The best thing about being a right-winger in the US today? Never a single tiny consequence for lying / being wrong.

On the left, though -- be correct (about Iraq, etc.) never get heard from again.

Um, ok, but this reminds me of an adage from the early days of the blogosphere:
Please don't feed the trolls.

Seriously. Talking about behavior like this is a reward to them. Cut off their oxygen, please.

Cazart: Usually I do (and get plenty of grief for it). But this latest example is just so fantastically off the reservation that it really deserves some attention. It's really unbelievably disgusting and pathological.

Well, these guys believe in a robust defense of country and home. I'm sure Malkin and her garbage sifters would respect some use of force if it befell them while trespassing.

Yeah, this one is going to bring out the Freepers in droves. Their lies can be entertaining though. Sort of like watching the Three Stooges club each other over the head.

While in most cases I'm sympathetic to the "cut off their oxygen" argument, in this case I'm in favor of giving them all the oxygen they want, because it looks like they are setting fire to themselves. Almost everyone (including Republicans) is going to see their conduct for what it is. Let Malkin and her friends flame out in public.

Being a member of the loony, rightwing means never having to say "I'm sorry" and apparently means never having to be right on any subject.

Rathergate was their crowning achievement, but in a way it was sort of their undoing as well. They enthusiastically embraced that model of what bloggers ought to be doing, which as Kevin points out has been fruitless, instead of the vastly more successful Kos-model.

To "prove" that the Frosts are secret zillionaires who don't deserve government help with their medical bills.

Uh, Kevin, maybe they brought this on themselves? If liberals are going to use children as political props for the left wing agenda, then the kids are fair game. In any case, Michelle Malkin has already exposed the family as pretty wealthy so conservative bloggers have once again exposed another phony poor family liberals are trying to pawn off as desperately needing welfare.

michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graeme-frost-and-the-perils-of-democrat-poster-child-abuse

"I think the property was valued at around $225,000. I dunno, I have no sympathy for them. Looks like they have more than enough money for luxuries they won’t sacrifice, yet they expect everyone else to sacrifice for them."

Not sure why I'm responding to Al...

But. Their property was valued at $225,000? Is that supposed to be a lot? Around where I live that might buy you a 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom house with 1100 square feet. One reason I'm still renting an apartment that size instead. And I make way more money than the Frosts. Still, paying for my own healthcare (instead of through my employer) would be quite a burden on my finances.

wow, and right on cue, there goes al, once again confirming his gullible jackassery. gobble gobble those little 'factoids', al. yummmmmy.

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their “lavish house� sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

Shame. Parody Al's not even trying anymore.

$225,000? Around where I live that would buy a nice modest house, assuming you had access to a time machine.

No, Al, kids are never "fair game." Anybody with a sense of human decency knows that without having it s-p-e-l-l-e-d out for them.

That you have no sympathy for them only indicates your complete lack of same. Now go troll Yglesias like a good boy.

Now, the $64,000 question: If the family has been proven to be "poor," would the kid have been eligible in Maryland for CHIP assistance BEFORE the Democrats tried to grossly expand the qualification requirements?

What scares me is people like Malkin actually going to the Frost's home and their place of business. Shouldn't there be some laws about stalking people?

I'd love to see the Frosts take out a restraining order on her or sue for defamation of character.

These crazy wingers won't be satisfied until someone actually gets hurt from their stupidity.

And let's get off the indignant high horse around here. If the Republicans had hauled out an eleven-year-old to push their policies, like some kid whose Dad had died in the World Trade Center, you would be spitting tacks about it.

teresa,
agreed. if i was a target of malkin's bullshit, i'd immediately file a complaint with the police that some deranged rightwinger was stalking me, questioning tenants about my beliefs and encouraging further harassment of me and my family.

the next step would be to ensure that my gun is fully loaded.

"Now, the $64,000 question"

Why would that be a "$64,000 question?"

"grossly expand"

Nice bit of partisan drivel. Got anything substantive to say?

And Al is right. When a political party drags out some kid, cancer victim, wounded soldier, or little lost kitten out as a political spokesman, they'd better be ready to stand up to some examination.

If the Republicans had hauled out an eleven-year-old to push their policies

heh. oh yeah, remember those snowflake babies... and let's not forget young master noah:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 - The battle over Social Security has been joined by an unusual lobbyist, a 9-year-old from Texas who has agreed to travel supporting President Bush's proposal.

The boy, Noah McCullough, made a splash with his encyclopedic command of presidential history, earning five appearances on the "Tonight" show and some unusual experiences in the presidential campaign last year. He beat Howard Dean in a trivia contest at the Democratic National Convention and wrote for his local newspaper about his trip to see the inauguration.

"He's very patriotic and very Republican," said Noah's mother, Donna McCullough, a former teacher and self-described Democrat. "It's the way he was born."

Why would anyone take Malkin seriously? Isn't she the one who is all for internment of everyone with the wrong tone of the skin?

As for this kind of wingnut zeal, the best thing to do is not to ignore it but encourage it more. We should be hiding exploding Easter eggs everywhere for these investigative geniuses. Let's enable their hysteria into the outer limits. Sooner or later they'll be swift-boating some newborn infant. More and more people will become aware of their lunacy and will reflexively puke at the mention of Limbaugh/Malkin.

Help push the rock downhill I say.

"And let's get off the indignant high horse around here."

Are you asserting that the disgusting behavior by Malkin and her ilk is not, in fact, worth getting indignant about? That this child and his family are fair game? If so, why?

"If the Republicans had hauled out an eleven-year-old to push their policies"

Moron, they have done this repeatedly, as has the Bush administration, as have politicians throughout history. Oddly enough, nobody here was "spitting tacks about it" the last few times Republican politicians did this, nor did we try to slime the children used as props nor did we go after their families.

I repeat: nice bit of partisan drivel. Got anything substantive to say?

"Isn't she the one who is all for internment of everyone with the wrong tone of the skin?"

Not quite -- it's the wrong religion that she's concerned about.

And let's get off the indignant high horse around here. If the Republicans had hauled out an eleven-year-old to push their policies, like some kid whose Dad had died in the World Trade Center, you would be spitting tacks about it.

As Atrios points out the Republicans already hauled out a nine (not even an eleven) year old to push their policies, and as I recall not one Democrat said boo about it. And certainly no prominent liberal pundit ever declared the child "fair game" as Mark Steyn said about poor sick Graeme. Let us recall back in 2005:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 - The battle over Social Security has been joined by an unusual lobbyist, a 9-year-old from Texas who has agreed to travel supporting President Bush's proposal.

The boy, Noah McCullough, made a splash with his encyclopedic command of presidential history, earning five appearances on the "Tonight" show and some unusual experiences in the presidential campaign last year. He beat Howard Dean in a trivia contest at the Democratic National Convention and wrote for his local newspaper about his trip to see the inauguration.

"He's very patriotic and very Republican," said Noah's mother, Donna McCullough, a former teacher and self-described Democrat. "It's the way he was born."

oh harry ... al .. yoohoo. i'm waiting for your insightful commentary. come on, boys. there are childrens out there to destroy.

"And Al is right."

You do realize that you're agreeing with a parody, don't you?

"When a political party drags out some kid, cancer victim, wounded soldier, or little lost kitten out as a political spokesman, they'd better be ready to stand up to some examination."

The party? Sure. Checking to make sure that the story is true? Okay. Sliming the kid and his family dishonestly? Nope.

Better yet would be to substantiate each claim above:

Did they REALLY pay only $55K for a 3K sq. ft home sometime back, when the neighborhood now apparently supports a $400K pricetag?

Does the family NET or GROSS only $50K or less annually, despite the home-owned business? If so, health insurance thru the business would be prohibitive.

Are the scholarships equally available to others in their situation?

I'm not trying to punch any holes in these claims. I AM trying to compare the use of them to the completely baseless (and/or shoddily researched) arguments I just read on the links to Nat'l Review, Powerline, MichelleMalkin, Wizbang, etc..

PaulB:

Let me explain it a bit further. Odds are you have no idea what the real controversy on this issue has been.

The Republican problem with the bill was expanding the eligibility to people who were either too old or too wealthy to normally need such assistance. Liberals pushing this were quite clear in various writings that they were using "the children," and extending the program up into the upper middle class, as a wedge for widespread socialized health care.

If this family is indeed in a hard way, and if they are already eligible for assistance under existing rules, then this family would have gotten what they needed from the original legislation, and the entire Democratic-generated controversy from their standpoint is moot.

Got it?

wait, so instead of spending their entire income on healthcare, the family is investing in a business, taking advantage of a program to alleviate that healthcare to grow the economy? I thought republicans were all in favour of investing in business? should the family shut down the business and put people out of work?

and yesm any spokesperson is fair game if it's obviously chicanery, I have no problems with that. What this shows even more is the blue-red divide economically in the US. even at the high-appraised value of $400,000, that is nothing around here (in DC) you're talking a studio apartment. but I bet it buys a mansion where some of the attackers are coming from. heck, in rural Arkansas, $50,000 a year is upper class, right? (no offense to Arkansas)

I am convinced that many of the people in this kind of crackpot conservative looney brigade exhibit a form of mild paranoid schizophrenia--not delusional enough to be diagnosed clinically, but I'll bet they would get scores in the bottom quartile on something like the MMPI.

I hope the day will come when other Americans will recognize it as a form of mental illness, not meaningful political opinion.

harry,
You mean when the president drags a General into a political discussion . . .

Oh, nevermind.

Maybe the wingnuts are right. When discussing a program designed for children it is obviously out of bounds to refer to children. If anyone wants to defend the program they should refer to, I dunno, principles instead of actual people. That's what Bush does.

Ugh.

When a political party drags out some kid, cancer victim, wounded soldier, or little lost kitten out as a political spokesman, they'd better be ready to stand up to some examination.

Damn straight. You wouldn't believe the lurid shit I've already dug up about some of these snowflake babies....

This is how brown shirt fascism works, thugs abuse any and all who have the termidity to stand in the way of their agenda.

"Let me explain it a bit further."

LOL... By all means, dear heart. I can always use a good laugh.

"Odds are you have no idea what the real controversy on this issue has been."

ROFL.... The odds are even better that you have no idea what I know or do not know, and even better that you have no connection to reality. Thanks for confirming my opinion of you, dear.

"The Republican problem with the bill"

Dear heart, I know what the Bush administration's problem was with the bill. There was no "Republican problem," since it was a bipartisan compromise that won widespread support.

"Liberals pushing this were quite clear in various writings that they were using 'the children,' and extending the program up into the upper middle class, as a wedge for widespread socialized health care."

No, dear, they weren't, which is why you cannot find a single example to support any of the assertions in this bit of partisan drivel.

"Got it?"

Yes, dear, I do. Sadly, you do not, which is why you will continue posting partisan drivel and we'll be looking on and laughing.

When a political party drags out some kid, cancer victim, wounded soldier, or little lost kitten out as a political spokesman, they'd better be ready to stand up to some examination.

I've bookmarked this to remind "harry" the next time the conversation turns to General Petraeus.....

Alas, harry, like his Dear Leader, dissembles:
Bush lies about SCHIP
Bush's False Claims About Children's Health Insurance
September 21, 2007
The president mischaracterizes congressional efforts to expand the SCHIP program...

Looks like it is time to start hounding Malkin's kids....

wishiwuzz2: without knowing the exact address, yes, it is perfectly possible for a house to appreciate in Baltimore from $55k to $350-400 in a decade or so. there were a lot of very sketchy parts of Ballmer a decade ago that have cleaned up nicely.

who knows if it is a need-based or academic scholarship for the son? the daughter goes to a special needs school paid by the State, that is available to anyone in the state who qualifies (hey, free education, all you need is massive head trauma!)

"Alas, harry, like his Dear Leader, dissembles"

Yup, which is why I didn't even bother debunking the obvious distortions in his claims about SCHIP. Thanks for the link, though; I knew most of that but it's nice to have it in one convenient place.

Alas, dear little harry was wrong about SCHIP, wrong about our supposed "hypocrisy," wrong about the source of our outrage, etc. So far, he's batting .000.

Ah, Kevin.

My action committee visited the Frost's house last week. The parents fed us some line that "Poor widdle" Graham wasn't home, but one of my people saw movement in one of the upstairs bedrooms despite the fact the curtains were drawn. Subsequint checks through their garbage turned up a few interesting trinkets which we'll be going public with soon. Let's just say these people aren't angels.

You wanna play with the bigboys? Then man up and take it on the chin! You can't one minute be doing media blitzes and sliming the opposition, and then the next minute run home to your mommy and hide in your room. This kid is beneath contrempt.

Something along the lines of fist, meet Malkin puss, perhaps?

These crazy wingers won't be satisfied until someone actually gets hurt from their stupidity.

Mike,
No fair linking to factcheck.org. harry doesn't 'do' facts.

If liberals are going to use children as political props for the left wing agenda, then the kids are fair game.

Any decent human being would be ashamed to write this sentence.

Odds are you have no idea what the real controversy on this issue has been. ... The Republican problem with the bill...

Oh, bullshit, harry. harry, the Republican problem with the bill is exactly what made the symbolism of this family's plight so dangerous -- middle class families struggle to afford health care, especially in situations like an accident or severe illness. Hence screeching harpy Malking unleasing her propagana brownshirts, only to find that yes, middle class families struggle to afford health care, especially after an auto accident.

Of course, the *other* problem Republicans have is that, counter to their faith-based beliefs, this program works well and is much more effective than the private sector at delivering health care to at-risk children.

It's intensely ironic that the wingnut brigades proved both the Democratic frame *and* facts correct. It's intensely sad that they'll imagine the opposite.

aww, wittle eggie found a place he belongs...in someone's garbage!

Looks like it is time to start hounding Malkin's kids....

This one too

"Any decent human being would be ashamed to write this sentence."

The real "Al" left here a couple of years ago, tired of being parodied and fed up that we couldn't tell the difference between the parody and the real thing. We're not quite sure what remains, whether it's a parody, a paid shill, or an obsessive-compulsive, but the odds are good that it's not a "decent human being."

As I've posted in a couple of other places, I love the irony overload of the wingers attacking the Frost family: small business entrepreneurs investing in capital, mother staying home with kids, and working the system to get their kids in private schools.
In any other circumstance, this family would be their dream come true.

And yeah, it's absolutely possibly for a house to increase that much in value in this region. The house we bought quadrupled from about $100,000 to nearly $400,000 in 8 years. Houses around the corner that were $300,000 15 years ago now go for nearly $1 million.

I see other folks brought up this story. To say nothing of the snowflake babies.

Re: egbert -- Q.E.D., although I don't think dear little eggie is any more honest or real than is Al.

PS the wingers also have been posting as "fact" that the family has a newish SUV. Because one was parked in front of their house. In a city like Baltimore. Right, that's real, concrete proof!

And if it did belond to them, isn't such a car a tax write-off for a blue collar worker who uses for his biz? Quel horror!

I think the logic goes like this: the family could easily raise money by selling their home and their newish SUV, switching to a smaller apartment and a cheaper, older car, and if they did this, they'd have money for health insurance. Thus, we have incontrovertible "proof" that the family "chose" to not have health insurance and the whole thing is a big fraud.

Eric Alterman says it better than anyone else today:

On connecting dots:

I can't keep spending my time swatting at gnats like Brendan Nyhan, who apparently unironically carries an endorsement from Wonkette atop his blog as if he's proud of it, but I am happy to explicate further on my statement that George W. Bush vetoed the SCHIP extension because of his "preference" that poor children get sick and die, as opposed to encouraging what he calls "socialized medicine," as Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan have seized on it and I imagine others of ill will will do so also for the purposes of confusing people of good will.

Look, ladies and gentlemen, either medical care saves lives and prevents illness or it doesn't. I'd argue that it does, and I think even George W. Bush might agree. Granting that, poor children who have access to it are less likely to die from serious sickness and less likely to contract various preventable diseases and maladies if they do have access to such care. If they don't have such access, they will more likely "get sick and die." This strikes me again as a statistical certainty and again, if you could get Mr. Bush to give a straight answer on the question, I don't see how he could disagree either. Now, given that we know what the result will be of refusing to allow states to cover more poor children with health care -- and remember, these are the children who are most vulnerable to sickness in the first place -- that there will be more sickness and death on the part of these same uncovered children, just what are Mr. Bush's own stated reasons for vetoing the program? They can be found in Bush's own words, [links don't work-here and here], and they all involve the prevention of what he fears will be a slippery slope to "socialized medicine" to which he objects entirely and unashamedly on ideological grounds.

Note that I do not claim and never said that George W. Bush wants poor kids to get sick and die, per se. I don't think he does. I said only that he prefers this to signing the SCHIP bill, and in doing so, demonstrated his commitment to his own stated (but rarely followed) ideology. In other words, Bush has "a preference for allowing poor kids to get sick and die for his own ideological obsession." I suppose one might quibble with the word "obsession," but the rest of it strikes me as a clear statement of fact, albeit the kind of fact from which the mainstream media traditionally tend to whitewash, the same way there is virtually no coverage of Iraqi casualty figures even though those are the obvious and unarguable result of Bush's decision to bomb the hell out of the place. Again, am I saying Bush wants to bomb Iraqi civilians for the fun of it? Are you an idiot: (For the record, I don't personally think Nyhan is an idiot; I think he just plays one -- in this case, a useful one for Rush Limbaugh's campaign against Media Matters and the political accountability it demands for his inflammatory words -- sometimes for effect.)

In any case, the unwillingness of the MSM even to consider connecting dots in such cases undermines, in my view, its reason for being. "Facts" are not useful in isolation and hardly anyone who is not a professional in some way has the time or expertise to place them in the complex context in which they operate. This is what Walter Lippmann meant when he spoke of the gap between "the world outside" and the "pictures in our heads," something with which his most important and influential critic, John Dewey reluctantly concurred.

Finally, the Public Editor blog makes the obvious in response to Sullivan, here, and without any reference to my response to Nyhan, which I reprint below. He writes:

It might sound like Alterman is just being shrill, calling Bush a child-killer or something such, but actually his statement is completely right. When Bush announced his veto, he explained it by saying that he doesn't believe public healthcare is a good thing, and that privatized healthcare is the way to go. He is depriving children of healthcare due to his obsession with privatizing everything. You could certainly and truthfully characterize that as a preference for private healthcare at all costs. No, it doesn't mean that he desires that children get sick and die, but it does mean that privatized healthcare is more important to him.

It's an odd world in which we live where it is somehow more objectionable to describe these phenomena accurately than it is to allow it to happen in the first place. But there we are ...

As Atrios points out the Republicans already hauled out a nine (not even an eleven) year old to push their policies, and as I recall not one Democrat said boo about it. And certainly no prominent liberal pundit ever declared the child "fair game" as Mark Steyn said about poor sick Graeme. Let us recall back in 2005...

Suppose it depends on what "prominent" means. Let's take a look at little Noah and the pundits:

Daily Kos

Ezra Klein's board (Favorite quote: "I don’t want to get my hopes up here, but this really, truly seems indicative of a desperation reserved for policy proposals that are ready for the graveyard. It’s kind of like when sitcoms bring in a cute kid in season 7 to try to liven things up, you know it’s Next Stop: Cancellationville."

Atrios himself, as he often does, just flips us to another blogger.

Maybe these aren't "prominent" enough. I had to skip dozens of minor bloggers and opinionmakers to try and keep it on the same level as Mark Steyn. I'm not that familiar with the heirarchy. While some of these others attacked the kid personally ("junior wanker"), they were universal in the opinion that anyone who pulls a kid out to front their position is some kind of loser.

Keep in mind that this is about credentials. The baseline of this story is that this boy would lose his medical care if the Democratic version of the bill wasn't passed. Is that actually true?

And Al is right. When a political party drags out some kid, cancer victim, wounded soldier, or little lost kitten out as a political spokesman, they'd better be ready to stand up to some examination.

You mean like your tough questioning of Bush when in the State of the Union addresses he has variously and shamelessly held up a wounded soldier, Ahmed Chalabi, and purple-fingered Iraqis to justify the continued debacle in Iraq?

Or how you've been so critical of him for hauling out shills with scripted questions in Town Hall meetings about Social Security or globalization or wiretapping?

You are not to be taken seriously.

And actually physically going to a person's workplace as part of a massive campaign to intimidate and harass them over a political issue is an entirely different order of magnitude than "spitting tacks" in blog comments sections, were that even to happen.

But your logic is not without precedent. Sixty years ago people said that if "Negroes" were going to act as political spokesmen for the civil rights movement then they ought to be prepared to have a few crosses burned on their lawn.

If the concept of Karma is real, then you've gotta figure when Malkin gets her comeuppance, it's gonna be world-class.

This one too

Learn to distinguish satirical from literal.

Hey - didn't Bush try to sell Social Security "reform" with an eight-year-old spokesman?

Now aren't these caterwauling flying monkeys of the right the same people who were absolutely outraged that MoveOn dared to attack General Petreaus?

Let me see:

A 4-Star General who writes Op-Eds and testifies on policy to Congress vs a 12-year old brain injured child?

Oh, I understand. Obviously, the 12-year old is the one it's all right to attack. We can't allow the General's feelings to be hurt while a 12-year old brain injured child is being allowed to get SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

They don't call 'em Values Voters for nothing!

Well, I can imagine what a pleasant thanksgiving this is going to be for all of us with conservative relatives.

Here's my suggestion: they try to pull off letting lose with these right-wing talking points about the Frost family, you don't bite your tongue. You shut it down as severely as you would as if they started using racist epithets, which many of them were forced, under social pressure, to stop doing yearsa ago.

This is a family that did everything republicans wanted them to do: buy a house, have kids, start a small business. And the republicans are spitting on them. Just goes to show how far you'll get following republican prescriptions in life. They'll hate you anyway.

Some time back Harry stated:

If this family is indeed in a hard way, and if they are already eligible for assistance under existing rules, then this family would have gotten what they needed from the original legislation, and the entire Democratic-generated controversy from their standpoint is moot.

Just wanted to point out (if no one else had) that Maryland has an extended system that covers kids in families that make more money than are covered by SCHIP programs in other states.

Let's put it to the voters, there are two choices presented by the blogosphere:

1) More children covered in SCHIP

2) A legion of anonymous sociopathic goblins will review your insurance claim and decide whether your children deserve medical care.

Don't forget that the Frost kids were covered by CHIP when they got in the accident, so all of the people judging the Frosts for having uninsured children are wrong - their kids are insured by CHIP.

Suppose it depends on what "prominent" means. Let's take a look at little Noah and the pundits

Your links actually refute your assertion. Not only are a random Kos diarist and a blog that touts UFO stories not prominent progressive bloggers or syndicated journalists -- neither of them attack the child as "fair game" and in fact many of the Kos commenters express sympathy for him! No one hounded the child and his family.

He was, in fact, treated the opposite of the Frost family.

If the Republicans had hauled out an eleven-year-old to push their policies, like some kid whose Dad had died in the World Trade Center, you would be spitting tacks about it.

Do you mean like when those 9/11 widows were attacked by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc? Just proves your point, eh?

"Keep in mind that this is about credentials."

Yup, and the credentials check out, right down the line. The family needed help; SCHIP helped them. Everything else is just rightwing conspiracy theories and slime.

"The baseline of this story is that this boy would lose his medical care if the Democratic version of the bill wasn't passed."

Nope, not even close. The baseline of this story is that this boy was helped by SCHIP and that millions more like him would be helped by the bipartisan bill passed by the House and Senate.

"Is that actually true?"

Nope, but the kid in question, and the Democrats who sponsored him, never claimed it was. It was only in your fevered imagination that this became an issue.

Here's the actual text of Graeme Frost's radio address. Do you see one word anywhere in this address that even remotely resembles your fevered imagination of what the real issues are?

“Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I’m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Md. Most kids my age probably haven’t heard of CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today.

“CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford health care for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.

“My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program.

“But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all.

“Now I’m back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don’t talk the same way I used to. And I can’t walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can’t play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I’m just happy to be back with my friends.

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program.

“I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening.�

Blue Girl: Hey - didn't Bush try to sell Social Security "reform" with an eight-year-old spokesman?

If he did, it was only because he needed a spokesman more intelligent, articulate and better informed than he was.

I grew up and lived a long time in Baltimore. My understanding is that the Frosts live in or around the Patterson Park neighborhood. It is not only possible that they bought the house for $55k and it appreciated into the quarter million range, it is easy. That neighborhood (VERY sketchy last time I was in town, although it is a big area and there are gradations) has a couple of non-profits that help working poor singles, couples, and families buy houses. Basically they serve as mediators and facilitators between banks,contractors, and buyers. I have a number of friends who took advantage of this program to purchase modest homes in East Baltimore and they were all starving artist types. (where Patterson Park is located. The same basic area where the TV show Homicide found most of their dead bodies. It would be Prop Joe's turf in The Wire) Baltimore has historically had a lot of vacant housing stock and have used various programs to encourage their use and rehabilitation. If I am not mistaken Baltimore pioneered the $1 row home in the 70's and 80's to encourage home ownership. You get cheap homes, but you are required to rehabilitate them. The one constant in all of the people I know who took advantage of these programs is that they were either contractors themselves or very handy and owned a lot of tools. Usually the houses eligible for this were real fixer uppers to put it mildly. IF I am not mistaken Mr. Frost is in fact a carpenter, no? Totally fits the pattern.

I don't know the Frosts or if their any bigger fakes than your average political pitch people, but Baltimore is full of people just like the Frosts have been represented by the Dems. Working poor people who might be property rich and house proud, but live paycheck to paycheck often with more than one job and little to no insurance.

If the Frosts are fakes, the Dems are stupider than even I think they are capable of. Baltimore (and a lot of other post-industrial industrial cities I suspect) is full of real examples that would have worked just fine. Creating a fake would have been more work for less impact.

Have a good day,

Adolphus

What proud, upstanding bullies the Retardicans are...

I think it's wonderful that Democrats have internalized Reaganomics--that you can spend astronomically and never have to pay for anything.

Two things. First, the RW assumes the kid is a fake cuz that's what they would've done.

Second, it doesn't matter what's true. Most people will quickly conclude that it's not worth the effort trying to figure out who's right, they'll just remember that there was controversy over the kid. And that's enough.

"I think it's wonderful that Democrats have internalized Reaganomics"

Nice way to completely duck the issue, dear heart. Did you have anything other than partisan drivel to provide?

"--that you can spend astronomically and never have to pay for anything."

Dear, what part of "the expansion of the benefit is paid for by the tobacco tax increase" are you having trouble understanding? Oh, and do tell me what portion of this program is "astronomical," won't you, dear?

The thing that gets me about this case is how the wingnuts went after it even though it would be practically impossible for them to "win" their case against this kid.

I mean, no one even disputes that the kid and his sister were in a simply awful accident and still suffer terribly from its effects. How do the wingnuts really imagine that they are going to turn such a case into an unsympathetic one? How are they going to fail to look like callous cowards in choosing to attack these kids? Even if, somehow, someway, some aspect of their story is not true, how will the larger public see an attack on them as justified rather than heartless, given what they've suffered?

I simply can't imagine even the dumbest Republican politician going after these kids -- even the slightest common sense would make it clear to them that they just can't win in a case like this. Lawyers know that cases involving children who have been severely and permanently damaged are very hard to beat, even if on the merits the case is exceedingly weak.

And yet here we have this cretin Malkin harrassing the family at their home and their business.

What does it say about Malkin and crew that they have no concept of, and no feeling for, how monstrous they look to normal people?

"Rathergate" (God, how I despise that overused and intellectually lazy suffix) was a manufactured controversy by the GOZP. Regardless of what right-wing tools say about the subject, the crux of the CBS's problem was verification of the chain of custody of certain documents; no document used in that 60 Minutes was ever proven to be fraudulent or a forgery.

Oh, yeah, and we still don't know Lt. George W. Bush's whereabouts during that 18-month period in question. The AWOL charge still stands.

Attacking a 12-year-old? Well, Malkin finally found an opponent on her level. Maybe she can dress up as a cheerleader again and shout "na-na-na-boo-boo" at him. These renegade 12-year-old's with health problems should really be in one of Malkin's longed-for concentration camps.

I would point out just one little area (out of many) where Malkin and her cronies are being nutso conspiracy theorists: They say that having a New York Times wedding announcement means these people are some kind of socialites. Not so. "Would a working-poor couple get a New York Times announcement?" Malkin asks. Answer: Sure, if they wanted. People mostly self-select out of the Times announcements--either they assume the Times won't take them, or they don't personally read the Times and neither do their family and friends, or whatever. But if you read the announcements, you'll occasionally see a seeming head-scratcher. What did these people of modest means and background do to get into the Times? They sent their materials in by the deadline and answered the phone when the fact-checker called. So it may have been with the Frosts.

I love the smell of scared republicans in the evening....

Is this just a blogosphere event, or are people in the real world, those guys in their T-shirts watching television with their wives, aware of it?

Oh, and as to having your wedding announced in the Times, basically you send in the stuff, picture, whatever, and they pick some they like. It's not high-society stuff, and I think they try to get a social cross-section.

Um, ok, but this reminds me of an adage from the early days of the blogosphere:
Please don't feed the trolls.

When the trolls show up at your house, they're no longer trolls. They're stalkers, and stalkers need to be dealt with by the police.

And I love all of the idiots on the thread who just can't seem to wrap their heads around the difference between using a kid in a political way (like both Republicans and Democrats have done) and attacking a 12-year-old child as a liar and a fraud, as only the Republicans have done.

Who was it that said that it's almost impossible to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it?

Folks the Republicans have done exactly what they wanted to do. They have wasted a day when we should have been putting pressure on Republican representatives to change their votes. That's right, they have squandered our time with their bull.

What have you done today to put pressure on a blue dog Dem or a Republican in a purple district?

What have you done today to get Dennis Kucinich to commit to vote for the override?

Kevin wrote: Almost without fail, though, they [right-wing blog exposés ] turn out to be.....wrong. Embarrassingly, completely, unquestionably, flat-on-their-faces wrong.

I'd like to see count of how many are right and how many were wrong. The prior Malkin exposé was that Beauchamp's stories in the New Republic were inaccurate. Inaccuracies have indeed been verified, although TNR has only admitted one of them. In particular, Beauchamp recanted the charges when the miltary investigated.

Th AP's Jamail Hussein exposé also stood up, although the AP never admitted it. He had supposedly been the sole source for around 66 stories throughout greater Baghdad. It was clear that no one person could have been at all those different places at the right time. After the exposure, his name suddenly stopped appearing as an AP source.

In both these cases, there's no way to force an investigation of the media source. As long as AP denies the charges and TNR denies all but one of the charges, those who want to believe them can continue to do so -- but, only by not looking too closely at the evidence against them.

Hey - didn't Bush try to sell Social Security "reform" with an eight-year-old spokesman?

are you kidding? Bush has exploited children(and/or the military) to push his unpopular agenda since the day he took office.

and moronic jackasses like harry and his conservatard ilk have no room to talk about the expense of this program compared to the BILLIONS that we've flushed down the toilet in Iraq--that's BILLIONS, unaccounted for, never to be seen again.

I'd like to see count of how many are right and how many were wrong.

Me too. Let's start with pre-war reporting by the rabid right on such topics as WMD's, the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, and Iraq's nuclear capabilities, then move on to post-war reporting on Baath dead-enders, foreign fighters, how milblogs say the insurgency is almost defeated (every week), how Operation Pick-a-name has been a rousing success, how the real problem is foreign fighters not sectarian violence, et al.

And once we've waded through those hundreds of stories we can move to topics such as non-existent black prisons, how the government isn't wiretapping us illegally, and how Democrats are going to get creamed in the 2006 elections.

Th AP's Jamail Hussein exposé also stood up

Nope. In fact Malkin ended up admitting she was wrong.

I relayed information from multiple sources–CPATT, Centcom, and two other military sources on the ground in Iraq– that the Associated Press’s disputed source, Jamil Hussein, could not be found. As I noted on the 4th, the AP reported that the Ministry of Interior in Iraq has now said a Captain Jamil Hussein does work in the al Khadra police station. I regret the error. But no blogger should apologize for raising legitimate questions about AP’s transparency, its reliance on local foreign stringers of dubious origins, and information that sources such as Hussein have provided the AP. I will continue to pursue some of the unresolved issues related to this.

-- Michelle Malkin

I believe the family lives in Butchers Hill which has undergone considerable appreciation in the last 15 years. My own neighborhood in Baltimore has gone from the $75-80k I paid eleven years ago to the upper end of the $200,000s in home sales made this year.

I'd like to see count of how many are right and how many were wrong.... Malkin exposé was that Beauchamp's stories in the New Republic were inaccurate....Th AP's Jamail Hussein exposé also stood up....ex-lax at 9:19 PM

The sick thing about people like Al and the people he supports is that "fair game" has as elastic a definition as "torture."

If you breathe, if you speak, if you write a blog post or happen to benefit from a program, you're fair game. It doesn't matter if your son died in war, or if you lost three limbs in war, or if you're 12 years old. You're fair game because you dared to speak out against their team, and they'll make you pay. They'll call your home, knock on your door, try to get you fired - try to make sure that you never speak out again, and that the message is sent.

All they care about is shouting louder. They have no ethics, they believe in nothing but themselves.

It's sick sick sick.

Thankfully, it's also the reason that good people don't like to vote for Republicans. It makes you feel like you need a shower.

Just reading the same blog as Al turns my stomach.

I haven't paid attention to the whole story, but in reading the comments here, I think what the repugs should have done was got an 11 year old to present the other side. And then the dumbocrats could have trundled out a 9 year old, and so on until we got to a fetus, at which time they could have argued over abortion. But Mike wrote this...

Also, the Beauchamp story stands up.

Ahhahahaha! You think that link in any way validates or confirms Scott Beauchamp's story? Is that your standard of proof? Someone can make any crackpot accusation and the burden of proof now rests on everyone else?

Malkin's and Republicans' harassment is intended to drive the Frosts (and other Americans with the temerity to come forward and intimidate them) into silence.

Malkin isn't endeavoring to have a thoughtful, considered dialogue about the SCHIP program. She and Republican trolls are stalking this family at their home, in their private lives, calling the family at home and demanding answers about their finances?

If their interest was legitimate, their inquiries should be to the authorities in Maryland that qualified the family.

There ought to be a law against this kind of harassment, and perhaps the way to get it is to pursue Malkin, her family, in their home. Can you imagine for a moment that Malkin or any Republican standing still for that kind of invasion of privacy?

trex, you may have forgotten or not been aware that Malkin withdrew the admission of being wrong that you quoted, when she learned some further facts. At the time, I posted on this site a link to her withdrawal of the statement you quoted.

Mike, the Media Matters discussions of these two items are woefully incomplete. That's why I said those who want to believe [the AP and TNR] can continue to do so -- but, only by not looking too closely at the evidence against them.

If you take the trouble to read various conservative sites, you will discover that Media Matters only responded to some of the accusations and evidence. They ignored a great deal of other evidence.

trex, you may have forgotten or not been aware that Malkin withdrew the admission of being wrong that you quoted, when she learned some further facts.

Really? Is Shelly trying to rehabilitate her reputation with the wingers by pressing forward with more fictions borne of her fevered imagination?

Doesn't surprise me.

Nevertheless, the retraction I quoted came right off of her site. Perhaps she is conflicted. It can't be easy for her having been wrong about, well . . . everything.

Can you imagine what kind of havoc that plays with one's psyche? I'd guess you can. Remember in August of 2006 when you vehemently argued against a surge because Bush didn't want one? And then he wanted one? And then you were forced to vehemently argue for it? And remember when you bet Stefan that 60 people weren't dying every day in Iraq because if that were true it would make Bush look bad? And you were wrong? Or when you claimed Al Qaeda had been attacking us since the' 70s - before it even existed?

Just how do people like you and Malkin continue to spout off in public when its clear you have no idea what you're talking about? Seriously. Have you no sense of shame?

Looks like it is time to start hounding Malkin's kids....
Posted by: Disputo on October 9, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Kevin,
Why would your moderator not spike Disputo, satire or not?

You know, the Thomas story doesn't make a whit of difference. We already know that the Wastewater crew has simply murdered civilians. We know that there are goons claiming to be ex-pilots whose reaction to the news that an extra-judicial murder of a suspected terrorist has also claimed the lives of an innocent woman and child is to cheer and condemn the innocent woman for being too close to the bomb. We know that the military was only too happy to terrorize the Iraqis and plant hundreds of bombs in their capitol city in a massive, and ultimately futile, attempt to assassinate their leader. We know that the Marines, after what seem pretty clearly to be a series of unjustified murders of civilians, have been slowly sweeping the whole thing under the carpet.

By comparison, the stories told by Thomas were pretty trivial. The damage done to the reputation of a military willing to engage in an unprovoked war of aggression, nil. Compare his stories to Shock and Awe, to the torture of prisoners, and to the obvious hell that is George W. Bush's Iraq. Only morons who have either never served or who are an embarrassment to the uniform they once wore think the Thomas stories make much difference to the totality of the tragedy of Iraq.

trex, I guess you think you and Media Matters are always accurate, while Malkin and I are always wrong. In the real world, none of us is right all the time or wrong all the time when we're discussing events half a world away and our beliefs are based on reports of others. Yes, I've been wrong about some things and so has Malkin. We all have. Certianly I was wrong in some of my ideas about how to conduce the war in Iraq.

But, there's something fishy about Jamail Hussein supposedly being a witness to 65 stories all over greater Baghdad. And, I don;'t believe it's a coincidence that after the publicity he never reported another story to the AP. In addition, many of the stories attributed to him turned out to be incorrect. Media Matters does not provide evidence explaining these anomalies.

Rather than conduct an investigation, the AP managed to find some error or alleged error made by each critic. That allowed them to sweep the matter under the rug.

Frankly, I don't think Media Matters is a particularly good source. They do gather a lot of facts, but they twist their interpretations to favor the liberal side.

faux-lib you are as full of shit as always. At the time of Jamail Hussein controversy you, Malkin, the rest of the right-wing blogokooks, the U.S. military and the Iraqi government didn't say there was "something fishy" about the story. You all said Jamail Hussein did not exist and many of you said flat out that the AP made up the story.

As for him being a witness to 65 stories all over Baghdad, lets start by assuming you didn't pull that figure out of your ass (or M.M.'s) as you have so many others. The figure still isn't unreasonable depending on how long a period you are talking about or which stories he witnessed.

There are are dozens of newsworthy events every day somewhere in Baghdad. If he was an eye-witness to every major story in the city for 2-3 months, that would be suspicious. If he was the source for that many stories over a 1-2 year period and most of them involved putting a human face and first-person perspective on every-day outrages, then that is not at all remarkable.

As for him not being a source for any more stories since, who wouldn't be reluctant to come forward again after that shitstorm? Particulary if the Iraqi or U.S. government applied some subtle or not so subtle pressure.

never-a-liberal: Frankly, I don't think Media Matters is a particularly good source.

Of course you don't. It's exposed you as a fool more times than you can count, and that can't be "good" in your world.

majarosh (who has yet to acknowledge the complete dismantling he took from trex here: Why would your moderator not spike Disputo, satire or not?

Probably because everyone knows Malkin doesn't have any kids. Human sperm dies with a loud hissing pop when it touches her.

Malkin's rage is understandable. She's obviously smarter than most republicans, but her skin color relegates her to the anteroom the GOP reserves for the people who give them the willies. Worse, she's probably been mistaken more than once for the postprandial entertainment by a Party grandee with fond memories of Subic Bay and the LBFM's.
But she channels it on the weak and the voiceless. You don't see Malkin confronting the likes of James Webb. That's part of the source of the rage--awareness of their cowardice.

"Rathergate" may well come back to haunt the wingnuts. See the recent Sydney Blumental article in Salon.

shortstop:"majarosh (who has yet to acknowledge the complete dismantling he took from trex here"

Thanks--not having the benefit of a Political Animal education, I wanted to thank trex for the resources he provided, but untill now, didn't have an appropriate forum.
Only problem is my original post was in the present tense, you know, like about what's happnin' now, not 3-4 years ago.
Just so my position is clear, I oppose torture; I agree it should be unlawful. The Abu Ghraib photos showed abhorrent, totally unacceptable behavior and those who engaged in or condoned it have been punished.
It is not surprising, though, that I have a different perspective than trex has on the resources he/she. However, that's a discussion for a another time.

Thanks--not having the benefit of a Political Animal education, I wanted to thank trex for the resources he provided, but untill now, didn't have an appropriate forum.

Bwa ha ha! Like you couldn't have "thanked him" in the forum in which he spanked you?!

It is not surprising, though, that I have a different perspective than trex has on the resources he/she. However, that's a discussion for a another time.

BWA HA HA! Translation: "I don't have a goddamned leg to stand on."

Stick around, maja. You are priceless in your hopelessness.

"trex, I guess you think you and Media Matters are always accurate, while Malkin and I are always wrong."

Dear heart, I'll take trex's track record, and Media Matters' track record against yours and Malkin's any day. You have been revealed time and time again as either completely ignorant or a liar, as has Malkin. On most of the threads to which you contribute, your posts contain factual errors, as do Malkin's on her blog. Your record condemns you, as does Malkin's.

The rest of your bilge wasn't even worth commenting on since, as usual, you provide not one shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

Is that your standard of proof? Someone can make any crackpot accusation and the burden of proof now rests on everyone else?

Apparently Red State Mike, king of the crackpot accusation, wrote the above without any sense of irony, which, well.....wow.

The Abu Ghraib photos showed abhorrent, totally unacceptable behavior and those who engaged in or condoned it have been punished.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales have been punished? When did this happen, and why wasn't I told?

ss: "Bwa ha ha! Like you couldn't have "thanked him" in the forum in which he spanked you?!"

Went to sleep (check the time)
Didn't research the resources linked for a couple of days. Had other things to do. Like I said, a discussion for another time, another topic.

"Bwa ha ha!"
Translation????

"Bwa ha ha!"
Translation????

It translates as, "we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you."

Their latest crusade, hawked on Loombowel lately, is that Waxman and his Committee broke or would break some kind of rules investigating Loombowel or some other interference with right-wing speech.

This dress rehearsal is going swimmingly.

I can't wait to see what the end game of this is going to be.

I know, it's late to post but I just had to say something. If I were the Frost's I would make sure I seeded my trash with something to make the Looney Tunes Brigade swoon.

Apparently Red State Mike, king of the crackpot accusation, wrote the above without any sense of irony, which, well.....wow.
Posted by: Stefan

Oh nice,"Hedge Fund" Stefan who is too cowardly and embarrassed to comment on hedge funds here because he actually is making those boodles of cash that Kevin Drum rants about but is willing to comment on things he knows zero about like any and all military matters (we still torture, Blackwater are mercenaries (then so are the security guards at the bank)) makes any allusions whatsoever to someone else making crackpot accusations.

Intellectual coward. Go back to your workplace and roll around in your ill-gotten gains.

Intellectual coward. Go back to your workplace and roll around in your ill-gotten gains.

Yeah, he probably will, but more importantly--when is a crank like you going to get over the fact that the military threw your worthless ass out?