« Talking It To Death | Main | Nick Hogan may have killed a Marine »

Dialing Down The Rhetoric On S-CHIP

I've spent quite a bit of passion on the whole proposed expansion of the S-CHIP program and President Bush's veto of it, and I'm not entirely happy with myself over that. There's a hell of a lot of heat surrounding the issue, and not much light. In that spirit, I'm going to try to personally tone down a few things, and try to apply a smidgen of calm, reasonable common sense to the issue.

(This might cost me my position in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and endanger my weekly checks from the Republican National Committee for parroting their talking points, but I shall let my conscience be my guide. Things have slacked off since Master Rove retired, anyway.)

First up, the existence of the S-CHIP program was never in dispute. President Bush had no problems with continuing it as is. Congress wanted to expand it by roughly a whole order of magnitude, and the whole program became the football in a game of political brinkmanship. Bush said "as is or not at all," and Congress said "double or nothing." Neither side is backing down as yet, and that's where things stand. A safer approach for Congress would have been to pass a reauthorization of the existing program, THEN try to pass an expansion -- leaving it as is as a "safety net" before fighting for expansion, but that would have involved passing up the political opportunity to paint Bush as killing the entire program -- and that was far, far too tempting.

Secondly, with all the discussion of the Democrats' poster child for S-CHIP, Graeme Frost, and his family's financial status, but I -- along with a lot of other people -- overlooked one crucial element of the whole thing: Frost was ALREADY being covered by the program. The proposed expansion would not have affected him and his family one whit. He should not have been the poster child for the expansion, but for the continuance of it as is.

Hell, one could use him to argue AGAINST the expansion. By jacking up the costs of the program and tying its funding to cigarette taxes, the plan could threaten the very existence of the program -- leaving young Master Frost and other kids like him high and dry.

There's little arguing that the program is, overall, a good one. The question is just how far it should go. I have a solid bias against expansion of any government program or responsibility until proven absolutely necessary, so my instinct is to reject the expansion. And when it comes to using "helping poor children" as the excuse to help people who make above the national median income and defining "children" as people as old as 25, I dig in my heels and say "hell, no!"

Finally, it must be remembered that Congress MAKES the law. Bush's power when it comes to law is to say "yes" or "no" to the whole thing; it is Congress that decides just what makes it to his desk. If Congress was truly interested in helping poor children, they would split the bill into two parts -- first, reauthorizing S-CHIP as is, then a second bill expanding it. Let the fight be over the actual issues, and not over scoring political points.

Especially when the Democrats are so eager to hide behind children. Sending a 12-year-old to fight your battles, having kids pulling red wagons (hopefully not "Made In China" swathed in lead paint, but one can't be too certain) is the most vile of political theatre and crudely exploitative of kids, and ought to be thoroughly repudiated.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24684.

Comments (86)

Not to worry, not many pare... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Not to worry, not many parents will let their children talk with Democrats anymore, unless they want Michelle "Stalkin" Malkin digging through their trash. Classy.

And mantis is the first to ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

And mantis is the first to step up and confirm's Jay's point perfectly.

I expect thorough repudiati... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I expect thorough repudiation of this crude exploitation of kids.

"classy link"-fits mantis t... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"classy link"-fits mantis to a T.

So it's okay for Dems to ex... (Below threshold)
Chaz:

So it's okay for Dems to exploit people to further their agenda but it's not okay to check their facts. "We know what's best for you, now do as we say and don't question" seems to sum up liberal philosphy pretty well.

So mantis's take on journal... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

So mantis's take on journalism is that if someone with a full-time gig doesn't bother to do their job no one else is entitled to find the truth? A drive-by and interview with a neighbor hardly seems to be stalking, unless you're unhinged.

1 Years property tax will t... (Below threshold)
Spencer Gross:

1 Years property tax will take care of my children's healthcare for a year.

1 year's state income tax will provide food for my kid's for 4 months.

1 year's federal income tax will provide housing and utilities for 6 months.

So let me keep my taxes!!! It is for the kids!!!
No really, it is for the kids!

Read wizbang blue article about schip and the Iraq War. Of course can't comment there.

Who benefits from "dialing ... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

Who benefits from "dialing it down"? What you list above is what non-liberals have already stated. It is liberals who "dial it up" when they are called on their lies, as in this case. Dialing it down only benefits them.

Ultimately, it serves no purpose to ever provide liberal Democrats any quarter. You are not going to get anywhere trying to reason with them, they deal in a world of emotional pleas, not logical arguments. The only way to deal with such people is to confront them to the point of conflict, when you can then destroy them. Other paths in dealing with liberals end in eventual defeat. Rapid and aggressive escalation against liberals is now the only path.

I never fail to find amusem... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

I never fail to find amusement in those that believe the goverment should be providing programs like these.

I'm quite happy to see the whole steaming pile go down in flames. It means more of *my* money stays in *my* pocket so I can spend it on *my* child, or me and its one less goverment program to be eliminated.

mantis,You have lo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

mantis,

You have lost all credibility with this story. What Malkin did was try to report more thoroughly about the family so ready to exploit their own child for political retribution. And yes the ad you linked to is ridiculous, children have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to political discourse.

Back to your obscene notion that Malkin is stalking the family. Why is one sort or reporting OK, while the other is considered stalking? I guess we should just accept the reporter's word because it's about a child, right? So a child's word should be considered off limits as far as rebuttals are concerned?

So a child's word should... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So a child's word should be considered off limits as far as rebuttals are concerned?

That's exactly right, and why mantis gets so upset and rude when people rebuts its points.

This episode reminds me of ... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

This episode reminds me of a conversation I heard recently regarding Indy car racer Danica Patrick. At a couple of points in the season she had rather heated post-race "discussions" with other drivers over incidents (real and imagined) that took place during the race. The most common target of Danica's wrath was fellow driver Dan Wheldon.

As a couple of points it looked like things might turn ugly. However, I heard one friend say that "If Danica had punched Wheldon during that exchange, I would have lost all respect for her right then and there." That comment caught me off guard, but then he added. "Because she knows that Wheldon wouldn't have dared to strike a woman back on national television."

That scenario is exactly what the Democrats are attempting to do with the children being pushed on the political stage in this latest act of political theater!

Now that the human shield o... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Now that the human shield operation using a little boy seems to be stumbling, the Malkin is "stalking" the Frost family story seems to have become the new consensus narrative on the Left side of the spectrum.

Practically every single Left-wing blogger is singing from this same hymn sheet ... wouldn't be surprised to see if this was hashed out on that Townhouse messageboard we've heard so much about.

mantis is just being a good little soldier and repeating a promising sounding TalkingPoint™. That is all.

At least the kid not 9 year... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

At least the kid not 9 years old. 'At 9, He's Out Stumping for President's Social Security Plan'.

This veto is likely hurting... (Below threshold)

This veto is likely hurting the job approval numbers of Bush which fell by four points since the veto according to Rasmussen.

The veto was always about a big political payoff to Philip Morris and other big tobacco elements. Philip Morris contibuted $39,000 to the 2004 Bush campaign and an additional $250,000 to help pay for his inauguration costs. Other big tobacco donors also made big 2004 political cycle contributions to the Bush campaign or Republican Party causes as well.

The veto was about as to be expected from the best government that big tobacco money can buy and never had much to do with any "philosophical" disagreement over funding children's health care as Bush may claim.

The best thing for Bush to do for the image of the Republican Party, if he had any backbone, would be to sign the tobacco hike. This was always a bad issue to attempt to make some political statement over and a real losing cause for any Republicans to associate themselves with.

I'm very proud that my Republican Senator, Gordon Smith, stands with efforts to protect children from tobacco, and I find him always very nice to write to and he always takes the time to write back a nice personal response as well. Smith has a relatively decent mainstream voting record on many issues as well, and is more in the mainstream of past great Oregon Republican statesmen like Mark Hatfield or even Tom McCall.

There is a reason the right... (Below threshold)

There is a reason the right bloggers can't get this story traction - its a loser.

Attacking two injured kids and their lower middle-class working family to score cheap political points loses voters and only appeals to the loons like Mark Steyn and Michelle Malkin.

I wonder if the Dems could ... (Below threshold)
Kathy:

I wonder if the Dems could not find a sympathetic child within the new guidelines. It probably is not that easy to locate children with health issues you know HIPA and all that. Gee I wonder how they did contact the family?

Wow. If these yahoos are "l... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Wow. If these yahoos are "lower middle-class" I'm damn near destitute.

... their lowe... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
... their lower middle-class working family ...

Y'all are really getting desperate. No amount of dishonest rhetoric can distract from the fact that this is a family that would not have been affected by the veto.

No amount of dishonest rhetoric can also make it any less true that good health and auto insurance were not out of the parents' reach for their children.

Using children as human shields because you cannot sustain arguments in favor of the policies you support is just low. So is creating a myth out of whole cloth (Malkin stalkin') so as to protect false narratives.

Go back to the drawing board.

PS: Paul Hooson - conspiracy theories are par for the course for you I'm certain, but I'm just as certain that when Democratic Presidents veto partial birth abortion bans, you'll scream blue murder if anyone were to suggest that it's all just a pay-off to pro-abortion groups, right?

PPS: You wouldn't know mainstream if it slapped you in the face.

Why is one sort or repor... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Why is one sort or reporting OK, while the other is considered stalking?

Gee, I don't know, I guess they must be the same! Wait, where was it that Malkin contacted the family for an interview? I can see it now, "Excuse me, I work for the internets, maybe you've seen some my reporting?

I assume that all of you would have no problem with some random blogger creeping around your house because you publicly supported some policy, especially when its absolutely clear that blogger has no intention of presenting an unbiased report (see here for some examples of details the blog mob decided to leave out).

I'm sure if Oliver Willis or some Kossite were peering over the bushes at little Noah McCullough's house, poring over the details of his kitchen and ambushing his father's employees as they go to work, you would all be fine with it, right? Just some healthy citizen journalism!

But really, keep it up, attacking the kids who got into a car accident and their parents for legally getting federal health care for them. It's a winning strategy.

Hey Steve try again, from t... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Hey Steve try again, from the article you linked to:

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

According to that little blurb, it would seem the kid knows all about publicity and the good and bad that comes with it. However, I still think using him was a stupid and misguided idea.

The veto was always about a big political payoff to Philip Morris and other big tobacco elements.

Hooson, do you really expect people to believe this tripe? Yeah, big tobacco has had it really easy over the last 15 years haven't they? So answer me this big guy, once you have your way and have taxed cigarettes out of existence, how are we going to pay for this now expanded SCHIP Program? Oh wait, that's right, with your liberal thinking you probably just figure we'll raise taxes somewhere else. And what this has to do with protecting children from tobacco is beyond me, please explain that one.

Wow mantis, creeping, ambus... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Wow mantis, creeping, ambushing, peering over, gee, were you with Ms. Malkin as she was doing it?

Gee, I don't know, I guess they must be the same! Wait, where was it that Malkin contacted the family for an interview?

Yes the only journalism out there is done with consenting parties is that it? Nice to see you set that standard, let's be sure to apply that one at a later date.

But really, keep it up, attacking the kids who got into a car accident and their parents for legally getting federal health care for them. It's a winning strategy.

I don't question their receiving of the money, they were approved to get it and they exercised that option. You could question how someone in that lifestyle, 3000 sq. ft house, driving an SUV, private school, and wonder if these are really the people who should receive government assistance. And when you add the fact that they let their boy be used as a political pawn to expand the program, well finding out the details of who is covered by the current one certainly is fair-game.

So it's "stalking" b... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

So it's "stalking" because it's not going to be unbiased and she didn't call them? How ... strained. So was the New York Times "stalking" when they tried to get at John Roberts' kids' adoption records? Like I said, the Left always claims to be more "independent" minded but yet somehow, they keep using the exact same TalkingPoints™, no matter how lame.

But really, keep it up, attacking the kids who got into a car accident and their parents for legally getting federal health care for them. It's a winning strategy.

Try as you might, this is not about the kids. This is about the all too liberal predeliction for using human shields in policy debates, whether it be the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry and of course, now, a little boy who was unfortunate enough to be in an accident.

No one is even attacking the parents for using the SCHIP program. They legally qualified for it even if it turns out that they could very well have afforded the health and car insurance that would have taken care of their kids.

What we are angry about is that these parents decided to volunteer their children's predicament to be used as a political vehicle to make a dishonest policy argument. i.e. the President vetoing the SCHIP expansion would deprive children like Graeme (who was and will remain covered by the program) of SCHIP coverage.

Face it; this is still a policy issue and that means that your arguments are fair game for challenge ... even if you're hiding behind the body of an innocent little child.

Bush said "as is or not ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Bush said "as is or not at all," and Congress said "double or nothing."

Then there was a veto after that "double or nothing" re-raise.

In poker, this is known as "going over the top from position". It's a play that puts big-time pressure on your opponent.

While I think it's a cheap and smarmy tactic to use children in almost ANY ad UNLESS it's damn funny and original, it's an especially cheap and smarmy tactic to use them in political ads where they just spew from a script. Professionally speaking, it's a low-hanging fruit "concept" that lacks an ounce of creativity and is usually the work of an ad agency creative hack.

In this case, the Dems fired the first smarmy shot with the Frost family. Who, as sad as their story is, knowingly thrust themselves--and most importantly, their children--into the public and political spotlight by signing up for the spot in the first place. And honestly, I have not heard one peep from the Frosts about getting too much unwanted civilian journalist attention--THAT's coming from a bunch of whiny left-wing bloggers.

Here's the solution: First, cut with the using- children-for-political-purposes crap. Re-submit this very important and needed bill "as is" or as it was supposed to be so that children that do need medical care do get the coverage they need. THEN send a second bill calling for an expansion and we can debate it on its merits without needing to use kids as a pawn to score cheap and needless political points.

I don't think President Bus... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I don't think President Bush said 'as is or nothing' by putting a five (5) billion dollar increase in the requested budget. If he said that I want him to say it about my military retirement. I could use a million or so of the 5 billion. I now disregard the post of the left wing anti-american democrats (aka Communist) on here except when I need my daily laugh. When I need a double laugh I read one of their crazy post and respond. Actually you can laugh while you are reading and responding to anything Mantis post. A good hard belly laugh, not a Shrillary cackle, cackle.

Try as you might, this i... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Try as you might, this is not about the kids.

Wrong. Bloggers like Jay, Malkin, Riehl, and others made it about the kids when they decided that objecting to the policy was not enough, and that they needed to discredit a kid and his family by digging through their personal lives, visiting their house and place of work, and dishonestly and insultingly "exposing" them with a few tons of bullshit (they pay $500 to send their kids to that school, that house cost $55k when they bought it 16 years ago).

No one is even attacking the parents for using the SCHIP program.

Either you're completely full of shit or you haven't paid any attention. Here's what Riehl had to say about the parents today:

I don't see someone who needs my help in F Halsey Frost. I see a simpleton and a loser who had more kids than he could afford and doesn't appear to have given up very much in life to deal with that situation.

<a href="http://themoderate... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Joe Gandelman, in an uncharacteristically angry post, sums things up well:

Those who support Bush and the group of win-one-for-our-team might perhaps focus their efforts countering arguments such as this. Then you'd have an actual back-and-forth debate over issues and come up with policy (which might be different from the existing bill).

But no, it's easier to go after a 12 year-old. After all, these days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore.

Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again.

Oh, btw, if it's not about ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, btw, if it's not about the kids, tell Mark Steyn:

Sorry, no sale. The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it's incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you're welcome to clobber him, too.

Get that damn kid!

let's see, $7 billion to co... (Below threshold)

let's see, $7 billion to cover 40 million children is too expensive. Chump change compared to the war in Iraq, most new weapon systems, or to GOP porkbarrel spending (what was the last figure $768 billion dollars in earmarks for the GOP when they controlled it all? Where was their fiscal responsibility the last 12 years?).

Sure people would take their kids out of private programs to enroll them in SChp, which is logical since private insurance is both expensive, poorly administered, and in general a nightmare for parents--particularly if your child has a chronic condition.

People want affordable, reliable health insurance. Private insurance is neither for most people.

If you actually have a plan to reform our health system, I'd be glad to hear it. But to just bitch about people who do have a idea is untenable in this day and age if your answer is the status quo.

Typical. RWers are... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Typical.

RWers are more worried about a family struggling getting benefits then the billions upon billions of dollars being pissed away in Iraq completely unaccounted for.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1302378.shtml

Seriously, even if this family was actually scamming the system why all this venom reserved for them and practically none for this abomination of an administration?

I do agree with one thing. ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

I do agree with one thing.

It was foolish of the Democrats to use children in this advertising.

Knowing how craven and sick quite a few Republicans are they should have known these children would have been attacked.

Foolish Democrats.

Your outrage is as false an... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Your outrage is as false and contrived as a three dollar bill. The journalists that work for the Left's many newsletters (from the New York Times to CNN) do this each and every single day - last time I checked, going through public records and matching them against public statements by people who willingly step into the public eye is no more nor less part of what we used to call journalism.

Or is it only journalism when a news outlet decides to delve into Republican judicial nominees' kids' adoption records ... for example?

Face it; the real issue here is that Reid deployed a false argument with a little boy as a human shield to protect it and you are all now acting outraged and trying to push a false narrative because the human shield gambit didn't work. That Joe Gandelman self-righteously bloviates about "issues" while thoroughly blind to the rottenness of hiding behind a 12 year old boy is not surprising.

This is not about how the Frosts got their children's healthcare paid for - Riehl posted that up today. This is about a partisan husband and wife volunteering their children to assist in pushing a lie. [1] that the President's veto would remove their children from the SCHIP program and [2] they're some super-poor family one small step away from destitution if they paid for health insurance themselves.

It was all a lie. And it doesn't matter if the child who repeated it because he didn't know any better was 12 or 3 months old. It remains a lie ... no matter how adorable and cute the human shield deployed to protect it.

Here's my question to Harry... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Here's my question to Harry Reid and the rest of this disgusting episode's apologists.

Instead of hiding behind a child reading a prepared script, and then shrieking that any rebuttal is "attacking a sick child", why don't you get an adult to actually make a case for your policies?

What next? A puppy?

Does anyone else find it am... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Does anyone else find it amusing how the left reacts when caught in the tactic of lying? Deny as you might, People in the Frost's circumstance do not deserve to be supported by my tax dollars, period. Mantis, what you right is factually false. Guess you don't like it when someone points out your hand in the cookie jar. Sometimes Mantis, you put forth the illusion of reason. When the chips are down, it is just an illusion. You embrace the lie as well as any southpaw.

Really, Martin, those were ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Really, Martin, those were the "lies" Graeme Frost pushed? Well, why don't we look at what he said:

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

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

Where does he say they're a "super-poor family" or that "the President's veto would remove [him] from the SCHIP program?" Nowhere? Guess who the liar is...

As far as it being it being "wrong" for a child who benefited from the program speaking on behalf its expansion, fine. Why not just say that the Democrats are wrong for having him deliver the radio address? Why is it necessary to dishonestly "investigate" his family in a disgusting attempt to discredit him?

"last time I checked, going... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

"last time I checked, going through public records and matching them against public statements by people who willingly step into the public eye is no more nor less part of what we used to call journalism."

Yet another version of the kid had it coming.

Man you guys are fucking pathetic. I love how someone mentioned their tax dollars.

Do you get this upset about the GOP ignoring BILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for?

Or is it just the struggling family trying to get their kids health care?

Upset about the framing?

Well that's an easy remedy stop attacking kids and/or justifying said attacks.

It's NOT about the money.<b... (Below threshold)
Robert:

It's NOT about the money.
It never is.
We found $600 Billion to start and continue a war in iraq that is helping Americans not at all.
Not a peep has been made about $9 Billion being unaccounted for.

This is about WHO gets the money. The working class or the Insurance industry. Since the working class has no viable lobby (and can not kick back any of the cash into the coffers), the insurance industry will win this one.

Despite Malkin's wishes, it's obvious this kid's family isn't rich and gaming the system. If they were, the right-wing would be silent about them. They only hold the poor and powerless accountable.

Re: quoting Mark Steyn. Really?
Remember that time he was correct about the Iraq war?
Me neither.

So how does Mantis feel abo... (Below threshold)
Jo:

So how does Mantis feel about these internet guys "outting" people in the GOP they think are gay? How about that privacy invasion? Oh yeah, it's okay to expose them, that's different.

Michelle Malkin has every right to expose the dems for the lying frauds they are.
And we DO catch them everytime.

You go Michelle.

I guess when the dems/NYT/N... (Below threshold)
J:

I guess when the dems/NYT/New Republic are caught in their lies & fraud, the dems HAVE to resort to children, thinking this somehow keeps them safe from scrutiny.

WRONG! A liar is a liar is a liar. Children or no children. EXPOSE THEM ALL!

My favorite is how Michelle... (Below threshold)
Jo:

My favorite is how Michelle saw the 1/20/09 bumper sticker on their (newish) SUV. Proving they are leftwing activists.

Bwhahahahahaha...Love it

Jo,Watch out for you... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Jo,
Watch out for your support of Malkin.
It's a slippery slope to supporting MoveOn.org when they call out a totally politicized military man (who lost track of almost 200,000 weapons in Iraq, that some think are killing our soldiers).

Mantis, Ryan, kennerly et a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Mantis, Ryan, kennerly et al - the faux outrage is almost cute. But as cute as you all are with your faces all red, it is ludicrous to claim as you do, that a family can be pushed out to be the political cover for SCHIP and then to wander around with this silly fake outrage at the consequences. It is just juvenile.

Steyn nailed you and you are too craven to admit it.

SPQR,The kid gave hi... (Below threshold)
Robert:

SPQR,
The kid gave his opinion of the SCHIP plan and how well it has worked out for him and his family.

On the other side we have Limbaugh, Malkin, you, and the rest of America's A-hole wing who have attacked the kid because no self-respectin' human being can argue with what the kid actually said.

Steyn's a complete asshole ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Steyn's a complete asshole and you are blind for not recognizing that. The "consequences" are only such because there is a sizable contingent of right-wing pricks anxious to discredit and defame anyone who gets in their way.

And they weren't political cover. Political theater, sure, but no "cover" is necessary here. Or hadn't you heard that over 70% of Americans support the SCHIP expansion? The only people needing cover here are Republicans opposing this, and their supporters, but their tactics are backfiring.

Nobody has attacked the kid... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Nobody has attacked the kid, they attack the parents for using the kids, and demand to know the facts.

IT's not as if we were a-hole leftwingers who actually say things like "We hope Tony Snow dies of cancer."

So cut the crap. You lose.

Speaking of Steyn, he alway... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of Steyn, he always nails it, and the left hates him for it.

Just like they hate ANYONE who dares question and expose them.

Libs long for the days when no one dare question anything they did. Those days are over.

Deal with it.

Those that support CHIP are... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Those that support CHIP are because the media is TOTALLY misrepresenting it.

Get informed. It would help.

Shhhh, people. This is how ... (Below threshold)
How A Liberal Thinks:

Shhhh, people. This is how we nail down future constituents - by making sure we have plenty of people dependent on Democrat lawmakers in congress playing Santa Claus. We love control, don't you see? We elites in Washington know what is best for the masses. Don't blow this gig for us.

Sorry Jo,You are clu... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Sorry Jo,
You are clueless.

None of your heroes, including Steyn, have argued why SCHIP shouldn't be supported (as it is by 70% of Americans). Instead they attacked the kid and his family. Why? Because it's all they've got.

As for Steyn:
Steyn = Jenius

What mantis and robert do n... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

What mantis and robert do not wish to deal with, because it would distract them from emoting rather than rational debate, is that the "attacks" on the family focus on the substantive question of why the government is subsidizing health care insurance for people in their financial circumstances and that is what they don't want to deal with. What they thought was a wonderful example backfired on them.

So we get this silly garbage from them where they try to insulate themselves by hiding behind others and running away from the substance as fast as possible. Typical.

Oh please ... who said that... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh please ... who said that SCHIP should not be supported, Robert? Certainly not Republicans. After all, it was Gingrich and Co. who created the program.

If you assholes were capable of coming up with a good argument for socialized medicine (I do so love the thought of waiting six months for chemotherapy) you wouldn't be giving a child prepared scripts to read so you can wave the bloody shirt and accuse people of "attacking children" when they object.

Next time, why don't you use a puppy? Or a kitten? What about a teddy bear?

After all, it was Gingri... (Below threshold)
mantis:

After all, it was Gingrich and Co. who created the program.

Cute, but you don't have a clue. SCHIP was Ted Kennedy's bill, cosponsored by Orrin Hatch, and pushed by the White House (Hillary, really). Gingrich, Lott, and Co. were not fans (Lott managed to get it killed, temporarily, at one point).

the "attacks" on the fam... (Below threshold)
mantis:

the "attacks" on the family focus on the substantive question of why the government is subsidizing health care insurance for people in their financial circumstances

Gee, all I saw was a bunch of assholes dishonestly accusing the Frost family of fraud, and calling the father a loser, and suggesting that they should have been aborted (that's Dan "Family Values" Riehl), etc.

What were the substantive arguments against funding the health care of at least 4 million more currently uninsured children? I must not be able to see them through the sleaze.

Martin, I await your object... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Martin, I await your objection to these further examples of Republicans "hiding behind children".

I won't hold my breath.

Those above, who rely on th... (Below threshold)
rumors on the internets:

Those above, who rely on the insane rantings of a rightwing filthy slut such as Malkin, reveal their utter desperation.

Wow. Jay Tea decides to ta... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

Wow. Jay Tea decides to take it down a couple of notches, the Left smell blood and attack.

Classy.

Conflating having children ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Conflating having children in a political ad or event, and using them as political human shields is clever, but that don't make them the same thing. The former both parties do and have done for over a century, the latter is rather more recent and exclusively Democratic (i.e. Jersey Girls, Sheehan, John Kerry, etc.).

Still haven't seen the argument for expanding coverage to include children living in homes 400% above the poverty level ... but I have seen shrieks of faux-outrage for "attacking children" long before y'all settled on your precious little Stalkin'-Malkin meme.

Mantis, I await your opinio... (Below threshold)

Mantis, I await your opinion over the issue of propping children up between adults who should be discussing the issue. This is the second post in which you challenged others on the very issue of doing this exact thing by countering it with "well republicans do it too" as you offer nothing else but your own attacks. You know, for a minute there, when this discussion first started, I thought you would actually take the high ground and speak to the issue - I was wrong.

I'm not going to get into whether or not this family was deserving of the help they got. As a matter of fact, I'm glad this accident didn't lead them to ruin and they were able to get help. But I'll be totally honest in saying that it seems to me this family has been able to realize quite a few dreams that others never do because others are prioritizing differently. Many families plan for the unexpected by their own means and forgo certain luxuries along the way.

The fact of the matter is that someone tried to prop this child up and portray his family as "unfortunate" or "poor" by stating their "taxable" income and implying that the rug was about to be yanked out from under everyone. Anyone with deductions will tell you that your gross income and taxable income can be leagues apart.

You quoted yourself this:

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

Let's be realistic. How many of those "millions of kids" have this program available to them, but they're simply not signed up? (Criminy, right here in Florida they were advertising and begging people to sign up.) How many of those "millions of kids" have parents with the means to provide their own insurance but don't because they have two car payments and a mortgage they have over-extended themselves with.

Especially how many "wouldn't get the care"? That's bull. They'd get the care without a question. And every hospital has a department that will give them their options for government aid. It seems the eligibility standards are quite low. This family didn't have to sell their car or home and they seem to have a considerable net worth, yet were not turned down.

But they'll send a twelve year old in there to try to shame others into expanding an otherwise good program that will include 25 year old "kids".

Yeah, the republicans have used kids too. It's just as wrong, (there's your "outrage") but we're talking about this one here and now.

Those are some funny commen... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Those are some funny comments.
This is just like the New Left Idiots, trotting out someone with Absolute Moral Authority and acting all indignant when their "points" are rebutted and acting as if responding to their "arguments" are insulting to whichever Absolute Moral Authority Figure they're trotting out now: Max Cleland, Cindy Sheehan and now, some rich guy's son.
It's about the dumbest and most annoying tactic of the New Left Idiots, they try to stifle debate and lie like rugs to win what little debate they try to allow.

That's why it's only good to point and laugh at them.

Like this
Why is it necessary to dishonestly "investigate" his family in a disgusting attempt to discredit him?

I do like the scare quotes around "investigate". I mean, how dishonest that someone tried to find out exactly what the deal was with this family with Absolute Moral Authority. I mean, "investigating" to find out that they aren't 'poor' under any definition of the word is obviously dishonest while trotting out a child and acting all indignant when their talking points are shot down? That's not just honest, that's the only right (lefty) choice.

Idiots.

It's the soft fascism of stupid people.

Absolute moral authority Ve... (Below threshold)
Linda:

Absolute moral authority Veeshir? Ha, it oozes out of every sentence in your comment.

"...idiots....some rich guy...dumbest and most annoying tactic....idiots.....stifle debate.....lie like rugs....laugh at them....idiots....soft fascism of stupid people."

You offered nothing to the debate other than judgmental conclusions, evidencing your own view of yourself as a moral authority. Isn't there something about people living in glass houses?

Ummm, buh? I was poi... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Ummm, buh?
I was pointing out the dishonest tactic of trying to stifle debate by trotting out the Absolute Moral Authority Card.

Now, you can try to rebut my claims by showing me to be wrong somewhere, or you can just make up something that sounds good to make yourself feel better.
I see you're an option B sort of person.

I'm really unsure how or why you would think I claimed to have Absolute Moral Authority.
As to offering nothing but "judgemental conclusions", you got it right on the first try. I'm impressed. Now try to figure out why I did that you get a gold star.
I'll even give you a hint, I did it because I've decided that debating people like that is a waste of time, they spent the whole thread not responding to points, but attacking the people who brought up the points and implying that responding to anything said by one of Absolute Moral Authority is WRONG!!!!!. That's attempting to stifle debate by any rational standard.

Mantis, I await your opi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, I await your opinion over the issue of propping children up between adults who should be discussing the issue. This is the second post in which you challenged others on the very issue of doing this exact thing by countering it with "well republicans do it too" as you offer nothing else but your own attacks.

I find it interesting that the people who have gone after this family, and those that condone it, have never shown any concern about kids being used in politics. How many of them objected to the White House sending out Noah McCullough to promote the President's Social Security plan? Zero. My point is not that "Republicans do it to" but rather that this has nothing to do with some high-minded objection to using kids in politics, but something else entirely.

You know, for a minute there, when this discussion first started, I thought you would actually take the high ground and speak to the issue - I was wrong.

I've spoken about the program in previous threads, but I was disgusted after having seen what the Malkin/Limbaugh/Riehl brigade was doing.

But I'll be totally honest in saying that it seems to me this family has been able to realize quite a few dreams that others never do because others are prioritizing differently. Many families plan for the unexpected by their own means and forgo certain luxuries along the way.

You likely see it that way because you still believe a lot of the bullshit that has been spread about the Frosts. Should this family forgo the "luxuries" of their house and car? I've seen a number of suggestions from supposed Republicans that implied or outright said that the family should sell their house to pay for health insurance. Is that what you think?

The fact of the matter is that someone tried to prop this child up and portray his family as "unfortunate" or "poor" by stating their "taxable" income and implying that the rug was about to be yanked out from under everyone.

Who tried to say they were poor? The whole point of this program is to help out those above the poverty level to get health coverage for their children. Have you noticed what has happened to health care and insurance costs over the past couple of decades? This affects more than just the poor. As far as their taxable income, that was reported in the Baltimore Sun IIRC.

Let's be realistic. How many of those "millions of kids" have this program available to them, but they're simply not signed up? (Criminy, right here in Florida they were advertising and begging people to sign up.) How many of those "millions of kids" have parents with the means to provide their own insurance but don't because they have two car payments and a mortgage they have over-extended themselves with.

I'm not sure, and neither are you. What I do know is that there are millions of uninsured children in this country, and that is something that we can fix. It's not a perfect fix by any means, and I think the states should have good screening processes in place to prevent abuse, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Especially how many "wouldn't get the care"? That's bull. They'd get the care without a question.

How many could get continued care with ongoing (pre-existing) conditions as the Frosts were faced with after the accident? Sure, you can get care if there's an emergency, but without SCHIP this family would be screwed as their daughter has brain damage from the crash and needs ongoing care. No private insurance carrier would cover her now, and the family wouldn't qualify for a government program if it weren't for SCHIP, because they make too much money. Rock and a hard place.

Yeah, the republicans have used kids too. It's just as wrong, (there's your "outrage") but we're talking about this one here and now.

See, I for one have no outrage about it. Noah McCullough, Graeme Frost, kids in campaign ads. Such stuff strikes me as pretty schmaltzy, but so is a lot in politics. So what? Besides, who the hell listens to the Democrats radio address?

The fact is that the Democrats used a kid who benefited from this program, which is for kids, and rather than continue to object to the policy, some on the right decided to attack and defame his family, accuse them of fraud, insult them, and in general act like total assholes. Well, it's going to backfire, the MSM has now picked up on it, and the non-blog reading public (normal people) will get a look at the nastiness that has bubbled up here by a particular group of people who are more than willing to attack anyone who they perceive as getting in the way of their agenda.

Too bad for them they don't understand how politics works outside the blogosphere. All that people are going to see here are a gang of meanspirited liars going up against an adorable 12 year old boy who had a terrible car accident. Whether that reflects the real situation (and we both know it doesn't), that's the message that will get out here. You tell me I should take the high-ground and speak to the issue? That's what Malkin & Co. should have done, for their own sake, but instead they shot themselves in the foot.

I do like the scare quot... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I do like the scare quotes around "investigate". I mean, how dishonest that someone tried to find out exactly what the deal was with this family with Absolute Moral Authority.

I put the scare quotes there because the "investigators" were a bunch of nasty little worms who weren't interested in the getting to the truth but only in attacking this family. Public records show that the Frost house is now worth about $260k and was bought in 1991 for $55k, but these assholes dug up some house nearby that sold for $500k and decided that's what the Frost's house was worth. Good investigating. They found out that the school cost $20k from the school's website, but ignored the portion where the website stated that family's making up to $160k per year were eligible for aid (the Frosts pay a whopping $500). Good investigating. They pretend not to know what a mortgage is and assume the Frosts own the house and commercial property outright (they don't). Good investigating. They look at photos of the family's kitchen and decide they have had expensive remodeling work done (Mr. Frost did the work himself, and those countertops are concrete, not granite). Good investigating.

That's why I put the scare quotes there, because this was a hit job, not an investigation.

I especially like your link... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I especially like your link to the NY Times, after all, everybody trusts them to be fair and honest, right?
Well, everybody who's a committed lefty who will brook no dissent against someone with Absolute Moral Authority. "All The News That's Fit To Slant", how is their 88 part introspective on Abu Ghraib coming? I don't read them too much anymotre as they work at too low a level of facts to useful as an informational source.

I'm curious, do you know where the phrase Absolute Moral Authority came from? The pages of the NY Times when people dared to question Cindy Sheehan. Maureen Dowd to be exact.

Here's a nice link to some of the many times people tried to play the Absolute Moral Authority Card

As for your trying to link the kid the GOP used to the kid the Dems used, notice that the responses have been about the merits, not about how it's wrong to even question him.
That was my problem right from the start. Your last response actually had some points in it, good for you. That's exactly the thing that you should have done from the start instead of playing the Absolute Moral Authority Card.

I personally think that anybody amd everybody who trot out kids or the impaired for political stunts is a jerk and deserves to be ridiculed for it. I'm also wondering why more Americans don't seem to feel that way too.

I especially like your l... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I especially like your link to the NY Times, after all, everybody trusts them to be fair and honest, right?

I didn't say anything about that, I just said they were MSM. Do you dispute that? Btw, Maureen Dowd is a columnist, not a reporter.

And I never played the Absolute Moral Authority card, I played the Look What Assholes These People Are card. The kid doesn't have absolute moral authority, he has a personal story relevant to the issue. Some people find that compelling, which is why politicians use such personal stories. The idea that you need to destroy the person who shares their personal story because they do so on behalf of your political opponents disgusts me, and that is the only point I was making.

I personally think that anybody amd everybody who trot out kids or the impaired for political stunts is a jerk and deserves to be ridiculed for it. I'm also wondering why more Americans don't seem to feel that way too.

Most Americans aren't policy wonks and don't follow politics as closely as those of us who regularly read blogs. A compelling personal story gives them a face to put to an issue, whether it's Graeme Frost, or the first-time homeowners that the President appeared with here while promoting his "ownership society" programs, or countless other examples. Every politician uses personal examples of people he/she met on the trail who are in this situation or anecdotes from childhood or whatever, to illustrate their policy points. The President does it all the time. So what? What's the big deal?

mantis, I'd be a bit more i... (Below threshold)

mantis, I'd be a bit more in agreement with your arguments if the kid's "story" hadn't been written for him by Harry Reid's staff.

They're HIDING behind him, and that is cowardly and craven.

J.

I'm glad you figured out th... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I'm glad you figured out that Maureen Dowd is a columnist, can I assume you also agree that she appears in the pages of the NY Times?

But your providing a link while saying this
and the non-blog reading public (normal people) will get a look at the nastiness that has bubbled up here by a particular group of people who are more than willing to attack anyone who they perceive as getting in the way of their agenda.
I naturally didn't realize you were talking about the NY Times as the group of people who are more than willing to attack anyone they perceive as getting in the way of their agenda.
I have to admit, I figured you were trying to imply that now that they were covering it that people would find out the truth, which, of course, implies that non-hard-left-idealogues actually trust the NY Times. Thanks for agreeing that they attack anyone who they perceive as getting in the way of their agenda.

mantis, I'd be a bit mor... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis, I'd be a bit more in agreement with your arguments if the kid's "story" hadn't been written for him by Harry Reid's staff.

Was any of it untrue? No, it wasn't. Who cares who wrote it?

They're HIDING behind him, and that is cowardly and craven.

Notice that I have not really been defending Harry Reid (unless you count pointing out that personal stories are the bread and butter of all politicians), but rather the Frost family. Reid can fend for himself. If they refuse to discuss the policy and only want to hide behind the Frosts, then I agree they are being cowardly. None of that has to do with my defense of the Frosts, who did not deserve all the shit they've gotten from you and other bloggers.

I have to admit, I figur... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I have to admit, I figured you were trying to imply that now that they were covering it that people would find out the truth, which, of course, implies that non-hard-left-idealogues actually trust the NY Times.

No, I was implying that now that the MSM is covering it, normal folks will see the details of the "investigations" done by various bloggers, whether it be in a newspaper, or on TV, likely from the bloggers own mouths. I just linked the Times and USAToday as evidence that this has hit the mainstream.

Thanks for agreeing that they attack anyone who they perceive as getting in the way of their agenda.

Knowingly erroneous conclusions that you think are clever but are really just stupid? I thought LAI had a monopoly on those.

Sorry, I figured you would... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Sorry, I figured you would figure it out.
I was being sarcastic. I'll use tags next time to not confuse you.

I've always noticed that people who get burned by sarcasm invariably call it "Stupid".

Thanks for keeping up the streak.

I just linked the Times... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I just linked the Times and USAToday as evidence that this has hit the mainstream.

The laugh out loud comment of the day. The NY Times is "mainstream"? In any sense other than "Mainstream media" (a disparaging moniker in case you don't get it), that's just laughable. Ha-ha.

Ahhh, the sarcasm! It burn... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ahhh, the sarcasm! It burns!

Here's a hint: sarcasm doesn't come across as such when it sounds like the rest of the crap you write seriously.

Here's a hint: sarcasm d... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Here's a hint: sarcasm doesn't come across as such when it sounds like the rest of the crap you write seriously.

Oh, I get why you didn't understand the sarcasm, you don't understand sarcasm.

It's most useful when it does sound much like the rest of what you write. I'm really sorry now, I guess the tags won't help. Oh well.

I noticed you've stopped re... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I noticed you've stopped responding to anything substantive and are now focusing on ridiculous Bwahahaha! responses. Yes, the NYTimes is mainstream. It's readership is about 10 million times larger than Malkin's, and more than any other newspaper. Its stories are picked up by papers around the world. Like it or not, it is mainstream.

For us humans, sarcasm is u... (Below threshold)
mantis:

For us humans, sarcasm is usually distinguishable by a change in tone. For you, apparently, it sounds exactly like non-sarcastic speech (or text). One wonders how you can tell the difference.

Like it or not, it is ma... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Like it or not, it is mainstream
As I said before, only to committed idealogues, like you. I have friends who think I'm a crazed right-wing death beast and they also ridicule the NY Times. You described the Times perfectly above when you thought you were trying to describe Michele Malkin.
One wonders how you can tell the difference

I use my brain, you should really work on that. Stimulus/response is no way to go through life.

I noticed you've stopped responding to anything substantive and are now focusing on ridiculous Bwahahaha! responses
That's about all you're worth, notice I actually complimented you when you actually did give a substantive response, and I agreed with you. My whole point, which I'm assuming you're only pretending not to understand, is that nearly every lefty above didn't respond substantively but only attacked anybody having the temerity to actually dispute the Absolute Moral Authority Card.

Now I have to try to figure out why you're acting stupid in a lame attempt to make some point or other. As always with you, I am assuming you're doing it to avoid admitting that you were just attacking the messenger instead of making any substantive point. Well, until I called you on it.

"No private insurance ca... (Below threshold)

"No private insurance carrier would cover her now, and the family wouldn't qualify for a government program if it weren't for SCHIP, because they make too much money. Rock and a hard place."

And therein lies the rub. The program IS there. This kid is proof of it. I'm not arguing to dismantle the program. I'm arguing that this expansion is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as giving a federal agency 24 hours to grant or deny temporary citizenship to an illegal immigrant.

None of these programs are ever good enough or even just bad enough to tweak a little. The proposals to change them are always stretched to insane limits.

"As far as their taxable income, that was reported in the Baltimore Sun IIRC."

And ...?

"I've seen a number of suggestions from supposed Republicans that implied or outright said that the family should sell their house to pay for health insurance. Is that what you think?"

I never implied or said any such thing, so for you to even ask in what looks like an attempt to pidgeon-hole me is insulting.

That's about all you're ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That's about all you're worth

Then I guess we're done here.

Then I guess we're done ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Then I guess we're done here.

You probably should have figured that out long ago.

Well, well, well...you got ... (Below threshold)
ds0490:

Well, well, well...you got burned big time when you took on a 12 year old, and now you want to "calm down the rhetoric." Personally, I hope this incident buries the GOP and the chickenhawk conservative movement.

This story has seemed to ha... (Below threshold)
LorenU:

This story has seemed to have spun out of control. But the loss of control has come from both sides. The left has now lost it by personally attacking Malkin as a stalker. This leaves the left open to atttacks about why they are against the freedom of the press? Jay, I wouldn't dial down this debate? The right needs to stand up and counterattack just like Limbaugh did last week. This has become a battle of the smears and no time to back down. Malkin won't which is a good sign.

Now back to the S-Chip debate. It seems Jay's original points from yesterday are lost. Bush is for reauthorizing the program and the Frost kid would have kept his coverage under the Bush proposal. Therefore, how this boy helps the Democrats on S-Chip expansion is beyond me. It actually should hurt them. If this boy is eligible now, what sense does it make to create eligible children to families with twice the income? Do we really want welfare for the middle class or the upper middle class. (attack the expansion). Then offer tax credits to the people who are the object of the expansion to buy private insurance. Patient-run, market-driven reform. Poor kids first which many are not getting S-Chip under the present program. Bush submitted a bill to reform the current program while offering tax benefits to those 200 and 300 percent above the poverty line to obtain private insurance.

Last, why attack boy. I would attack Sen. Reid for being a coward to send a boy to do a man's job.

Some day the rich and power... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Some day the rich and powerful will be held accountable by Americans.
Until then, the Frosts will have to do.

Some day the rich and po... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Some day the rich and powerful will be held accountable by Americans.

Yeah, how dare those bastards work hard and provide jobs to other Americans. Everybody knows that true Americans only take money from the gov't that's paid in by those greedy, rich Americans who don't want to pay their fair share.
Soon, all rich Americans will be as poor as the rest of us. Socialism RULES!!!

Oh, sorry mantis, that was sarcasm. You see, I'm using it to make the opposite point to what I'm saying.

You got it Veshir. if you ... (Below threshold)
Robert:

You got it Veshir. if you are rich and poewerful you can get away with ANYTHING. (Note to OJ: You have to be white too).

Move your company to a P.O. Box in the Bahamas so you won't have to pay U.S. taxes?
No worries. We'll still fight wars for your corporate interests. Even if you don't work hard and you don't hire Americans.

See Veshir, it's not about the money ($9 Billion unaccounted for in Iraq), and it's not about fairness (the Bankruptcy Bill written by the Finance industry). It's about holding the powerless (and ONLY the powerless) accountable.

One last reminder Veshir: The troops get socialized medicine. Do you hate our commie soldiers?
-------------------------------------

Martin A. Knight also makes a good point above (about the Right supporting CHIP, but not the expansion).
However, in the rules of debate, that won't fly.
I'm all for eavesdropping on terrorists, but you have to get a warrant to do so.
If you can't write-up the paperwork to get a warrant, you are either too lazy or you're doing something wrong.
What's the Right's reaction to my points?
That I'm against eavesdropping on terrorists.

Sorry Martin A. Knight, we aren't changing the rules of the debate just so you won't lose this one.
We live in a black and white world.
{With us (completely)or against us.}
I don't make the rules, I just play by them.

Of course you are against e... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Of course you are against eavesdropping on terrorists, Robert. Your position is the classical pound of flesh, no drop of blood demand.

If it's a prepaid cellphone with no way of ascertaining within that short period of time who it belongs to and it just so happens to be calling a number in Pakistan that was found on KSM's palm pilot, you and your compatriots are on record as saying that it should not be monitored.

And if, of course, an attack is planned and executed using these means, you'd be the first demanding heads roll for them not ignoring your self-righteous ignorant blathering.

PS: Can you name one person who has been illegally surveilled?

Marty,With a warrant... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Marty,
With a warrant.
Got it?
With a warrant.

What makes you think I'd be the first to demand anything?

P.S.
Yes




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy