Does the University of Wisconsin system believe that 12 year olds are fair game for media attacks? Because it employs a journalism instructor at UW-M who believes exactly that.
The Brawler is, of course, referring to Jessica McBride who makes this interesting point in comments appending a post in which she bemoans how Michelle Malkin (who, in the 21st Century, sadly, is media) has been denounced for attacking a 12 year old boy. His crime: speaking in the Democratic Party's radio address to the nation about how he was helped by SCHIP (which is. you know, true) and in opposition to Bush's veto of the (bipartisan) SCHIP bill.
Jessica, take it away:
The assets/financial means of this family became fair game the second they stepped voluntarily into the political boxing ring because the political debate and rationale for the Bush veto centered on financial tests and where to draw that line. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the political kitchen and keep your kids out of it too.(Brawler's bold.)
For what it's worth, Jessica's argument appears to be that a thoroughly middle class family in Baltimore should sell their house (which has appreciated since they bought it a decade ago), rather than take public assistance, to cover their kids' expensive medical bills. Where will they sleep? That's their problem!
Erik Opsal has a thorough rundown of the right's utter mendacity in its attacks on this family.
But back to the Brawler's initial question: Does the University of Wisconsin believe that 12 year olds should be attacked by the media? If not, why does it employ a journalism instructor who does?
I was thinking last night about how those on the right are so angered that the Democrats used a family here that they wouldn't deem "needy." I think it's true that the Frost's don't represent those who need CHIP the most, just because they do have assets and actually make money. However, could you imagine if the Dems trotted out some poor kid from inner-city Milwaukee whose parents don't have jobs? They would be ripped apart for exploiting that family, too.
The point of using the Frost's, I think, was that a lot of people need this program to deal with catastrophes, even those in the lower middle-class -- families you might consider very close to yours.
That's what the Repubs must be pissed about: The 75 percent of Americans who agree with them on CHIP.
Posted by: Erik | October 11, 2007 at 06:47 AM
So if a kid stood up in public and spoke FOR Bush's action, the kid would be attacked by Malkin, McBride, etc., for getting into the political kitchen?
We think not. Their defense is utter nonsense. So the only thing left is that they are cruel -- as well as illogical.
Now, about all those kids who stood up on political stages with a certain AG candidate. . . .
Posted by: Gina | October 11, 2007 at 06:08 PM