PDA

View Full Version : The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost



Nbadan
10-11-2007, 04:07 PM
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0710/graeme_frost_1010.jpg


If you listen closely to the two-minute radio address that 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered last week for the Democrats, you can hear the lingering effects of the 2004 car crash that put him into a coma for a week and left one of his vocal cords paralyzed. "Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program," he says in a voice that sounds weak and stressed. "But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today."

Graeme, whose sister suffered worse brain injuries when their family SUV hit a patch of black ice, was making an appeal for President Bush to reconsider his veto of legislation that would have expanded the program designed to provide health coverage to children of the working poor — those who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance.

Since then, Frost and his family have been introduced firsthand to something else that most kids his age haven't: the reality of how brutal partisan politics can be in the Internet age. It started over the weekend, when a blogger calling himself Icwhatudo put up a post on the conservative website Freerepublic.com noting what he had found by scavenging around the Internet: that Graeme attends a private school, lives in a remodeled house near one that had sold for $485,000 in March and is the child of parents whose wedding was announced in the New York Times. The post also noted that his father purchased a $160,000 commercial space in 1999.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things," the blogger wrote. "Maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes."

That was just the beginning of what turned into a Category 5 hurricane on the blogosphere. Typical of the tone was what Mark Steyn wrote on National Review Online: "Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices. But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no one is not needy." Nameless commenters to conservative blogs were even harsher. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens," wrote one one on Redstate.com, who was quoted in the Baltimore Sun. "Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:


"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail — my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

He also passed along a letter from a friend, Andrew Gray, who wrote: "Chances are, Bonnie, Halsey and their kids will survive this. The sad reality is that they've already been through much worse. But what does it say about us as a nation that we seek to destroy the reputations of those we should honor? Have we become so cynical and nasty that we no longer can recognize simple courage and decency?"

Politics has never been a gentle game. As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag." But surely, even Mr. Dooley could never have imagined a day would come when a mere seventh grader could be swift-boated.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html)

Holt's Cat
10-11-2007, 04:35 PM
I don't really care one way or the other but if you don't want your kid and your family put under the public microscope, don't agree to be a pawn for a politician's agenda.

PixelPusher
10-11-2007, 07:03 PM
I don't really care one way or the other but if you don't want your kid and your family put under the public microscope, don't agree to be a pawn for a politician's agenda.
Yeah, I mean how could he and his parents be so naive to think advocating for a widely popular children's health care program wouldn't result in vicious personal attacks and stalking? :rolleyes

Wild Cobra
10-11-2007, 07:05 PM
I don't really care one way or the other but if you don't want your kid and your family put under the public microscope, don't agree to be a pawn for a politician's agenda.
No shit.

It's a common democrat practice to bring people into the light that are politically incorrect to challenge.

Then there are the facts of SCHIP. The problem the president has isn't SCHIP, but that the eligibility is changing from 200% of the poverty rate to 300%! I heard president Bush would have signed it at 250%!

Sob stories play well on the ignorant and uneducated. They don't do well factually unless the facts actually stack up with those of us who do a little homework with the facts.

Dan, as for Swift-Boating...

When I hear that term, I think of the fact that Kerry's stance was decimated by facts! Not by fiction. It was Kerry playing a fictional hero, when he was a coward.

254 swift boat veterans can't be wrong...

Wild Cobra
10-11-2007, 07:07 PM
Yeah, I mean how could he and his parents be so naive to think advocating for a widely popular children's health care program wouldn't result in vicious personal attacks and stalking? :rolleyes
Advocating it would be one thing. They are being used as pawns by the democrats. If they democrats just voted in the same package as before, without increasing from the 200% to 300%, it would be reauthorized!

It's the democrats playing politics here. Not the president...

PixelPusher
10-11-2007, 07:12 PM
Advocating it would be one thing. They are being used as pawns by the democrats. If they democrats just voted in the same package as before, without increasing from the 200% to 300%, it would be reauthorized!

It's the democrats playing politics here. Not the president...
Yeah, the real tragedy was the Frosts "getting used" by democrats, not the death threats and posting of their address online. :rolleyes

Spurminator
10-11-2007, 07:15 PM
Why not attack the issue?

Spurminator
10-11-2007, 07:17 PM
The Swift Boat comparison is off base. Kerry was running for the most powerful office in the land. Graeme Frost is an activist.

Frost is more comparable to the Swift Boat vets themselves than he is to John Kerry.

boutons_
10-12-2007, 12:09 AM
"politically incorrect to challenge."

Can you counter Krugman's claims the The Vast Right Wing Lying Conspiracy Machine got ALL their swift-boating slime claims about Frost WRONG?

Is outright lying "corrrect" in any sense?

Nbadan
10-12-2007, 02:01 AM
Who's the swift-boater again?


All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

-----

I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp)

101A
10-12-2007, 08:59 AM
Yeah, the real tragedy was the Frosts "getting used" by democrats, not the death threats and posting of their address online. :rolleyes


Or, if you really want the coverage extended, could the tragedy be that the Democrats and President can't agree on a compromise?

President says he'll go to 250% - but the Dems won't pass that bill.

Maybe neither side REALLY wants to pass anything.

The Dems want to be able to scream about the uncaring, wanting children's blood to run in the street Republicans, and the Republicans want to be able to bluster about staving off another massive government expansion and power grab by the Democrats.

NASCARdad
10-12-2007, 09:14 AM
Leave it to the democrats to pull out some kid for the sympathy vote. Pathetic!

boutons_
10-12-2007, 09:28 AM
"Leave it to the democrats"

Leave it to the Repugs to pull out a minstrel show (2000 Repug nominating convention) for the black vote.

TDMVPDPOY
10-12-2007, 09:35 AM
question, htf is health insurance $1200 a month for that family of 6? thats fuckn daylight robbery

101A
10-12-2007, 09:47 AM
question, htf is health insurance $1200 a month for that family of 6? thats fuckn daylight robbery

The insurance premium is a direct result of the rising cost of health care (duh).

Figure his wreck cost a high six figures or more; and that's just a single case. Cancers @ quarter of a million and up, transplants that go in that range, premature babies. Add it up.

It takes premium dollars from a lot of people to pay those claims.

Add to that more and more drugs for more and more people (baby boomers are aging - taking more drugs, getting more expensive diseases that we ALL have to pay for).

That said, the $1,200 premium (about average for a family of 6, frankly), could be reduced if the family would buy a catastrophic, high deductible plan. Eliminate co-pays, and an Rx card; then the insurance WILL be there when they absolutely need it (like when their son is in an expensive accident).

Treat health insurance more like auto and home-owners, and the cost would reduce.

101A
10-12-2007, 10:40 AM
That kid should have thought about that before he got into that car crash

His parents should have, but they HAD coverage, didn't they?

CHIP.

Which is why I don't fully understand the point.

101A
10-12-2007, 12:30 PM
The point is there are a bunch of assholes out there scoffing some little kid to diss a program they don't understand

The kid should be left out of it (and should have been from the start: the father, if anyone, should have been the spokesperson).

We should have a debate, however on national priorities.

The biggest check I right each month as a business owner is to the Federal Government.

The second biggest check?

The one that takes care of my employee's and their families health and welfare (they all get medical, life, dental, short and long term disability, as well as long term care).

My company obviously makes health a MAJOR priority. Many American families don't. They drop health insurance before the cable bill, or the mobile phones, or the internet. I know because I see people daily refuse to pay $50 for health insurance - when their employer is picking up up the first $300; they just turn it down and go without.

Should the taxpayer put a priority on there health when they obviously do not? Is that where we are now? We might be.

Geezerballer
10-12-2007, 06:43 PM
This is getting old.

The Democrats used this kid like a Human Shield.

Anything the opposition objects to makes them look bad for picking on a child.

They used Cindy Sheehan and the "Jersey Girls" the same way.

What a bunch of pricks.

If you can't make your case without cheap tricks maybe it's time to reconsider your position.

Geezerballer
10-12-2007, 06:45 PM
The point is there are a bunch of assholes out there scoffing some little kid to diss a program they don't understand


Actually the point is, "What is the proper role of Government?"

If it's to pay for health care why not groceries? I would propose that eating is a more urgent need than healthcare.

Spurminator
10-12-2007, 10:46 PM
Anything the opposition objects to makes them look bad for picking on a child.

No it doesn't. All you have to do is argue points against CHIP instead of attacking the spokesperson. How hard is that?

People in this country have forgotten how to debate issues because they're so fucking obsessed with people's personal lives.

Wild Cobra
10-13-2007, 07:04 AM
Actually the point is, "What is the proper role of Government?"

If it's to pay for health care why not groceries? I would propose that eating is a more urgent need than healthcare.
Yep, dead on.

People just cannot get enough of government being their mommies and daddies.

boutons_
10-13-2007, 09:53 AM
People just can't get enough of getting fucked over in health care.

ChumpDumper
10-13-2007, 02:55 PM
Eh the government subsidizes farmers who make groceries..that's a nice big republican programIt's bipartisan, but that's an excellent point. I guess we could have the CEO of ADM giving a testimony of how farm subsidies helped his shareholders buy health insurance.

TLWisfoine
10-14-2007, 02:04 AM
"Leave it to the democrats"

Leave it to the Repugs to pull out a minstrel show (2000 Repug nominating convention) for the black vote.

Democrats are not any better. Democrats have historically passed or attempted to prevent the passing of more laws against Blacks than Republicans can ever hope to do. Also, any party that still has that vile human being Robert Bryd on its side and considers him a respected member of their party, speaks volumes for them.

Nbadan
10-14-2007, 03:00 AM
To be fair to Demos they did get rid of Zell Miller. Besides, it's not the DNC re-electing Bryd, it's his constituency....

TLWisfoine
10-14-2007, 03:45 AM
To be fair to Demos they did get rid of Zell Miller. Besides, it's not the DNC re-electing Bryd, it's his constituency....

And from what I understand with the backing and support of many Democrats in office. Hell, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have seeked his guidance and advice.

It's not just Robert "Grand Master" Byrd I have a problem with. In many of the cities in America that the misfortune of circumstance has befallen the Black community, places such as New Orleans (Pre-Hurricane Katrina), Detroit, my hometown Oakland, and others, who is in political power? Democrats!!! Lets not even mention the shit that went on during the mayorship of Democrat Richard Daley of Chicago and his son when they either permitted or simply ignored the corruption of police commisioner John Burge who is noted for his torture of minority suspects into false confessions. Barack Obama even campaigned for the re-election of this incompetent/corrupt man.

I just get sick and tired of many people in the Black community who say that Democrats look out for them and that Republicans are the evil ones when neither party looks out for them. Simply put, this two party system in America sucks!!!

Wild Cobra
10-14-2007, 04:32 AM
Simply put, this two party system in America sucks!!!
Agreed. However, at least until we get a system where the winner must have at least 50%+1 of the vote, I will normally vote republican rather than libertarian. Voting libertarian or other 3rd party is a wasted vote. In 1992, Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot took 18% of the vote, mostly from those who would have otherwise voted for president Bush-41. If we had run-off elections, Perot and the others would have been discounted, and a new vote would have been only between president Bush and governor Clinton..

However, things change with run-off electrons!

Maybe, Ross Perot would have had a higher percentage than president Bush, leaving a run-off between him and governor Clinton. This is in the realm of possibility when people are not afraid of throwing away their vote!

Holt's Cat
10-14-2007, 01:26 PM
Yeah, I mean how could he and his parents be so naive to think advocating for a widely popular children's health care program wouldn't result in vicious personal attacks and stalking? :rolleyes

Doesn't matter what it is. If you can't stand the heat, don't enter the kitchen.