Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It seemed like a straightforward political move. In the midst of the debate over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), before the president vetoed expanding access for millions of low-income children, Democrats invited a 12-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, to deliver the party’s radio address. The point, obviously, was to humanize the policy debate — instead of just another politician reading talking points, here was a kid who was able to get the medical care he needed after a serious car accident caused severe brain trauma, paralyzed one of his vocal chords, and put him in a coma.

That was two weeks ago. Over the weekend, several conservative activists and bloggers decided it was time to do what the right does best: smear anyone who gets in their way. The Conservative Attack Machine decided Graeme Frost and his family didn’t deserve benefits under S-CHIP and went after the Frosts with a vengeance.

A poster at the Free Republic propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home.

The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, and the Weekly Standard blog have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well.

It would merely be regrettable if the right invaded the Frosts’ privacy and attacked them for speaking up, but this is much worse — the conservatives launching the attacks got their facts wrong.

For example, the right hammered Graeme for attending an expensive private school. What his attackers neglected to mention is that the school only charges the Frosts $500 a year.

The right hammered Graeme’s sister, who suffered brain injuries in the family’s car accident, for also attending an expensive private school, without noting that the state covers her tuition.

The right blasted the Frost family for living in a neighborhood where some homes sell for nearly a half-million dollars. What their attackers neglected to mention is that the family bought their home 16 years ago for $55,000, in what was once a less-safe part of Baltimore.

By any reasonable measure, the Frost family is struggling. The parents’ combined income is $45,000. They have four kids, all of whom qualify for S-CHIP, and all of whom would have no insurance without the state benefits. The right has decided to characterize the Frosts as an example of a wealthy family on welfare. The reality is that conservatives are smearing a family in need of a hand.

What’s more, Michelle Malkin claims she went to the Frost’s home and workplace yesterday. A co-worker of the father said the family is “struggling,” but Malkin remained skeptical.

Now, when dealing with a large group of conservatives who oppose healthcare for poor children on principle, I suppose it’s best to keep expectations low. But this is perhaps the most vile smear the right has launched in recent memory. The Frosts are not political candidates. They are not publicity-seekers. They are not political players of any kind. This is a family who can’t afford healthcare for their kids who need it, and they showed courage asking the president to do what’s right for other families in similar circumstances.

And for that, the right has made this family a target. Conservatives are having trouble winning the policy debate on the merits, so they’re going after a 12-year-old child and his family. Worse, conservatives launched their smear before getting the facts straight.

I’m old fashioned, but I like to believe there are certain lines of decency that shouldn’t be crossed, even in the course of heated political debate. As this story makes clear, there are far too many on the right for whom these lines are invisible. They are shameless, they are callous, and they are scary.

Digby’s take, of course, was terrific.

This is so loathsome I am literally sick to my stomach. These kids were hurt in a car accident. Their parents could not afford health insurance — and sure as hell couldn’t get it now with a severely handicapped daughter. And these shrieking wingnut jackasses are harassing their family for publicly supporting the program that allowed the kids to get health care. A program, by the way, which a large number of these Republicans support as well.

They went after Michael J. Fox. They went after a wounded Iraq war veteran. Now they are going after handicapped kids. There is obviously no limit to how low these people will go.

They’d better pray that they stay rich and healthy and live forever because if there is a hell these people are going to be on the express train to the 9th circle the minute they shuffle off their useless mortal coils.

Scum.

Indeed.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13165.html

[GaryC 7]

Wow!! Could this opinion be any more left tilted? Bad old conservatives pointing out the truth!! I guess that anything the left says should be taken as gospel and anything the right says should be taken as an evil lie.

Here is the other side of the coin just for balance.

October 7, 5:11 PM

President Bush used his regular Saturday radio address yesterday to explain and defend his veto of the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) approved last week by Congress.

Regular readers here will recall that an internal memo written during the 1993 Hillarycare process makes clear that SCHIP expansion advocates view the program as a major step on the road to universal coverage through a government-run health care delivery system - i.e. socialized medicine.

An hour later on national radio, the Democrats' response to Bush was delivered by Baltimore private middle school student Graeme Frost, who along with his sister was seriously injured in an auto accident three years ago. His response to Bush was actually recorded earlier in the week and Matthew Hay Brown, a reporter from The Baltimore Sun, interviewed the young man after he did his recording.

Frost said his parents work hard to provide for him and his sister but one thing they can't afford is private health insurance, so they have to depend upon the government program, Brown reported for The Sun.

Perfect illustration of why the SCHIP program should be expanded, right? Actually, no, because the Sun only reported the Democratic version of the story and we can't depend upon a mainstream media outlet like the Sun to get the rest of the story.

It turns out the Frost family sends its kids to one of Baltimore's expensive private schools, owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the $400,000-500,000 range and bought commercial property in 1999 for $160,000.

So, Frost's father is self-employed and owns the building in which he works. His father makes about $45,000 a year, while his mother is employed at an unspecified salary by a medical publishing house that doesn't provide health insurance coverage.

Bottomline? Two points. First, people make choices and it's clear the Frosts have made choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance. The Maryland-administered version of the federal SCHIP program, by the way, does not impose an asset test on applicants.

Second, we know these additional important details about the Frost family because a poster at Free Republic asked the kind of "trust but verify" questions MSMers rarely address to Democrats on the national scene, then did the digging to get the facts.

Then Blogospherians like Bruce Kesler, a regular oped contributor to The Washington Examiner, at Democracy Project and Wizbangblog's Kim Priestap, another Examiner oped contributor, added to the Frost fact cloud.

When I first started working with and among journalists in the mid-1970s, there was still enough of the old school skepticism in the ranks that I quickly learned a good reporter always assumed there was more to a story than was being told by any one participant in it, which meant you had to keep digging and asking, digging and asking, to get all of the facts.

Put otherwise, you had to have a healthy skepticism about everything you were told by politicians, office-holders and public policy advocates across the entire political spectrum. But I see less and less of that kind of healthy skepticism among journalists when it comes to claims and conduct by Democrats and liberal activists.

Increasingly, getting the whole story about an issue in public policy these days starts with the Blogosphere because to a growing extent that is where you find educated skepticism and a willingness to dig for the facts.

I tell attendees at the outset of the Database 101 Computer-Assisted Research and Reporting (CARR) Boot Camps I teach at the National Press Club that I dream of the day when "let me see your dataset" is the first thing all journalists will say when a politician or advocate claims something based on a data-driven study.

And wouldn't it be wonderful if all journalists would greet all claims by all politicians and advocates with a healthy dose of Mencken-esque skepticism - i.e. as requiring verification before publication?

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters points to a segment on this morning's edition of Howard Kurtz' "Reliable Sources" show on CNN in which a couple of prominent MSMers explain why they approach some numbers with more caution than others.

Powerline's Scott Johnson estimates the odds that the typical MSMer will do the work - this process used to be called "burning shoe leather" - to research a story like this one. Prairie Pundit has some great links to Blue Crab Boulevard and Mark Steyn's NRO The Corner post on the Frost story.

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_co...ere-was-the-MSM

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

At telling the truth. Pointing out an obvious attempt by the left to use this kid for their own ends isn't a smear. I think the left should be ashamed of themselves.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

At telling the truth. Pointing out an obvious attempt by the left to use this kid for their own ends isn't a smear. I think the left should be ashamed of themselves.

So smear the kid and his family to make a point? That's tactless to say the least.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

so it's smearing when someone presents a counterpoint arguement?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

At telling the truth. Pointing out an obvious attempt by the left to use this kid for their own ends isn't a smear. I think the left should be ashamed of themselves.

So smear the kid and his family to make a point? That's tactless to say the least.

No one smeared the kid, they only pointed out the truth. This is a typical Dem tactic, to find someone they think is "untouchable" and use emotion to try and persuade. Then when anyone tries to point out the truth then they attack and use the old "heartless #######" tactic. It's like the MJ Fox thing. He wanted to try to use his condition to try and gain support for his cause. Nothing wrong with that. But when it was pointed out that he went off his meds to make his condition look worse then the attack dogs come out. When someone pointed out that embryonic stem cell research has not produced any results but adult and blood cord research has the attack dogs come out. The left is being dishonest and phony with it's attempts to use emotion rather than the truth to get their way. All the right tries to do in response is to point out the truth and that gets them vilified.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would agree with you Gary, except that in my experience it's not just the Democrats. Politicians of all hues get up to this kind of emotional manipulation trick. To think that the right is immune from it is a mistake.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Smearing the boy and his family with unverified 'facts' is despicable. I'm all for telling the truth, but make sure that's what you are doing instead of spreading heresay and misinformation about the boy and his family...that's smearing their reputation no matter how you slice it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a press release from Senate Democrats with a transcript of Graeme Frost's remarks.

TWELVE-YEAR-OLD CHIP PARTICIPANT ASKS PRESIDENT TO SIGN CHILDREN’S HEALTH RENEWAL INTO LAW

Washington, DC—Graeme Frost, 12, delivers this week’s Democratic Radio Address. Because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Graeme was able to get the medical care he needed after a serious car accident caused severe brain trauma, paralyzed one of his vocal chords and put him in a coma. He asks President Bush to sign into law the renewal of CHIP that both houses of Congress passed this week with broad bipartisan support.

The text of the radio address, as delivered, is below:

“Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I’m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven’t heard of CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today.

“CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.

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

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

“Now I’m back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don’t talk the same way I used to. And I can’t walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can’t play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I’m just happy to be back with my friends.

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program.

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

###

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...ems_weekly.html

....

Yeah, I can see going after him over that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't you think it was a mistake to 'wheel' out this kid in the first place? I do, I don't think it's a good idea to use kids to send political messages end of story.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't you think it was a mistake to 'wheel' out this kid in the first place? I do, I don't think it's a good idea to use kids to send political messages end of story.

I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's putting a face on the issue. Some Republicans just don't like it when that face is on an issue they don't support. Does have emotional appeal? Sure, but most people aren't persuaded purely on emotion (except for a few here on VJ). It's a boy with a story to tell. No one is bending anyone's ability to look at the issue with rationality. If some of the Right Wing political pundits thought it was inappropriate, then let them say so, but for them to spread lies and trying to portray his family as bilking the taxpayers who paid for his medical expenses through CHIP is despicable.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

Don't you think it was a mistake to 'wheel' out this kid in the first place? I do, I don't think it's a good idea to use kids to send political messages end of story.

[Peikko 1,575]

I disagree, using this child was to my mind disingenuos and really doesn't do anything to forward the argument. It's not a trend I would like to see continue either. I don't say this to be anti Democrat, I say this because politics should not be about parading the latest 'victims' in order to gain public sypathy. If a politician can't win the argument based on solid facts, the politician isn't doing his job, in my opinion. Let the kids stay at home and do their homework, let the politicians work hard to persuade the public of the merits of their opinions.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I disagree, using this child was to my mind disingenuos and really doesn't do anything to forward the argument. It's not a trend I would like to see continue either. I don't say this to be anti Democrat, I say this because politics should not be about parading the latest 'victims' in order to gain public sypathy. If a politician can't win the argument based on solid facts, the politician isn't doing his job, in my opinion. Let the kids stay at home and do their homework, let the politicians work hard to persuade the public of the merits of their opinions.

Because there is an emotional aspect to many of these issues. Were you here in the U.S. after 9/11? Did you see any of the political ads that showed images from 9/11? I agree that it can be overdone, but I don't think there's anything disingenuous about putting a face on an issue, provided that it's not relying solely on emotional appeal. Anyone who's lived here for the last 15-20 years knows how successful the Republican Party has been at dishing out emotional appeal. They're just angry that the Democratic Party is learning how to beat them at their own game. Voters do respond to emotional appeal, but they're sophisticated enough to know when the message is all emotion and no substance. This boy's story has substance and having him tell it has emotional appeal. It's just funny to hear Republicans get all flustered over the Dems doing what they've been doing for awhile now.