Politico reported Democrats "came under fire" for using children in SCHIP fight, not McConnell office's alleged attack on Frosts
SUMMARY: A Politico article discussing political strategy on the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion bill reported that "[t]he Democratic-controlled Congress has couched SCHIP in the context of children" and that "Republicans ... have focused their strategy on money." Beyond failing to explain what is remarkable about Democrats' "couch[ing]" a children's health bill "in the context of children," the article also ignored reports that Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) office promoted conservative bloggers' smears of Graeme Frost and his family.
An October 17 Politico article by Martin Kady II that discussed political strategy on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion bill -- which President Bush vetoed on October 3 -- reported that "[t]he Democratic-controlled Congress has couched SCHIP in the context of children, and Democrats have come under fire for using kids in photo ops and press conferences to push the case." The article continued, "The Republicans, backed by the White House, have focused their strategy on money, saying the expansion is far too expensive and would extend the program well beyond its original intent of covering poor children." Beyond his failure to explain what he found remarkable about Democrats' "couch[ing]" a children's health bill "in the context of children," Kady also ignored a reported action by the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that went beyond "focus[ing] their strategy on money." Specifically, as Media Matters for America noted, an October 16 article in The (Louisville) Courier-Journal reported that "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." Moreover, 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 12-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, and his sister Gemma were injured in a 2004 car accident, and SCHIP covered the medical care they received for their injuries. Following Graeme's radio address on September 29, conservative bloggers aimed several attacks at his family, from questioning their financial status to referring to Graeme's parents, Bonnie and Halsey, as "mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves." Other media outlets began to echo or cite the bloggers' attacks. For example, on the October 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh argued that the Frosts "can clearly afford [health insurance]. They just choose not to." During a report on the October 11 edition of CNN's American Morning, as the blog Think Progress noted, anchor John Roberts said of the controversy: "Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin pounced, claiming the Frost family is a fraud, too wealthy for government assistance. One accusation: that Graeme attends a $20,000-a-year private school. The family insists scholarships cover most of that bill." He added: "Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false, but did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?" Noting the controversy in an October 12 column headlined "Sliming Graeme Frost," New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman wrote:
You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded accusations all the time. But we're not talking about some obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent guest on Fox News.
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?"
Indeed, as Media Matters noted, in an October 8 post on ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog, senior political correspondent Rick Klein reported that McConnell's spokesman "declined to comment" on the charge "that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about [the] Frosts." Specifically, 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." The October 16 Courier-Journal article reported that Don Stewart, "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." The article added: "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.' " The article also reported that Stewart had briefed McConnell around October 11: "Stewart said McConnell did not know about any of his e-mails until he told the senator about them sometime around last Thursday." However, in an October 12 television interview, McConnell said that "[t]here was no involvement whatsoever" from his staff -- "None," as Think Progress noted.
An October 17 Courier-Journal article also noted the discrepancy between what McConnell said on October 12 and what the newspaper had reported about Stewart's briefing of McConnell around October 11.
From the Politico article, headlined "Dems show no signs of letting up on SCHIP":
At its core, the SCHIP debate has reflected the clash of two competing strategies. The Democratic-controlled Congress has couched SCHIP in the context of children, and Democrats have come under fire for using kids in photo ops and press conferences to push the case.
The Republicans, backed by the White House, have focused their strategy on money, saying the expansion is far too expensive and would extend the program well beyond its original intent of covering poor children.
Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, has conducted polls that show SCHIP is seen by most Americans as a health care issue, not a spending issue. David Winston, a Republican pollster, agreed that Democrats "made a strategic shift, and they found an issue where they have a significant lead."
From the October 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH [quoting from an October 10 Baltimore Sun article]: "The Frost children depend on financial aid to attend private school, the Frosts say. In addition, Gemma receives money from the city for special education made necessary by her injuries. Halsey and Bonnie Frost say they still have no health insurance. Bonnie Frost said she priced coverage recently at $1,200 a month."
Well, these people can clearly afford it. They just choose not to.
From the October 11 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: One week from today, Democrats will try to pull off a political rarity -- override a presidential veto. The battle is over an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and a 12-year-old activist has become the center of the story.
[begin video clip]
ROBERTS: Graeme Frost was left with severe brain injuries from a near-fatal car crash, but it hasn't stopped him from lobbying, working with Democrats to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. Democrats even picked Graeme to give their weekly radio address.
FROST: 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.
ROBERTS: Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin pounced, claiming the Frost family is a fraud, too wealthy for government assistance. One accusation: that Graeme attends a $20,000-a-year private school. The family insists scholarships cover most of that bill. Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false, but did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?
UNIDENTIFIED ANALYST: I think in this instance what happened was the Democrats didn't do as much of a vetting as they could have done on this young man, his situation, and his family.
KING: Bloggers also posted the Frost family's home address, blurred here to protect their privacy, and yesterday on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh continued the attacks.
LIMBAUGH: Now, the dirty little secret is this: The Democrats put lies into the Frost kid's head, a 12-year-old kid being used, to advance a distortion and a lie.
ROBERTS: The Frost family refused to show their tax returns to a local reporter. Congressional observers point out that, regardless of which issue is being debated, these cut-throat tactics are part of a new and distasteful trend.
UNIDENTIFIED ANALYST: More and more Congress is acting less like a deliberative legislative body, and more like a political campaign. We've been seeing the politicization of every aspect of government.
Looks like Rush learned his lesson, he did not claim the kid was a suicide bomber or a phony child. How funny is it that Rush claims the Democrats put lies into the boys head. What were those lies Rush? That he is a 12 year old child? Pretty funny coming from someone who daily, puts out lies and distortions.
Lets be honest here: The Democrat Party was being despicable when it starting using CHIILLLLDREENNN as "human shields" to protect them from the debate over this program.
Oh, by the way, how did that vote on the SCHIP program go?
There is no Democrat Party only a Democratic Party. Then again since ReNAMBLAcans are famous for being just as ignorant as YOU why would I expect you to actually know the name of the largest political party in America?
It didn't take long for The Politico to become a useless waste of space.
Well, no it really didn't. I may have jumped the gun, but when Bush introduced the magazine at one of his pressers in what was obvious grandstanding (to me), I read the "tell."
"Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false"
Well, golly gee CNN!!! Would it kill ya find the truth BEFORE you go about airing and reairing these questionable accusations. I know I asking for a bit much, and its not like you a NEWS organization, who's primary purpose is to ensure the highest quality of informaion is desiminated to your veiwers or anything. Right.
Unbelievable. I feel like I watching a tabloid entertainment show everytime I Turn on the "news" these days.
O'Reilly's one guy who's true to his garbage TV roots.
The next time we see Bush with a bunch of soldiers around him for a photo spin yay yay Iraq war session we're gonna see all sorts of manufactured rage from the machine, right?
Despite the lies contained in the right-wing smear fest on the Frost family, the outcome is more than apparent...
Mission Accomplished!
That was the goal, wasn't it? Politics above people. A win for the right, a loss for the children. God, that right wing christianity really is something!
Money and political ideology trump God in Republican Christianity.
Where are the Malkin & Limbaugh defenders in this thread?
Tired of getting spanked?
Finally realized that these attacks on the Frosts were not only completely unfounded but also the lowest of the low?
Deezle,
Perhaps if you'd care to list the unfounded and lowest of the low accusations by Malkin and Limbaugh, rather than simply pretend to be a Père fouettard, you might get a discussion going.
"The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets," Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. "Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test.
Malkin personally drove by the Frosts’ home so that she could describe it to her readers, and she went to a commercial property they own and interviewed one of the tenants.
Sen. McConnell’s communications director Don Stewart.
On Monday morning, Don Stewart sent an email with the following text to reporters:
Seen the latest blogswarm? Apparently, there’s more to the story on the kid (Graeme Frost) that did the Dems’ radio response on SCHIP. Bloggers have done a little digging and turned up that the Dad owns his own business (and the building it’s in), seems to have some commercial rental income and Graeme and a sister go to a private school that, according to its website, costs about $20k a year ‹for each kid‹ despite the news profiles reporting a family income of only $45k for the Frosts. Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?
“I had some rudimentary information on this two weeks ago, and it wasn’t enough for me to trust going with. But since then, it has been verified, and most of it’s been verified by a ‘Freeper’ at Free Republic.”
Rush proceeded to recycle the myths that Graeme and his sister must be fat-cat recipients of government welfare because they attend “one of Baltimore’s expensive private schools” and own a house in a decent neighborhood. As we noted yesterday, Graeme has a scholarship to the private school. His sister’s tuition is covered by the state due to her brain injuries, and the house was purchased for $55,000 in 1991 when the neighborhood was not as safe as it is today.
Woof!
Pearl, were you expecting wonder woman to actually read facts? He don't care, they interfere with his bubble!
Good job Pearl
Thanks for attempting to do deez's homework. Although you listed some facts, I fail to see why these snippets you have posted are examples of unfounded actions and are lowest of the low?
It seems to me they show that some of those statements were not only not "unfounded" but were based in reality.
I think the whole exercise was well vetted, which should be done when any example is used to make law. Don't you agreee with me?
My heart goes out to the Frost family and their children. What I think is lost in all this is that the current SCHIP program helped them.
It is the Democrats who used this family's misfortune as their propaganda tool to curry public sentiment to pass the bill rather than while avoiding the issue that their plan expands the program to cover middle class children and their families who in many cases, could afford their own medical insurance.
The issue as I see it over the Dems plan is that they want you and me to pay for other middle class families who choose not to buy insurance. To me it is like me having the government force you to pay for my insurance because I don't.
You are kidding yourself. Most of the uninsured cannot afford coverage. Many people WITH insurance find their claims denied and have to fight to get insurance to pay for treatments (at time when they are ill)
Many people are one accident or illness away from financial disaster. Taxpayers pay in many ways for our swiss cheese health care.
I also seem to remember that we should be mindful of the "least among us."
When "conservatives" talk about the poor, they envision lazy people taking advantage of social programs. They don't think of children, or people with mental illness, or physical disabilities, or my brother in law, who is mentally retarded (and with government help, has a wonderful group home to live in and a full time job.)
Mary,
I think you are the one who is kidding. How can you expect me to take your word for it that most uninsured cannot afford insurance? Can you back up your claim?
You are speaking in talking points. "Most", "Many". Please be a bit more specific.
What do you mean by, "Taxpayers pay in many ways for our swiss cheese health care."
You paraphrase Jesus when you say, "...we should be mindful of the "least among us." and I have no problem with that. However, aren't you making a religious argument by that quote? Are you trying to force others to follow the teachings of Jesus with that statement?
You wrote: "When "conservatives" talk about the poor, they envision lazy people taking advantage of social programs. They don't think of children, or people with mental illness, or physical disabilities, or my brother in law, who is mentally retarded (and with government help, has a wonderful group home to live in and a full time job.)"
Are you a conservative? How do you know what conservatives envision and/or what they do or do not think? Besides a nice rant, what does that have to do with SCHIP? It is okay to believe in socialized medicine but why must you generalize and put your own ideas about conservatives into the argument? It simply doesn't stand up and in effect, detracts from your argument.
God bless your brother-in-law. Is his group home status affected by this legislation? If not, you are confusing the issue.
Do you not know that the Democrats SCHIP proposal would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year? Do you not see that will entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for the state coverage?
So rather than helping the 'least among us', this program looks to me to be simply another step toward socialized medicine.
Your turn.
"another step toward socialized medicine"
And that's a bad thing because....?
And, please, don't bore us with stories about how "bad" everybody else's socialized medicine is; our system has its own horror stories. Aren't we smart enough to come up with a system that works?
Nerzog,
If you are for socialized medicine, then by all means be all for it.
I agree we should come up with a plan that works. Finding one everyone can agree on will be even harder.
I agree. I'm not saying that what Britain has or what Canada has will necessarily work here. However, we should be able to figure out a way to cover everyone, to some extent. It seems that the Republicans are dead set against anything beyond the status quo.
How can you expect me to take your word for it that most uninsured cannot afford insurance? Can you back up your claim?
yes: More than half of the nation's uninsured residents are ineligible for public programs such as Medicaid but do not have enough resources to purchase coverage themselves, researchers from the Urban Institute report in a Health Affairs Web Exclusive published today. The report was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Of the 44.6 million uninsured Americans, 56 percent are ineligible for public programs and have insufficient incomes to afford coverage on their own, the researchers report. Another 25 percent of the uninsured are eligible for public programs, and the remaining 20 percent have incomes high enough to afford coverage.
http://rxforhealth.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/more_than_half_.html
You are speaking in talking points. "Most", "Many". Please be a bit more specific. If you wanted to know this information, you would have found out yourself.
What do you mean by, "Taxpayers pay in many ways for our swiss cheese health care."
When a family cannot afford health insurance, one of two things occur: they pay exorbitant costs using emergency rooms, etc.; or they default and everyone else's premiums go up. Uninsured people often put off care; thus, their illnesses cost more to treat.
You paraphrase Jesus when you say, "...we should be mindful of the "least among us." and I have no problem with that. However, aren't you making a religious argument by that quote? Are you trying to force others to follow the teachings of Jesus with that statement? This is dishonest of you. Jesus' words could be re-stated by any secular person and would be a moral argument which is accepted by anyone with a conscience. How religious conservatives like to use religion, rather than be altered by their religion.
what conservatives envision and/or what they do or do not think? I know plenty about how conservatives think, having grown up in a Republican household.
Do you not know that the Democrats SCHIP proposal would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year? Do you not see that will entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for the state coverage? Oh really? Not with Bush in office. Most of the families that will qualify will make much less than that.
So rather than helping the 'least among us', this program looks to me to be simply another step toward socialized medicine. Oh yes, the horrible "socialized medicine." Perhaps studying the systems in Canada, Germany, Norway, etc. might clue you in to the fact that these countries spend less on health care than the U.S. per capita, yet cover everyone. I don't know about you, but I think it would be a good thing to see less stress on our citizens, knowing that their health care needs are covered.
The problem with the current SCHIP program is that there are many who are currently eligible who do not use it. THAT is what needs to be fixed (better communication of availability of SCHIP as it currently stands), not expanding the eligibility limits. Doing so WILL increase its cost, but it's the right solution to the current issues).
"..I fail to see why these snippets you have posted are examples of unfounded actions and are lowest of the low?" (Dep. Barney Fife/ Rinohunter/AA)
Hi Barn. Let's put aside the fact that your "failure to see" what is obvious and in black-and-white to anyone not in a stupor isn't a good basis for an argument.
I think it's pretty ballsy for someone with your record and lack of credibility here, somebody who has been as constantly exposed as dishonest, and who has, within the last week or so,posted clumsily doctored quotes and links that mysteriously had nothing to do with the topic, to call Pearlene's information "snippets".
If you're going to get on the field, take your lumps, even if it's from someone other than the poster you directed your comments toward.Quit acting like a little girl, you're at leat entertaining when you try to keep it honest.
And what's with the strange French mythology? How did that even apply?
Gomer/HBL/Troll
Come back when you grow up and we will discuss.
I fail to see why these snippets you have posted are examples of unfounded actions and are lowest of the low?,AA
Malkin) just returned from a visit to Frost’s commercial property near Patterson Park in Baltimore. It’s a modest place. Talked to one of the tenants, Mike Reilly, who is a talented welder. He said he had known the Frosts for 10 years. Business is good, he told me, though he characterized Frost as “struggling.” Reilly was an outspoken advocate for socialized health care without any means-testing whatsoever and an insistent critic of the Iraq war. Despite all that, he did agree with me that going without health insurance is often a matter of choice and a matter of priorities. Or maybe we were speaking two different languages.
Now isn’t this the same Malkin who has complained about hate mail and threats? Ironically she did this on the same day that Free Republic decided to post the Frost’s’ home address.
AA, give me your home address, I just want to take a little 'drive by' OK?
Pearlene,
Frankly, I don't see a problem with Malkin. She is simply investigating. Other reporters do it all the time. How is that "lower than low"?
I do not condone the publication of addresses. I do not know the specifics behind the publication of the address so can't speak to that. Who specifically published the address? Was it the website or someone else? Do we know the reasons given for posting the address or how it was obtained? Why was it published? Have the Frosts been threatened? I haven't heard.
You'd think by now the Dems would realize that everytime they hold someone up to be their example, that example will be vetted by those on the right. I feel for the Frosts and only wish them well.
Well wonder woman, since you are into manufactured rage, here are several snippets of Bush photo ops. I fully expect you to voice your distaste of the president exploiting our troops, deterring rescue units from doing their job, wasting taxpayer's money on staged aircraft carrier landings and using kids as shields all for personal glorification. Please write Maulkin et al demanding they research the lives of those soldiers, coast guardsmen and kids to ensure they had a right to be there.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bush_orleans_photos.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/02/photo-op-2/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/03/video-president-bushs-surprise-photo-op-in-iraq/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061018-3_p101806pm-384-515h.html
Snoop,
Malkin is more than free to investigate the people in the examples you cited. So are you.
I am not the one who suggested she investigate the Frosts. I only said I didn't have a problem with it. If you feel she should investigate these people then by all means, write your own letter.
Of course, not one word of concern out of you about the fact that taxpayer's resources were diverted from important lifesaving tasks for a photo op. Musta been because it was a conservative abusing the resources...
If you think you are making a point about the cost of photo-ops with the idea that they should be eliminated, then you don't understand politics.
In case you missed it, both parties do it. *sigh*
Your lack of concern was the point, and you made it on que. Too predictable!
Oh, and let's not forget using dogs. Barney's background needs to be investigated as well to ensure he isn't just some Bush patsey posed to make Bush look good.
http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0106/articles/010627a.htm
AA, again you miss the point. The Dems put a face on America’s health care crisis. Families who cannot afford to pay the $1200 to $1500 cost for health insurance. It becomes their fault that they were ’too rich’ <sarcasm> to quality for Medicaid but to don’t make enough money or as one conservative blogger noted don't 'get a second job'.
This is from one ‘conservative' website Redstate:
"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."
Gotta love those 'compassionate conservatives'.
How many families would be able to handle having a child like Graeme who had a brain stem injury and a daughter like Gemma who suffered a cranial fracture and hold down a 'second job'? How many families would be able to handle both of their children hospitalized for more than five months with a 'second job'? How many families would be able to hold those ‘second jobs’ while their kids learn to walk, talk, eat and swallow? How would that ‘second job’ work out when even after almost 3 years, Graeme remains weak on his left side, speaks with a lisp and his sister Gemma is blind in her left eye, has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and see a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with frustration?
You think those kids are fair game?
The Republican party stands out there yelling about the ’unborn’ but once you born it appears that you are 'SOL'. Michelle, Rush, Mitch McConnell and Republicans should feel ashamed for the way THEY treated Graeme & Gemma Frosts.
Shame on AA, carrying the GOP water...again. He knows full well that there are thousands, maybe millions of families who cannot get insurance at any price, because of pre-existing conditions. Funny how the Republicans never address those cases.
Here's the bottom line for me. We, as a society, have the abilitiy to make sure that every member of our society has access to health care. All we lack is the political will to sit down and figure out the details. It doesn't have to be like Britain's system, or Canada's, or Norway's, or Japan's. Aren't we smart enough to come up with our own system? Well, we know that 24% of us aren't smart enough, but what about the rest of us? Why are the Republicans so afraid of this?
Pearlene,
As much as you are trying to put a shameful face on Republicans, and by so doing paint us all as heartless, your argument of using one anonymous person's post, (and not even from here,) does not translate well. I have no idea who wrote what you pasted. Could it be someone on your side who wrote that to make Republicans look bad? Maybe you wrote it? I don't know. Why didn't you include the person's name or handle?
Of course there are people on both sides who have extreme views. We see those on the left fringe here just about everyday say outlandish things. But they do speak for all Democrats? I think not.
What is lost in all this, is that the Frosts did get help. They received SCHIP benefits. I have not seen anyone on the right suggest that those existing benefits be taken away. (Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it.) It is the expansion of the program and the consequences of that expansion that are the heart of the argument.
God bless that little boy and girl. I hope and pray they heal.
As for second jobs, some of us have resorted to second jobs in times of health crisis by family members in order to pay bills. Frankly, I have not been interested in the Frosts nor been concerned with knowing how they handled their crisis so have no opinion on how they are coping financially. I only wish them all well.
Good lord, you actually want to suggest that Pearl wrote that? Here, I've posted in whole perfect examples of extremists on the conservative side who, due to lack of outrage from main stream conservatives, continue to be responsible for painting your entire party as racist thugs who'd kill before compromising.
http://saw.revolt.org/node/51
Snoopy,
I don't seriously believe Pearlene wrote those words, but only wanted to show how unsourced quotes are in effect meaningless.
We have no idea who those people are who wrote those emails you quoted. They could be all the same person. As I mentioned earlier, they could be leftists posing as righties. Who knows? Showing them does not prove your point. After all, how many million Americans are Republican. To paint them all as such extremists is silly.
You missed again. I specifically pointed out that due to lack of outrage from the mainstream conservatives the extremists are making the whole party look bad. You should be jumping up and down screaming about not wanting these extremists bringing your party down, instead you are making excuses for the likes of Maulkin et al while claiming you are in no way like them. Seems you have a problem there, pardner.
"What is lost in all this, is that the Frosts did get help. They received SCHIP benefits. I have not seen anyone on the right suggest that those existing benefits be taken away. (Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it.)"
You are being dishonest. The bloggers that picked this up and the Republican politicians who pointed to the Frosts were doing so because they were saying the Frosts didn't deserve it.
[While I am sure that seeing a fight between Michelle Malkin and Red State would no doubt amuse the living heck out of various people, we tossed the previous avatar of this guy for a reason. Play your little games somewhere else, kids. - Moe Lane]
In a post today, Michelle Malkin criticized a liberal Baltimore Sun reporter, for saying that the Frost family was not prepared for comments in conservative blogs such as this one:
As it turns out, it was the well-known contributor mbecker who posted that now famous comment
I personally have never heard of 'Redstate' and for very obviously reason would NEVER blog there.
You talk of compassion for the Frost family but seem to try as many conservatives do, pretend that it's didn't happen or 'show me proof' and when proof is provided you say again 'show me more proof' which leaves me to believe that your 'compassion' is extremely suspect, IMO. I don't care who the Frost's were representing, THEY as a family DID NOT deserve the attack job that Republicans have become famous for. Don't like the message, fight the message don't attack the messenger! As for yourself, at least have the balls to condemn the actions while still having reservation or objections to the SCHIP program!.
I'm guessing this is ok with you then?
Speaking before the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast at a Washington, D.C. hotel, Bush extolled the “faith-based” initiative, which entails directing millions of federal dollars to religious groups allegedly so they can provide social services.
<!-- <a href="http://blog.au.org">[link to blog.au.org]</a> - /2007/04/13/doubting-thomas-president-bush-pushes-government-funding-of-religion-on-jeffersons-birthday/ - -->The president’s push for state-funded faith didn’t stop there. He then launched into a tired promotion of welfare for Catholic schools. He backed requiring all taxpayers to prop up these church-run institutions.
and this:
LAKARTINYA, Kenya -- The herders of this remote mountain village know little about America, but have learned from those who run a US-funded aid program about the American God.
A Christian God.
The US government has given $10.9 million to Food for the Hungry, a faith-based development organization, to reach deep into the arid mountains of northern Kenya to provide training in hygiene, childhood illnesses, and clean water. The group has brought all that, and something else that increasingly accompanies US-funded aid programs: r egular church service and prayer.
President Bush has almost doubled the percentage of US foreign-aid dollars going to faith-based groups such as Food for the Hungry, according to a Globe survey of government data. And in seeking to help such groups obtain more contracts, Bush has systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state.
Or this:
The U.S. government plans to spend $345 million next year to verify identities amid missed deadlines on security goals and continued concerns over terrorism, according to a report, a spending boon that could trickle down to startups.
Spending is expected to grow 6.2 percent annually to about $439 million in 2012, according to Input, a Reston, Virginia-based research firm.
Not only could it generate revenue for security startups but it could also spur interest of government contractors in buying startups in areas such as smart cards, biometrics, RFID, and speech recognition.
Bush has no problem vetoing healthcare for poor and mid's, but want us to prop up funding for faith based churches to provide social services......to provide for his war, to provide for his many terror programs, etc etc etc....but SCREW THE AMERICAN FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.
Sheesh, and to listen to the people slam the frosts here, the Frost kids might well have been better off dead.
Lorelei,
It is fair to argue how the federal 'pie' is divided. If you think it should be divided in a different manner, you are more than entitled to offer your opinion and support candidates who reflect your outlook.
I'm not sure you understand that the veto by Bush is to end the program, but the objection of going beyond the original intent of the program and include the middle class, effectively advancing toward the Democrats goal of socialized medicine.
Bush's proposal calls for an increase in the existing program. Adding another $5 billion to the program.
"When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first. I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support a bill that moves adults off this children's program -- and covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling. If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money.
Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. By working together, Republicans and Democrats can strengthen SCHIP, ensure that it reaches the children who need it, and find ways to help more American families get the private health coverage they need."
-- President George W. Bush, October 6, 2007
On your last comment, to whom are you referring who you feel have slammed the Frost kids in such a way you think they'd be better off dead? Frankly I find that viewpoint outrageous, heartless, and cruel.
When people like Malkin blast the Frosts for "making poor decisions", what is their point? Why is that even relevant? Even if they did make "poor decisions", they found themselves in a crisis situation in which a kid's life was saved with the help of a Federal program. Why is that a bad thing? Because it cost me an extra dollar? When someone makes a bad decision and sets their house on fire, do we stand back, wag our finger at them and let their house burn? Or, do we use our tax dollars to bail them out?
Nerzog,
The Frosts were helped, weren't they?
Yes, but the implication from Michele Malkin is that they shouldn't have been, at least not with her tax dollars. I don't see how you can honestly come to any other conclusion.
I agree. Even if for the sake of argument you accept that the Frosts made poor decisions, you don't let their children suffer for their poor decisions, the village has to step in when that happens. Michele Malkin and people like her obviously can live with the idea that if that program had not been available to that family those children may either have died or been irreversibly damaged for life. There is an element of heartlessness and selfishness that runs deep in the Malkins of the world. As long as it’s not their kids they are not concerned. Yeah survival of the fittest or better way to describe their philosophy is survival of the richest.
Exactly...why won't the Republicans just be honest and admit that their political philosophy is Social Darwinism? Is it because they're afraid that the Religious Right knuckledraggers will think they're talking about Evolution?
It is fair to argue how the federal 'pie' is divided. If you think it should be divided in a different manner, you are more than entitled to offer your opinion and support candidates who reflect your outlook.Yes it is very fair to argue that since SCHIP is part of that.I'm not sure you understand that the veto by Bush is to end the program, but the objection of going beyond the original intent of the program and include the middle class, effectively advancing toward the Democrats goal of socialized medicine. Oh you mistake me, I understand perfectly well what is going on.Bush's proposal calls for an increase in the existing program. Adding another $5 billion to the program."When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first. Why? Why dont we put all children first, and then all adults.....my god can we have become so callous in this country that we really dont care if people in pain, in need of care, get it?I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support a bill that moves adults off this children's program -- and covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling. If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money.Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. By working together, Republicans and Democrats can strengthen SCHIP, ensure that it reaches the children who need it, and find ways to help more American families get the private health coverage they need."-- President George W. Bush, October 6, 2007 I happen to disagree with President George W. Bush.......I think the safety and health of this country is and should be formost on all our minds and first and formost of what our government should be concerned with.Without a healthy county, what good are the people to the country as a whole.On your last comment, to whom are you referring who you feel have slammed the Frost kids in such a way you think they'd be better off dead? Frankly I find that viewpoint outrageous, heartless, and cruel. I did not say I THOUGHT, I said to listen to people here you would think they would be better of dead. (I erroneously included other sites I have read in the "here" part.) I personally think they are very courageous to bear all the publicity and negativity from the right that they have. Frankly, i find the far right outrageous, heartless and cruel.
crap i hate this thing that doesnt format right...lol
Lorelei,It is fair to argue how the federal 'pie' is divided. If you think it should be divided in a different manner, you are more than entitled to offer your opinion and support candidates who reflect your outlook.
Yes it is very fair to argue that since SCHIP is part of that.
I'm not sure you understand that the veto by Bush is to end the program, but the objection of going beyond the original intent of the program and include the middle class, effectively advancing toward the Democrats goal of socialized medicine.
Oh you mistake me, I understand perfectly well what is going on.
Bush's proposal calls for an increase in the existing program. Adding another $5 billion to the program."When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first.
Why? Why dont we put all children first, and then all adults.....my god can we have become so callous in this country that we really dont care if people in pain, in need of care, get it?
I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support a bill that moves adults off this children's program -- and covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose families are struggling. If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money.
Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. By working together, Republicans and Democrats can strengthen SCHIP, ensure that it reaches the children who need it, and find ways to help more American families get the private health coverage they need."-- President George W. Bush, October 6, 2007
I happen to disagree with President George W. Bush.......I think the safety and health of this country is and should be formost on all our minds and first and formost of what our government should be concerned with.Without a healthy county, what good are the people to the country as a whole.
On your last comment, to whom are you referring who you feel have slammed the Frost kids in such a way you think they'd be better off dead? Frankly I find that viewpoint outrageous, heartless, and cruel.
I did not say I THOUGHT, I said to listen to people here you would think they would be better of dead. (I erroneously included other sites I have read in the "here" part.) I personally think they are very courageous to bear all the publicity and negativity from the right that they have. Frankly, i find the far right outrageous, heartless and cruel.
"I fail to see why these snippets you have posted are examples of unfounded actions and are lowest of the low?"
I happen to think it's disgusting for a blogger to go on a drive-by to add fuel to the "they didn't deserve the help" fire, and I feel this is "lowest of the low." I'm in a family of two living paycheck to paycheck, and this family of four makes less annual income than I do. I congratulate them for managing to feed their family, much less run a business and keep their house.
I find it deplorable that the likes of Malkin and McConnell used this family who had a real need and were the exact type of people this program was designed to help to try prove some fictional point on greed and excess. This family was struggling to achieve the American Dream, doing the bootstrap bit with their own modest business and even buying a low-cost home that eventually tripled in value, and conservatives are somehow theorizing that instead of being rewarded for their contributions and entrepreneurial spirit, they should have been thrown to the wolves, saddled with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt, lost their house and car, and these scholastically gifted students thrown into poverty along with a family that was doing its best to succeed in this stumbling economy.
It's despicable, and the Republicans recognize this, because it's they that have been breathing a sigh of relief that their leadership didn't more vocally support the carrion crawlers at Freeper.
"The Republicans, backed by the White House, have focused their strategy on money, saying the expansion is far too expensive and would extend the program well beyond its original intent of covering poor children."
Wrong...S-CHIP was designed to cover "targeted low-income" children, not "poor children". According to the Department of Heath and Human Services:
A "targeted low-income child" is one who resides in a family with income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or whose family has an income 50% higher than the state's Medicaid eligibility threshold. Some states have expanded SCHIP eligibility beyond the 200% FPL limit, and others are covering entire families and not just children.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/05_SCHIP%20Information.asp
Poor children have Medicaid. S-CHIP covers children whose uninsured families make too much to qualify for Medicaid. The Republicons are lying...as usual.
GET READY FOR THE OURCRY FROM THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA OF THE STATEMENT FROM PETE STARK!!!! I JUST EMAILED MR. STARK AND TOLD HIM "GOOD JOB" AND DON'T LET YOUR PARTY WHO DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO THIS WHITEHOUSE, RNC AND THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA MAKE YOU SAY YOU ARE SORRY!! I WILL BE WATCHING THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA TODAY TO SEE HOW LONG IT WILL DO OVERKILL ON THIS AND MOSTLY I WILL BE WATCHING MR. MATT ON THE TODAY SHOW WHO TOLD TIM RUSSET AND GENERAL CLARK WHEN THE DEMS WERE JUMPING ON RUSH ABOUT THE PHONY SOLIDERS STORY" HEY THERE IS A WAR GOING ON AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS" AND I HOPE WHEN THE MEDIA CALL MR. STARK I HOPE HE WILL ASK THEM WHEN WILL THEY BE TALKING TO THOSE CHILDREN WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE SOON ON THERE SHOWS
Oh, it's already started. Joe Scarborough and his crew hammered on him this morning, and POX "News" is doing their typical on-screen graphics. Stark's mistake was throwing in the final jab about President Numbnuts getting soldiers killed for his "amusement". That was a mistake, because the rest of his statement, which was all true, will be obscured by the fabricated outrage over that one phrase. It's "Betray Us?" all over again. The GOP lapdog Press will spend the next two weeks bloviating about the word "amusement" and look the other way while the War Criminal In Chief creeps ever closer to plunging us into another war.
Screw the right wing media... A majority of Americans are sick of Bush's war. How many Americans are glad that Stark pumped up the rhetoric? Stark's comments are no worse than what we've heard from the right wing in accusing people of being anti-Patriotic, anti-troops, anti-victory, etc. If anything, the Democrats have not done enough to keep the pressure on the Bush crowd to end this war. I say turn the volume up...
Well in my opinion amusement is right on target also....
Anyone here remember Bush in the White House joking about Oops no WMD's Here...as he looked under the tv cabinet, under the desk, etc.....
I DO, and IT WAS DISGUSTING AND NOT VERY FUNNY AS AMERICANS WERE DYING FOR HIS WMD'S SEARCH!!!!!
F*KKER
Well, you have a point. Did you see his grin when he was talking about WWIII? I personally find it embarassing that the "leader of the free world" can't refrain from that idiotic smirk, even when talking about world destruction.
As for Stark's comment, it's no worse than the mountain of crap they heaped on the head of Bill Clinton. They accused him of killing people to distract us from his trist in a White House closet. Is that any better?
If they think Stark should apologize, when will Bush apologize for starting a war that most Americans acknowledge was a mistake?
Is this what you are referring to?
" We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously...." (George W. Bush, 17 October 2007)
Yes, I saw a picture of him associated with that.
However the propaganda that was foisted upon the unsuspecting "right" was not his sardonic smile, it was the multitude of pictures in print media and on television with an ACTUAL halo around his head, lol. I have a webpage of some of them. (CNN, newspapers, etc...) It is too funny the extent that was gone to to show that too.
bush's halo's
Where is the outrage at using perceived religion for your propaganda?????
and too, where is the outrage that the following is allowed to be supported by federal funds and healthcare for children is veto'd? I guess funding "faith" is more important...hmmm? Keep in mind these are numbers that are not current.....I beleive they are MORE NOW....
The March, 2004, issue of Church and State reports that the "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced to reporters that $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups ccould apply for more money through state-administered programs.From the Washington Post, January 4, 2005: .. in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to the Associated Press. That's not enough, said H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said..
Money and political ideology trump God in Republican Christianity.
- IRONY 101
_________________
Slight correction: Money and political ideology * is* God in Republican Christianity.
That's why their version of God is framed as an angry, vengeful, amoral entity willing to execute any that goes against whatever George W. Bush can dream up.
What i find interesting about using this family is that they were covered under the current system in place. So if the current system is adequate why change it?
I don't know. Why not try to free as many hard working Americans from the shackles of outrageous healthcare costs as possible?
Obviously there is a working system in place for those who cannot afford their healthcare cost. The problem isn't that enought people aren;t covered. There are two:
1. People taking advantage of the system
2. Too much beuracacy in the current system turns people off from trying.
Just clean up we have and there is no need to expand it.
What does that even mean? Taking advantage of the system?
That too many people take advantage (again, whatever that means. Examples?) would indicate that too many people have coverage, which would run contrary to the (baseless) assertion that the problem isn't that not enough people have coverage.
And what beauracracy? Examples?
It comes down to a fundamentally divergent set of worldviews.
Cons believe that any contribution from the public sector is government interference and that privatization is unassailable. That's fine. It's just that, despite ample time, pivatized for profit medicine has failed to provide healthcare for all.
Lefties believe that quality healthcare is not a commodity from which to suck a profit. Healthcare is a human right and is essential to truly preserving our national security.
Also, providing healthcare is an investment in the human aspect of our infrastructure. And since our infrastructure (human and otherwise) is the means that enables citizens to prosper, the best way to ensure longterm prosperity for Americans is to invest in and create the strongest infrastructure possible.
To go back a few posts, Malkin was not investigating anything. Those that have "real" jobs in the press investigate to learn the truth. Malkin had a an agenda to discredit this family. Perhaps the appropriate word wouild be "stalking" for the purpose of doing harm.
Malkin has complained when her address has been given out, yet she is willing to stalk people herself. Just another right wing hypocrite.
"LIMBAUGH: Now, the dirty little secret is this: The Democrats put lies into the Frost kid's head, a 12-year-old kid being used, to advance a distortion and a lie. "
It's true, a group of those "democrats" grabbed this kid off the street, and took him to a dark warehouse and brain washed this little guy until he repeated the SCHIP mantra just like he was told to do. Like Limbaugh really cares about this kid. If he did, he would have donated some of that money from the letter to help childhood diseases, or health education programs.
there are battle lines being drawn- nobodies right if every bodies wrong.... Mostly say hooray for our side... stop now... Hey whats that sound everybody look whats going down....
DESPERATION! Just read most of today's Media Matters stories. You will see the complete desperation on the part of the rtwing as they scan the future elections. They know that their old lying games will not work. Roving is so discredited that even when something might be true, most Americans won't believe it. Have these guys never heard of credibility? Do they have any idea what happens to anyone in any field or profession when they lose that invaluable commodity? Do they know what it takes and how long it takes to get it back?
Just one question to anyone here to answer and please dont lower to a personal attack for a simple question.
Where in the Consitution of the United States of America does it mention Health Care for all.
This country was built on self rule of ones own actions and not on government rule of one. The founders of this country never meant for the gov to provide for all your personal needs.
Who cares who attacked who both the right and the left do it all the time we have slipped to nothing more than a bunch of neanderthals hitting each other with clubs cause mine is better than yours and I am going to make sure you realize it.
And as far as the money for the letter the MC-LEF gives all that money to kids just not for what you think it should be for and the foundation gives back 100% of everything donated and they eat the admin costs look them up not hard to find out what they do.
From the MC-LEF website:
In addition to the regular program, our Foundation decided to support all American Forces and also Coalition Forces in the invasion of Iraq and taking of Baghdad from 3 March 2003 to 16 July 2003. In the past, the Foundation also included in our program the children who lost a parent from all agencies killed in the murderous attack on the Pentagon. We also decided to go back and give our bonds to children who lost a parent on the USS Cole; the children of the Air Force personnel killed at Khobar Towers; and, with great honor, the twelve children who lost their parent on the space shuttle Columbia disaster.
They do much for lots
but my original question stands where in the Consitution does is say the gov needs to provide "Insurance," for all people in the US.