About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

McConnell staffer's reported admission offers NY Times opportunity to update article -- will it?

October 17, 2007 1:12 pm ET
image

75 Comments

An October 16 article in The (Louisville) Courier-Journal -- highlighted by blogger Greg Sargent -- reported that "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's [R-KY] spokesman acknowledged yesterday that he alerted reporters last week to questions bloggers raised about the financial circumstances of a 12-year-old boy Democrats had used to urge passage of an expanded children's health insurance program." The 12-year-old, Graeme Frost, had delivered a Democratic radio address criticizing President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The article added that McConnell's communications director, Don Stewart, "said he also wrote a follow-up e-mail later the same day that said a blogger he respected had determined that there was no story and that 'the family is legit.' " Media Matters for America noted that, in an October 10 article by David M. Herszenhorn about attacks on Frost by "conservative bloggers" and others, The New York Times reported that "Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off." As evidence, the Times reported that "[a]n aide to Senator Mitch McConnell ... expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts." But the Times has yet to follow up on that report and has yet to note that, notwithstanding the aide's "relief" over the office's not having issued a press release, the office did in fact pass on to reporters challenges to claims about the Frosts' financial situation, according to the communications director, as reported by the Courier-Journal. Moreover, the communications director's reported acknowledgment constitutes evidence that McConnell himself did not tell the truth in an October 12 interview, as noted on October 16 by the blog Think Progress.

As Media Matters noted at the time, according to an October 8 post on ABC News' "Political Radar" blog citing a report by senior political correspondent Rick Klein, McConnell's spokesman "declined to comment" on the charge "that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about [the] Frosts"; specifically, the blog stated that Klein reported a claim by Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that a Senate GOP "leadership aide" had sent an email to reporters "summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family."

In addition, in his October 12 column, Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that "an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell ... sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts."

On October 16, Think Progress noted that in an October 12 television interview, McConnell said that "[t]here was no involvement whatsoever" from his staff -- "None." But as Media Matters Senior Fellow Duncan Black noted on his Eschaton blog, in an October 17 article noting McConnell's October 12 denial, the Courier-Journal reported that "McConnell knew last week -- at a time when he was denying it -- that his staff had sent e-mails encouraging reporters to look into the background of a 12-year-old boy used by Democrats to support expansion of a health-care program." The October 17 article added that "McConnell declined comment on the matter last night."

Now, according to the Courier-Journal, McConnell's spokesman has acknowledged passing on to reporters "questions bloggers raised" about the Frosts -- in other words, despite a staffer's reported "relief that his office had not issued a press release," a spokesman nonetheless had conveyed right-wing criticisms of the Frosts to reporters.

From the October 16 Courier-Journal article:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's spokesman acknowledged yesterday that he alerted reporters last week to questions bloggers raised about the financial circumstances of a 12-year-old boy Democrats had used to urge passage of an expanded children's health insurance program.

But Don Stewart, the Kentucky Republican's communications director, said he also wrote a follow-up e-mail later the same day that said a blogger he respected had determined that there was no story and that "the family is legit."

Stewart said there was no effort by McConnell to discredit 12-year-old Graeme Frost, of Baltimore, or cast aspersions on the family.

"It would be kind of hard to 'slime' somebody when I was telling reporters there's no story here and the family is legitimate," Stewart said yesterday.

McConnell's alleged role in depicting the Frosts as something other than what they claimed to be has been fodder for The New York Times op-ed page, bloggers and Democratic officeholders, among others.

Stewart's comments were the first detailed explanation of the role McConnell's office played in the controversy.

Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail yesterday that "spreading false rumors about a 12-year-old boy is despicable for any reason."

"No matter how McConnell's office spins it now, the e-mail makes clear that they were part of the campaign to smear a child who had the nerve to stand up and say children's health insurance shouldn't be cut," Miller said.

McConnell is opposed to bipartisan legislation that passed the House and Senate to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, intended to assist those unable to afford private health insurance. President Bush vetoed the bill and awaits a House attempt this week to override his veto.

From the October 17 Courier-Journal article:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell knew last week -- at a time when he was denying it -- that his staff had sent e-mails encouraging reporters to look into the background of a 12-year-old boy used by Democrats to support expansion of a health-care program.

In an interview Friday with WHAS-TV reporter Mark Hebert, the Kentucky Republican said his staff had not been involved in trying to push reporters to look into the financial situation of the boy's family.

But McConnell's communications director, Don Stewart, said in an interview Monday with The Courier-Journal that he had told McConnell about the Oct. 8 e-mails sometime around Thursday, the day before the interview with Hebert.

Stewart also said, however, that he had told the senator he had sent follow-up e-mails within a matter of hours warning reporters off of the story because "the family is legit."

McConnell declined to comment on the matter last night.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foghornleghorn (October 17, 2007 1:31 pm ET)
         

      "the family is legit."

      Thanks for your seal of approval, idiot.  Just because Republicans exploit anyone (Schiavo) or anything (9/11), even when it's not even true (Swift boat liars), doesn't mean that the Democrats do it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (October 17, 2007 1:43 pm ET)
           

        Just because Republicans exploit anyone (Schiavo) or anything (9/11), even when it's not even true (Swift boat liars), doesn't mean that the Democrats do it.

        Well, they haven't exploited any 12 year old kids yet. I think you are being naive if you think that this kid even knows what SCHIP is. It wasn't until either his parents or the DNC told him that GWB wants to watch him die (thanks again Solon) that he did the ad. That's being exploited.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by archfiend (October 17, 2007 2:00 pm ET)
             

          Why does the term "Snowflake Babies" ring a bell?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 2:23 pm ET)
               

            I'll go back even further. Think 'Kuwait'. The Right exploited 312 babies that didn't even exist! Yes, the 'Incubator Lie' which was the First Gulf War's equivalent of the Iraqi WMDs of the present war. Concocted by the oh-so-savvy PR firm of Hill & Knowlton and using the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, aka 'Nurse Nayirah', to scam the US population into going to war.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 2:38 pm ET)
                 

              Apparently they've been lying to us for quite some time. Watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares". It helps put our current situation in perspective.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by kozakid1769 (October 17, 2007 4:32 pm ET)
                 

              I'll go back evn further. FDR put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 4:48 pm ET)
                   

                And that was wrong. Your point is....?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by archfiend (October 17, 2007 4:58 pm ET)
                     

                  I think KoolaidKidz point is that his side looks marginally better if he can dig up the most heinous thing a Democrat has ever done and contrast it to some less heinous thing that a Republican has done more recently, even if the thing he dredges up has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

                  It's a tacit admission of defeat, without the dignity that a TRUE admission of defeat would impart.

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 17, 2007 2:03 pm ET)
             

          Well, seeing that the boy is ALIVE and reasonably WELL, I would think that he would know what allowed him to recover.

          You are the one who is naive - it's not exploitation when you're telling the TRUTH.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:10 pm ET)
             

          So then George Bush DIDNT surround himself with children during the stem cell debate? Why yes he did. Then again IOKIYAR right?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (October 18, 2007 12:30 pm ET)
             

          I don't remember Liberals/Democrats attacking and smearing Justice Roberts' kid by calling his house and issuing death threats and the like ...

          Of course, Nancy Pelosi was attacked for a photo-op (like plenty of other congresspeople, Dem or Repuke) with her grandkids after being sworn in ... 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (October 17, 2007 1:42 pm ET)
         

      Nice rant even though it is simply your opinion.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (October 17, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
         

      It is not naive to think that a 12-yr-old can understand that a federally funded health insurance program provided needed coverage that saved his family from crippling medical bills.  My son is 6 and already understands that we have health insurance to cover bills where other people do not.  He may not understand the issue as well as me, but both of us agree that it is simply not a hallmark of a great society to let any resident suffer ill health for lack of funds. 

      It is basic to me that the real difference between conservative thinking and liberal thinking is that conservatives are against societal safety nets as a matter of principle and liberals are for such safety nets as a matter of necessity.   

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 2:36 pm ET)
           

        I think you're right. The conservatives are peddling Social Darwinism. I guess that's okay, if you really believe in it. We have to decide if that's the type of society we want to create for ourselves. It has been tried before, you know...they called it feudalism back then.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
             

          It took a very long time for Europe to evolve out of feudalism so I expect the US to slowly evolve out of it as well... just won't be in our lifetime.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cannonball (October 17, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
               

            Maybe, maybe not.  It took just one generation to weather the Great Depression and respond with the New Deal.  And it wasn't easy, most of the New Deal legislation was ruled unconsitutional and Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court to get reversals (see the Judiciary Reorgnaiztion Bill of 1937).

            My point is that all major political/socioeconomic strides, both, in my consideration, in the right direction, and in the wrong direction - ie., Bush/Cheny election and executive power-grab, require political upheaval and quasi-consitutional manipulation to achieve. 

            The pendulum swings both ways and much quicker than we can envision.  My fear is that the pendulum will continue to swing more rather than less radically as the nation ages. 

            The monopolization of the media and its message, including soon internet (just much faster), and the loss of factually based ethical editorializing encourages excess and exploitation (pls forgive the excessive alliteration).  This, the country may not weather.

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (October 18, 2007 12:34 pm ET)
             

          Social Darwinism is great unless yous is the one getting your head bashed in by the evolved one's club ...

          And "conservatives" are always the last to embrace change ... 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:13 pm ET)
           

        I wouldnt argue with that overall. I mean I do think it a matter of principle because I think it necessary. Not for me. I make a lot of money and have top notch insurance but not everyone does.  To those people I would consider it a necessity

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 9:18 am ET)
             

          I wouldnt argue with that overall. I mean I do think it a matter of principle because I think it necessary. Not for me. I make a lot of money and have top notch insurance but not everyone does.  To those people I would consider it a necessity

           

          • - solon / Wednesday October 17, 2007 11:13:01 PM EST

          Salon, safety nets are a necessity even for me and you.  I, too, make good money, have no mortgage, no debt, good health insurance, save regularly, etc., etc.  But a catastrophic illness can overwhelm my $1 million lifetime coverage in a few months, leave my family without income if my wife has to stay home to care for me, force my son out of private school to the local public school (that in itself is mostly bad because of his lost friends and low teacher to student ratio in public schools, but Ky schools are mediocre), and soon we are on Medicaid and have to decide to either downsize the house and hope that is enough. 

          Think this is an extreme example?  I worked for the social security administration for 14 years and I've seen it more than 20 times personally in Louisville. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 2:31 pm ET)
         

      What's the Free Market value of a 12-year-old kid's life? How many bombs could we have built for what it cost to save him?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:11 pm ET)
         

      (FROM ABOVE) Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail yesterday that "spreading false rumors about a 12-year-old boy is despicable for any reason."

      It's really important to understand that no one "attacked" a 12-year-old boy.  Conservative bloggers simply did the honest and legitimate  reporting that questioned the Frost's bogus story.

      So please, stop pretending that conservatives are "attacking" the boy when really it's the lazy-ass stupid Frost parents who were irresponsible and dumb for not buying health insurance even though they have a "family" to protect.

      (oh, and honetly, if you cannot afford what it takes to provide the basics for a family, you need to keep the Planned Parenthood phone number and address on your rolodex.  Right?)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
           

        No they didn't and you're an absolute IDIOT for suggesting otherwise. This was a smear campaign from the get-go. And the fact that McConnell is connected to this fetid pile of dung makes it even more outrageous.

        Planned Parenthood? Are you serious? I thought you Righties are vehemently against that organisation?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
             

          RABBITLUVR

          I'm very consistently pro-war AND pro-abortion.  I'm especially pro-abortion if the parents are liberal.

          Nothing wrong with liberal mom's freedom to choose since just seconds from conception it's only a mass of tissue (or fetus).  Right?

          FREE TO CHOOSE! 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:32 pm ET)
               

            Nice to see that you qualified your so-called 'pro-choice' stance.

            I'll let that speak for itself.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
                 

              Just had to have the last word, didn't you?

               

               

               

               

              Oh, wait, now I'm having the last word!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:17 pm ET)
                   

                And wonder of wonders its just as stupid as all your other words. What a shock

                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:17 pm ET)
               

            So then you are a moron. Yeah we already knew that. We already knew that conservative hiveminders like you were liars and ignorant beyond belief so your post comes as no suprise. When did you sign up and how soon do you get to Iraq Mr Prowar?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (October 17, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
           

        (oh, and honetly, if you cannot afford what it takes to provide the basics for a family, you need to keep the Planned Parenthood phone number and address on your rolodex.  Right?

        - billiybobjones7678 / Wednesday October 17, 2007 03:11:57 PM EST

        You want Planned Parenthood to abort a twelve year old and his sister?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:32 pm ET)
             

          A mom has to be 'free to choose', rigtht?  So what is really the difference?  Let's just call it "late-late term"!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
               

            Yeah, that's how it is. You care oh-so-much about the fetuses but you couldn't give a tinker's damn about the children once they are born.

            Seriously... I wonder if you really believe that s**t or if your brain has been corrupted to the point of no return by Limbaugh and the rest of that demented gang on the Right.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (October 17, 2007 4:13 pm ET)
               

            I assume you support the death penalty so you should take out the kids.

            Or you could expand the "War on Terror" to kids without health insurance.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 4:46 pm ET)
                 

              Yep, Bush isn't concerned about bin Laden these days. Now he has a bigger target much closer to home: uninsured children. THEY are the biggest threat to the 'national security'.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 5:24 pm ET)
                   

                After all, it costs about the same to save a middle class kid in America as it does to kill a third world brown person in Iraq. Which is the better investment?

                Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (October 17, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
           

        So please, stop pretending that conservatives are "attacking" the boy when really it's the lazy-ass stupid Frost parents who were irresponsible and dumb for not buying health insurance even though they have a "family" to protect.

        What the h*ll are you talking about?  The Frosts have health insurance for their kids.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
           

        Two questions, BillyBoob...which part of the Frost's story was bogus?

        Second, since the Frosts were so "irresponsible", should we have just let the kid die, just to save your sorry ass a nickel?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:34 pm ET)
             

          The Frosts (home owners and investors in commerical real estate) are obviously not "needy" or even down on their luck.  They were merely irresponsible and lazy.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
               

            Elaborate with facts, please...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:44 pm ET)
                 

              RABBITLUVR

              I have elaborated already on many other posts - All I'll say is that the facts are easy to find. 

              But once again, MMFA doesn't really care about the facts.  It's only pro-HRC spin that counts.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:52 pm ET)
                   

                No, you gave an OPINION by stating that they were lazy and irresponsible. Your OPINION. An OPINION based on YOUR skewed view of reality... not the Frost family's reality.

                Not good enough. Try again.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 3:40 pm ET)
               

            I notice you skipped my second question. Even if your charges were true, should we just let the kid die...or would you be willing to squeeze a dime out of your stingy ass to help them?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
                 

              What a second -  now you've gone from a nickle to a whole DIME!!!!!

               Which is it!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by archfiend (October 17, 2007 5:24 pm ET)
                   

                Good one, BilliyBob! You scored a direct hit with that razor-sharp riposte!

                Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (October 17, 2007 4:20 pm ET)
               

            The Frosts (home owners and investors in commerical real estate) are obviously not "needy" or even down on their luck.  They were merely irresponsible and lazy.

            They got health insurance for their kids through a program for people like them.  If you don't like it, bitch and moan to your congressperson and stop doing it here.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (October 17, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
           

        Holy Cow!  Aren't you full of neocon blather.  Yes, by all means blame/smear the family for not "planning" better.  You make my point earlier exactly - with a bullet. 

        You are just so "principled".  Of course, they must be bogus if their story disrupts your rose-colored world.  The fact that they are exactly the family and situation that SCHIP was designed to benefit is immaterial. 

        GWB's refusal to expand the program he funded in the past and holds up as a positive part of his administration doesn't matter to you.  Your scorched-earth strategy fits all arguments, especially when the facts thwart your logic. 

        I bet you toss the scrabble board when you can't make a word, too, don't you?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eyecon (October 17, 2007 3:41 pm ET)
         

      The shame of this whole thing is that so many people took the bait; It's exactly the behavior that they expect. People are fighting irrelevant claims.

       Conservative bloggers asserted that health insurance was much cheaper than the family claimed (of course they never provide a hard URL  link). Nevertheless it's irrelevant . The fact is that the kid was uninsured at the time of the accident. That's the only issue that matters. Arguendo, if the father was irresponsible and could have obtained affordable coverage prior to the calamity, does that mean that the kid should suffer?

       Michele Malkin and the usual suspects continue to make claims about the family's assets. Again, irrelevant. The SCHIP law only tests eligibility by income. Their home equity is not part of the equation. Even if it was, should ANYONE EVER have to make a choice of their child's health vs. selling their home? BTW, how many extravagantly wealthy older people are covered by Medicare? 

       Then the wing nuts go on to discuss the wealth of the kid's grandfather making  irresponsible assumptions. Again. irrelevant.

       Then there is the tuition (we have now learned scholarships) for private school. Again, irrelevant. The law is very simple; Eligibility is based upon income.

       The bottom line is that - even if  all of the right's obsessive claims were true, none of it make a bit of difference.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
           

        It seems that for libs the FACTS are what is "irrelevant"...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 3:56 pm ET)
             

          Did you not read the post directly above yours? It clearly states that...

          "Eligibility is based upon INCOME." INCOME... not all those other 'trappings' such as home equity and Granddaddy's wallet.

          Got it now or shall we continue?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 4:39 pm ET)
               

            Billyboob is a troll...here to stir things up and regurgitate Republican talking points, not to engage in debate. You won't get anything resembling logic from him.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:20 pm ET)
             

          How would you know? You wouldnt know a fact from an Eigenfunction

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (October 17, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
           

        Ditto EYECON. 

        However, SCHIP is just the example of the Republican/conservative media joint venture to discredit and disrupt all intelligent discourse with rank partisan personal attacks.  BillyBob takes this strategy to its absurd end.  His posts are only baseless smears and innuendo with no factual or logical support.  Just like O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter etc. 

         Billybob obviously has no familiarity or understanding of the issues regarding SCHIP and he doesn't care.  Why let facts get in the way when his mind was made up long ago. 

        He is like Colbert's dscription of GWB, nothing new can shake his steady and unwavering positions.  That's real strength, to not change in the face of overwhelming truth.  It is better to smear the messenger than admit mistake.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (October 18, 2007 12:38 pm ET)
             

          It's amazing the amount of money spent smearing a 12-year-old ... I wonder how many 12-year-old kids that money would have saved ...

           

          Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 4:48 pm ET)
           

        Good points, Eyecon. I know several people who bought homes 20 or 30 years ago and are now what is called "house rich". They bought homes for 30,000, paid them off, and now they're worth 200,000 or more. Sure, they could sell their homes to pay for an emergency treatment. But then, they would be homeless and broke. Is that a good solution?

        I really don't understand this absolute fear some conservatives have of any kind of social safety net. They like to spout their theories about how propping up poor people just perpetuates their poverty. Interesting. If they believe so strongly in that principle, why do they favor propping up the Iraqis?

        Could it be that it's really just about selfishness?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (October 17, 2007 4:51 pm ET)
             

          Honestly, Nerzog, I believe that it is selfishness. I really do. 'Dog eat dog', 'every man out for himself', 'if I can do it then everyone else can do it too', etc. are phrases that immediately come to mind when I think of conservatives.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (October 17, 2007 7:40 pm ET)
             

          Speaking for myself, I have no fear of social safety nets like SS. In fact, I actually get to collect on that. I understand it was not designed to be a retirement package, but I get a small return for paying into it so I benefit from it. No problem. What I have a problem with is paying for every social program that those on the left sponsor. Social spending is at an all time high and I'm paying more in taxes now than I ever have. SCHIP is a prime example. It is not possible to take care of everybody's every need all of the time, we simply can't afford to do so. If that's being selfish, so be it. I refer to it as self interests.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 11:23 pm ET)
               

            It might not be possible to take care of everyones needs all the time but it certainly IS possible to take care of everyones health care. We are virtually the only industrial country in the entire world that DOESNT. Are you telling me Finnland and Cuba can afford it but we cant? Its not about what can and can not be done its about priorities. We can afford to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined but not to afford eveyone healthcare? If we had Canadas system it would cost us LESS money. The last time I saw the statistic we would have saved 14 BILLION dollars.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by JessWonderin (October 18, 2007 12:33 am ET)
                 

              Now there is an excellent idea - if we are going to outsouce IT jobs, data centers, guarding our diplomats, etc . . . why not see if Canada would be willing to bid on a Universal Health Care contract . . . hell if they can do it there, why not in the U.S.??

               The greatest nation in the world lags in health care and internet speed/access, has the most expensive military in known history, can't defend it's own diplomats . . . depends on Hospital Emergency Rooms for the main souce of peoples' care and the pharma industry to write our health laws . . . quite a legacy . . .

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 9:37 am ET)
                 

              It might not be possible to take care of everyones needs all the time but it certainly IS possible to take care of everyones health care.

              Amen Salon.  Universal healthcare is socialism to the Republican only because he/she doesn't need it.  Only selfish rich people should be Republican since all others are voting against their own interests.  They get fooled by the right's attachment to litmus test issues like pro-choice and gay marriage, the current atmosphere of fear of all things, and religious and class warfare. 

              On another matter, someone wrote about this being a time a great spending on welfare - you are 10 years behind the times.  Clinton and the bi-partisan Congress in the pre-GWB days dismantled nearly every welfare safety-net and GWB unfunded or underfunded the remainder.  Do you recall Aid for Dependent Children, Meals on Wheels, Battered Spouse shelters, etc.  All gone.  School Lunch Programs, PreK and Kindergarten programs, Innoculation programs, Section 8 Housing, Federal Housing Authority and Small Business Adminsitration?  All unfunded or underfunded.  What welfare society?  We can't even get generic drugs and relief from the alternative minimum tax for the middle class.   

              Report Abuse
              • Author by dave (October 18, 2007 11:07 am ET)
                   

                 Those programs you listed are still around. Google search my friend. AFDC had its name changed to TANF but is alive and well. As far as the other stuff you listed as being underfunded, this President has increased spending on every program you listed, much to my dismay. He may not have increased the spending to the level that you think acceptable, but they've all gone up. And I'm paying for it, while those who would benefit most from it still pay almost no taxes. As I've stated before, GWB may not be perfect, but he certainly attempts to give me tax relief. That's why he got my vote twice. I'm one of those selfish rich Republicans you referenced. And SCHIP would increase the price of my cigars from $1-$6 bucks each.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 11:27 am ET)
                     

                  Nuff said, Dave.  NAFT and AFDC are not the same, check the spending and coverage limits.  And GWB's increases on the remianing in inflation adjusted dollars is woefully cheap by every measure. 

                  But that doesn't matter to you since you admit your selfishness with concern only for your wallet. 

                  The Republican "let them eat cake" attitude while they vote for and fund imperialistic invasions (with more to come apparently) and ignore domestic needs has worn out its welcome with "real conservatives".  By real, I mean conservatives who think the government has a duty to ALL the people to run efficient agencies, collect all owed taxes under a fair and progressive system, respect the checks and balances of our three branch and bicameral government, balance the budget, equalize foreign trade to protect the valuation of the dollar, discourage and prevent monopolies to foster competative pricing, and limit intereference with free trade and corporate profit while protecting our natural resources and the health and welfare of our people. 

                  Do I need to list the ways that the Bush administration has drifted from these basic Republican tenants?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 11:31 am ET)
                       

                    Correction, TANF - typed too fast

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by dave (October 18, 2007 11:55 am ET)
                       

                    I think you are combining the Republican party with the Conservative party. They are not the same.

                    In regards to your "real Conservative" thoughts...

                    I agree with every one of them. As a Conservative, I wish for all of those things. But you left out a few of the biggest goals of the C party. Lower taxes, smaller less intrusive Govt, and individual accountability. GWB is no Conservative, as he only gets one of those right, but he is a lot more friendly to those of us who already pay astronomically high taxes. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 12:27 pm ET)
                         

                      "I think you are combining the Republican party with the Conservative party. They are not the same.

                      In regards to your "real Conservative" thoughts...

                      I agree with every one of them. As a Conservative, I wish for all of those things. But you left out a few of the biggest goals of the C party. Lower taxes, smaller less intrusive Govt, and individual accountability. GWB is no Conservative, as he only gets one of those right, but he is a lot more friendly to those of us who already pay astronomically high taxes. 

                       

                       

                      • - dave / Thursday October 18, 2007 11:55:43 AM EST "

                      Dave, there is no "Conservative Party".  There fringe Republicans who value "Lower taxes, smaller less intrusive Govt, and individual accountability" as you say, but what are these values really?  Taken together, they are just buzz words for class warfare. 

                      After all, are you for more abortion limits, tighter immigration laws, a larger standing military with greater technology, tighter shipping security, more severe mandatory criminal sentencing guidelines, greater drug interdiction, more uniform voting policies and procedures, restrictions on foreign generic drugs, greater trade deficit protectionism, and increased tools to fight union activity, to name a few.  If so, you are for bigger government and more intrusion. 

                      What you are really for is more ways to pay less taxes and less protections for your neighbors who are less fortunate than yourself.  I hope you never need a liver transplant, find yourself on or under a crumbling bridge,  go down on an underserviced commercial airplane, get cancer from chemicals in your water, air or food, or have your family poisoned by chemicals in your house paint, flooring, laundry, meat, vegetables, on your toys, clothes, shampoo or make-up.  All these things can happen without proper regulation, investment in infrastructure, and universal healthcare.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by dave (October 18, 2007 3:14 pm ET)
                           

                        Yes there is a Conservative Party. We are alive and well and I don't think too many of us will be voting for increases in the already inflated social spending. Of course, this is NY, which sports the "Rolls Royce" of giveaway programs for everything, but the party is trying.

                        www.cpnys.org

                        Report Abuse
            • Author by ecmarauder (October 18, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
                 

              You are right,Solon,it is about priorities.The Frosts priorities did not include providing med. ins. for their children.They did prioritise investing in commercial real estate.The mother chose to work for a company that doesn't provide med. ins.When I was self-employed my wife,a registered nurse, chose to work as a hospital staff nurse in order to provide our family with med. ins.She could have worked at the same hospital through a staffing agency for higher pay and had the freedom to choose her own work schedule.Prorities,Choices,Personal Responsibility.It is also a fact that the presidents proposal for the extension of  SCHIP would have covered the Frost children and the "children like" him that his script writers so disingenuosly had him pleading for.How characteristic of the dems to exploit  "the children" in general and,in this instance the Frost child in particular,and then howl with supposed outrage when they are exposed. A smear?You people embarass yourselves with your tired antics.Add a new page to your playbook,you need some new material,you've gone to the well WAY to often with the "it's for the children" gimmick.I await your vicious responses.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by mjump20005145 (October 17, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
         

      You want debate alright here we go question 1.

      1.  What is the definition of Poor? Give me a money figure want you think is poor.

      2.  Were the Frost kids covered by SCHIP as it is laid out right now?

      Now before you attack me let me tell you my kids are covered under the ARKIDS program which is my states version of SCHIP.

      I personally dont think on the issue of increasing this program to include a 25 y/o ADULT family of 4 that makes 85k classify's as poor in any nation anywhere.  And oh btw .... I make less than 40k a year and I still pay for my own insurance though my job at the tune of 300 a month and I am happy to do it.  Cover kids thats all good I agree under the current program with a 4 billion increase we hit the 500k that are not covered and do hit the rich folks out there that are making 85k ...

      And as I am sure someone will attack me on my stance but rest assured I will not attack you back but I will respond to your posts.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (October 17, 2007 6:59 pm ET)
         

      There are occasions when the sucessful wingnut follower of the Three Bs, Bully Bluster,and Bluff, life style. Will come accross a situation when it is the most important thing in the world, not to project a threat. At least by normal societal deffinitions. I think many of them fail in these situations.

       In these situations a person of quiet strength and competence can usually suceed. Exclusive of people who's mental description ends with the syllable path. Empathy can be detected without words, its lack also.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (October 18, 2007 9:25 am ET)
           

        eweston8542983, what in the world is your point?  If i have to work this hard to figure a post out, I just move on.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (October 18, 2007 9:48 am ET)
         

      Simply a reflection on the wingnut mental state versis a sane mental state. There are other potential themes for discussion as well, but I don't want to stress you out;-). Or abuse the forum.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (October 18, 2007 5:12 pm ET)
         

      I guess this thread is now pointless. SCHIP rightfully went down by a dozen votes.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ecmarauder (October 19, 2007 8:48 am ET)
           

        Dave, I agree that it "rightfully" was defeated.Now let's see if the dems continue to play this issue for political points, or instead act responsibly and extend SCHIP without forcing another veto.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace