Dems use of 12-year old as Absolute Moral Authority against Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion backfires

[jonks]

if the Dems are going to drag a kid out and write out a policy speech for him to read to rebut the President's radio address and use his family as an excuse to expand S-CHIP when they already qualify for it under the existing terms, they should expect some scrutiny. You don't offer this family up as a case study and then say you can't study their situation.

Queasy, just a thought. The dems who did point to this family as beneficiaries of the old SCHIP legislation may not have been doing so, as you seem to feel, as an example of those who would only get coverage under the expanded bill. They may simply have been pointing to a family who had coverage under the old version, and were saying, "hey look, there's other families like this one who need coverage, and the new bill will help those families."

It's not like you'd change your opinion if this family only qualified under the expanded legislation, right? I'm sure they could find a family in similar circumstances among the 4 million who would become covered under the new bill.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
I agree with doing away with S-Chip, but i find it absolutely disgusting to be rifling through the family's lives and posting lies and half truths to discredit the family like that, along with their personal information. That's a line that nobody should cross. If their kids go to expensive private schools ON SCHOLARSHIP and you imply that they 'can afford' to go to such schools with their own money, that's plain dishonest.

Queasy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not in the least. Sorry. You can call me whatever you wish but if the Dems are going to drag a kid out and write out a policy speech for him to read to rebut the President's radio address and use his family as an excuse to expand S-CHIP when they already qualify for it under the existing terms, they should expect some scrutiny. You don't offer this family up as a case study and then say you can't study their situation.

The situation was not helped at all by newspapers doing profiles on the family that under-reported their situation that left many questions open. This left it to others to try and fill in the blanks.

The ones that should be ashamed are the Dem leaders who are using this boy and his family as ideological shields to shut down debate on whether or not S-CHIP should be expanded. The parents should additionally be ashamed for allowing their child to be used in such a matter.

And as we learn more in the follow-up stories that the media has provided on the Frost's more questions beg to be answered. There was an article in the Sun that said that the mother works part-time and the father works 'intermittently'. Why? As a father myself, I don't think I could ever allow myself to be put in a situation where I only worked intermittently. I'd have a job somewhere, somehow that provided some modicum of income and that would help me provide insurance for my family.

So that makes it ok for the rightwing blogosphere to lie and use halftruths on the families?

Exhibit A:

http://corner.nationalreview.c...ZlNDNjZTlhOGU3NjNlZDA=

they have a 3,000-sq-ft home on a street where a 2,000-sq-ft home recently sold for half a million dollars; he was able to afford to send two children simultaneously to a $20,000-a-year private school; his father and grandfather were successful New York designers and architects; etc. This is apparently the new definition of "working families":

They're reporting it like they bought their house for several hundred thousands dollars and they send their kids to those schools out of their own pockets. That's beyond dishonest and quite frankly disgusting. This behavior is so reprehensible, even people from your own party are recoiling in disgust:

I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can?t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don?t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people?s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.

I?m registering Independent tomorrow.

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

I'm an independent btw. Not a Republican.

Anyways, the Steyn article you linked was before the additional information about the family came out. It was pretty much the initial reaction. He's since posted follow-ups about the correct information yet still stands by his original assertions beyond the initial incorrect family financial information.

If the Dems are going to hold up this family as a case-study of why SCHIP then more details should be given about them....not less. Grown-ups shouldn't be hiding behind 12-year olds as shields against criticism. The speech that was given to the 12-year old to read was filled with half-truths and lies. Bush was not trying to deny his family health coverage. The family already qualified for S-CHIP under the existing guidelines and would continue to do so under Bush re-authorizing the existing plan.

Two wrongs don't make a right but this is an excellent example of why politicians of all stripes should stop using children and families as political footballs and let their ideas and proposals stand on their own merits.

Link to speech? I didn't hear it, but was he making a case for his own family or other families? In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Transcript

A transcript of the Democratic radio response to President Bush's radio address on Sept. 29:

Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I'm 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably havent heard of CHIP, the Childrens 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 Childrens Health Program.

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

Thanks for listening.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Lying about the 12 year old's situation is attacking a 12 year old. YOU DON'T LIE TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. I'm 100% against the S-CHIP program, but when you lie about it and get exposed, the other side is now sympathetic. Get that through your skull.

Anyway, did the 12 year old kid make the argument that he'd lose S-Chip with Bush's veto or was he just advocating the S-Chip program for other families in general? If he did and it isn't true, i have a problem with that. If he didn't, then you're full of crap.

edit: And now that you linked to the transcript, it looks like he's advocating S-CHIP for OTHER kids. Looks like the 'full of crap' option has been checked off.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Transcript

A transcript of the Democratic radio response to President Bush's radio address on Sept. 29:

Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I'm 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably havent heard of CHIP, the Childrens 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 Childrens Health Program.

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

Thanks for listening.

What about Bush's use of Child "props"? Where's your thread condemning him?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Lying about the 12 year old's situation is attacking a 12 year old. YOU DON'T LIE TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. I'm 100% against the S-CHIP program, but when you lie about it and get exposed, the other side is now sympathetic. Get that through your skull.

Anyway, did the 12 year old kid make the argument that he'd lose S-Chip with Bush's veto or was he just advocating the S-Chip program for other families in general? If he did and it isn't true, i have a problem with that. If he didn't, then you're full of crap.

edit: And now that you linked to the transcript, it looks like he's advocating S-CHIP for OTHER kids. Looks like the 'full of crap' option has been checked off.

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 Childrens Health Program.

And here I though you just said you don't lie to get your point across. Bush isn't trying "stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP." He's trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help. In the other thread about S-CHIP, I linked to government data showing that a full 44% of S-CHIP funds were NOT going to children. In Michigan, 71% of S-CHIP funds are going to Childless Adults.

And nobody lied about the family's situation. Made bad assumptions based on the evidence at hand, yes. We still don't know what the family's situation is now nor do we know what the family's situation was at the time of the accident. Why is the father working only intermittently and the mother working only part-time? Was that their situation at the time of the accident? Is there a reason neither has a full-time job so that they can get afford health insurance?

Again, you don't offer up a family as a case-study for S-CHIP without providing all the pertinent information and then say you can't try to find out anything about the family because it is 'attacking' them!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What about Bush's use of Child "props"? Where's your thread condemning him?

I've already mentioned that the use of children as political props by both sides is disgusting/wrong/needs to be stopped a couple of times in this thread. Thanks for reading.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Lying about the 12 year old's situation is attacking a 12 year old. YOU DON'T LIE TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. I'm 100% against the S-CHIP program, but when you lie about it and get exposed, the other side is now sympathetic. Get that through your skull.

Anyway, did the 12 year old kid make the argument that he'd lose S-Chip with Bush's veto or was he just advocating the S-Chip program for other families in general? If he did and it isn't true, i have a problem with that. If he didn't, then you're full of crap.

edit: And now that you linked to the transcript, it looks like he's advocating S-CHIP for OTHER kids. Looks like the 'full of crap' option has been checked off.

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 Childrens Health Program.

And here I though you just said you don't lie to get your point across. Bush isn't trying "stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP." He's trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help. In the other thread about S-CHIP, I linked to government data showing that a full 44% of S-CHIP funds were NOT going to children. In Michigan, 71% of S-CHIP funds are going to Childless Adults.

And nobody lied about the family's situation. Made bad assumptions based on the evidence at hand, yes. We still don't know what the family's situation is now nor do we know what the family's situation was at the time of the accident. Why is the father working only intermittently and the mother working only part-time? Was that their situation at the time of the accident? Is there a reason neither has a full-time job so that they can get afford health insurance?

Again, you don't offer up a family as a case-study for S-CHIP without providing all the pertinent information and then say you can't try to find out anything about the family because it is 'attacking' them!

if he cared that much, why didn't he accept the democrats offer to a seat at the negotiation table to try and hammer out a deal that did address this?

you can't tell me he's "trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help" when every single one of his actions have gone counter to this.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
In any case, this attack on the 12 year old actually BACKFIRED when the supposed 'details' on the family's 'wealth' was put into factual context.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Nobody is attacking the 12 year old. The Dems who used the 12 year old? Yes. The parents? Yes in the context of allowing their child to be used as a political prop and questioning whether or not they should be able to afford insurance without going on the government dole.

Lying about the 12 year old's situation is attacking a 12 year old. YOU DON'T LIE TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. I'm 100% against the S-CHIP program, but when you lie about it and get exposed, the other side is now sympathetic. Get that through your skull.

Anyway, did the 12 year old kid make the argument that he'd lose S-Chip with Bush's veto or was he just advocating the S-Chip program for other families in general? If he did and it isn't true, i have a problem with that. If he didn't, then you're full of crap.

edit: And now that you linked to the transcript, it looks like he's advocating S-CHIP for OTHER kids. Looks like the 'full of crap' option has been checked off.

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 Childrens Health Program.

And here I though you just said you don't lie to get your point across. Bush isn't trying "stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP." He's trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help. In the other thread about S-CHIP, I linked to government data showing that a full 44% of S-CHIP funds were NOT going to children. In Michigan, 71% of S-CHIP funds are going to Childless Adults.

And nobody lied about the family's situation. Made bad assumptions based on the evidence at hand, yes. We still don't know what the family's situation is now nor do we know what the family's situation was at the time of the accident. Why is the father working only intermittently and the mother working only part-time? Was that their situation at the time of the accident? Is there a reason neither has a full-time job so that they can get afford health insurance?

Again, you don't offer up a family as a case-study for S-CHIP without providing all the pertinent information and then say you can't try to find out anything about the family because it is 'attacking' them!

He didn't say he was going to lose S-CHIP because of the veto, that's the point i was making

Anyway, did the 12 year old kid make the argument that he'd lose S-Chip with Bush's veto or was he just advocating the S-Chip program for other families in general?

Bad assumptions? If the family is making roughly $40,000 a year, a reasonable adult would suspect they probably aren't spending that whole amount on their children's education. This was blatant lying.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Bad assumptions? If the family is making roughly $40,000 a year, a reasonable adult would suspect they probably aren't spending that whole amount on their children's education. This was blatant lying.

They were actually wondering HOW a family making ~$45k a year could afford private school for two kids while owning a house, a business, and business property from which they were taking rent. Again, this goes back to the central question of using this family as a case study without giving details and trying to prevent people from finding out.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
What about Bush's use of Child "props"? Where's your thread condemning him?

I've already mentioned that the use of children as political props by both sides is disgusting/wrong/needs to be stopped a couple of times in this thread. Thanks for reading.

Ah ok. Ya, didn't read the thread because it's far longer than it should have been. You should have admitted your error and let it die when the Truth disproving your original assertion came to light, but carry on.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if he cared that much, why didn't he accept the democrats offer to a seat at the negotiation table to try and hammer out a deal that did address this?

you can't tell me he's "trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help" when every single one of his actions have gone counter to this.

The Bush Administration says that the Dems weren't willing to compromise. The Dems in congress say that the Bush Administration wasn't willing to compromise. Who to believe? They're politicians so they're both likely lying.

Now, let me ask you this. Why didn't the Dems simply reauthorize the existing program and try to hammer out an expansion of S-CHIP afterwards? Instead, they waited until the last possible moment to submit the bill and use it as a cudgel to say, "Bush is so evil that he wants to deny health care to kids!"

I'm betting that many Repubs who voted for it did so because they didn't want that cudgel to be used against them at election time. The Dems are currently using that cudgel against the remaining Repubs who voted against it to get them to vote to overturn Bush's veto. That's why the Dems pushed back the vote on overturning the veto. They want to ratchet up the pressure with political attack ads featuring....children.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
What about Bush's use of Child "props"? Where's your thread condemning him?

I've already mentioned that the use of children as political props by both sides is disgusting/wrong/needs to be stopped a couple of times in this thread. Thanks for reading.

Ah ok. Ya, didn't read the thread because it's far longer than it should have been. You should have admitted your error and let it die when the Truth disproving your original assertion came to light, but carry on.

I'll willingly admit that the assumptions of the family's financial situation were wrong. However, the underlying principles against the use of this child as a political prop, kids in general as political tools, and the use of the family as a case-study without providing any details on their situation remain.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Bad assumptions? If the family is making roughly $40,000 a year, a reasonable adult would suspect they probably aren't spending that whole amount on their children's education. This was blatant lying.

They were actually wondering HOW a family making ~$45k a year could afford private school for two kids while owning a house, a business, and business property from which they were taking rent. Again, this goes back to the central question of using this family as a case study without giving details and trying to prevent people from finding out.

Hah.hah.hah., Yeah, those fine people at freep, michelle malkin, NR, et all, they were JUST 'wondering'... i'm sorry, but they were putting those 'facts' out there to discredit the family and the wingnutsphere ate that sh*t up.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Bad assumptions? If the family is making roughly $40,000 a year, a reasonable adult would suspect they probably aren't spending that whole amount on their children's education. This was blatant lying.

They were actually wondering HOW a family making ~$45k a year could afford private school for two kids while owning a house, a business, and business property from which they were taking rent. Again, this goes back to the central question of using this family as a case study without giving details and trying to prevent people from finding out.

Hah.hah.hah., Yeah, those fine people at freep, michelle malkin, NR, et all, they were JUST 'wondering'... i'm sorry, but they were putting those 'facts' out there to discredit the family and the wingnutsphere ate that sh*t up.

Uh no. Michelle Malkin took it upon herself to go to the business property the Frost's own and interview one of the tenants. The tenant told her a little of the Frosts and their situation. She also drove by their house since she lives in the same area to see if it was really worth $400+ like the original Freeper article assumed (based on sales in the same neighborhood). Malkin herself discredited that and said it was worth maybe $300k which ended up being close as the Baltimore Sun article that I read this morning said that the house was worth something like $285k.

The looney left blogs decided to call that 'stalking' though. Reasonable people would call that basic reporting even though Malkin is actually a columnist.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: loki8481
if he cared that much, why didn't he accept the democrats offer to a seat at the negotiation table to try and hammer out a deal that did address this?

you can't tell me he's "trying to ensure that the kids that do need help get the help" when every single one of his actions have gone counter to this.

The Bush Administration says that the Dems weren't willing to compromise. The Dems in congress say that the Bush Administration wasn't willing to compromise. Who to believe? They're politicians so they're both likely lying.

it's easy. you can't compromise if you're not willing to talk.

the democrats offered the bush administration a seat at the negotiation table and a voice in negotiations. the administration refused the offer.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Why didn't the Dems simply reauthorize the existing program and try to hammer out an expansion of S-CHIP afterwards?

Because the SCHIP legislation also eliminates or curtails the Republican Congress 2003 Medicare Advantage program (which pays a higher rate of reimbursement than conventional Medicare) and sets up a commission (with private records btw) to review the prescription drug pricing from the Bush/Republican Big Pharma $700 billion Part D drug plan.

There are other minor (major?) conditions in the SCHIP bill including a requirement that doctors reveal to their patients any financial interest they may have in a facility that they refer you to . . ..

Now that's a good idea!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Queasy
Why didn't the Dems simply reauthorize the existing program and try to hammer out an expansion of S-CHIP afterwards?

Because the SCHIP legislation also eliminates or curtails the Republican Congress 2003 Medicare Advantage program (which pays a higher rate of reimbursement than conventional Medicare) and sets up a commission (with private records btw) to review the prescription drug pricing from the Bush/Republican Big Pharma $700 billion Part D drug plan.

There are other minor (major?) conditions in the SCHIP bill including a requirement that doctors reveal to their patients any financial interest they may have in a facility that they refer you to . . ..

Now that's a good idea!

And these couldn't have been done separately? After extending the current plan long enough so that they don't have to play political gotcha games?

 

[theeedude]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...nion/12krugman.html?hp

The attack on Graeme?s family was also quickly picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick Cheney.

And G.O.P. politicians were eager to join in the smear. The New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress ?were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance? but had ?backed off? as the case fell apart.

In fact, however, Republicans had already made their first move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts and asked: ?Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family??

And the attempt to spin the media worked, to some extent: despite reporting that has thoroughly debunked the smears, a CNN report yesterday suggested that the Democrats had made ?a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child,? and closely echoed the language of the e-mail from Mr. McConnell?s office.

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they?re ?phony soldiers?; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he?s faking his Parkinson?s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he?s a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

Looks like Republican leadership was directly involved in smearing this kid.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...nion/12krugman.html?hp

The attack on Graeme?s family was also quickly picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick Cheney.

And G.O.P. politicians were eager to join in the smear. The New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress ?were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance? but had ?backed off? as the case fell apart.

In fact, however, Republicans had already made their first move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts and asked: ?Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family??

And the attempt to spin the media worked, to some extent: despite reporting that has thoroughly debunked the smears, a CNN report yesterday suggested that the Democrats had made ?a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child,? and closely echoed the language of the e-mail from Mr. McConnell?s office.

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they?re ?phony soldiers?; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he?s faking his Parkinson?s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he?s a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

Looks like Republican leadership was directly involved in smearing this kid.

Yep.

Character assassination, the last refuge for the intellectually vacant.

One of these days the right wing is going to have to start debating ideas honestly instead of trying to smear people to discredit their positions.

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is ironic that these parents were able to find ?affordable? housing in the form of a 3000 sq foot home, an ?affordable? place to open and operate their own business, and an ?affordable? way to send their kids to a $20,000 a year private school.

But can?t find ?affordable? health insurance :roll:

Its not ironic, its another damn fine example of how health insurance in this country is simply NOT AFFORDABLE for middle income families! Yes, I said middle income, not low income. The middle class cannot afford it alone without help from Corporate America. I know from my father's experience that self-employment is *NOT* a ticket to affordable healthcare. You don't have access to the same group benefits that Corporate America enjoys.

My father has run his business since 1994. Back then you needed to have a minimum number of employees before you could get a "small business" health plan. Problem is, my dad's business only employed two people--everyone else was a contractor or vendor. When I graduated high school in 1997, my dad immediately kicked me off the family health plan since I could join my college's plan. He did the same thing to my younger sister. We lived in a large 3800 sq ft home in one of the best neighborhoods in Charlotte, NC, but health premiums were still too damned expensive. And this was 10 years ago--imagine what its like now! Fortunately, Administaff and Paychex now have group benefits packages that help alleviate healthcare costs for small businesses/home businesses, but I don't know how many employees you need before you can join their programs.

Prof. John, I don't know how you can roll your eyes at this situation--how are YOUR healthcare costs paid?

 

[Vic]

If a health care plan for children is such a noble ideal (and I think it is), then why is the only we can pay for it is by taxing the smokers? Seriously, it makes me wonder why you all won't put your money where your mouth is...