I didn’t want to write about the SCHIP imbroglio again today but frankly, I find it fascinating that simply by writing about it, I am accused of “smearing” or “swiftboating”  a 12 year old boy.
Yes, well, that’s what this “debate ” has come to. The left found out, too late for supporting its own arguments, that the poster boy of shows for its latest project to socialize the United States, did not demonstrate a case of need.
Pay serious attention here:
A “smear” is a lot more than simple criticism – something no one has directed toward young Graeme Frost. A “smear” is “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization” according to Webster. Very well. Let’s give the left the benefit of the doubt and say that the original round of criticisms of Mr. and Mrs. Frost (not Graeme or any other child) were “smears” in that the Freeper who googled up the information that most conservative blogs relied on to originally comment on the issue was incorrect and flawed. Of course, it was “substantiated” to the extent that the Freeper supplied links to his information much of which was later proved to be false or exaggerated. But let’s ignore that little detail and acknowledge that the information was incorrect and further, was disseminated in order to show up the Frost’s and, by extension, the Democrats.
Where does the smear of little 12 year old Graeme Frost come in? Did anyone question his injuries? Did anyone say he was faking it? Did anyone anywhere on conservative blogs write anything that could possibly be construed as an “unsubstantiated accusation” – or any accusation at all – directed against Graeme Frost?
I’m serious about an answer because even today, I’ve gotten several emails and have seen several headlines on liberal blogs that are accusing the right of “smearing” a 12 year old kid when my investigation yesterday revealed not one single conservative blog had said one single word against Graeme Frost.
So far, no one on the left has bothered to explain how conservative blogs are smearing Graeme Frost. They use the term in their headlines and the body of their posts. They use the word in comments left far and wide on righty blogs. They use the word as if it is simply a given, as if “the smear of Graeme Frost” exists naturally in the universe and needs no explanation – sort of like the sun coming up every morning.
That’s called a consensus argument. We discussed that here, last night.
This would be mindless stupidity – if there wasn’t a purpose behind it. And since the intent all along was to cut off debate on the fact that the Democrats wish to expand SCHIP eligibility to include adults and people who by any stretch of the imagination would be seen as middle class (or even upper middle class), it has worked like a charm.
Exactly so, Rick, and this is precisely the point of the whole exercise.
And therein lies the debate. Not whether the Frosts have too much money to enjoy the coverage supplied by SCHIP but whether any family can make choices that force other families to pay for them.
Actually, Rick, I consider both of these arguments in my criticisms, and I think that you should consider them both in yours as well.
- The whole idea of socialized medicine is to address a supposed need. We’re supposed to be helping the poor children. Well, in this case, the parents of the poster child that the Democrats chose, were not ‘poor’ at all… simply irresponsible. (You remember PARENTS, right? They used to raise kids and be responsible for their welfare before liberals came along and usurped the role to be the sole province of GOVERNMENT.) Forgive me, but any family that turns in the kind of financial wherewithal that has been reported here, does not to my mind constitute a serious need for governmental intervention when health care problems arise. Thereby, the stated reason for the call to government action, here, is revealed as utter nonsense.
- The other half, you’ve already mentioned; By what right are funds taken from me and mine to support ANYONE, much less someone so blatantly irresponsible?
- Some sauce for all of this is the idea that the democrats didn’t even bother doing a modicum of investigation into this situation before holding this kid up as a poster boy. Somehow the inability to handle something basic like that does not strike a feeling of confidence in the heart of this blogger, in terms of giving them greater responsibility to deal with… possibly involving the lives and well being of me and mine .
I’m glad Graeme Frost didn’t have to suffer for his parent’s shortsightedness. And the left is right – we should leave little Graeme out of the debate. Let’s talk instead about fairness and how best to insure those who have problems getting coverage in the private sector.
Well put, and I agree. Trouble is, the right is not the group that keeps screaming, with tears streaming theatrically… “b.b.b.bbb….bbbbb but…… it’s for the children“….. Let’s be honest enough with each other to recognize that this is an attempt by the Democrats to shut down all debate on the issue. What annoys them, is that it didn’t work. So they get more strident with their charges about how we’re smearing a twelve year old by disagreeing with them.
After letting you have it with both barrels a few weeks ago, it seems only fair that I publicly agree with you, when I can see my way clear do it. This is one such case.
As always, with my writing here, it’s about the ideas. I wouldn’t bother commenting on this at all, if you didn’t understand that point, but I think you do.
In my view, Rick, you got this one right.