You point out a Democrat pundit who sinks down in the gutter and is worse than any "repug" ploy and, all of the sudden, the peanut gallery is silent...

So, someone please tell me that I am wrong when I say that Democrats are just as nasty, evil and downright disgusting as the Republicans...

Michale.....

Pointing out the benefits (or negatives) to kids... OK...

I use the "THE KID" example as I mentioned it above to show how NOT to have children in PR ads..

Another EXCELLENT example of the blatant political USE of kids would be how one particular HuffPo Commentator disgustingly used children during the Mark Foley scandal.. This commentator shall remain nameless... We'll just call him "M Lewis"... No no no.. That's too easy to guess.. We'll just call him "Martin L"....

Anyways, said HuffPo commentator thought it would be JUST PEACHY to post the pictures of all the kids who had their picture taken with Mark Foley. What was so infuriating to me was that this person saw nothing wrong with posting pics of children with Mark Foley..

I defy ANYONE to defend the posting of such pictures... It was the only time in my year + of posting on HuffPo that I ever blatantly and unabashedly cursed. Loudly and succinctly with great gusto and abandoned...

Anyways, that is a prime example of how even the Left can stoop to the depths of hell for partisan purposes..

It's a thin line between showing kids and USING kids... So thin that it's simply better to air on the side of caution and not have kids in political ads at all..

Michale.....

I have had second thoughts on this article's "politicians using kids" theme. After seeing some other reporting out on the internets, I am of the conclusion that kids are used by ALL POLITICIANS as props. Both sides are just as guilty in doing so. So my entire argument is invalid. Republicans simply have NO LEG TO STAND ON in this argument. Of course, neither do the Democrats.

So my argument now, properly stated, is: "should ANY politician use kids as props?"

Unfortunately, the answer is, "Sure, King Canute, you can legislate the tide to stop..."

Politicians have been kissing babies for so long, it's actually a metaphor. Something that ingrained just ain't going away any time soon.

-CW

Good answer.. :D

Michale.....

Greenspan called Clinton the best republican president we've had, maybe Paul is the best democrat (actually he's a libertarian).

Oh that is just TOO kewl!!! :D

Michale.....

Speaking of life imitating art, and Stargate, check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp

So now we'll have a "Daniel" with the troops?

-CW

Just FYI.... :D

Michale.....

>Way to change the subject Michale.

Yea, CW doesn't allow me the ADMIN freedom you feel he should to make new points and new supjects, so I have to stick my other points in with existing points.. :D

@CW

You see the Season 3 episode of STARGATE ATLANTIS called THE GAME?? The very beginning reminds me of your response. :D (I can send it to you if you want to watch it..)

My point of the whole thing was a moral dilemma..

I wanted to find out if benskull is going to put country before party or party before country..

Of course, the reality is (as you point out) that a one vote "majority" doesn't mean squat.. Even the MINORITY party can further their agenda whilst the MAJORITY party wrings their hands and moans, "Woe is us that we cannot get anything done.".. Still don't know how that one works.. Hopefully someone can explain it to me..

Regardless, I still have a problem with voting for a scumbag crook.. And, since we are over-analyzing my moral dilemma ( :D ) it can also be argued that said scumbag Democrat will actually HURT the Democratic Party (Jefferson, anyone??)

But, as I said, it wasn't really a detailed scenario acknowledging all the possible permutations.. It was a "Are you an American or are you a Democrat/Republican first??" type question...

Me?? It should be obvious. I am first, foremost and always an American.. Let the political parties be damned...

As far as SCHIP goes...

I think the main argument AGAINST SCHIP (but I will be the FIRST to admit that I am not well read on the subject and MAY be wrong...) is that it will A> put the government in the insurance/health care business (even if it's funding only, do we REALLY want that?? ESPECIALLY if it's funding only..) and 2> it will cause grave economic fallout when the borderline people/families start yanking their children out of the PAID programs in favor of the FREE programs..

Now, if true, these are VERY valid arguments AGAINST SCHIP... But, as I said, those valid arguments notwithstanding (and again, I have a personal stake in this) I think the fact that many many kids who did not have any kind of health care WILL have it under SCHIP far outweighs the potential downfalls..

It's the difference between saying, "You are so fracking wrong, it's pathetic!!!" and saying, "I understand and can see where you are coming from.. I just feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"... :D

Michale.....

Point number two is a strawman. The whole "socialized medicine" thing is a STRAWMAN. These kids are not going on MediCare, they're going on private insurance. The only difference is the gummint pays for it. This is a fact that Bush has been trying (mostly successfully) to obscure. It's "government funded" health care, not "government run"...

Hmmm... maybe that should be a talking point... I gotta get today's column written...

-CW

Yeah, but... isn't there a relevant Spock quote here... something about the needs of the many...

In your example, if you knew the balance of the Senate came down to that race, but if you looked at the bigger picture of what Democrats could do for America versus what a Republican Senate would do... and you decided that the lesser evil of voting a scumbag in created a greater good?

I know it's a "means justifies the ends" argument, but you've got to at least address it in the conundrum you set up.

Personally, from what I've seen, having a one-vote majority doesn't really gain either side much in the Senate... so maybe it's not a valid criticism, I don't know...

-CW

On the Daily show last night they played Bush's explanation for why he vetoed the SCHIP bill:

1) Poor children first.
2) Secondly, he supports private insurance companies as providers of health insurance for poor children.

Imagine the amount of money in postage those private insurers will expend over the next month marketing health insurance to poor children ... $1 ... $3. Lucrative market for those insurance companies to be sure.

Of course, the big blue striped elephant in that room is that children don't need insurance, they need health-care. The administration is hopeful that nobody sees the distinction.

This is the FIRST question I ask ANY potential candidate I happen to meet...

Are you an American first or a Democrat??

As a follow-up to that...

If you felt that a Republican was the best person for the job, could you vote for him or her??

Let's say that YOUR vote is the deciding vote in a Senate Race...

Further, let's postulate that the Senate Race your voting on is the deciding Race that will determine control of the Senate..

The Democratic Party candidate is a sleaze ball.. A crook who will only serve himself and will ignore the wishes of his constituents.. But he WILL play the Party game and will be a loyal Democrat..

The GOP Party candidate is a hard-working honest person. You KNOW for a fact that he is more qualified for the Senate and will do right by you and your fellow citizens...

So, what do you do??

Do you do what is right for your Party and vote Democrat, even though you know the Dem candidate is a scumbag and a crook??

Or do you do what is right for your Country and vote for the GOP candidate who you know will be the best Senator ever??

What do you do..

What DO you do...

Ya know, I can almost guarantee what you will do..

You won't answer the question...

Michale.....

The argument from the right is valid.. That it will "socialize" medical needs for children and be wasteful by offering the services to those who don't need it..

I happen to believe that the benefits of getting health care to those low income types with infant children who need it (like myself) outweighs the risk of wastefulness by offering it to those who don't need it.

That's the difference between you and I.. You castigate anyone and everyone because they don't believe exactly as you do..

Whereas I am the type who says, "I can see the validity of your argument, but consider this...."

This discussion is a perfect example. You and I agree the the SCHIP program is a GOOD thing for children..

The difference is that I acknowledge that Bush and the GOP do have valid concerns..

You simply dismiss their arguments out of hand as evil rantings of evil men..

So, tell me.. Who is being more liberal here??

Michale.....

Even when we AGREE, we disagree.. :D

There is no hope for this country.... :D

Michale.....

It's a ploy to push a political agenda and is, therefore, using..

As a father and a grandfather, I find it disturbing..

It reminds me of that Disney Movie, "THE KID" where image consultant Bruce Willis rounded up a bunch of kids to save some scumbag's image... Same concept..

>Good spin though.

I liked the "point of a political spear" part.. I thought that was especially brilliant.. :D

Time will tell whether or not the Dems will be successful. Considering I haven't read much about it at all, I am guessing it will be as "successful" as the Dems have been in other PR "coups"...

Michale.....

You feel it's perfectly OK to use children as a political tool..

I don't...

As I said, we just disagree..

Michale.....

I have not forgotten that..

You are correct, though..

Children ARE the point.

I am only saying that they should not be the "point" of the political "spear"....

Michale......

But using children as political tools will backfire on the Democrats.

While I agree in principle with the Democrats position on SCHIP, I am uncomfortable with the Dems use of children to make the point..

It's one of those things where, if it works, it's brilliant.. If it doesn't, it's brilliantly stupid.

I am biased by the Democrat's track record (or, in this case, lack thereof) in the PR department, to be sure.

It's a tough call. The Dems so desperately need a PR win... But I have a sneaky suspicion that they GOP will be able to use that desperation against the Dems..

If *I* were the GOP, I would showcase the Dem's desperation and match that with the Dem's use of children in a political free for all...

This is a tough one to call so I am going to chicken out and say that this could go either way...

Michale.....

...Stan