October 9, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën
I’m with America’s liberal (and one moderate) bloggers on this one: this goes too far. Michelle is most certainly right that the MSM often doesn’t investigate enough, but this isn’t a journalistic investigation; this is an attempt to find information that can be used against the Frost family. There’s a difference.
Editor-in-Chief and founder:
Michael van der Galiën - E-Mail
Assistant editor and administrator:
Jason Steck - E-Mail
Visit Our Partner: Stubborn Facts Currently on Memeorandum | bonafide on PR Blitz Coming Up |
 | jcorbett66 on Air Travel - Again |
 | Glenn on The Sound Of Settled Scie… |
 | Eduardo Martinez on “¿Por qué no te c… |
 | Real Republican on Ron Paul Bad for Libertar… |
 | DiamondAgel on Open Thread |
 | PoliGazette » … on Islamic Law For Women |
| Black Shards, In You… on Islamic Law For Women |
 | LoftScoodaSaf on Open Thread |
 | James on Summer in Canada |
ADVERTISE ON THIS SITE To inquire about rates e-mail us here.
Subscribe to The Van Der Galiën Gazette's RSS Feed
Proud member of The Moderate Blog Network, a FeedBurner Network.
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
The Moderate Blog Network
Powered by FeedBurner
Michael,
So by your logic, as long as the propoganda is present by an “unassailable” person, it can’t be debunked. This is the Max Clelland school of idiocy, since he was hurt in the military you can’t debunk his stupid stance on anything military.
Lies about racism present by blacks = sit quietly and don’t challenge.
Lies about poverty present by “homeless” = sit quietly even if the “homeless” actually has a job and home.
Lies about a social program presented by children = sit quietly even if the program is twisted from its true purpose and the perception given by the “presenter” is built on a hill of lies
The ads and having the child give the radio address were wrong, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
And Sluggo- yes, annoying as it may be, those kind of tactics must be ignored. When the right wing ‘takes them on’, the only thing that happens is that opinions which are already polarized on an issue become more deeply entrenched. I consider this kind of tactic a bit like a kid having a temper tantrum- it’ll only get worse if you pay attention to it. Ignoring it doesn’t mean that you approve of it, it means that you recognize it for what it is. We can make the case for the conservative policy position as grown ups.
One more thing on the tactics: I don’t find it compelling when liberals say that someone ‘asked for it’ by putting themselves in the spotlight, as though that justifies personal smears or divulging personal information. Or I should say, I don’t find it compelling when either side justifies it that way, which is why I dislike Malkin’s take on this.
But a broader issue that this touches on: when aid is legislated, how do we handle means testing? What’s fair play to ask, and what’s off limits? If liberals don’t think it’s fair to question a family’s use of their income and assets before determining if they qualify, then we should know if this is what we’re voting on. If there is a consensus that we should be able to ask about some things but not others, then let’s hear how that works. Unfortunately when these questions are asked (legitimately, not by stalking down one particular family to use as an example), conservatives are often accused of judging the families, but I think it should be permissible to ask families to take some responsibility and not take public funding which should go to needier families, in order to fund some of their private choices.
What Christine said. Sorry, I have little sympathy for the parents that let their 12 year old be used as a hide-behind political target on the national stage. Or the pols that are hiding behind the 12 year old. You put yourself (or your children) out there as targets, they WILL draw fire. Whining about it is less than impressive.
The Frost family rolled the dice by going without insurance when they could have afforded it, putting the money into their home and business instead. Now that they lost their bet with that car wreck, insurance (apparently) isn’t affordable to them due to pre-existing conditions. I don’t for a moment believe the insurance quote one guy offered as available to them, especially with their daughter’s existing injuries. $400-some/month for a family of six? Dream on–that covers what, exactly?
They’re a good example of some of the big problems with our current system, where insurance/treatment cost squeezes the lower-middle and middle classes pretty hard. They’re a good argument for subsidized must-enroll level-premium policies for people with pre-existing conditions. They’re a lousy argument for SCHIP expansion.
I agree with Jim Henley.
Here’s a small quote:
“What we’re seeing here is the same tactics of personal destruction Movement Republicanism previously justified as necessary to winning The Greatest War Ever, now normalized as appropriate to handling a budget dispute.”
One thing that should be made clear: those parents put their child in the spotlight which they shouldn’t have done. However, that doesn’t make it right (nor politically wise) for conservatives to start attacking Graeme.
Exactly, Michael. And it bears mentioning that these political ploys (for I blame the politicians who put the families up to it, not just the families) are traps. Both parties do it (as someone pointed out on TMV, Bush’s use of the snowflake babies in vetoing ESCR funding, and the Terri Schaivo case were comparable cases). The trap is set by putting a vulnerable person in the spotlight, so that the opposing party can either rebut what that person says or stands for and look completely heartless, or be silenced about the issue. The only way to avoid the trap is to stay away from it– don’t talk directly about what that person was used to say or do, just stick to the real issue.
And we will only see more of it as the campaign drones on.
The larger problem is that this IS the “real issue.” Nearly all legislation and political debate is driven completely by anecdotes to form some broad generalization.
CStanley said “The ads and having the child give the radio address were wrong, but two wrongs don’t make a right” and I agree with that.
However, I’m putting all of the blame in this situation on the Dems and the parents of this child. You cannot honestly think that in today’s toxic political climate that the other side of the equation would not pounce.
Now, the Rs are dumb for biting in the manner they’ve chosen but a parent should know better than to subject their child and their family to this situation. It makes me wonder what was promised to them that they would take this chance.
Personal Destruction wasn’t that invented by the Clintons ? You get bad legislation,bad leadership and the extremes of the political spectrum doing all the talking and what do you get ? Nothing that is any good.SCHIP is bad legislation and the Left clearly views it as a launching board for nationalized healthcare. The parents of this (and any) child have the right to take a political position but no right using their kid like a tool. Journalists looking for an angle ? There is either free press for R and D and everyone or no free press at all. Besides the story was created by a number of parties that should have the intellectual capacity to see the possible outcomes. DEBATE the legislation !
John Cole has a point no one else has brought up.
Didn’t i link to balloon juice in the post?
Yeah you did, but not the update where he goes on a rant about how the family is actually the prototypical Republican Dream family.
strange the link doesn’t work for me…
I think the BalloonJuice server went down or at least got to be very very slow all of a sudden.
I actually was thinking how there are similarities between this family and several family subgroups in my extended family. In two instances, relatives who own their own businesses are struggling with healthcare costs. So, in that sense I can certainly empathize with the families, and see the point Cole is making (also, as a college student I was in one of those families that was caught between the cracks, unable to get certain financial aid because my father owned a business and had assets- but of course he couldn’t sell of his business equipment to pay for my tuition).
In both current instances, as a family member I’m generally happy to help out these family members in any way I can (and have provided economic assistance in both cases, as we’ve also done for a single mother who works for my husband). Voluntarily, I’m willing to do this but legislatively I think it’s the wrong approach. It would be much better to focus on how healthcare costs could be brought under control for the middle class, not using a regressive tax to expand govt coverage for them.
And even in the personal anecdotes of being willing to help family members, I can’t help but note that I do feel their choices to run their own businesses affect their economic situations, and that if in the long run they can’t maintain a standard of living, they should consider employment that would allow them to do so. I’m proud of my family’s history of entrepreneurship, but self employment isn’t a right.
It’s not a right, but if a lot of people drop out of entrepreneurship or don’t switch jobs or get more education because of health care costs then it’ll drag on the economy as a whole. I dunno what the best solution is, but it’s pretty clear that employer-based insurance isn’t going to cut it.
That and the bankruptcy bill passed a couple years ago are a one-two punch that are going to severely curtail positive risk taking.
Oh, I thoroughly agree about the need to shift away from employer based coverage (in fact a conservative proposal to give equivalent tax breaks to individuals who purchase their own insurance, instead of having the tax advantage on those who get it through their employer would help at least some of the families like this).
I meant to mention too, that I don’t really get the point of Cole’s argument. So what if they’re a family who has “done everything right” according to the conservative model? I think the point that conservatives are making is that we don’t want to now allow families like that to be considered in need of federal aid in the same way that the truly poor are. That doesn’t mean that we don’t see the problem of affordability of health insurance, but there are various approaches to how to fix that problem.
Cole makes it sound as though the conservative argument is truly meant as an indictment on this particular family, which is really the typical bait and switch argument which doesn’t allow people to consider how personal choices affect economic situations at all.
I’m proud of my family’s history of entrepreneurship, but self employment isn’t a right.
Well, actually, it is. As long as it isn’t an illegal business. It just may not be the brightest thing to exercise that right in some conditions. The Frosts have no “right” to other employment, either. I sympathize with their position and I don’t condemn them for their choice to take a gamble–just ask them to acknowledge their responsibility for the results. And I’m all in favor of helping those who find themselves in such difficult circumstances–I do it all the time.
Their decision to let their child be used as a bloody shirt in a partisan squabble on the national stage, that I condemn them for.
CS I think John’s point (especially since he said he thinks SCHIP is a bad idea) is that the Republicans have narratives of Cadillac driving welfare moms or irresponsible leeches that don’t try to make anything of their lives or deviated from the “standard” model of what a family should be.
Since the family in question is none of the above then their line of attack is stupid and ironic as it plays into the Democratic talking points. (Forget liberal/conservative analysis which is never talked about).
Tully, true enough correction, but to clarify what I meant was that no one has a right to be shielded from the consequences of their choice of running their own business.
And then to tie back in to what I think Mikkel was getting at- I do agree that entrepeneurship is a good thing that should be encouraged, and wherever there are impediments that could be smoothed out (and there are a variety of ways that govt policy could have some effect on the difficulties relating to health insurance for the self employed) I think it’s a no brainer that these policies should be approved.
But that’s different than putting small business owners on the government dole.
Can’t we just all agree that we are bummed out by it all?
“But that’s different than putting small business owners on the government dole”
I don’t know how this applies to the present case, at all or in any way
The family is not on the government dole.
Only the children receive anything from the governement (tuition and health care ins )r both). I read, although I haven’t been to their house to verify, like Malkin) that the father can’t afford and does not have health insurance for himself.
The chilfren were deemed to qualifiy for SCHIP by the State of Maryland,
Re the criticisms of the parents, I’m sure you are all just outraged by those many earlier instances when children and families have been used for political messages that you liked hearing..
It’s a time honored practice. The only thing new is that the practice of killing the messenger when you can’t kill the message has become common practice. Using children always has the sleeziness of schmaltz. Attacking individuals because you don’t like the message is just plain wrong. The two are not the same, nor does one excuse the other.
The parents should have known that they would be harassed at home and at work?
I guress no one should walk on the street, because we know there are crazy people out there.
Interesting thread. The post is about Malkin.
Most of the comments are about the family.
Priorites have been made evident.
.
If it’s a problem that my priority is to shift the discussion back to the actual policy issue rather than solely focusing on which blogger of which wing did something ridiculous today, then I plead guilty. I happen to think that the problem is that too often the policy discussions get short shrift because we get too distracted by the superficial stuff and the intentional diversions.
“If it’s a problem that my priority is to shift the discussion back to the actual policy issue rather than solely focusing on which blogger of which wing did something ridiculous today, then I plead guilty……”
No. The problem is that while discussing the policy, a totally irrelevant statement is used: “… ‘putting small business owners on the govenrnent dole”.
Small business owners being put on the dole is neither part of the policy being disussed nor does it apply to the particular business owner being discussed.
There is an implication of linkage produced by this irrelevant statement, which is, IMO,
inappropriate.
It’s a time honored practice. The only thing new is that the practice of killing the messenger when you can’t kill the message has become common practice
Except that some do not want to discuss the message at all, preferring to hide behind the human-shield messanger and also use them as a bloody-shirt martyr. There’s nothing at all new about it, and that a practice has a long history doesn’t make it “honored.” Well, not be me. Scapegoating has a long history…as do many other “time honored practice[s].”
The point is that both sides are playing this game not to engage the real issue, but to engage each other in tit-for-tat CDP™ partisan warfare while inhibiting actual discussion of the issue.
Oops. That’s “CPD™” for Comparitive Political Demonology™.
Tully-
“The point is that both sides are playing this game not to engage the real issue, but to engage each other in tit-for-tat CDP™ partisan warfare while inhibiting actual discussion of the issue.:
I just remembered that the ‘Johnny does it too”
argument is said not to be accepted here.
I wonder what happened to the rule?
By rights, several statements, including some of my own, should be retracted according ot hat rule. What happened?
Human shield, bloody shirt —all that requires a lot of mind reading and assigning of intuitied motives, another practice I thoought was frowned on. What happened?
Whatever has happened in the past and whatever was done by other parties, the current state of affairs has reached new depths.
This is the first time, as far as I know, when a blogger has actually gone to someone’s home and work, interrogated neighbors and otherwise harassed ‘the enemy’ in ways other than words on a blog.
That is the issue in the post.
When you revert to the issues being avoided by both sides, you are referring to OTHER issues, avoiding the issue at hand.
This escalation of hostilities is really ominous, and should concern even those who like Malkin.
This is no longer in the ‘everybody does it’ category. It’s a new level of hate and anger, that could spin out of control, if the other side is suckered into tit-for-tat.
I think it’s a serious mistake to pooh-pooh it away..
I just remembered that the ‘Johnny does it too”
argument is said not to be accepted here.
I wonder what happened to the rule?
It’s not, and I didn’t make that argument, domajot. It’s a statement of what’s going on and why that ongoing CPD™ can be summarily dismissed as not being in the least relevant to the actual issue of the SCHIP bill. Because it’s an effort on both sides to avoid discussing the actual issue.
It’s a new level of hate and anger, that could spin out of control, if the other side is suckered into tit-for-tat
New? LMAO. Where’s Captain Renault when you need him?
You could exercise your displeasure by not responding, instead of the irony of saying everyone is doing it.
Not new, several bloggers have gone out to what they consider their flavor of reporting (some have traveled internationally). Expect more as the line between blogging and reporting fades further.
Doma: Re 24-26, you made a few separate complaints there and in 26 I was addressing your closing statement about priorities. As to my comment about ‘government dole’, I understand your point but I was referring to a general concept of govt paying directly to provide aid rather than govt finding solutions that will prevent the aid from being necessary in the first place. And I was addressing a broader point than just SCHIP, which was relevant because part of the way you avoid having families like that requiring health coverage for the kids is to readjust the system which has made it unaffordable for the whole family.
And as to your complaint about the “Johnny does it too, argument”, no one is using that to deflect responsibility from either side- instead we’re saying Johnny does it too, and Johnny and the other kid both provoke each other to do it, so we need to address all of those issues.”
I agree that the hostilities are reaching a fevered pitch and that this is very destructive. If I could control right wing bloggers and talk show hosts, I would certainly tell them to stop this kind of stuff because it is harmful in general and harmful to the conservative side specifically too (or as Michael put it, it’s wrong and politically unwise).
Our discussion of the tactics that trigger these reactions though, in effect is an argument to also address root causes; when one party uses the ‘cute kid’ or ‘crying mother’ or whatever as a political prop, the responses inevitably take this course- and the level of the response is growing exponentionally worse. So, while condemning the reactions, we find it also important to trace back to other factors in the political environment that are the triggers. It’s no different than the argument (which ironically is typically a liberal one, but one with which I agree) on crime which says that you address the crime but also address factors that led to the criminal’s behavior. Doing this doesn’t mean that you’re excusing the criminal behavior.
This is the first time, as far as I know, when a blogger has actually gone to someone’s home and work, interrogated neighbors and otherwise harassed ‘the enemy’ in ways other than words on a blog
Not by a long shot. The Frosts made themselves public figures, and Malkin is a journalist, if quite a partisan one. There is nothing in the least new about journalists doing backgrounding of claims and trying to speak to the claimants when they become public figures.
Captain’s Quarters has a nicely balanced post on the whole flap this morning. A good read for anyone whose mind was not made up before it even happened.
CS-
Peace.
I agree about the sleeziness of cute kid usage, but I just don’t see how that can be stopped.
Free speech arguments would crop up like weeds. All that can be done is remark on it, and move on, IMO. I don’t see that as a cause celebre. A plea for attention is in a different class than an attack on a person.
When the response gets out of hand, that’s a different species, as I see it. Attacking a person’ as such is different than criticizing the crediblity of his words or ideas. There has to be a line drawn (although I’m sure we’ll all argue aboutt where the line should be). I think we all should react, no matter how pleasing to ‘our side’ this behaviour might be in a particular instance.
There was a story on local news about a man being threatened because of a campaign button he was wearing. The hate is getting out of hand!
Getting? Where have you been? We do not live in a Pollyanna world.
Years ago there was violence regarding who you had as a political sign in your yard. There were reports of vandalism if you had party X on your bumper sticker.
Here’s one that is from Right onto Left.
Can’t understand why that would be something to be proud about - but they apparently are and got vandalized in 06.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0030.html
Here’s Left onto Right in 2005
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3787
Here’s discussions about vandalism in 2004.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-98577.html
Tully-
I don’t quite see it your way,
Even if Malkin is a journalist, she’s more than just ‘prartisan’. There are journalists, and then there are personlity journalists.
I expect Rush Limbaugh has more safety worries than Jim Lehrer, for example. And both of them are more of ‘personality’ types than John Doe being interviewed on the street for a human interest story. I’m glad I don’t have to pay for Ann Coulter’s security measures.
As for journlisitc inquiry, tjat cam often be done without abandoning rules of good behavior. Investigative reporting happens with good manners in tact. When manners do hamper, other means should be a last, not a first, resort.
We can dance around this to all kinds of rhythms, but what Malkin and those who aided and abetted did and are doing, should not be pooh-poohed away, especially not by trying to blame someone else.
The Frosts, no matter how you rate their role, did not attack anyone. That’s a huge difference that should not be ignored.
We dusagree It happens.
Interested-
The man threatened for his campaign button was a Giulliani supporter.
I don’t kniw if that means the attacker was a Democrat or just a New Yorker.
And?
The man threatened for his campaign button was a Giulliani supporter. I don’t kniw if that means the attacker was a Democrat or just a New Yorker.
I think what you said was clear to most the readers domajot… thanks for the smile.
Terri Schiavo was the first thing to mind after reading this comment.
Tully… Did you have ‘little sympathy’ for the parents and ‘pols’ during the ‘Schiavo Circus’, too? Or was that something altogether different?
It’s not cool to rip a 12-year-old. Also not cool to hate one’s own countrymen in a time of war.
Divisive idiots. Don’t hate a family just because they had the nerve to attempt home ownership. The Republican party had better get smarter, faster, or it’s over for us.