Graeme Frost
The reason we allow -- even encourage -- attacking the claims of political opponents from all angles is because we think this is important to democracy: get all of the information out so people can honestly evaluate it.
So when the Democrtats put up a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost, who supposedly needs SCHIP for his health problems, to be the poster child for the SCHIP program, giving their talking points, meeting for photo ops with their leaders, and giving the Democratic radio address, why would it possibly be off-limits to criticizing what he says, and what his financial situation is?
Doesn't the same thing that drives us to get out all of the information about everyone else who chooses to be a part of the debate, drive us to get out information about Frost? Why should he be off limits?
The Democrats and his parents chose to put him up there. They have one (or both) of two motivations in complaining about Frost being criticized: either they are against debate, or their plan all along was to put up a child just so he WOULD be criticized, just so they COULD complain about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that if it is valid to question people on the right who insert themselves into the debate -- which Democrats do all the time -- then it is valid to do so of people on the left. Age doesn't matter. Democracy is the goal here.
As to the truth of those criticisms, they were slightly off the mark. They said the kids were in private schools and the two properties the family owned were expensive; the parents counter that the properties were purchased when they were a lot less, and the kids require financial aid.
But that doesn't end the story, of course: they could sell their house, for example. That would get them a lot of money that truly poor people don't have access to. And that well-illustrates the point: we can debate the issue. Should people have to sell their homes, if they can? Why, or why not? It is dishonest and irresponsible to say "we can't talk about things like that! This is a 12-year-old kid!" If you want to thrust the kid into the debate because of his situation, then let's have an actual debate about the facts of his situation.
Attempting to debate the situation of someone who thrusts himself into the debate, where that situation is material to the debate: bad. Telling baldfaced lies about a vet of three wars: good!
So when the Democrtats put up a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost, who supposedly needs SCHIP for his health problems, to be the poster child for the SCHIP program, giving their talking points, meeting for photo ops with their leaders, and giving the Democratic radio address, why would it possibly be off-limits to criticizing what he says, and what his financial situation is?
Doesn't the same thing that drives us to get out all of the information about everyone else who chooses to be a part of the debate, drive us to get out information about Frost? Why should he be off limits?
The Democrats and his parents chose to put him up there. They have one (or both) of two motivations in complaining about Frost being criticized: either they are against debate, or their plan all along was to put up a child just so he WOULD be criticized, just so they COULD complain about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that if it is valid to question people on the right who insert themselves into the debate -- which Democrats do all the time -- then it is valid to do so of people on the left. Age doesn't matter. Democracy is the goal here.
As to the truth of those criticisms, they were slightly off the mark. They said the kids were in private schools and the two properties the family owned were expensive; the parents counter that the properties were purchased when they were a lot less, and the kids require financial aid.
But that doesn't end the story, of course: they could sell their house, for example. That would get them a lot of money that truly poor people don't have access to. And that well-illustrates the point: we can debate the issue. Should people have to sell their homes, if they can? Why, or why not? It is dishonest and irresponsible to say "we can't talk about things like that! This is a 12-year-old kid!" If you want to thrust the kid into the debate because of his situation, then let's have an actual debate about the facts of his situation.
Attempting to debate the situation of someone who thrusts himself into the debate, where that situation is material to the debate: bad. Telling baldfaced lies about a vet of three wars: good!
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment