Sick Kids and Republican Bastards
Republicans are bastards, and that can be their strength.
I say this because I admit I was surprised at the results of this USA Today/Gallup poll that says that a majority of Americans may end up supporting the President's veto of the expansion of S-CHIP. The expansion that if one opposes, it means that you don't care that sick kids die, according to some.
Democrats get their props in the same poll, with 52% percent of Americans saying that they trust Dems to do a better job with the issue than the GOP, but the answers to this particular question...
"As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"
... were the following: Bush: 52%, Democrats: 40%
And this question...
"How concerned are you that expanding this program would create an incentive for middle class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program?"
... were the following: Very or Somewhat concerned: 55%, Not too concerned or Not concerned at all: 42%.
*****
Democrats have the emotional edge on the general issue. Republicans have the dry logic in this particular aspect of the debate.
Knowing that their edge is in emotion, Democrats use brain damaged children to read their copy. Nothing like a brain damaged child to stir the emotions. They even filmed a video of a toddler with a heart condition holding a drawing that says, "Don't Veto Me."
I'm guessing she didn't write it herself.
And in a perfectly logical sense, if she was already eligible for S-CHIP, how could a Bush veto -- veto her?
When numbers are thrown into the mix, Bush come out ahead. The above linked video says, "S-CHIP Works," and maybe it does. But should it work for 25-year olds, or for those making $60K, like Democrats want?
No. The public expects Republicans to say No, to be willing to be bastards for the common good.
In a rough and tumble world, domestically but in the international sphere especially, a majority of Americans buy the basic premise that it is sometimes necessary to be a bastard, to not be swayed by warm fuzzy emotion, and that while Democrats don't have it in them, Republicans can most certainly be that bastard.
Bastardness is their strength.
I say this because I admit I was surprised at the results of this USA Today/Gallup poll that says that a majority of Americans may end up supporting the President's veto of the expansion of S-CHIP. The expansion that if one opposes, it means that you don't care that sick kids die, according to some.
Democrats get their props in the same poll, with 52% percent of Americans saying that they trust Dems to do a better job with the issue than the GOP, but the answers to this particular question...
"As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"
... were the following: Bush: 52%, Democrats: 40%
And this question...
"How concerned are you that expanding this program would create an incentive for middle class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program?"
... were the following: Very or Somewhat concerned: 55%, Not too concerned or Not concerned at all: 42%.
*****
Democrats have the emotional edge on the general issue. Republicans have the dry logic in this particular aspect of the debate.
Knowing that their edge is in emotion, Democrats use brain damaged children to read their copy. Nothing like a brain damaged child to stir the emotions. They even filmed a video of a toddler with a heart condition holding a drawing that says, "Don't Veto Me."
I'm guessing she didn't write it herself.
And in a perfectly logical sense, if she was already eligible for S-CHIP, how could a Bush veto -- veto her?
When numbers are thrown into the mix, Bush come out ahead. The above linked video says, "S-CHIP Works," and maybe it does. But should it work for 25-year olds, or for those making $60K, like Democrats want?
No. The public expects Republicans to say No, to be willing to be bastards for the common good.
In a rough and tumble world, domestically but in the international sphere especially, a majority of Americans buy the basic premise that it is sometimes necessary to be a bastard, to not be swayed by warm fuzzy emotion, and that while Democrats don't have it in them, Republicans can most certainly be that bastard.
Bastardness is their strength.
posted by Lee | 11:52 PM
7 Comments:
I wrote about this issue on my blog as well. You said it well, that emotionally, Democrats come out the winners, but logic of the plan goes to the GOP.
Very reminiscent of when the GOP called anyone opposed to the Iraq invasion America-haters. They were on the emotionally "right" side, so it was easy to paint detractors as traitors. (Pro-lifers do this as well--heck, they've almost perfected the art.) No matter who is doing it, it is a gross manipulation of the American people.
Bastardness is their strength.
Well I don't know if it's a strength, but it certainly does take a bastard to launch smear campaigns against children.
See also.
"...to launch smear campaigns against children."
Okay, I suggest a Google challenge. Find me one person on the net who said anything bad about a child in this debate.
I know a lot of people may have "slimed" the parents of the children. But then, the adults were the one who decided to use their kids as human shields in a heated politcal debate in the first place. The parents are adults, and fair game.
But find me one person who said anything negative about the child.
Unless you consider attacking the parents the same as attacking the child.
"Sliming children:" a great half-true rhetorical ploy.
Find me one person on the net who said anything bad about a child in this debate.
If you really want I'll find you alot more than one who have said bad things about the family. Unless you are arguing that children don't count as part of the family, and/or aren't effected when the phone number and address gets pasted all across the internet.
the adults were the one who decided to use their kids as human shields
Ahh, yes, let's all jump on Rep. Boehner's bandwagon and complain about using children as 'human shields." After all, it's only ok to use children as "human shields" when Republicans do it, right?
The posting of personal info and address was reprehensible. It was also done by those of little stature and clout. If you could find any sort of big-timer who did such things though I would be shocked.
But talking about the actions of the parents is, again, fair play.
And on your second point, I notice that Think Progress didn't print any captions next to the pictures of Boehner next to those kids, nor did they bother to report what he said or why he was there. They merely posted some pictures of a congressman next to some kids and accused him of using them as human shields.
I'm against using 12-year olds to read copy written by political operatives to lambast the positions of the opposition party.
Boehner giving some sort of vanilla general address and having his picture taken with a bunch of kids who get to meet "a real life congressman" is not the same thing.
Because if Boehner had said anything even remotely politically confrontation at that setting, Think Progress would have reported it.
What probably really happened, is some staffer at the group was told to scour Google to look for some picture of Boehner with kids so they could make the accusation of "Boehner does it too."
So predictable. So lazy.
Post a Comment
<< Home