To get back to the kid. It was the Dem response to Bush’s weekly radio address. Not a political ad. It was radio so you couldn’t see the kid. Obviously it was done with parents permission. The parents and kid had benefited from the program SCHIP that was being discussed. I frankly don’t have a problem with that and would probably have been happy to let my 12 yr old do the same thing in similar circumstances. It would be an extremely exciting event for the kid to be on national radio. What exactly is wrong with that? Using people directly affected by policy is an appeal to emotion rather than reason but any guess who popularized this technique… His initials are RR.
Swift-boating a 12-year old.
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
It's the same hope to tug at some heartstrings to sway someone that normally wouldn't be swayed. Even though there may be parental permission, this child may not fully understand what is supposed to be going on with the debate. If he does, fantastic, but there is a difference from, say, cancer survivors (or even current victims), lobbying for their own cause and trotting out a child there. There's been a commercial run by some group with a bunch of children saying "We can't vote, so you must do the job for us," or something to that line. I believe it's for health care or education or something. Either way, it's along the same lines.
Hey, anyone remember when Bush toured the country with some 9-year old when he was touting his Social Security plan two years ago?
Masquerouge
Deity
Well you answered your own question. I don't want politicians to sell me their program because it saved young Billy Bob, I want them to sell it to me because it works and it's efficient.
And I'm confident the parents of that kid did not think it through and were not prepared to the storm that followed.
OK fine I agree that is the best way to make decisions. Now show me 1 successful politician who campaigns that way. The fact is our brains are wired to respond to emotion and specific anecdotes and that is what all campaigns appealed to. Fear is the primary emotion that is used but others are also effective. It's just the way it is Republicans use welfare queens and terrorists to incite our emotions Democrats use poor kids and old ladies.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
The Democrats drag this kid up, use him like a circus animal, and the Republicans have no shame?
Also, is it right for the Democrats to use one example to justify a multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar program?
Also, is it right for the Democrats to use one example to justify a multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar program?
PLease explain how having him give a radio address is "using him like a circus animal"
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Yes, because the welfare system wasn't rife with corruption.BTW did anyone ever find Reagans "Welfare Queen"?
Heck the Republicans haven't provided even one example of a significant WMD find to justify the multi-multi-hundred billion dollar escapade in Iraq.
Merkinball
Deity
What's significant?
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
i presume he's saying a WMD that isn't a nonworking relic.
Stewbert 08
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 591
It's wonderful that most Republicans are "pro curing diseases." There's progress every day.
ROFL. Almost all private labs receive federal funding. Fed grants pay for things as mundane as microscopes.
Bush signed a law in 2001 that said the federal government would give out grants directly for scientists studying old stem cell lines, but scientists studying new ones would now NOT get ANY federal funding. Basically that means they could not work in ANY lab which got ANY money from the feds! In practice, a ban.
The point of the legislation wasn't to set aside money specifically for stem cell research - in the Clinton era, scientists could still apply for money for old and new lines - the point was to make it so that any lab with any federal funding (in practice, all labs) could not study the new stem cell lines.
To get around this some guys at Harvard even built their own lab with full private funding. Obviously this was a Herculean endeavor because Science Is Expensive. The vast majority of scientists who wanted to study the newer lines weren't able to because they couldn't get access to a completely private lab, and didn't have the resources to construct a private lab. Even constructing a single private (redundant!) lab is an unforgivable waste of resources that causes us to fall behind in science vis-a-vis countries that AREN'T hostage to right-wing Christians.
So tl;dr: The Bush bill was a poison pill. The end goal, and the actual achievement, of the legislation was to drastically LIMIT stem cell research.
Bush also vetoed a bill that was supposed to change this and loosen some of the restrictions. And yet still claims to be "pro" stem cell research. Friggin Orwellian.
Not as Orwellian as declaring Oct 1 "Child Health Day"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071001-4.html then vetoing a child healthcare bill. But close.
Well, I realize that these are not honest questions you're asking, but I'll try to weigh in anyway.
Topics for discussion:
Are Republicans shameless/heartless?
Depends on whether people are interested in actually getting the facts. The media cannot be relied upon to report them, so I'd guess that most people will not know the facts, and this ignorance will cause a Democrat "win".
I would say no. I think they are dishonest in the way they presented him, but that is completely different from exploitation.
As I understand it, the postion is that S-CHIP should be used to insure children whose families could otherwise not afford it.
No.
Well, my understanding is that most hospitals perform a certain amount of charity work anyway, which should cover most of the treatment. However, the father shouldn't be let off the hook financially just because health insurance for his family isn't a high priority.
I'm not familiar with the laws that pertain here, so I can't reasonably comment.
No... or at least, not in and of itself.
I think it was a mistake for the Dems to use this kid in the radio address - almosty as bad as Bush surrounding himself with all those snowflake children when he signed his first veto. However, what I find particularly vile is that FreeRepublic still has not removed the posts containing the kid's home address. It should not have been posted there in the first place and the fact that it remains is inexcusable, especially when you consider that it is from a site who's members get their cheerleader panties in a bunch everytime a pun is made on a General's name.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
If you can't look a crippled veteran or an injured 12 year old in the eye and say it's for the best, perhaps your not as correct as you might think.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Miles Teg said:
If you are so myopic in the scope of your thinking that the needs of 1 person dictate how you treat 300,000,000+ people, you are an idiot.
How about you look at 12 year old in the eye and tell her she doesn't deserve a childhood trip to Diseny World because her father spent their health insurance/I mean vacation money on golf clubs? She is crying you say, she doesn't understand you say, it makes you feel bad to crush her "every childs dream?" Oh well then, just go ahead and legislate an entitlement for a Diseny World trip for every 12 year old so you feel better.
******** on both ends.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
You don't have to base your opinions off of the fate of one child, but if you can't justify yourself infront of one of the people you hurt for the common good, I'd be thinking real hard if I were you.
Any decision involves cost. If you can't deal with the cost you shouldn't make the decision. Without coverage, a lot of kids are going to die because of what their parents chose. If you can't tell them to their face it's worth it, then it seems to me that you are living in a fantasy were their are no consequences.
Any decision involves cost. If you can't deal with the cost you shouldn't make the decision. Without coverage, a lot of kids are going to die because of what their parents chose. If you can't tell them to their face it's worth it, then it seems to me that you are living in a fantasy were their are no consequences.
Tboy
Future world ruler
Times like this when I'm glad we have the NHS in Britain.
It really does work out much better. Everyone pays national insurance on what they earn, and everyone is entitled to healthcare almost always with no charge, and thus all the argy-bargy over health insurance is non-existent. But I digress...
Myself, I think the Democrats were foolish to use this particular child as a poster-boy, but those constantly examining their family and pestering them are worse. And regardless of whether the father may or may not be irresponsible for not getting private health insurance, should his children be allowed to die because of his mistakes?
It really does work out much better. Everyone pays national insurance on what they earn, and everyone is entitled to healthcare almost always with no charge, and thus all the argy-bargy over health insurance is non-existent. But I digress...
Myself, I think the Democrats were foolish to use this particular child as a poster-boy, but those constantly examining their family and pestering them are worse. And regardless of whether the father may or may not be irresponsible for not getting private health insurance, should his children be allowed to die because of his mistakes?
So you consider medical care a luxury equivalent to a holiday at Disney Land? That is an interesting perspective. Do you consider food in the same category as well?
Similar threads
