My favorite part of this whole issue is the ridiculous "$45K a year is rich!" tactic that some people are using.

Apparently the wingers are using the Incredibles strategy: when everyone's super-rich, no one will be.

Maybe they could find one of those people who were displaced by Katrina. The SwiftBoaters could claim that they were living it up on government expense in the Astrodome. "This is working very well for them," said Barbara Bush.

This shows the public what the Rush Limbaughs and Michelle Malkins will stoop to, and it appears to disgust the public. Good.

Moreover, in this case, the public was able to see a brain-damaged 12-year-old run intellectual rings around George W. Bush.

The next time the Democrats ask a private citizen to do a radio address they're going to think twice, aren't they?

This is pretty misleading of you Kevin. Isn't it always true of politics and BOTH SIDES of the aisle that when one engages in partisan politics, one may be attacked by the other side? For example look at how liberals have treated Michelle Malkin. Or the commenters at Red State who have defended her stellar journalism. The liberal attacks have been at least (and, in my opinion, more) vicious than the conservative reporting done about the Frosts. Yet I don't hear any apologies from the left about their own obscene and indefensible behavior.
It is certainly hysterical watching liberals launch vicious personal attacks against Malkin and her supporters and then watch them complaining merely because they responded to the attacks.

I asked this under an earlier post by Kevin but I'll ask it here as well. The Time article states:

"In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help."

But the radio spot's central message came down to this:

"I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP...I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me."

Has anyone been able to demonstrate that under Bush's proposal, Graeme Frost would no longer be qualified for SCHIP? The current debate is not, as Time would have it, about "the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help" but rather about the additional people who might be covered under the significant expansion proposed by the Dems. If Graeme would continue to be eligible for SCHIP under Bush's proposal, then he is not actually a reasonable example of the impact of Bush's veto.

He's not REALLY a 12-year-old kid! He's actually a midget Islamo-nazi terrorist that the DEMONrats brought into the country and they disguised him to LOOK like a 12-year-old kid! This is all part of a very clever plot to introduce socialised medicine to America, and we know that socialised medicine causes doctors to become terrorists!

As much as I would like the Dems to beat the wingnuts at their own game, I am happy that they do not stoop so low as to slime a twelve year old and frighten the family of a simple working man.

As has been noted, what most enrages the mouth-breathers about the Frost family is that they could be any of us. These are people who have played by the rules: they've worked hard, exhibited entrepreneurship, stayed together, taken care of their kids, invested in modest home ownership...and a medical catastrophe could have ruined them. They are not unusual in any way other than most families don't have two brain-damaged kids.

The only way we will get universal health care in this country is to have more and more families who exist in the wide space between employer-provided insurance and total indigence step up to tell their stories. Hell, the millions who do have insurance and still don't get decent coverage need to tell their tales. I would love to see a different story like this every week and watch the right try to explain how lack of access to decent health care is the personal fault of every one of these people.

The last time the GOP Schiavoed somebody, the badgered husband started an advocacy group for the sole purpose of taking on this kind of thing. The Frosts should do the same.

It's pretty much a straight Mafia strong-arming: "Without protection, things break. Stuff happens. Pay somebody else and, ya know, accidents have been known to occur, capiche?"

I like that second theory better. It's time people stopped wilting at the wrath of the rabid right and stood up to it.

...because "politics ain't beanbag."

We have politics in Canada, but no one would blink an eye in the whole population if young kids got medical help. In fact, such medical help for others is one of the major points of the country.

The wingnut position is not politics in the US. It is pure evil.

This is on par with Bill O'Reilly attacking Shawn Hornbeck for not running away and even "enjoying his captivity" when we learnt that the boy had to talk his way out of being killed .
These are the most morally reprehensible people in America.

As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag."

And yet, the women prohibitionists did well enough to get FBI agents like Elliot Ness kicking down doors for them, didn't they? /snark

As far as having citizens give addresses, I think this was a fine move and if the Democrats have any brains, they will use it again in situations where it makes sense to, they'll just take whatever precautions they can to cover their asses against lies like the Republicans did this time.

Anybody can lie about you anytime, can distort who you are anytime. That they did it this time doesn't mean we did anything that made us especially vulnerable to that tactic. That the Republicans resorted to it this time only shows that they really had to get this kid-- because he was a really sympathetic voice for us, because he was a kid and because he was a great example of a person who could really benefit from S-CHIP and really deserves the help.

I'd volunteer, but I'm a white guy with no kids, a good job, and health insurance that hasn't screwed me over yet. I'm not sure I'd be a very good advocate for S-CHIP :(

This isn't about brain damaged kids or health insurance. For those leading this disgusting effort on the right it's about energizing their diminishing base (see Orwell, 1984; 'Two Minutes Hate') and doing everything they can to intimidate anybody who might speak out against Big Brother. They are convinced that if they make the price of dissent high enough, nobody will speak up, and their message will be accepted as the truth.

My favorite part of this whole issue is the ridiculous "$45K a year is rich!" tactic that some people are using.

With kids, that would be just getting by, at least in NJ where it would have been hard even 20 years ago.

How is it that, when it comes to having the government be there for us when it's needed, $45-50K/year is "rich," while when one is discussing the tiniest of tax increases, $200,000 is "middle class"?

If the Democrats are smart...

Well, that ends that discussion.

most families don't have two brain-damaged kids

Insert your own Bush joke here.

The wingnut position is not politics in the US. It is pure evil.

Not pure evil, but a piquant blend of evil and proud ignorance.

Maybe the Dems should come up with a set of trading cards. On the front of each card could be a photo of a particular victim of the right-wing slime machine. Possibilities include John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael J. Fox, and Graeme Frost. The back of each card could contain a brief description of how and why the victim got slimed.

As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag."

A lot of black kids- schoolchidren- marched for civil rights in the south and even got the firehouses and dogs sicced on them. But it looks like they made the big bad white man back down, too.

I'd volunteer, but I'm a white guy with no kids,

For now. Maybe forever, depending on what your plans and pharmacy habits are.

a good job,

Right now.

and health insurance that hasn't screwed me over yet.

Yet.

I don't mean to be creepy, but Americans who used to feel pretty secure about this stuff are learning that good jobs and insurance coverage can vanish in an instant. How many people like that will it take to tip the scale to UHC?

But who knows? After this latest affair, maybe being a target of the slime machine will become a badge of honor. Maybe ordinary families will start lining up at the door to give radio addresses that enrage the mouth-breathers. If the Democratic Party is smart, maybe it will happen this very Saturday. Who's on deck for this week's broadcast?

Yeah, that's all well and good, but have you thought through the consequences of this type of activity?

There are no serious recriminations for someone who stalks and harasses someone who speaks out in favor of a policy. Originally, this was about health insurance for children that met a certain criteria. It was vetoed along ideological lines, not because of cost or practicality. You can't look at the budgets we have and not justify spending this money on a specific program to give children health insurance. But you can play a nasty game with the ideology of movement conservatism.

So if movement conservatism wants to defeat an initiative to give children health insurance, then the tactics they use to do that come into play. And when they're willing to destroy anyone who speaks up, no matter who they are, and subject them to vicious attacks and insults that have landed at the doorstep of this family, what then? I'll tell you what it does--it silences people who have a goddamned right to speak up. No one has the right to shut down Malkin's blog, but she should never have free rein to try to bully or intimidate anyone else. Restraining orders are in order. If not that, then volunteers should appear at the next place she goes in order to try to smear or intimidate anyone. Shoulder to shoulder, none shall pass, and oh by the way--say hello to this friendly lawyer who just happened to volunteer his time to help with getting that restraining order for ya, hon.

Their address has been posted, they've been called and E-mailed and contacted at their residence. Imagine that kind of intrusion into YOUR life. What then? Imagine someone who thinks of themselves as a "journalist" making inquiries where you work and who you do business with and who you associate with. What then?

It's easy to think of this in the abstract, but this is how the issue should be examined. If you go after this family, and if we as Americans let this happen, we're going to get on a slippery slope and reach a point where the movement conservatives will be able to dominate policy and every aspect of our discourse.

Do we really want the scum of the Earth to have that much power?

**

As far as the kid part goes, we've actually been here before.

Does the name Elian Gonzales ring a bell?

Has anyone been able to demonstrate that under Bush's proposal, Graeme Frost would no longer be qualified for SCHIP? (The real Hacksaw, I presume?)

I am not sure where this tack came from, and don't see what that matters. The kid didn't claim he would lose his benefits as far as I could tell.

The point is, with insurance premiums escalating, covered services shrinking and out-of-pocket expenses going up, that there are many children in comparable living situations who need the services and won't be eligible under Bush's limited expansions.

Does anyone else think that the expansion of SCHIP might be a way to take some pressure off of parents who are struggling to keep up with house payments? Would it help some people affected by the subprime crisis?

This is pretty misleading of you Kevin. Isn't it always true of politics and BOTH SIDES of the aisle that when one engages in partisan politics, one may be attacked by the other side? For example look at how liberals have treated Michelle Malkin. Or the commenters at Red State who have defended her stellar journalism. The liberal attacks have been at least (and, in my opinion, more) vicious than the conservative reporting done about the Frosts. Yet I don't hear any apologies from the left about their own obscene and indefensible behavior. Posted by: Al

Geraldo Rivera has threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin, who is smaller than he. This is typical left wing behavior.

mhr: If the right-wing had a twelve-year old boy deliver a public speech about his father, a soldier who died fighting in Iraq, and asked the American people not to allow his father's death to have been in vain and to keep supporting the war, leftists would be livid.

Perhaps. But I don't think you'd see Kevin and Blue Girl at the kid's house, badgering his family.

Does anyone else think that the expansion of SCHIP might be a way to take some pressure off of parents who are struggling to keep up with house payments? Would it help some people affected by the subprime crisis?

No, no, no. Throwing people out of their homes makes this a BETTER country. Haven't you been paying attention?

The Frosts are being attacked because they bought into this whole notion of an ownership society. They own their own home, have a rental property, they have their own business and they live in an economically depressed area that is being turned around by having families with children occupy homes that would normally be vacant in what used to be a pretty blighted area.

But--and it's a mighty big but--they're poor. Therefore, they must die so our Dear Leader can give tax breaks to the wealthy.

MHR;
you're wrong. if your hypothetical 12 yo boy gave the prowar speech I think that the Dems would debate the argument on the merits. some might question whether the kid was coached. but I guarantee you that nobody would drive to his HOUSE for godssake, or try the kind of personal sliming that these horrible people have done to Graeme Frost.

But I don't think you'd see Kevin and Blue Girl at the kid's house, badgering his family.

The Pale Rider is 20 minutes away from their neighborhood in East Baltimore. If these people ask for help, I'll go there and help. I'll stand in the road and block people from harassing them. Who else will stand with decent people trying to make ends meet? Who else is going to step up and be heard?

Geraldo Rivera has threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin, who is smaller than he. This is typical left wing behavior.

Hows does pointing out that a wingnut threatened to spit on a fellow wingnut demonstrate anything about leftwing behavior?

If the Democratic Party is smart, maybe it will happen this very Saturday.

Exactly.

Exactly.

The right has become very skilled at using our side's unfortunate tendencies (equivocation, mealy-mouthedness, urge to compromise, etc.) against us. They have mastered political jujitsu.

Their weakness is that all they do is attack. Jujitsu against the right would therefore offer periodic Graemes (and Clelands) for them to savage. You'd obviously have to let people know what they're getting into, but exposing the fascists for what they are is priceless.

This type of thinking is how we win.

[...] The basic theme is that the Frosts have chosen to be in the position they're in and now expect the government to bail them out. They are not only unworthy of any financial assistance, they have no right to expect any sympathy. While some of the rhetoric has cooled now that the truth about the Frost's financial circumstance has emerged, they are still dismissed as dupes who were merely used by Democrats in a misguided and emotional appeal for nationalized healthcare.

Of course, that totally misses the point. I'm among those that believe the debate on this issue really is the harbinger of a larger national discussion about health care that is going to be aired out during the next presidential election. Republicans should be worried. It's hard to square the notion of the "ownership society" that the President and his adherents like to talk about, with the idea that people should first be expected to divest themselves of any and all assets in order to pay for something as necessary as health insurance. It just doesn't make sense.

http://jetcityjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/this-is-why-peo.html

I'm reading the smear campaign originated from McConnell's office.....that squeaky little pervert

"...ThinkProgress has obtained an email that congressional sources tell us was sent to reporters by Sen. McConnell’s communications director Don Stewart...."

MeatHead Republican accidentally gets one right: If the right-wing had a twelve-year old boy deliver a public speech about his father, a soldier who died fighting in Iraq, and asked the American people not to allow his father's death to have been in vain and to keep supporting the war, leftists would be livid. And they would be right.

Yeah -- because the incompetent handling of the war by Bush and the neocons has already ensured our soldiers' deaths were in vain.

But then, I'd suspect the average twelve-year-old has a better grasp of politics and civics than MeatHead Republican. It's certainyl true that the Ameircan people have already conclued that Bush's failure in Iraq isn't worth continuing to waste American lives and treasure on. And they're right.

Even the war cheerleaders agreee -- you don't see them hurrying to enlist; instead they're prepping the Dolchstosslegende, in a futile attempt to blame someone else for the disaster they pretend isn't happening.

as an aside: that mhr is pretty clever -- posting comments so inane that we copy and paste them into our responses, so that even after he's deleted by the troll-o-meter his words live on. I resolve to try and resist from now on.

So if movement conservatism wants to defeat an initiative to give children health insurance, then the tactics they use to do that come into play. And when they're willing to destroy anyone who speaks up, no matter who they are, and subject them to vicious attacks and insults that have landed at the doorstep of this family, what then?

Yeah, but somebody's got to be tough if those are the tactics they are going to use. That's how we one fights in the past-- by being tough. If none of you will do it, then they win. No one of us can do this on our own.

As far as Elian Gonzales, this one is still unprecedented, because Elian was a little kid, and wasn't being personally attacked. He wasn't being smeared and wasn't old enough to appreciate it, even if he had been smeared.

What drives me insane about this whole story is, the Frosts did have insurance for their children. That's what S-CHIP is.

with the idea that people should first be expected to divest themselves of any and all assets in order to pay for something as necessary as health insurance. It just doesn't make sense

This has a historical antecedent in how the elderly don't qualify for certain types of assistance until they sell their home to pay for medical costs or liquidate their assets. In some cases, an elderly person goes destitute when they're in that phase between becoming ill and eventually dying. I'm not sure which one kicks in, but you basically have to get rid of your assets and show yourself to be flat broke before you can get this kind of assistance.

So much for passing along an inheritance. Didn't we hear about how inheritance taxes were evil and un-American from the same people who want you to be destitute and broke before you get any kind of help to care for your family.

Explain to me how this family is supposed to sell off all that they own and leave no inheritance behind for those children when we live in a country that has a class of people trying to tell us that an inheritance tax takes away the "birthright" of children who come from wealthy families.

Like I said, these people made the unpardonable sin of being working poor, or just more poor than is allowed, and it's into the meatgrinder for them.

[Trolling Deleted]

My favorite part of this whole issue is the ridiculous "$45K a year is rich!" tactic that some people are using.
-----
$45K a year IS rich if you are a white fundamentalist that works at WalMart and is still making payments on a $30K used double-wide trailer in Alabama.

Yeah, but somebody's got to be tough if those are the tactics they are going to use. That's how we one fights in the past-- by being tough. If none of you will do it, then they win. No one of us can do this on our own.

Duh.

While assholes like you wring your hands and suck your thumb, I'll keep delivering papers to the courthouse.

BG, RS wrote:

"The kid didn't claim he would lose his benefits as far as I could tell. The point is ... that there are many children in comparable living situations who need the services and won't be eligible under Bush's limited expansions."

While it is true that Graeme did not claim he would lose his benefits under Bush's plan, he did claim that "President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP" and clearly presented himself as one of those "kids who really need help" from SCHIP. So I simply asked whether or not President Bush's plan would really stop such kids (i.e. kids like Graham) from getting SCHIP.

You stated that "children in comparable living situations ... won't be eligible' under Bush's plan. But is that really true? Are there currently kids in comparable living situations to Graeme's that are currently not eligible for SCHIP? The NY Times wrote that in Maryland, "a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify" for SCHIP. Are you certain that there are families that meet this requirement (and whatever other requirements Maryland currently has) that have not received SCHIP support due to a lack of funding?

In short, is this really about satisfying gaps and shortfalls under the current SCHIP programs or is it about expanding the program to allow families in less comparable living situations to Graeme's to qualify for SCHIP?

Check out Brad DeLong's post on this - especially on who he declares to be Richard Nixon's parents. Priceless!

Maybe ordinary families will start lining up at the door to give radio addresses that enrage the mouth-breathers. If the Democratic Party is smart, maybe it will happen this very Saturday.
I'd go even further -- do it EVERY Saturday. Force the GOP muck-rakers to waste time and resources EVERY SINGLE WEEK tracking down some obscure, ordinary family.

Al excuses this because liberals mistreat Michele Malkin? Al? Al? Never mind!

I am Spartacus!

I'm willing to give this week's address and subject myself to the worst that right wing scumbags have to dish out.

In some cases, an elderly person goes destitute when they're in that phase between becoming ill and eventually dying.

Right, this is for long-term care, such as a home nurse or living in a long-term care facility. Medicare won't pay for that unless your assets are gone, and will go after people's estates to recover the costs. I'm in the process of pricing out long-term care insurance for my mom, as should most people whose parents have nontrivial assets.

All of these things are tradeoffs. If we want unlimited long-term care for the elderly without an asset test, we have to be willing to pay for it in taxes. I'm less upset with estates getting billed for long-term care than I am with children going without healthcare, but that's just my view on how these things prioritize.

Dial up SlimeMachine.com if you have the stomach for it.

The NY Times wrote that in Maryland, "a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify" for SCHIP. Are you certain that there are families that meet this requirement (and whatever other requirements Maryland currently has) that have not received SCHIP support due to a lack of funding?

Ever heard of a program running out of funds? Ever heard of a program being capped? Ever heard the phrase "we don't have any funding until the next fiscal year?" Better yet, ever heard of an unfunded mandate? Because every state in our great Union has to deal with unfunded mandates and that's why they can't come up with the funds to run these programs on their own.

What you seem to want to do is nibble at the edges. Who cares, right? Just keep nibbling and nibbling and no one will notice the fact that what you're doing is trying to marginalize the importance of a program that insures children.

You know, next year is an election year. I suspect all of these high-minded and fair and balanced conservatives wouldn't have dared come out against SCHIP if this was election season.

Can you kind of tell why we think you people are ratfucking scum? You only care about civil liberties, entitlements, doing the right thing, protecting America and family values when we get close to that moment when people have to decide whether or not to vote your dingleberry-covered asses out of office.

I am not sure where this tack came from...

It came from Hacksaw's fevered mind.

and don't see what that matters.

It doesn't. This was explained to him all day yesterday but apparently it didn't take.

If Karen Tumulty and the rest of the establishment media are so "plainly disgusted" then maybe they should fucking call out the assholes of the right for this stuff, instead of just falling back on tropes like, "Politics ain't beanbag" to explain how this happens.

For the media to wonder how we got here ("when a mere seventh-grader could be swift-boated"), when they've been driving the car for decades, is pretty fucking rich.

While assholes like you wring your hands and suck your thumb, I'll keep delivering papers to the courthouse.

We won that one, didn't we? And we won because you were willing to step up and hand deliver our brief. Pale Rider did the work of a true patriot last spring when he agreed to throw his lot in with us on that matter. I will be forever grateful for that and forever have your back.

or example look at how liberals have treated Michelle Malkin.

My God, you're fucking stupid.

Malkin should be sued for libel, at the very least.

Like I said the other day - when Michelle Malkin finally gets her karmic payback, it's gonna be ugly.

Medicare won't pay for that unless your assets are gone, and will go after people's estates to recover the costs.

Yeah, that's where I see a conflict. It's okay to force people into destitution, but, by God, don't have an inheritance tax if they get hit by a bus as opposed to being hit with a debilitating illness.

How about we use the inheritance tax we collect to fund SCHIP?

Put me on the list! I'd just luuuuuuvvvvv for that bitch to come to my house...

It has been pointed out elsewhere that the libs sometimes seek spokespersons who are not allowed to be refuted. E.g., Senator Max Cleland is a severely disabled veteran, so debating him is said to be unacceptible. Cindy Sheehan was supposed to have "absolute moral authority" (in Maureen Dowd's words) because her son died in Iraq. Thus, her message was irrefutable.

In reality, these two individual entered the political fray and engaged in vicious criticism of Bush and Republicans. It was natural and appropriate that they be criticized in return.

Now the Dems chose a 12-year old spokesman to criticize Republicans. He has been debated, although not vilified. Nobody called him racist names -- something Michelle Malkin has to put up with all the time. Nobody called the Grinch, as national newsmagazine did with Newt. Nobody called him Bushitler or Chimpy -- names I see every day for you-know-who.

By making this fuss about "Swift-boating", the Dems are just playing their old game. Rather than engage in debate, they chose a spokesman who, they claim, may not be politely refuted.

In some cases, an elderly person goes destitute when they're in that phase between becoming ill and eventually dying.

Yes, and not only the elderly. If you are young or middle-aged and uninsured, you will be expected to liquidate your assets to make a dent on your medical bills. This means that if you're really sick and can't work, as happened to a friend of mine, you will have to declare yourself completely indigent in order to get Medicaid--and you'll need to get on public aid to eat and live.

My friend died before he had to go through all that. But had he lived, he would have had no other choice.

I don't mean to make this personal--anecdotes aren't fact. But the fact is, my friend isn't some freak case: this shit happens all the time in the U.S.

My God, you're fucking stupid. Malkin should be sued for libel, at the very least. Posted by: Stranger

Seconded.

It's pathetic and depressing and shows how fucked-up America is that someone like Malkin actually gets paid to be so hateful and idiotic.

Pale Rider:

"Ever heard of a program running out of funds? Ever heard of a program being capped? Ever heard the phrase "we don't have any funding until the next fiscal year?" Better yet, ever heard of an unfunded mandate?"

Sure, but can you show that "children in comparable living situations" to Graeme's have been denied access to SCHIP because of any of these reasons? At a minimum, if there are children that should be eligible for SCHIP support but have been denied due to funding constraints, shouldn't the immediate focus be on funding those kids needs as opposed to enabling less needy families to become eligible for SCHIP or allowing adults to qualify for SCHIP?

ex-liberal, as always, one is impressed with your complete parallel universe.

you want to criticize max cleland? you do so on the basis of his policy positions; you don't (as ann coulter did) accuse him of being so stupid as to cause his own injuries or (as the gop did) turn him into osama bin laden.

you want to criticize cindy sheehan? you do so on the basis of her policy positions; you don't act as though her role is to shut up and support the president.

you want to criticize s-chip? you do so on the basis of - well, i don't actually know what the rational basis for opposition to this is, but let's be generous and assume there is one; you don't do half-assed "fact-checking" and look to smear someone who actually embodies the reason an expansion of s-chip is a good idea.

as for your notion that only michelle malkin and newt gingrich are ever criticized personally: sometimes, you are just too stupid for words.

actually, most of the time.

At long last, have you left no sense of decency, sir?

The next strategy for the Dems should be to get a spokesfamily from the South, I'm thinking Texas, so when Ms. Malkin starts rustling around in the bushes outside their home she gets an ass full of buckshot.

...In reality, these two individual entered the political fray and engaged in vicious criticism of Bush and Republicans. It was natural and appropriate that they be criticized in return....ex-lax at 2:12 PM

The viciousness comes from the likes of Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malkin and the other foul scum that live in that world with you.

hacksaw, you know, if you're too frickin' lazy to learn about s-chip and the status of health insurance in this country, don't blame the rest of us for not wanting to take the time to school you. instead of continuing to post evidence of the fact that you can't be bothered to learn about the issues, why not, you know, go learn something? get better informed? understand what you're talking about?

as is only too often the case, i can't understand how it is that people as ignorant as hacksaw and ex-liberal learn how to type and use a computer.

ex-lax, are you saying, with a straight face, that Retardicans do not engage in name calling?

From Time magazine:

If the war in Iraq is so noble, why aren't you and your sister serving our country there? —Donald Pence, San Francisco

Jenna Bush: I understand that point, but there are many ways to serve our country, and I think my skills are better suited for teaching and representing the U.S. in Latin America through UNICEF. I respect the men and women of our country who are over there fighting. It is an unbelievably selfless thing to do. But if people really thought about it, they would know it's not even a practical question.

Here's a practical question--why is it NOT okay for Jenna Bush (or Not-Jenna) to have to answer to the fact that she's not in the military and that she's able to torment her Secret Service detail, party her ass off and make an idiot out of herself in South America? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't both of these party animals gotten a pass from the media on their behavior because the White House will call them and harass them and intimidate them?

Seems to me, the White House wants to keep people from saying bad things about spoiled children but has no problem with people saying the worst things imaginable about children who don't have health insurance.

Now those are some fucking family values for ya.

Geraldo Rivera has threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin, who is smaller than he. This is typical left wing behavior. Posted by: Luther

Actually, since Rivera and Malkin carry water for the same team (neither one are big time enough to be real players), sounds like an intramural dust-up to me. Remember, Martin, may I call you Martin?, Rivera works or at least used to work for FOX. As FOX is the unofficial media outlet for the Republican Party and Bush administration, no one considers Rivera "liberal." He might have been in his former life as Jerry Rivers, before he became a nuevo Hispanic.

....Geraldo Rivera has threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin....typical left wing behavior. Lutherat 1:15 PM

...Has anyone been able to demonstrate that under Bush's proposal, Graeme Frost would no longer be qualified for SCHIP? ...Hack at 12:20 PM

"By making this fuss about "Swift-boating", the Dems are just playing their old game. Rather than engage in debate, they chose a spokesman who, they claim, may not be politely refuted."

It's not the messengers. It's the message.

Since you're incapable of refuting the latter, you bash the former. We get it. Now go.
Don't you have a kitten to drown or something?

Hacksaw (tbrosz? You smell like that asshat tbrosz to me.)

After I drive over to Annapolis and talk to some friends over there who administer the program, I'll have to get back to you on the funding gap that might have left families that qualified for the SCHIP program but came into the program or applied for benefits and didn't receive any. What the legislation attempted to do was expand the successes of this program so that there would be no funding gaps that would leave out people who were qualified.

Right now, I'm just going to hand you a tall cool glass of shut the fuck up.

Meanwhile, I'll let some Republicans fill you in:

After hearing Bush say Thursday that he was going to veto the bill in part because it would allow families of four making $80,000 to place their children on the the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Grassley blasted the president, saying his assertion was dead wrong.

"The president has been served wrong information about what our bill will do," Grassley said Thursday between Senate votes. "There's nothing in our bill that would do that. His understanding of the bill was wrong."

Bush, in a morning news conference, told reporters that "Congress has made the decision to expand the program up to $80,000. ... This is a step toward federalization of health care."

Grassley said that a waiver to allow higher income families to utilize SCHIP has been taken out of the conference committee compromise forged between House and Senate negotiators over the past two days.

The House will vote next week on the final legislation, followed by the Senate. The Senate should reach 68 votes in favor of the bill, enough to override a presidential veto, but the House is far short of a veto override, meaning lawmakers will have to scramble to figure out whether to temporarily extend the program, which expires Sept. 30, or let it lapse. The compromise under consideration would increase spending on children's healh by $35 billion and would be funded 61-cent tobacco tax increase.

Later Thursday afternoon other Republicans echoed Grassley's frustration. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who is up for reelection next year, took to the Senate floor and vowed to override a Bush veto of "this highly successful program."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), meanwhile, said the president should support a bipartisan compromise on SCHIP.

"The House has worked with us and the Senate Democrats have worked with us. That's a pretty good indication" of bipartisan cooperation, Hatch said.

Asked if he would support a veto override, Hatch didn't hesitate. "You bet your sweet bippy I will," Hatch said with a smile.
-------------------------------------

My question is, and you can pause and take another drink from that glass of shut the fuck up is, when does Michelle Malkin show up and harass Grassley and Hatch?

howard: you want to criticize s-chip? you do so on the basis of - well, i don't actually know what the rational basis for opposition to this is, but let's be generous and assume there is one;

Note that President Bush is not criticizing s-chip. He is criticzing the expansion of the program. It was supposed to cover needy children. It already covers many adults and many who are not needy. The debate is over whether to expand it to cover even more people who are not needy children.

elmo: ex-lax, are you saying, with a straight face, that Retardicans do not engage in name calling?ex-lax, are you saying, with a straight face, that Retardicans do not engage in name calling?

Or course not. I am saying that the Dems sometimes seek spokespersons who they claim must be immune from the usual political debate -- children, disabled veterans, Gold Star Mothers, etc. It's easier to defend a child than it is to explain why the rest of us should pay for the health care of people who can afford to pay for it themselves.

My question is, and you can pause and take another drink from that glass of shut the fuck up is, when does Michelle Malkin show up and harass Grassley and Hatch?

Game, set and match to Pale Rider.

they chose a spokesman who, they claim, may not be politely refuted.

Most. Dishonest. Ex-Lib Blather. Evah.

Pale Rider,

As I sip from my glass of STFU, maybe you can take a moment and become informed yourself. You wrote: "What the legislation attempted to do was expand the successes of this program so that there would be no funding gaps that would leave out people who were qualified."

But have you established that there were funding gaps and that qualified people have been left out of the program because of these gaps?

The Congressional Research Service put out a report in late August that provided an overview of SCHIP. You can read it here:

http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL30473.pdf

With regard to your comment, in the last fiscal year only 3 states have funding shortfalls for SCHIP and in all cases funding was reallocated to cover the shortfall. Reallocated from states that had not spent all their budgeted SCHIP money (i.e. they had too much funding for the program). There was sufficient funding that over 10% of the recipients of SCHIP aid are actually adults, including almost 200,000 childless adults that somehow have been waived to get medical coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Maryland, in case you were interested, had a $5 million balance at the end of FY2006 so I am pretty sure that means that no kids who were eligible to receive SCHIP aid in Maryland were denied that aid due to funding gaps.

In short, the legislation is not seeking to ensure "there would be no funding gaps that would leave out people who were qualified." It is seeking to expand the number of people who are qualified. Now if you want to argue in favor of expanding the scope of people to be covered by SCHIP that's OK with me. But stop pretending this is about covering funding gaps that are currently denying aid to kids that are qualified for SCHIP assistance.

It already covers many adults and many who are not needy.

Rush told me so.

Has anyone been able to demonstrate that under Bush's proposal, Graeme Frost would no longer be qualified for SCHIP?

According to the Baltimore Sun, yes, under Bush's proposal, the Maryland SCHIP program would be underfunded (you see, hacky, there's this thing called inflation, which in healthcare, is kind of high. And hacky dear, the 5 billion your dumbass president proposes will not even cover the increased costs of health insurance), and over 1,000 children would lose their benefits. So, yes, there is a very real chance that the Frosts could lose coverage.

As I mentioned in another thread, this is an incredibly effective program (which is undoubtedly why you hate it) and an incredibly cost-effective one. An additional $35 billion over 5 years would cover nearly half of the 8 million uninsured children in this country. Yet we spend that much in one month in Iraq, and you say nary a word. We build bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and you keep your mouth shut. We spend nearly $300 billion for a highway bill that enriches the then Speaker of the House, and not a peep out of old hacky.

Yet you want to pipe in on this one. Fine. Let me ask you, hackmeister, are you OK with the fact that 8 million children have no health insurance? If not, what do you propose we do? Since you are obviously so deadset against an expansion of SCHIP, I'm sure you have alternatives, right?

Unless of course, you don't give a shit.

Dems sometimes seek spokespersons who they claim must be immune from the usual political debate

Because it simply can't be that Dems abhor that the "usual political debate" engaged by Republicans is baseless smearing, lying, and dishonesty to discredit a legitimate policy opinion.

Poor Hacksaw,

If they already have all the money they'll ever need, why are there ANY uninsured children in this country? Last time I checked, there were quite a few.

In the case where a state has a surplus of funds from the Federal Government and can't distribute them to families in need, then the state should be mandated to give that money BACK to the Federal Government to distribute to states that are short of funds.

See, I just want to see as many children covered by insurance as possible. I really don't care if a movement conservative gets a chance to smash! pound! kill! something to prove they're tough and that they hate government or want to shrink it down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. I don't care if a shill like yourself gets the chance to thump your chest about numbers you don't understand (inflation? you forgot about inflation? good catch youlostbrain).

Uh, all I care about is covering uninsured children. That's a long term investment that is decent, fair, equitable and will save us money in the long term. You care about movement conservative talking points and sucking on the tailpipe of a president who is rapidly reaching the end of a disasterous presidency that will easily go down as the most astounding display of incompetence in our long history.

As he leaves town, he's not going to remember what you did for him. He sort of expects you'll just bow and scrape for him, as is his birthright.

I expect in a decade or so when somebody looks back at the Graeme Frost flap for the retrospective meaning, it's gonna be less about how unhinged Malkin, et al, were, and more about how somehow, the GOP managed to lose the votes of families like the Frosts.

We are seeing constantly escalating expressions of hatred from both sides. The other side is not merely wrong, they are evil and not to be abided, therefore they must be discredited and destroyed. Used anywhere else but on the internet, the vitriol used against perceived enemies of the Right and Left would likely result in violence, perhaps even death.

We are seeing constantly escalating expressions of hatred from both sides.

Then you'll be able to point out to me the last time a left-wing pundit called upon his or her readers to harass/stalk/threaten a spokesman on the Right whom they disagreed with.

Be specific. Links would be a plus.

"If pigs can fly, then maybe it will happen this very Saturday."

Fixed that for you.

The other side is not merely wrong, they are evil and not to be abided, therefore they must be discredited and destroyed. Posted by: Trashhauler

Yup. That pretty much descibes 90% of today's elected Republicans, their functionaries and fellow travellers.

MeLoseBrain - I presume you were referring to the opinion piece in today's Baltimore Sun. The story badly mangles what the president and the Congress' funding plans are and of course does not indicate that Bush's plan would underfund SCHIP for Maryland.

What it does say is that Bush's plan could reduce the number of children covered by SCHIP. But this is because Maryland asked for a waiver that allowed them to put kids on the role even where their family's income exceed 200% of the poverty level. Bush's plan forces the stated to ensure that 95% of the needy kids with family incomes at or below the 200% figure are covered before the program accepts less needy kids. In other words, Maryland expanded the coverage of SCHIP beyond what the program was originally intended to cover.

Once again, if you want to argue that SCHIP should be expanded to cover kids from families earning above 200% of poverty level that's fine by me. I just want folks to be honest about what they are advocating and stop pretending that Bush's plan is to prevent kids from working poor families from getting the aid they are entitled to.

By the way Pale Rider, under SCHIP surplus funds from States are redistributed to meet shortfalls in other states. And I do want to see all kids (and all Americans for that matter) covered by health insurance that is affordable, comprehensive, and transportable. I just don't think that surreptitiously doubling SCHIP to draw in middle class families that could otherwise acquire insurance is the way to do it. And I certainly don't think lying about one's intentions to do that is acceptable either.

Has anyone been able to demonstrate that under Bush's proposal, Graeme Frost would no longer be qualified for SCHIP?
===================================================
Hacksaw? The program will end if the bill, or a substitute, is not passed. So, yeah, Graeme will lose his coverage along with everyone else under SCHIP.

I just want folks to be honest about what they are advocating

Hack, your dishonest characterization of the Malkin / Limbaugh / McConnell smear forfeits your standing to call for "honesty."

Speaking of dishoenst, you gotta love Trashy's "a pox on both your houses" mewling. Malkin and Company froth with lies abotu the Frosts because they oppose Dear Leader's policy, and are an effective political symbol into the bargain. Decent people react with appropriate disgust and -- except for Hack, of course -- accurately describe the odious behaviour of Malkin and Company. There's the difference, Trashy.

....the vitriol used against perceived enemies of the Right and Left would likely result in violence, perhaps even death. Trashhauler at 4:11 PM

... I am saying that the Dems sometimes seek spokespersons who they claim must be immune from the usual political debate -- children, disabled veterans, Gold Star Mothers....ex-lax at 3:05 PM

There you go again Gregory.

I said that the questions Malkin et al were asking were not a change of subject but fit within the broader concerns conservatives had about SCHIP being expanded beyond its original intent. I then said I though their picking on the Frosts was a losing issue because they did not appear to be a good example of a family that received SCHIP aid even though they could afford private health insurance.

Keep calling the dishonest if you want, but it doesn't excuse advocates for nationalized health care from using poor kids to lie about their intention to surreptitiously expand SCHIP to cover less needy families (or childless adults) while proclaiming that evil Bush wants to take health insurance away from poor, sick children.

We are seeing constantly escalating expressions of hatred from both sides.

This started when Malkin and her ilk went to their home, revealed their address, sent them hate mail, the father's business, and began speculating that these people didn't deserve the help they're getting. Where was the "hate" when this kid talked about the SCHIP program?

How exactly did the "hate" start from the Left? This kid is not allowed to criticize the Bush veto and advocate keeping this program? He has no rights? He has no right to advocate for something that is positive and that benefits him and his family? He started the hate, in other words? By being a recipient of these benefits? Or did the hate start when he and his sister were in that horrible car accident that put him in that coma?

Man, do you have FUCKED UP priorities. So come by my home sometime and see if you and YOUR ilk want to pull that shit. I'm a little less delicate and sensible when it comes to people trying to smear my children.

You're just bitching because the pushback is working. Get used to it. Between now and November 2008, all you're fucking gonna see and all you're fucking going to hear and all you're fucking going to know is pushback.

it doesn't excuse advocates for nationalized health care from using poor kids to lie about their intention to surreptitiously expand SCHIP to cover less needy families (or childless adults) while proclaiming that evil Bush wants to take health insurance away from poor, sick children.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The only person lying is Bush. See what REPUBLICAN Chuck Grassley said above:

After hearing Bush say Thursday that he was going to veto the bill in part because it would allow families of four making $80,000 to place their children on the the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Grassley blasted the president, saying his assertion was dead wrong.

"The president has been served wrong information about what our bill will do," Grassley said Thursday between Senate votes. "There's nothing in our bill that would do that. His understanding of the bill was wrong."

So your President is caught lying about SCHIP by a Republican. How does it feel knowing that I've now twice refuted what you're saying by quoting a Republican? Is Chuck Grassley a liar? You call him and tell him he's a liar. I'm sure he'll figure out what to do with the likes of you.

Has your dishonest, pus-filled, diseased little pinhead exploded yet?

Then you'll be able to point out to me the last time a left-wing pundit called upon his or her readers to harass/stalk/threaten a spokesman on the Right whom they disagreed with.
_______________________

And if I don't bother to do your bidding, does that mean it doesn't happen?

Malkin claims it's happened to her, complete with google map of her house, address and phone number. I didn't the links to see for myself.

I don't know if I'd call Malkin a spokesman for anyone but herself, however.

Pale Rider,

What the kid can't do is claim Bush wants to stop kids who really need help, kids like Graeme, from getting SCHIP if that is not in fact what would happen under Bush's plan. When the Frosts put themselves out there as an example of they type of family that would be denied access to SCHIP if Bush vetoes the SCHIP bill, they invited scrutiny into their claim.

Gregory will now claim I am making excuses for what Malkin and others have done or said. I am not. Personally I think their questions were within bounds but they jumped to conclusions that had them significantly overstate the financial position of the Frosts.

But therein lies the rub. If (or since) the Frosts are so obviously needy and therefore properly entitled to SCHIP aid, then they are not the proper face to advocate for an expansion of SCHIP to less needy families with fewer circumstances such as the pre-existing medical conditions of the two kids.

There you go again Gregory.

You, sir, are no Ronald Reagan, Hack. You lie, and condone malkin and her minsions' lies, I call you on it. That's how it goes.

I said that the questions Malkin et al were asking were not a change of subject but fit within the broader concerns conservatives had about SCHIP being expanded beyond its original intent.

Yes, and that's dishoenst right off the bat. They weren't asking questions so much as telling lies -- implying that the Frosts did not, or should not have, qualified for SCHIP in the first place.

And yes, their attacks are a change in subject, obviously. your denials here are nonsensical. In fact, you approved of Malkin's attacks precisely because they changed the subject to something you're more comfortable with talking about -- although most of the nation and most of the Congress, Democratic and Republican, has already settled: Should we expland SCHIP.

I then said I though their picking on the Frosts was a losing issue

Which is as close as you came to condemning Malking and her screaming hordes' lies and attacks. Stay classy, Hack.

because they did not appear to be a good example of a family that received SCHIP aid even though they could afford private health insurance.

But they are a good example of a family that recieved SCHIP -- busienss-owning, tax-paying, law-abiding and nearly wiped out by a medical emergency. Moreover, you at first professed ignorance of their situation, in order to pretend that Malkin et al's accusations weren't a pack of lies.

Sepaking of lies, it has not been established
that they can afford private health insurance -- and yet you keep asserting it as if it were fact.

Keep calling the dishonest if you want,

Keep being dishoenst and I will.

but it doesn't excuse advocates for nationalized health care from using poor kids

There you go again with the word "using". And no one claims the Frosts are poor, liar.

to lie about their intention to surreptitiously expand SCHIP to cover less needy families

Surreptitiously? The Frosts advocated the expansion of SCHIP, you mendatious toad! You're pretending there's some subterfuge goign on, and there isn't. Even "ex-liberal," mendacious as he is, acknowledges that Bush pretends to want to expand SCHIP and that the debate is a matter of degree.

(or childless adults)

[applause] That's a remarkably dishonest, if technically accurate, way of saying that SCHIPs bemefits might extend to pregnant women, Hack.

Yes, I'll keep calling you dishoenst.

while proclaiming that evil Bush wants to take health insurance away from poor, sick children.

Well, Hack, the fact that you're so thoroughly into straw man territory here proves not only that you're a dishonest toad, but also that you don't have anything resembling a cogent argument.

Here, again, is why the Frosts are such a powerful symbol that you condone Malkin's distracting attack. They're a middle class family that, if not for SCHIP, would be financially ruined by medical bills (and let's not forget your own disgusting -- not to mention impractical -- implication that they should sell their house. Way to stay classy, Hack!).

They advocated, openly, expanding SCHIP's coverage. You oppose it -- but you're in the minority, Hack. America has seen the kind of vision jackasses like you offer, and they've rejected it so thoroughly that even Republicans don't oppose them (though you hardly seem to mention them when you complain abotut he bill -- funny, that). The "debate" you pretend Malkin has "raised" is over, Hack, and your side lost.

But your defending Malkin by lying about what she did and why is even more disgusting and reprehensible than your political stance, Hack. Shame on you.

Even "ex-liberal," mendacious as he is, acknowledges that Bush pretends to want to expand SCHIP and that the debate is a matter of degree.

Actually, what I said was that Bush wanted to leave s-chip as is, whereas the Dems want to expand it.

I don't know if I'd call Malkin a spokesman for anyone but herself, however. Posted by: Trashhauler

She's apparently a spokesthing for FOX and Rupert Murdock and what they represent or they wouldn't have her deranged ass on at least once a week.

"How exactly did the "hate" start from the Left?"
______________________

I didn't say it started there. However, in today's WSJ, Daniel Henninger describes where he thinks the Left's use of such tactics comes from.

"...the aggressive theory of scorched-earth political argument laid out in the hothouse years of the 1960s by the late left-wing political philosopher Herbert Marcuse. Just last November, in an admiring essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education, the left polemicist Stanley Fish aptly summed up Marcuse's assertion that "liberal" notions of tolerance for political speech should be overturned.

The rationale for this notion is that standard tolerance is rigged against the left. In practice, tolerance extends only to the ideas and beliefs of the powerful, while it shuts out ideas on behalf of the weak or "marginalized"--the poor, minorities, women and the rest. Mr. Fish says liberals fail to see "the dark side of their favorite virtue."

Prof. Fish has an alternative to traditions of tolerance, and to anyone awash in American politics today it will sound familiar: "That is to say, and Marcuse says it, anything the right does is bad and should not be tolerated; anything the left does is good and should be welcomed." This would explain the emotional intensity and animosity in politics now: The other side no longer deserves minimal respect.

It's not enough to disagree with conservative viewpoints; one has to undermine and delegitimize them. Mock them. Put them beyond the pale."

I won't swear to the accuracy of the above. Sounds a bit too facile. But the vitriol does seem to be rising, all the same. Posters are spring-loaded to the "Insult" position. That can't be healthy.

Gregory will now claim I am making excuses for what Malkin and others have done or said.

Since you still can't bring yourself to admit that Malkin and her bunch lied about the Frosts ("they jumped to conclusions that had them significantly overstate the financial position of the Frosts"? Please!), and you're on record as approving her raising the so-called "questions," however bogus the means, and moreover, you just now tacitly defended Malkin's lies again by asserting that "their questions were within bounds" and the "Frosts "invited scrutiny into their claim,"
yes, Hack, you are. You constantly misrepresent the actions of Malkin and her stinking crew, and your feeble denials aside, "making excuses for what Malkin and others have done or said" is precisely, and self-evidently, what you're doing.

What the kid can't do is claim Bush wants to stop kids who really need help, kids like Graeme, from getting SCHIP if that is not in fact what would happen under Bush's plan.

What he can and did do was claim, correctly, that Bush would stop kids like him from getting help by veroting the bill. Bush's "plan" is not up for passage; Congress passed SCHIP on a bipartisan basis, and Bush vetoed it.

they are not the proper face to advocate for an expansion of SCHIP to less needy families with fewer circumstances such as the pre-existing medical conditions of the two kids

Yes, they are, Hack, because they're living proof that the fucked-up health care system that conservative assholes like you defend means that tax-paying, law-abiding, business-owning middle-class people can be financially ruined by a health crisis and that private insurance, even where available, is hardly affordable. What's more, Hack, the American people know it. Which is why the Frosts had to be smeared -- to ruin them as a symbol -- a porcess you not only condone but are working diligently, if in a less strident but no less dishonest fashion than Malkin, to continue. You're a perfect representation of modern movement conservatism, Hack. Shame on you.

Actually, what I said was that Bush wanted to leave s-chip as is,

Who gives a shit what Shrub wants? He's a loser. He's done more harm to this country than any president before him.

whereas the Dems want to expand it. Posted by: ex-liberal

No, you lying scum. There is bi-partisan support to expand the program.

Actually, what I said was that Bush wanted to leave s-chip as is, whereas the Dems want to expand it.

You acknowledged "ex-liberal," that Bush is nominally for an expansion (albeit one that given the population will nevertheless result in an actual cut) and claimed he is being criticized by liberals for not expanding SCHIP enough. Can't you keep your lies straight? Or was that one just too obvious to pass up the opportunity to insult your betters?

And Trashy -- I love the false equivalence between subjecting conservatism to well-deserved mockery and the kind of hatemongering that's Malkin's fucking trademark. The reference to the Wall Street Journal was just icing on the cake. But I welcome that you aren't even pretending to be an honest commentator any more -- not that anyone beleived it any more.

But I do wonder one thing -- do you jackasses ever consider that an ideology that can only be defended by lies like the ones you, Hack, "ex-liberal," Teashy, et al, spew here, is inherently illegitimate? Or is cognitive dissonance just too strong?

Gregory:

For starters, I said using the Frosts was a losing plan because they were NOT an example of a family getting SCHIP aid even though they could afford private insurance. So I wasn't asserting that the Frosts could afford it I was accepting the likelihood that they could not.

Second, Graeme's ad did not discuss expanding SCHIP to include families less needy than his own. He said "I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP" and presented himself as the perfect example of one of those kids. In using himself as the example, he invited the listener to conclude that Bush was opposed to (i.e. "wants to stop") kids in Graeme's situation from getting aid. That is not, repeat not, the same thing as advocating an expansion of SCHIP to cover people less needy than the Frosts.

Third, on adults covered by SCHIP, if you looked at the CRS report you would see that of the 700,000 or so adults, just over 4,000 are pregnant women. About 200,000 are childless adults and the remainder are parents. Now explain to me why a child health insurance program that you claim is falling short of covering all the children who need help is providing insurance to adults in the first place.

Fourth, Bush wants to ensure that the States focus their SCHIP funds on reaching kids from families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level before seeking waivers to expand their coverage to reach less needy families. He wants to expand the capacity of SCHIP to aid those kids. He does not want to expand it to reach middle class families that he believes are able to acquire private insurance.

And lastly, I challenge you to find a single quote from me in which I implied the Frosts should sell their house.

'cksaw, the longer you argue, the more support you lose.

To the extent this is a substantive argument, you have about a third of a point: it is NOT true that Bush is standing valiantly on principle here. Nor is this a significant difference over priorities. You're basically arguing that if the Malkins had attacked some OTHER kid in precisely the same way whose family was just a LITTLE better of than the Frosts, well: that would have been okay.

Not much of an argument, that.

Besides, it misses the two central points that are REALLY part of the argument.

First, as Gregory pointed out, our health care system (including private insurance) is set up so the folks whom conservatives claim to MOST like in our economy -- people like the Frosts, hardworking family-oriented small biz entrepreneurs -- are extremely vulnerable to financial ruin cuz of health care issues, like accidents or unforeseen illness.

It is fair for conservatives to say, gee, them's the breaks of a free market economy -- IF you're prepared to accept the political consequences of that ideology, cuz it means you are betraying the people you CLAIM to admire most (like the Frosts) over ideology.

Most Americans aren't particularly ideological, so you will lose 'em over your heartlessness. That's why conservatives make bogus arguments, the way you have been.

Progressives, remember, DO believe that we can all help folks like the Frosts. It is a difference of KIND, not degree, which is why your argument is bogus: you want the political benefits of being progressive, not the political costs of being a genuine conservative: have the courage of your convictions, already.

Like it would have been so much better if these guys had attacked a kid whose woodworking dad had made $90k, cuz even he couldn't have afforded $300k worth of medical care for his brain-damaged children?

The second point flows from that fact: what Malkin, et al, did to the Frosts IS the modern face of conservatism.

You're just trying to move the lips to mumble excuses.

Not to make too much out of the Frosts themselves, but generally speaking it was families like that -- young-ish, small, entrepreneurial, work with their hands folks -- who became "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 and pretty much created the GOP's ruling coalition for 20 years.

That's where it isn't Malkin's tactics, it's YOUR argument that counts -- cuz your failure to have the courage of your "let them lose it all to care for their kids" conviction is how you've lost families like the Frosts.

IF you made the honest conservative argument (just as, if pro-lifers ever really got the state-by-state abortion rules the GOP claims to want), you'd never win another national election.

But faking it has pretty much played out the hand.

What the conservative/repub blogosphere has done was predictable, ought to embarrass them, but doesn't. However, Kevin wrote...

The next time the Democrats ask a private citizen to do a radio address they're going to think twice, aren't they?

A private citizen? You mean like and adult? They asked a 12 year old CHILD to give their policy address on the radio, and he argued by anecdote. Reminded me of the "buy this magazine or the dog gets it" National Lampoon cover years ago. I would never imagine thrusting my own 12 year old as raw meat into that grinder, nor would I ever be as mercenary as the Dems were to use a 12 year old as a human shield like that. Think they didn't know what kind of response would come? If so, they are either ignorant or stupid.

For Trashhauler @ 5:37PM - Let me see if I understand this correctly - someone named Daniel Henniger wrote a piece in the WSJ about the "...the left polemicist Stanley Fish..." who in turn wrote "...an admiring piece..." about Herbert Marcuse (a 1960's radical leftist) for the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Last November. November 2006.
The rightwingers have been sliming people since. at least, 2002 and the best you can do is find an article from 2007, that quotes another article from 2006 about (now please note the following carefully) what this "left-wing polemicist" says SHOULD be done.
Not what is being done; but what SHOULD be done. In the future. From now on.
In other words, we should quit doing what we have been doing, which is NOT sliming opponents, and START sliming them.
Don't you understand English?

Second, Graeme's ad did not discuss expanding SCHIP to include families less needy than his own. He said "I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP" and presented himself as the perfect example of one of those kids. In using himself as the example, he invited the listener to conclude that Bush was opposed to (i.e. "wants to stop") kids in Graeme's situation from getting aid.

Jesus...would you listen to yourself? "presented himself as the perfect example"? "he invited the listener to conclude..."?!? He's a 12 year old kid, and you're describing him as this preening insincere manipulator, actively trying to lead people to the wrong conclusion. Why, Mr. "Perfect Example" was practically *asking* to be shown up, wasn't he?

What the hell's the matter with you? Read what you wrote, and read it again until you realize how screwed up it is to foist *those* impressions on *that* child.

It's not enough to disagree with conservative viewpoints; one has to undermine and delegitimize them. Mock them. Put them beyond the pale."

Mock conservative positions? Of course. If you're going to set yourself up you're going to get knocked down. Have you listened to the leading lights of the right recently (of course you have because you're a winger yourself).

You've got idiots like Brownback, a presidential candidate no less, saying he doesn't believe in evolution. You had a former member of the senate (who wisely did not seek re-election because financial questions) making medical diagnosis via video tape. You've had how many congressmen and administration officials convicted of bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors? And then there is your president who asks "Is our children learning?"

Just who is it in your tribe that makes sense when he talks policy?

I won't swear to the accuracy of the above. Sounds a bit too facile. But the vitriol does seem to be rising, all the same. Posters are spring-loaded to the "Insult" position. That can't be healthy. Posted by: Trashhauler

I have a lot of respect for Stanley Fish. However, to be citing his writings from a couple decades ago as contemporary liberal orthodoxy is just a bit more of stretch, especially since none of the front running Democratic candidates for president is a liberal.

Then again, this was an op-ed piece from the ever so moderate WSJ opinions page.

And knock off the concerned troll shtick or at least change your handle from Trashhauler to WaterCarrier, though they amount to the same.

He's a 12 year old kid, and you're describing him as this preening insincere manipulator, actively trying to lead people to the wrong conclusion.

Exactly. He was just a CHILD. He just read the script handed to him. He was just cannon fodder for the democrats. You can almost sense the palpable joy (masked as deep concern) that the conservs are attacking him. A sacrifice to the greater cause. Chalk it up as a win.

SJRSM: He was just cannon fodder for the democrats. You can almost sense the palpable joy (masked as deep concern) that the conservs are attacking him. A sacrifice to the greater cause. Chalk it up as a win.

The projection here is astounding. And your daily deepening rage--an impotent, flailing fury--as your guys come to smash is dismaying. It makes one want to look away, ashamed for you.

LOSERS:

Despite the Democrats utterly despiccable tactic of using a minor in this process because the adult Democrats don't have the persuasive points, conservatives have not said one word about the child; only the parents and their income/wealth which is overwhelmingly fair game given the context.

I will say this; perhaps the Democrats did pick the most mature person at their disposal to give the address.

Kevin: you are becoming more and more like a shrieking little child with each passing month.

TOH

ALSO:

Has anyone asked why this family needs health insurance? Can they not just pay for their medical expenses until they reach the poverty level and then get Medicaid?

Also, a reminder, thanks to the generous hard working few, the derelict masses already do enjoy universal health care. What is being debated is whether along with paying for everything else in the USA (besides personal SS pensions), the few hard working elite ought to pay for middle income people's asset-protection-in-the-event-of-serious-illness insurance.

And lastly, the real uninsured, i.e., the actual U.S. citizens who truly cannot afford health insurance premiums (but still can go on Medicaid if they find their medical expenses drive them to poverty) are very few: maybe 10 million. Why would you wreck our country with another union-based bureaucratic nightmare for that? Here is a slogan for you: Vote Democrat, We'll Do For Health Care What We've Done for Public Education.

This is a disaster in the making but will destroy the current Democrats just like Welfare did to the 60s Democrats. You'll see.

TOH

>Has anyone asked why this family needs health insurance? Can they not just pay for their medical expenses until they reach the poverty level and then get Medicaid?
>the few hard working elite ought to pay for middle income people's asset-protection-in-the-event-of-serious-illness insurance.

OH, have you ever had yourself screened for a personality disorder? Grandiosity, narcissism, lack of empathy, rigid thought patterns...hmmm.

Really, if the democratic party planned for this to happen, they're way smarter than I've given them credit. They've made republicans look like ignorant snobs and monsters.

Thank you for erasing any doubts I've ever had about the worth of the Canadian medicare system and the logic behind its lack of means-testing. Probably this mini-drama has also neatly explained that logic to quite a few middle-income americans.

Wow -- way to prove my post.

Somebody get The Object talking that shit on TV, or better yet, a floor pass to the Republican convention with a clear path to a camera.

"Work your ass off, fix up a house in the city, be your own boss -- and if your kids are in a car accident, the GOP will see to it you go to debtors' prison and live on welfare the rest of your life."

Man, this keeps up, they won't carry Texas.

Malkin claims it's happened to her, complete with google map of her house, address and phone number. I didn't the links to see for myself.

And which left-wing pundit dispatched people to her house? Who, in the left blogosphere or anywhere else, called upon someone to do that?

C'mon, name names. If you can. I doubt it.

I've been a little busy lately and haven't kept up with the smear campaign, so if someone would be so kind and let me know when Malkin slimed, attacked, harassed, threatened or stalked 12 year-old Graeme Frost? When did Malkin sneak around their house, rustle around in the bushes?
Links would be helpful.
Thanks

Man, this keeps up, they won't carry Texas.

You got that right, theAmericanistalistcalafragilistic...

Links would be helpful.

You can start with these, asshat.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/11/mcconnell-staffer-smear-graeme/

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/its-not-about-v.html

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827

For starters, though--here's what the kid actually said:

“Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I’m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. 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 healthcare 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.�
-------------------------

As you can tell, the kid is SUCH an insane, unhinged moonbat...

I don't see any "Bush is taking away my CHIP" PR

I do see a kid who wants more kids to be "as lucky" as him. Damn. Chivalry isn't dead...

PR,
Please reread my previous post. If you don't have any answers for my specific questions, kindly don't waste anymore of my time.

BTW, I heard the radio address. The young man did an exceptionally fine job.

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.

From what all the wingnuts have been saying, it sounds like selling their car and house is precisely what they suggest Graeme's parents should have done.

If you don't have any answers for my specific questions, kindly don't waste anymore of my time.

What a fuckwit. Three links and you can't even have the common decency to slink off into the shadows and lick your wounds like a properly beaten sack of shit.

The projection here is astounding. And your daily deepening rage--an impotent, flailing fury--as your guys come to smash is dismaying. It makes one want to look away, ashamed for you.
Posted by: shortstop

Your willingness to condone any behavior to bring down the repubs is astonishing. Your Martyrdom Operation with a 12 year old CHILD was successful, pat yourself on the back.

Now expect to see an ad with a series of children, ranging from the age of 12 and going back to a newborn child, each saying, "Thank you Mom for not aborting me."

Yea, the newborn can't actually talk, but do you really think your 12 year old wrote his own script? He was just a symbol being used for your cause anyway. I can imagine the HOWLS coming from [ deleted] if the repubs did it. And they'd not be a lick more ethical than you were. Congrats on crossing another taboo.

Pale Rider, I think majarosh was making fun of me.

[You are on notice. Get a grip or get deleted.]

Folks need to calm down.

Maja -- the sequence is pretty clear. Graeme Frost's radio address was POWERFUL. He raised exactly the right argument -- 'kids like me, from families like mine' -- and epitomized exactly the right kind of case. If the Republicans lose families like the Frosts, they're doomed.

And the surest way to lose families like the Frosts, is for families like the Frosts to IDENTIFY with them, their problems (there but for the grace of God go we), AND recognize that both Democrats and Republicans (like Grassley) want to help people like them with SCHIP.

Which Bush vetoed.

So McConnell's guy instantly tried to sever the connection folks were making between Graeme Frost and "people like us", by suggesting that the Frosts were freeloaders on the taxpayer. Right wing opinion leaders like NRO and the assorted blogs and commenters on 'em went after the Frosts, starting with stuff that's true but misleading (the father is an entrepreneur who owned his own business), half-true (the kid goes to an expensive private school ON A SCHOLARSHIP), and outright false (massively over-stating the family's income and wealth).

It would be to Malkin's credit, if she was a competent reporter much less a better person, that she drove by the Frost's neighborhood to see if they 'appeared' to be ineligible for a program that they WERE eligible for, in fact.

But she simply used that to EXTEND and soften the smear on the Frosts, as if it was a policy dispute rather than an attack on a family that is the salt of the earth.

The real deal is to take the Republican Party (or at least the Bush folks) at their word, SUBSTANTIVELY. They want to fuck over families like the Frosts -- which could scarcely be a worse strategy, substantively or politically.

Right?

Three links that accuse, zero edidence that answers my questions..." let me know when Malkin slimed, attacked, harassed, threatened or stalked 12 year-old Graeme Frost? When did Malkin sneak around their house, rustle around in the bushes?"

Jingo, listen to yourself. May I suggest that you step back and try to read your recent posts from the perspective of someone who has not just been forced into retirement, is not watching his beloved party go up in flames and is not furious that his occupation has lost virtually all American support?

You might see just how increasingly crazy you seem to everyone else of late.

Downward spiral, dude. Calm down and get checked out.

Whoa, I need to clarify: "his occupation" means "the occupation of Iraq he supports," in the sense of "his administration" or "his boys in the White House"--not "his former occupation as a member of the military."

Now expect to see an ad with a series of children, ranging from the age of 12 and going back to a newborn child, each saying, "Thank you Mom for not aborting me."

Um, they already did that, you moron, with the "snowflake babies." Remember that?

I can imagine the HOWLS coming from dumbassocrats if the repubs did it.

Again, moron, this already happened, and there were no howls from the Democrats. Remember Noah McCullough?

At 9, He's Out Stumping for President's Social Security Plan
By GLEN JUSTICE

Published: February 26, 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.....

In a sign of how far groups go to carry their message on Social Security, Progress for America has signed up Noah, a fourth grader, as a volunteer spokesman.....

The trip was a brainchild of Stuart Roy, a former aide to Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, who recently joined the DCI Group, a political consultancy here with ties to the Republican Party and Mr. Bush.....

Now, this was only a few years ago, but I don't seem to recall prominent Democratic politicians and pundits attacking Noah McCullough or the snowflake babies or harassing their families. But then again, maybe that's just because Democrats have a sense of fundamental decency that Republicans utterly lack.

Three links that accuse, zero edidence that answers my questions...

BULL shit. Bullshit! You are full of dishonest, reeking bullshit. Your standard for evidence is exactly the same as Malkins. Which is, to put it mildly, swallowing self-congratulatory bullshit that only supports your "beliefs." Anything that doesn't validate your preconceived notions is not evidence in your world. And the only thing that works in your world is the aforementioned "bullshit."

It would be to Malkin's credit, if she was a competent reporter much less a better person, that she drove by the Frost's neighborhood to see if they 'appeared' to be ineligible for a program that they WERE eligible for, in fact.

If she had any skills or ability, and knew anything at all about the community that the Frosts live in, she would know that the Patterson Park neighborhood is recovering from some of the worst drug and gang violence in the history of Baltimore. They deserve a medal for being part of the solution in their community, and I'm surprised that that hasn't gotten more play. When a nuclear family lives in a tough neighborhood, and does what they're supposed to do, they help turn that neighborhood around. We need more people like that.

Now expect to see an ad with a series of children, ranging from the age of 12 and going back to a newborn child, each saying, "Thank you Mom for not aborting me."

Shows how fucking stupid you are. Ever seen an abortion protest? Ever been through the goddamned bible belt? What you describe would be tame and tasteful compared to what they normally use in their ads.

SJRSM, get some help. Go talk to someone at the VA, man. Jeeeezus.

Mike, I don't normally pass judgment on anyones mental state on the internet, but you appear to be either in crisis, or entering one. I echo Shortstop and Pale Rider - Use your VA bennies and get checked out.

Since it's such a good example, let's highlight the TECHNIQUES here.

Legit: Democrats found a compelling example of their policy choice. Graeme Frost is a compelling persuasive instance of someone who was helped by SCHIP, and would be hurt by Bush's veto. So they legitimately personalized the issue, made it real by giving a real example.

Not legit: Republicans had two choices (other than what WOULD have been the smartest, to simply ignore the kid). They chose the wrong one.

Legit: They could have argued the REAL case, which is that tax cuts and funding Iraq sucks up all the money so gee, too bad, kid. (I told a Democratic Hill guy it was a choice of "Blackwater vs. babies".)

Not legit: Instead, as McConnell's guy advocated, knowing that for Bush stiffing the Frosts to pay for Iraq is a loser, they could go after the Frosts THEMSELVES. So that's what they did.

Legit: Choosing to go after the example, you're basically arguing that it isn't what it seems to be. If I say that American cuisine is the best in the world, take Spam f'r instance, it's easy to attack the example to undermine the argument. It's essentially a counter-strategy -- skipping the argument to say the example doesn't prove it, might even for a really well done counter (cuz Spam was a BAD example), DIS-proves it.

The legit way to go after the Frosts as an example would have been the one that was so pathetically raised upthread, that even though everybody (including Bush) wants to help THEM, the SCHIP bill and the Maryland program spends too much on OTHER, less deserving people. It's not the legit 'no cuisine that produces Spam could be the best', cuz the Frosts are a GOOD example. Cuz 'we want to help them but' is such a weak argument, it's not the one McConnell's guy persuaded Malkin, et al, to make.

Not legit: They couldn't say 'of course we all want to help the Frosts, but...' because that's a priorities argument, and implicates the tax cuts and the Iraq war. So they didn't try a substantive, factual counter at all. They tried the most brutal sort of politics -- and it backfired.

It's obvious: tag the Frosts as 'not like us' for their base. But the Frosts ARE the Republican base, demographically. If you want to understand the techniques, THAT's the place to start -- cuz I guarantee you, that's where the professionals started it. That's why they tried to swiftboat 'em -- just the way attacking Kerry with purple heart bandaids leached his genuine war service of its patriotic power.

Butas a matter of fact, the Frosts were eligible for the program -- and even Bush's guys have finally conceded (cuz they failed, politically) that they'd have helped the family, too. See how utterly bankrupt their REAL case is, that they tried to literally alienate their own base?

Cuz first, without evidence, they challenged the Frosts for making choices that somehow compelled them to take the taxpayers' help -- when it was a car crash that caused them to NEED help.

"Why can't we help THIS family?" was the political question Bush and his minions confronted -- and once again, they chose not to answer the question.

Legit: Bush could have tried to make the case that his "compassionate conservatism" really means letting a family like the Frosts crash and burn, pretty literally. That'd be honest, just like explaining that gee, Bush would have LIKED to help the Frosts the way Bush supports Medicare, but with the war and the tax cuts, well...

Not legit: The way the blogs and wingnuts tried pretty damn hard to make freeloaders and frauds out of a salt of the earth family.

Also not legit: The idea that it was DEMOCRATS who made the Frosts "fair game", as well as the idea that they ARE fair game.

There are legit and not legit ways to test an example. That's all the Democrats did, cite an example -- so (legit) Republican partisans MIGHT have had a point in challenging the Frosts as an example (that is, if, I dunno, Sensenbrenner had bought 'em lottery tickets). To do that would have required FACTS.

But the facts weren't on their side. That's WHY they did something else.

(not legit) Malkin's idea that by EXTENDING the attack on the Frosts, she was somehow DEFENDING them. Nobody who isn't delusional thinks she was.

(also not legit) I use a fair amount of hyperbole from time to time, and it's important to recognize when you use it. Malkin wasn't sneaking around in the Frost's bushes. But for reporting as well as hyperbole, it's often easier to get forgiveness than permission: IF Malkin had turned up evidence that tended to prove the Frosts were rich, then her diligence in... driving through the neighborhood? Dayum, what a Nancy Drew she is... would have been legit. If she'd found out that he did work off the books, or if his warehouse was worth ten times more, those would be legit to raise to HIGHLIGHT the core dispute, which is that Bush (claims) taht he wants to help this family, taht (after getting his ass kicked) he does, to, identity with 'em politically, it's just that, gee: the tax cuts and the war are more important.

Or Malkin could have justified what she misrepresents as reporting if she had ACTUALLY defended these folks, having seen they ARE legit.

She did neither.

(extra bonus not legit) When somebody uses hyperbole, characterizing driving by in a car as hiding in the bushes, it is EXTREMELY bogus to demand proof of the exaggeration, rather than acknowledging the actual complaint.

That's what Maja is doing, and to a lesser degree, the guy upthread who tried to say that, gee, if it was up to ME, I wouldn't have gone after the Frosts, but there are policy priorities here...

Bullshit. This is the core of the technique -- dump a pile of shit at the edge, and demand the other guy scrape it off. Ain't gonna happen.

It's YOUR responsibility -- and we want you guys to explain to the Frost families of America every fucking day through election day '08 why you claim it's THEIR fault when their kids are hurt in car crashes, why you can't be honest -- that you're so committed to the ugliest sort of politics and the most delusional sort of economics.

Face it: Giving tax breaks to folks who make money off OTHER peoples money is so much more important to Bush, that when a kid like Graeme Frost is shown as a LEGIT example of what he does not value, his followers will just piss on the salt of the earth.

Well said, Paul.

When somebody uses hyperbole, characterizing driving by in a car as hiding in the bushes, it is EXTREMELY bogus to demand proof of the exaggeration,....

stoop so low as to slime a twelve year old and frighten the family of a simple working man.

at the kid's house, badgering his family.

try the kind of personal sliming that these horrible people have done to Graeme Frost.

Malkin should be sued for libel, at the very least.

I'd just luuuuuuvvvvv for that bitch to come to my house...

get a spokesfamily from the South, I'm thinking Texas, so when Ms. Malkin starts rustling around in the bushes outside their home she gets an ass full of buckshot.

when does Michelle Malkin show up and harass Grassley and Hatch?

I have a lot of respect for Stanley Fish. However, to be citing his writings from a couple decades ago as contemporary liberal orthodoxy is just a bit more of stretch

Just last November, in an admiring essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education, the left polemicist Stanley Fish aptly summed up Marcuse's assertion that "liberal" notions of tolerance for political speech should be overturned.

"That is to say, and Marcuse says it, anything the right does is bad and should not be tolerated; anything the left does is good and should be welcomed."