I didn’t want to write about the SCHIP imbroglio again today but frankly, I find it fascinating that simply by writing about it, I am accused of “smearing” or “swiftboating” a 12 year old boy.

Are many on the left brain dead? If you don’t say anything negative or snarky about a 12 year old boy and, in fact, express concern over his condition, would someone please explain to me how that constitutes a “smear?”

A “smear” is a lot more than simple criticism - something no one has directed toward young Graeme Frost. A “smear” is “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization” according to Webster. Very well. Let’s give the left the benefit of the doubt and say that the original round of criticisms of Mr. and Mrs. Frost (not Graeme or any other child) were “smears” in that the Freeper who googled up the information that most conservative blogs relied on to originally comment on the issue was incorrect and flawed. Of course, it was “substantiated” to the extent that the Freeper supplied links to his information much of which was later proved to be false or exaggerated. But let’s ignore that little detail and acknowledge that the information was incorrect and further, was disseminated in order to show up the Frost’s and, by extension, the Democrats.

Where does the smear of little 12 year old Graeme Frost come in? Did anyone question his injuries? Did anyone say he was faking it? Did anyone anywhere on conservative blogs write anything that could possibly be construed as an “unsubstantiated accusation” - or any accusation at all - directed against Graeme Frost?

I’m serious about an answer because even today, I’ve gotten several emails and have seen several headlines on liberal blogs that are accusing the right of “smearing” a 12 year old kid when my investigation yesterday revealed not one single conservative blog had said one single word against Graeme Frost.

So far, no one on the left has bothered to explain how conservative blogs are smearing Graeme Frost. They use the term in their headlines and the body of their posts. They use the word in comments left far and wide on righty blogs. They use the word as if it is simply a given, as if “the smear of Graeme Frost” exists naturally in the universe and needs no explanation - sort of like the sun coming up every morning.

This would be mindless stupidity - if there wasn’t a purpose behind it. And since the intent all along was to cut off debate on the fact that the Democrats wish to expand SCHIP eligibility to include adults and people who by any stretch of the imagination would be seen as middle class (or even upper middle class), it has worked like a charm. The Democrats set a trap and the right has fallen into it. They used the Frosts as human shields and for exactly the same reason that terrorists use them - to make sure that any attack against them would also hit the civilians (Frosts). As I have said, it was a brilliant political ploy. I’m only sorry that the Frosts weren’t informed of the strategy prior to their becoming embroiled in the debate. They may have had second thoughts about becoming involved.

For in the end, that was the entire point of the political exercise; to make sure that as little light as possible was shed on SCHIP, obscuring the debate by hiding behind the Frosts and generating fake outrage when the inevitable questions would arise about the family’s choices which prevented them from being able to afford insurance for their children.

As such, those choices have been attacked by many on the right as selfish. Is that a smear? Their “choices” can be substantiated by what is already on the record regarding their assets. The fact that there are tens of thousands of families - perhaps many times that - who make sacrifices so that the family is insured before any tragedy strikes them and who are being asked to subsidize the choices made by the Frosts opens up the question of fairness.

And therein lies the debate. Not whether the Frosts have too much money to enjoy the coverage supplied by SCHIP but whether any family can make choices that force other families to pay for them. Yes, in order to afford insurance for their children the Frosts at the very least may have been forced to sell their rental property and perhaps even have one or both parents get a job where an employer provides health coverage. But there are thousands and thousands of families who are faced with those choices all the time and choose to make sacrifices so their kids are covered. Now those families are being told that, in effect, they’re a bunch of chumps for making those sacrifices because others who may even be better off are “smart” enough to avoid the responsibility and get coverage via SCHIP.

Where is the left’s outrage at this injustice? Where’s the hand wringing about the inequality of this situation?

The liberal answer to this unfairness is not try and make private insurance more affordable or come up with some other private alternative but to expand the program even further thus trapping more people into a dependency that prevents them from keeping the benefit if their income exceeds a certain amount. The disincentives in the program are obvious. It may make for good politics but it’s lousy policy.

I’m glad Graeme Frost didn’t have to suffer for his parent’s shortsightedness. And the left is right - we should leave little Graeme out of the debate. Let’s talk instead about fairness and how best to insure those who have problems getting coverage in the private sector.

Just let me know when you’re finished smearing conservatives by accusing them of something they’ve never done.