsured, then the priorities are indeed very messed up.
I doubt Jesus would have been offended by a discussion of priorities.
But you go further – to say “…the majority…”. I kinda fail to see how that comment is “the majority”.
les
Are you David Crosby? You must have done drugs to come up with this:
There has never been nor will there ever be an “open discussion” on a woman’s breast on this blog – evah. The discussion is on S-ghip. The fact(?) that someone made the comment is not the topic. Some people say stoopid stuff here (as noted above).
#201 and 202, my sentiments exactly.
Les: In fact let me go further. From the Gospels and Epistles that I read, I’m quite certain Jesus would approve of a discussion of priorities. at the risk or not giving the whole context, I’ll quote “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul”…A little snippet on priorities.
If she did have the surgery and if it was elective, in other words no medical need for it, then it is a perfectly valid point to bring up in a discussion about priorities.
If any of the comments were prurient in nature then I would agree they have no place in the discussion but if the comments are directed at what the parent’s priorities were then they are valid.
30pcs #199, typical response, I cherry picked one post. Why can’t you just be honest and admit that there have been some less than God worthy posts on this topic.
I don’t believe watershed brought up Jesus’ name to stifle debate. He made one aside which was not meant to spur on further discussion on that point. It was the more conservative of posters who ceased on that point and drew Jesus further into the discussion.
Les, read 201, 202, 205 and 206…there is no need for me to add anymore than what has already been stated and addressed, rather appropriately I might add.
/sigh
Watershed, you amaze me. It’s obvious you can read, but it’s just as obvious you have no reading comprehension skills. I did NOT use the word “n@zi” casually, but with a very real purpose – which was well explained in the post, nor did I say that ALL dems engaged in this type of propaganda – just that the dems excelled at it, vs. the Republicans.
Watershed, until you are prepared to begin actually reading and comprehending what others are posting, I just can’t see any further point in trying to engage you in rational debate. After all, this is the third post of mine in this thread that you have done this with.
I enjoy a good debate with a thoughtful liberal. However, I abhor this type of discussion where positions are consistently misrepresented, twisted and skewed because your arguments about the main point of discussion simply won’t hold water.
As always it comes down to personal responsibility and making wise choices with your life. This, the mortgage crisis and even immigration comes down to people doing what the law requires of them or what common sense demands instead of acting as though real life is a game where you can simply draw the “Free Handout from the Govt” card and advance past go to collect your check. I have no problem with a govt program to help people truly in need who reach the place they are out through no fault of their own. Those who make bad choices must live with what happens next.
ROFL!!!!
Pot, kettle, black.
Hey les,
Unlike what you may have learned from “The Jesus Seminar” or other such claptrap, Jesus was NOT a liberal or a hippie.
You might try actually reading and comprehending the Bible.
I would like to highlight how if you look past the smokescreens being laid by the far left of Michelle attacking a helpless child, the argument against S-CHIP has been very well put together.
There is no reason for the government to subsidize the health care of a family due to lifestyle decisions. If you make the decision to finance a luxury car instead of pay for your families health care premium, this is no ones fault but your own.
One way that the government can assist in preventing families from making poor decisions is through public service campaigns.
I know I’m going back a ways here and the topic has changed courses a bit, but if I may, I would like to try, once more, to understand watershed here.
Watershed (#130) -
The amount the Frosts paid for their home is irrelevant and I don’t remember ever painting them as greedy for purchasing their house in the first place. The issue is also not that I think that their house is too big. The only thing I said about the size of their house is that it is beyond the necessary size they would need to live comfortably. To sell their home and get a smaller place in order to take care of their family (yes, after a horrific accident) is not, I think, outside the bounds of what a family can reasonably be expected to do in order to take care of the expenses of said tragedy. Question: Do you think it unreasonable for a family to make sacrifices in hard times, even if it is to deal with a situation outside their control? And, is living in a smaller house a cruel punishment?
If you honestly believe that this or any family need not make sacrifices to take care of each other, then I suppose that there is nowhere for us to go in this course of discussion. Because this doesn’t seem to be a discussion of the degree of sacrifice, you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that because the accident was so horrible, they shouldn’t have to make any changes in their life or situation to take care of it.
I would also like to say to you, watershed, that I have read some of your more recent posts and I would like to refer you back to a comment you made to me yesterday –
While I agree with you that tone can be difficult to discern in written discourse, sometimes the tone is inherent to the things being said. Are you still claiming to be free from sarcasm in your posts? Because some of your comments sound otherwise, and I notice that you have levied an accusation of sarcasm at another commenter.
Speaking for myself, I welcome your prescence here, insofar as it encourages debate and gives people a chance to look at issues from multiple sides. However, resorting to sarcasm, name-calling, insulting, etc (and I am not accusing you of all of those or claiming that you are the only person ever to use sarcasm) does not further useful discussion in any way. Judging by things you’ve said before, I assume you would agree with me on that.
This is the very crux of the position those opposed to SCHIP are taking, and is entirely justified. These sorts of sacrifices are made by families every day. That’s the way it should be. We make choices, and sometimes sacrifices, to take care of those we love.
Apparently, some believe that the responsibility to care for loved ones belongs not to them, but to millions of other taxpayers.
#214
When I wrote that, I meant I wasn’t being sarcastic with YOU.
If someone else got some mild sarcasm, and I honestly don’t recall, then let them bring it up.
Again, I come in here with you all framing me as a KOOK MOONBAT, so to throw the “impolite” card at me is a little over the top.
As for the rest, I think that a sacrifice like moving out of the house you own and have lived in for 20 years (and I think that was even mentioned on Graeme Frosts address, if anyone read it) is just way way too much to acquire what I think should be something as necessary as healthcare. Someone previously compared it to cashing in a google stock certificate. Do you? I do not. We might differ there, but that’s how I feel.
#209
OK, you very carefully and considerately used the word N@zi when describing how most, not all, democrats talk. Sorry I misunderstood the nuance there.
Good Lord.
Glad I finished the coffee already…
…busted!
#194 et al
I bet dollars to donuts that Jesus liked to laugh. I was trying to make a light hearted moment here in this rather heavy group of comments. As many here are fond of throwing out the “reading comprhension” jab, I would dare say this is a good bunch of people who would know what the heck I was talking about, and maybe even (gulp) laugh about it.
#207
Thanks. Are you the only other MOONBAT here, by the way? I haven’t seen many. It’s like an echo chamber.
#195
Thanks again. (I read from the bottom up.)
I hope that isn’t true, but I find that the further I disagree with someone, the more agressive and scornful the board gets.
Hopefully we realize we are all Americans here, who have the blessed right to disagree on this and many other topics without losing our sense of unity.
/slaps head
Still haven’t bothered to really read that post with any comprehension skills apparently.
BTW, and I could be wrong, but I don’t recall anybody in this thread calling you a “kook moonbat”. And I really don’t have the time/inclination to review the posts, but if you WERE, it happened so rarely that it hasn’t stuck out in my mind.
So maybe, just maybe you would like to lose the “persecution complex” and debate facts as they are presented rather than deflecting to side issues as you seem wont to do.
Or are liberalism and the ability to stay on topic and debate issues rationally and in the arena of ideas – not emotions, mutually exclusive?
I said it earlier, and this time I mean it – I’m done responding to your posts on this thread until you can stay focused, stay on topic and debate ideas.
Watershed (#216) –
When in the course of our back-and-forth have I “framed you as a kook moonbat“? I certainly don’t recall calling you names or assuming anything about you. I have only responded to what you said and asked you questions when I was unsure of your position. Please don’t put your stereotypes on me. Just because I am a proud conservative on a conservative blog doesn’t automatically make me some sort of liberal-hater on a witch hunt. And that goes for everyone here. It’s tough to keep up with everything written here, it’s possible that someone else wrote you off in the manner you pinned on me. But, before you claim such generalizations, it might be wise to offer proof. Please at least offer me proof of how I did this to you before you say such things in a post directed at me.
The closest thing I can remember to saying anything about you personally is a comment I made about you (and liberals in general) assuming me (and conservatives in general) to be close-minded. While I admittedly do not know whether or not that applies to you, I did feel that your comments seemed to indicate it. Additionally, I do consider it a fact that it applies to liberals in general as it is a sort of “catch phrase” that I hear quite a bit in my personal encounters.
In response to your final question:
I do feel that there is obviously personal and emotional attachment to a home which makes it far different from a stock certificate… in that sense. In the sense that it is an expendable asset without which they could live happy, normal lives, the two are quite similar. While I do (from personal experience) understand the emotion attached with one’s home of 20 years and the sadness that can go with selling it, when it comes down to what matters most, family ranks way above possessions. And a house, no matter how long you’ve had it or how many memories are attached to it, is a possession. I do understand what you are saying about the tragedy of having to sell one’s home on top of the tragedy of a horrible accident. And believe me, I certainly understand how hard that would be for a family. You are obviously not out of line to think so. But when it comes down to it, I still believe that it is a reasonable sacrifice for a family to make in hard times. Can you at all understand how I could think that? I in no way mean to belittle the tragedy this family has already experienced, it is truly terrible; I just feel that a family may have to endure some lifestyle changes before things can get better, it may suck but it’s not unreasonable to me.
gov’tdrone. I think I can explain (although I don’t get it). Liberals and Conservatives think completely differently. To a conservative, all actions and consequences are somehow tied together. If I don’t pay my electric bill, the electricity goes off….and this seems like a logical outcome to the conservative. To a liberal, every event is completely devoid of any relation to any other event. So if I don’t pay my electric bill..I’m left wondering what the price of corn will be.
Dem’s strategy: Another week, another kiddie. Michelle does NOT need to apologize for going after the Frosts, and taking a principled stand on this issue, and no patriot should either.
Bottom line: Dissenters need to quit crying and throwing sob stories at us for sympathy (one way or another). They need to learn the hard way that there are real consequences for their irresponsible life choices.
You want to know how far Dems will go to make their case, check out a comment I got on my own blog…
They will not only quote from Jesus but twist his philosophy into a pretzel. Of course, when Jesus said that everyone should help the weak, he meant that as matter of personal choice not as a matter of forced government taxes. In fact, if everyone followed the philosophy of Jesus we wouldn’t need government entitlements because charities would be able to take care of all of the weak. That said these are effective emotional arguements that work on those without the political sophistication of most political junkies.
When the average American hears that Jesus said we need to help the weak and SCHIP helps the poor kids, do you think that American understands entirely what Jesus’ philosophy is? Again, though, if it is only bloggers like us exposing this, then it is useless because that isn’t enough. We have the stats on our side, we have the logic, and we even have the right emotional issues, corruption and illegal immigrants, however our pols need to make this arguement not Michelle Malkin, even if she is doing a wonderful job of doing it.
Here is my entire piece
#222
I say we disagree on your theory that only democrats excel in some N@zi-ish propaganda techniques. I went as far to say that politics in general has many shades of doublespeak and false framing, but won’t say that its just dems. I think that’s a debate.
You say I literally can’t understand what your reading, and threaten to stop talking with me because like all liberals, I guess, I’m really stupid. (See post #222, “are liberals and ideas mutually exclusive?”)
What was that about persecution?
#223, (and #222)
Don’t be disingenuous. This site and it’s hostess uses the word MOONBAT quite frequently. And you are ALL on this site well aware of that. I think she even coined the term. I know going in its how I am thought of.
Anyway,
I think the prospect of selling your house so that your kids can remain in the hospital after a car accident “sucks” too. Way, way, way too much. Not an acceptable loss in my opinion. We differ there.
ROFL. Very well put cR. Unfortunately it really, sincerely appears that is EXACTLY how the liberal mind works – at least in general.
Trying to engage Watershed (or just about any other liberal)in thoughtful debate centered on the issues is like slamming your hand in a car door – it feels so good when you stop!
#222 & #227
Judging by the Dems low numbers, they aren’t that proficient in propaganda techniques, period.
Dare I say: perhaps they could learn something from old Chancellor Goebbels? They need all the help they can get.
Several days ago there were comments by posters on the actual costs of health insurance available to the Frosts. I seem to recall something like $450 a month or so. About the same as a car payment on one of their three cars. We require drivers to be insured, why not parents? Aren’t the kids more valuable than the cars?
How about this? Should they sell one of their three autos before asking the public for assistance? Can you answer that without going off on a tangent?
Watershed –
Saying that Michelle uses the term moonbat in her postings does not equate proof that anyone in this thread has pigeon-holed you as a kook moonbat. You are using a generalization to back up your generalization.
Although shutting people down completely is not a tack which I prefer, I am inclined to agree with governmentdrone here – I cannot respond to unfounded posts where you don’t seem to actually read and understand what the people are saying/asking.
Thanks for proving my point. What I said was:
See? Quite a difference between what I actually said, and the wild accusation you threw out there. No persecution. No accusations of stupidity hurled at you. Just a complete and utter lack of reading comprehension displayed on your part. Either that or a willful disregard for what is actually being said.
I’m left to wonder, are you looking to pick a fight with the posters here, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
Mmm. Yes. But I still don’t recall that particular “epithet” being hurled at you – as you claimed.
What say you watershed? Care to throw out some more baseless charges?
Let’s see…:
Setting up straw men which one can then attack.
Unilateral shifting of the focus of discussion, when stumped for an effective, valid debating argument or answer for a posed question.
“That’s not what the question should be here. The question should be…”
“…taken out of context…”
Not answering the question posed, and/or answering a question not asked.
“…that’s how I feel…”
Name-calling; impugning one’s opponent’s decency, compassion, chracter, etc; and other personal attacks.
Playing the victim when one hasn’t been attacked…see straw man, above.
I’ve likely missed some items.
Sound familiar to anyone?
Don’t feed the troll
AlohaGuy,
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve always tried to make that a rule for myself, but somehow I got wrapped up in this one.
My apologies to all here for “feeding the troll”.
#228: Let’s make this perfectly clear. It’s entirely reasonable to take money from others who have less than the Frosts and give it to the Frosts so the Frosts can stay in their 20 year home. Makes perfect sense to me.
Although this complete issue started as a rebuttal to the expansion of the SCHIP program, I think the Frosts (and now Wilkersons) are perfect examples of why the program needs to be shrunk, not expanded. Action, consequence.
Off Topic Kinda: I haven’t seen George Soros giving his money to help the poor (maybe he does and I don’t know about it and that’s ok and good if it’s the case) but I do see his minions out claiming they know that how I’m supposed to help the poor, and they will handle it for me. Heck, they will even define for me what is poor and in need of help. (As if I couldn’t and don’t handle that on my own). Call me cold and cruel if you like but I tend to help people who at least make an effort to help themselves. Those that make no effort, receive little help. In fact, I think there is a fantastic example of this for those who care. Jesus healed those who got up out of their chair and came to see him. He didn’t just walk down the street randomly doing miracles. Of course that might be a little too religious for some and a little too deep for others, but that’s my example as it relates to helping people. Can’t think of a better example.
Hey Whitewater,
your starting to sound a little paranoid. Stay as long as you like…people refusing to speak with you has less to do with you being a liberal and more to do with beating a dead horse….
Enjoy the ride!
watershed
Have you purchased health insurance, or do you expect the government to take care of that for you?
Speaking in general now, I am noticing that the chasm between the sides seems to be based on the concept of what Americans are entitled to. I see it everywhere and ad campaigns are based around it… the concept that we deserve so much.
The Declaration of Independence lists as an inalienable right, “the pursuit of happiness.” Never are Americans promised happiness itself. Because happiness is not a right, it’s a privelege.
Here’s where I become the heartless monster: sometimes screwing up (like not thinking of your family first and providing them with insurance before tragedy strikes) takes away that happiness. Do the Frosts now have a right to stay in their comfortable home of 20 years? No. They have been priveleged to have SCHIP take care of their children and allow them to do so.
From what I have read on several blogs, some people consider it ridiculous to think a family should give up some of their assets like an extra vehicle and a large home to take care of the expenses they have caused for their family, because they deserve a large home and three cars. That must be the argument, since they clearly don’t need a large home and three cars to survive, or even to live comfortably.
So, can this chasm ever be bridged? Probably not. People who think Americans are entitled to possessions may never understand people who think that those possessions are priveleges that a family can live without. (And perhaps should live without if that’s what it takes to fix things after they have failed to provide for the future of their family.)
Good one feebiebabe
watershed
The family tapped the equity in their house in order to purchase two large SUV’s and a pickup truck. One of the SUV’s was a replacement for the one destroyed in the crash.
So the family clearly CAN come up with money, for things it wants. The problem is, it does not want to spend money on health insurance. It’s not “mean” to point this out, and it’s not “attacking” them.
Flenser – you are forgetting – in the liberal world, everything is floating, including the meaning of words. (Therefore, “mean” and “attack” have a variable definition which applies when they want it to.) There are no absolutes. Of course, just try that with a liberal’s paycheck and see how fast they think absolutes are indeed important.
#234
I am not sure where the miscommunication is. “Framing” is not the same as “hurling an epithet”. I never said anyone “hurled an epithet”, I said that this site “frames” liberals as MOONBATS. Look up the term, and also feel free to find where I said that anyone specifically “hurled the epithet” MOONBAT at me. I was discussing the atmosphere of the site, and how liberals are “framed”. Doesn’t that make sense?
In your post, you even agree with me that I am seen as a KOOK MOONBAT going in due to that frame. (”Mm. Yes,” you responded.)
I am also not sure what this has to do with anything about schip. I am not a “troll”, I am genuinely debating a topic I feel strongly about.
Actually, I think throwing the word troll around is an easy out.
#232
I am glad you don’t run with that term. You surely understand, posting as a liberal on a site that calls liberals MOONBATS, where I can see how maybe that frame might stick?
Here’s my first post on both MOONBAT and schip. Maybe that can clear the air.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/15/s-chip-and-the-democrats-human-shield-campaign/#comment-146112
Sorry. My bad. Meant to cut off your quote before it got to “I know going in its how I am thought of.”
Actually, I think again this is a perfect example of your willingness not to actually read and comprehend what is being said, but to force your own projections on to the rest of us. If you read and look carefully, the term “Moonbat” or “Kook Moonbat” is usually used for those that deserve it, i.e., the Cindy Sheehans, Jesse MacBeths, etc., who truly are over the edge. Also those that exhibit signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome – you know the type – everything is always “Chimpy McBushitler” and/or the “eeevil Rethuglikkkan’s” faults.
It is not a term that is generally applied to the run-of-the mill liberal.
Just a tip here watershed. You might actually like posting to this blog and getting some reasoned debate if you will simply do this:
1) Leave your preconceptions at the door.
2) Read the posts carefully.
3) Respond to those posts appropriately.
4) Take care not to misquote those that you are debating.
5) Please bring logic and reason to the debate.
Unless of course your intention is to be a troll. In which case, you may find yourself being ignored before too long.
#164
No, your compassion wasn’t met with scorn. The fact that you claim compassion but then express that compassion by commenting on a blog about how compassionate you are and then expect other people to actually be the ones to help the family while you sit at home and feel good about being so compassionate. That’s what I scorn.
Compassion without actually doing something to help only makes yourself feel good about yourself. And it doesn’t do a damn thing to help the people you say you feel compassion for.
Don’t know if I’m the first to point this out but in #217 watershed said:
So this is what your argument boils down to? You think that a child’s health isn’t worth loosing a house for? That apartment living is worse than watching your kid suffer? And you’re going to lecture me on compassion?
I’m a parent, I would give everything I have to keep my kids safe and healthy. I figure they’re worth it. Maybe that’s where eveyone on this thread differs from you. I really don’t care about material posessions next to the health of my kid.
#250
No, the choice isn’t get healthcare or lose your house, its use Schip or sell your house. Remember?
Of course if the Frosts had to make the horrific decision to sell their house to get their kids hospital care (which I still cannot truly believe is a popular argument here, it boggles my mind) I am sure they would have. I am not asking anyone to choose. The people who think this family shouldn’t have schip are. Get it?
I think a family that lives in a house should get every chance to keep it, even after a horrific accident. I am crazy like that.
watershed
No, I don’t “Get it.” I don’t see what’s so earth shattering about selling your house, or working an extra job or two, or giving blood, or begging on the street to take care of your kids. People have been doing it for a long, long time. What I do think is earth shattering is that you see it as such an “horrific” situation and yet have you sent that check yet?
You think that it’s just a wonderful thing to compell other people against their will to pay for Frost parents failure to prepare you think it’s compassion. But is not compassion to give someone doesn’t belong to you. It’s just a quick way to feel good about yourself.
If it was you taking care of the family (which it’s not) then you could be called magnanimous, but you’re not. You’re just deciding what should be done with money that you didn’t work for, that you didn’t earn, that belongs to other people, while you do nothing to actually help the family. Get it?
P.S. You’re the one who said that taking care of a sick kid properly wasn’t worth losing a house. Remember?
#248
Your condescension is truly unecessary.
Try this: liberals are Americans who just happen to have different opinions than you. That’s all. And there’s millions of us. KOOK MOONBAT, despite your feeble attempt at explanation, is a slur and insult against millions of your fellow American citizens. (Flame away.)
And I am, and will be, happy to post here without your advice, and without your blessing as a “good” liberal.
#252
Schip was implemented to prevent families from being put in a situation wher they would have to sell their house, or “beg on the street”. I think that’s a very good thing. For the life of me, I don’t see why that is under debate.
#254
SCIP is not at issue. The expansion of the program is. People are questioning the Frost’s choices because American families even less well off make different choices all the time – and don’t ask the governmetn to pay for them.
#255
I’m sorry, maybe that’s your issue, (which I also disagree with), but one of the aspects of the many debates I have been having is whether Schip should be shrunk or even is necessary at all. Feel free to look through the posts.
Watershed:
I give up. You are here with your preconceived ideas as to how “we” think about liberals.
The only thing I can think of at this point is that you ARE one of the extreme types I mentioned above. If so, then I suspect it won’t be too long before you reveal your true colors. If not, then I’m having a difficult time understanding why you are saying some of the things you’re saying.
Plus you still exhibit that uncanny ability to half-read, or read-into posts that which you think or wish were there, instead of what is truly there.
BTW, I don’t feel I said anything condescending. But if it will make you feel better, perhaps I could work something up, like “Go put on your tin-foil hat”, or “Why don’t you go drink some more kool-aid”, or even “Go away and let the adults talk now”.
See, I haven’t done that. That would be considered “flaming” as well as “condescending” and I can’t recall having done that to you at all. All I have tried to do is to get you to honestly read my posts and answer them. All it has been met with is mis-quoting, mis-representation and simple attack.
Goodbye watershed. I had hoped to engage you in some thoughtful discussion on SCHIP and how the program was basically functioning as intended, without the necessity to expand it as the democrats wish. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way, but at least now I know that honest, reasoned discussion with you doesn’t seem to be a possibility.