Right Wing Nut House

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!”

Not the best picture of Ebony

I told my Ebony that about 15 minutes before my friend of 16 years took her last breath.

She never tired of me calling her a “pretty girl.” As I would repeat the endearment over and over, her face would scrunch up in pleasure and she would purr loudly. She connected the same way if I repeated her name again and again. In the end, she couldn’t purr anymore, but her last hours were filled with emotion and pathos nonetheless.

The last few weeks had seen a change in her behavior. She was more demanding of attention, more vocal. She would actually jump on the back of my computer chair and butt her head against my shoulder if I didn’t drop everything and pet her, tickle her.

And then about a week ago, she simply began to disappear for long stretches of time, coming out only to nibble on some food and drink some water. She was under the bed or behind the couch, content to lie there for most of the day and sleep.

Then on Thursday, I went out in the morning to make some coffee and lo and behold, lying in the middle of the kitchen floor directly in front of the coffee pot so that I couldn’t miss it was a very dead mouse. And five feet away, lying on the floor and cleaning herself proudly was Ebony. I gave her some catnip and stroked her lovingly.

I didn’t see her again until late last night when she began a pitiful series of cries. After a few of those, Sue and I decided to move the couch and find out what was wrong. When we pulled it away from the wall, she was lying on her stomach, face down and obviously in bad shape.

Her breathing was very shallow and she was very weak. She couldn’t hold her head up. She trembled and she was very cold. We both knew then that the end was very near.

We laid her on her cat bed. Sue had some heating paks left over from when she had surgery so she heated those up in the microwave and placed them on top of the warm blanket we threw over her. We spoon fed her a little of her favorite food which she enjoyed immensely. The heat seemed to ease her breathing. And then, the death watch.

How do you say goodbye to a friend? For all the cats I have been possessed by, I had never gone through this. Previous kitties had been stolen or more likely killed by a car or captured by some family despite the tags I had on them. A couple of long time companions I had to give to friends when I moved to a new place that didn’t allow pets. But with all the cats I’ve loved, I never had to sit by and watch one as they died.

We talked to her constantly and stroked her continuously. Every once and a while, she would reach out and grab one of our hands and pull it tight to her chest, vigorously licking our fingers - an act that would make both of us dissolve in tears. She would also occasionally raise her head and look at me right in the eyes, reaching out her paw as if to touch my face. The effort would cause her to tremble and shake and she would fall back, resuming her struggle to keep breathing.

Her breathing got shallower and quicker. She slept a bit. I kept telling her goodbye but I think after a few hours, she couldn’t hear me. Her eyes were already glazed over and barely open. Then I dozed off briefly. When I awoke, she was gone.

Everyone owned by a cat has stories of their magic, their feats of athleticism, their maddening aloofness. My Ebony was no different. She was an extraordinary athlete who loved the outdoors, a tremendously attentive and loving mother, an affectionate and hugely entertaining companion. She had that cat sense of knowing when you needed company and when to avoid you. But mostly, she had that otherwordly sense of how best to fit in to my life, to be awake when I was awake and recognize the rhythms of my day.

Our other cats sense our loss and are depressed this morning. We have made a special effort to pay attention to them, to reassure them. Aramas, Ebony’s son and lover, is especially upset, walking around aimlessly and looking at us pitifully. He and the little one are now asleep and I hope they stay that way until after the burial.

Our Christmas season is darkened somewhat by the death of my friend. But we had been expecting the end for many months as her physical condition deteriorated. To have it happen early morning on Christmas eve was very sad. We had just trimmed the tree on Saturday night and were laughing about how Ebony would take up her accustomed spot, lying for hours on end on the stand cover underneath the tree, the colored lights reflecting off her shiny coat giving her a weird glow.

Instead, we will simply remember her and all that she gave us and thank her for being our friend.

Take one moderately conservative governor of a small southern state. Add a little cornpone humor, endow him with an unctuous speaking style, fill him with syrupy policy prescriptions. And then dump a truckload of socially conservative positions in the mix and what you have is the future mold of the Republican party candidate for president.

With the ascension of Mike Huckabee to near front runner status in the race for the Republican nomination, the Grand Old Party is looking at something of a hybrid candidate compared to past hopefuls; a “big government” conservative who projects a more moderate image on fiscal and economic issues but whose stand on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues matches those of the rock ribbed, grassroots Christian conservatives that increasingly are making a decisive difference in the primaries.

Not that the Christian conservatives didn’t make an impact in previous campaigns. But this is a different Republican party than the one that confidently put forth George W. Bush for a second term in 2004. The party’s losses in the 2006 election cut deeply into some of its traditional strongholds in the upper south and Midwest while nearly destroying the party in New England and the northeast. The color of the electoral map is beginning to match the mood of the GOP; getting bluer as time goes on. Even in the mountain west, a Republican stronghold for decades, is seeing serious challenges to Republican hegemony in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

There are as many reasons for this swing of the pendulum as there are pundits. But one basic fact overrides all others; the American voter is less conservative, more open to government solutions than they were just a decade ago.

And perhaps most importantly, they believe the Democrats can do a better job of dealing with issues that are most important to them.

For example, a recent USA Today-Gallup poll showed that the American people believe the most important issue confronting the country is the War in Iraq. By a 10 point margin - 48%-38% - voters believe the Democrats are better able to deal with the war. The second most important issue named in the survey was the economy. Voters feel Democrats better able to handle that issue by a 50% - 38% tally. The GOP scores with the third most important issue; illegal immigration. They maintain a plurality of 44% - 37% of support for their approach.

But a further sign that the Republicans are in trouble comes from their shrinking lead among voters who view Homeland Security/Terrorism as an important issue. From a lead of 58% - 36% on election day 2004, the Democrats have closed the gap to 48% - 38%. And with national security fading in importance as an issue, not only will the Republican advantage become less pronounced but the issue won’t cut against the Democrats so severely.

Beyond specific issues, a Pew Research poll found Americans growing less socially and economically conservative over the last decade while younger voters show more faith in government solutions to problems than their elders. And for the first time since the 1970’s, the phrase “The best way to insure peace is through military strength” garners a bare plurarlity who agree (49% - 47%).

All of this points to an electorate that would seem to be unfriendly to the kind of traditional conservatism candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson are running on. And this is where Mike Huckabee’s more moderate, government friendly kind of conservatism may play better among the general populace than his fellows.

Make no mistake. Huckabee is extremely conservative on social issues. Some of his utterances over the years raise the hackles of women, gays, AIDS patients, and those less outwardly religious than the Baptist minister.

But his record as Arkansas governor reveals someone who was more interested in results than ideology. He has earned the enmity of the conservative Club For Growth for his tax and spending policies during his 10 1/2 years as governor because Huckabee did some decidedly unconservative things while in office. He funded road building by raising taxes. He initiated a state sponsored health care program for kids. He raised taxes a total of 21 times, increasing the average tax burden on state residents from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005.

Huckabee has since embraced the so-called “Fair Tax” proposal that would tax consumption and not income. No one gives the proposal a ghost of a chance to win approval in Congress and the candidate’s adopting the idea may have been so that he could tap in to the grass roots enthusiasm for the measure. Fair Tax advocates are passionate about the idea and they have flocked to Huckabee’s banner since he is the only Republican candidate pushing the program.

Huckabee was extremely popular in Arkansas because he addressed the needs of the people and made government work efficiently to address their problems. As the country moves more toward the center, this is the message they want to hear from politicians. What traditional Republican candidates are offering may play well within the party but the broader electorate could ultimately reject. A candidate who can speak the language of government as helper without making it seem as if he is a traditional liberal while espousing conservative social views may be the wave of the future for Republicans. And Huckabee may be riding that wave all the way to the nomination.

UPDATE

Lest there be any confusion, this is in no way and endorsement for Huckabee or his policies. Regular readers know I can’t abide his shameless pandering to the Christian right nor his squishy foreign policy or blatantly liberal fiscal and tax policies.

But Slim Guy has it pegged in the comments - his appeal goes beyond Christian conservatives and has tapped a rich vein of “Main Street” conservatives - people who have an affinity for the religious right and who see the party as too “corporate” or beholden to Wall Street.

This is also indicative of an urban/rural split in the GOP that absolutely must be healed if the Republicans expect to win next November.

I’m running out of ways to make a play on words of Governor Goober. Pretty soon, I’ll be forced to simply call him stupid.

This past week, Huckafraud lied through his teeth about a cross being subtly but strategically placed in a campaign ad to make it appear the candidate was a preacher in a pulpit. He dismissed such thoughts as a conspiracy theory, saying that anyone who saw a cross rather than a bookcase also probably heard “Paul is dead” if you played the ad backwards.

But Dan Riehl proves how the lighting in the ad was manipulated. And beyond that, we’re talking about political advertising. There is not one thing in the foreground or background that isn’t deliberately placed. To expect anyone to believe otherwise is to believe in Santa Claus.

Buttressing the idea that the cross is deliberately placed is the fact that Huckabee not so subtly also mentions “Christ” in the ad. Now before people go ballistic on me, allow me to point out that by mentioning the savior, Huckabee deliberately excludes anyone but Christians from his Christmas message. This is extraordinarily unusual for a man running for president in a multi-faith country. And for Huckabee to deny that the ad was not targeted at the Christian right is ludicrous.

This has been my beef with Huckabee - his willingness to inject his religion and religious beliefs - subtly or not - into the campaign. It is done to pander to the Christian right and it is working. But Huckabee’s efforts to obscure his left leaning record on a variety of issues as well as blatant flip flops on some others and now this blatantly exclusionary commercial all add up to a slick, untrustworthy, dissembling man and unworthy to be considered for the presidency.

If that weren’t enough, now comes word that a member of his campaign or an “ally” depending on who you read, decided to tug on superman’s cape and criticize entertainer/pundit Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh describes the attack:

So the Huckabee Universe Guy said, “Honestly, Rush doesn’t think for himself. I mean, that’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker, he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time he’s veered from the talking points from the DC-Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be, too.”

That’s just… I can’t believe that there is a Republican alive today who thinks this, whether supporting the Huckster, Giuliani, whoever. Then this also, said the Huck forcer, “I have to think that he’s dying to have Hillary in the White House. Bill Clinton made Rush a megastar. Having another Clinton back in power would make him the Leading Voice of the Opposition, once again.”

Ed Morrissey chides the Hucksters for “Bringing A Water Pistol To A Firefight.” Limbaugh’s response proves the wisdom of that remark:

What this supposed Huck supporter… I’m not even sure it’s a Huck supporter. This sounds like something a Clinton person would say. You know, this is what the Clinton people believe, that Bill Clinton made my career, that all I want is somebody in office that can make me even bigger, and that I don’t think for myself. You people are just mind-numbed robots. I can’t believe there’s anybody on Huckabee’s staff that ignorant about what happens on this program. If this is indeed Huckster forces attacking Rush, then he’s got some people on his staff that are going to cause him problems because that’s just simply idiotic. This notion… I have to explain this too often, as far as I’m concerned. This notion that I was nothing, that I was just wandering aimlessly in the radio muck field until Bill Clinton came along, and voila! I blossomed into what I am today is frankly absurd. This broadcast commenced with 56 little radio stations and WABC New York on August 1st, 1988. By 1993, when Wilhelm Von Der Schlick Meister was inaugurated as president, number 42, we had 500 radio stations and our audience was at about 17-1/2 maybe 18 million people.

To buttress the idea that this indeed is what the Huckabee camp thinks of Rush and, more importantly, is part of an emerging strategy to create an “Us vs. The World” mentality among his supporters, here’s a great analysis by Allahpundit on a similar dustup the Hucksters are having with Ann Coulter:

The more the conservative world comes out against him, from Will to Peggy Noonan to NRO to Rush to Sean Hannity, the more he’ll be forced to pitch an “us against them” campaign to his supporters. He’s too far left on too many issues to tack right credibly, so the only way to keep them in the fold is to try to build on that religious and economic populism he’s peddling and make this a full-blown Cause against the conservative establishment. The trick is keeping the few truly big players like Limbaugh neutral, since they really do have the chops to tilt this thing in a two-man race. Sounds like it might already be too late.

Here is the conservative crack up writ large. Not a regional schism but rather cultural one. It’s the rural/devout Christian/big government/compassionate conservative wing of the party vs. the urban/secular/traditional/libertarian factions. I wrote about this urban/rural split in my Pajamas Media article:

It is more related to the urban/rural tensions in the party than perhaps any objection to Huckabee using his faith to energize the Christian right. Surely there are as many urban evangelicals as there are rural libertarians. But the heart of the party is still in the south and what used to be called “The Bible Belt.” These Republicans are more socially conservative than party members who live in the urban and suburban centers of the north and west.

They have stood by and watched as what they call the “Wall Street ” wing of the party denigrates their social agenda and takes their vote for granted. Supporting Huckabee and listening to the rest of the party wail about the candidate’s faith and unelectability only makes them more determined to support him. This also goes for the growing number of “Main Street” conservatives who have an affinity with the Christian right and have bought into Huckabee’s vision of a less corporate, more compassionate party.

Huckabee is running toward a gasoline dump with a lit match and no one appears able to stop him. Rudy is fading. Romney is dropping. Fred is struggling. McCain’s campaign is holding its breath, hoping not to get sidetracked by the coming New York Times hit piece. And emerging from all of this relatively unscathed will be the Preacher Man, fully able to exploit the cleavage between those who think he would be a disaster as a candidate and those who see him as the future of the party.

In this volatile race, anything is possible. And while it was not very smart to attack Rush Limbaugh (the campaign says it didn’t come from them) it is fully in keeping with a strategy that seeks to unite supporters as a Band of Brothers against those who would destroy them.

This may very well allow Huckabee to win the nomination. But what happens to the party and conservative movement as a result of his deliberate challenge to the establishment is another matter.

A good old fashioned Midwestern ice storm has arrived and we’re expecting almost 1/2 inch of ice to accumulate before it turns to rain later tonight.

I expect to lose power at any time - probably for at least 24 hours and maybe longer.

Same storm knocked out power to half of Oklahoma. Don’t know if it will be quite as bad as that but the radar does not look good.

We’ve got our flashlights and candles all set along with extra blankets. Sue won’t be able to go to work due to our depressed driveway being a sheet of ice already.

If you don’t see anything posted for a day or two, you’ll know why.

It’s pretty sickening the way the left has reacted to the defeat of Hugo Chavez’s bid to turn Venezuela into a full fledged dictatorship rather than the authoritarian government he currently enjoys leading. And my-oh-my are they all puffed up about Chavez being so gracious in defeat - just like a regular politician in a democratic country.

Of course, lefty commentary on the vote tends to leave out just a few, minor details - like the desperate effort by the opposition at CNE (the electoral commission in charge of the vote) headquarters early this morning to hold Chavez to his word and carry out some semblance of a fair count of the ballots. Apparently, the NO! forces were being denied access to the totals - a clear violation of the law and pretty suspicious to boot. There were reports that scuffles broke out as the opposition tried to exercise their right and the Chavistas tried to stop them.

It apparently took a personal TV appearance by former defense minister and former Chavez ally General Raul Baduel who appeared late in the evening and demanded that the results - which were electronically counted and should have been available within a couple of hours after the polls closed - be released immediately.

It’s a story that will probably dribble out in the next few days as Venezuelan students - who took the place of international poll observers because Chavez didn’t allow them in for this vote - will add up their “hot audit sheets” from each district and see just how close this election truly was.

Most pre-election polls had NO! winning by 55% or greater. For those on the left who are sneering about the fact that Chavez didn’t try and rig the election, I would suggest you wait a day or two. There certainly were some strange things going on at CNE headquarters in the wee hours of the morning.

And one rumor is the final margin of victory for the opposition was actually negotiated between the two sides so that Chavez could save face with a razor thin loss rather than the 57%-58% that some polls were showing prior to the vote. That particular rumor seems wildly off base - until you remember we’re talking about Chavez’s Venezuela where after the last presidential election, half full ballot boxes disappeared for hours only to turn up later stuffed to the brim with votes for Chavez.

Anything is possible.

Buttressing the idea of vote manipulation is that the government cancelled its victory celebration for the following day around 9:00 PM - more than 4 hours before the tally was finally announced. And if it had been an honest vote, why didn’t Chavez demand a recount? The margin of victory for the opposition - 1.7% - was small enough that a recount request would not have been out of line.

So a strange night in Venezuela indeed. But not if you’re reading lefty blogs today. In the cockeyed world of liberal blogs, all that matters is that Chavez has “proved” he’s not a dictator:

“It’s nice that some countries believe in limiting executive power. Now compare that with things like…” (Bush, the dictator)

Last time I looked, Bush wasn’t ruling by decree. Nor was the President nationalizing industries, using para-military militias to shoot and kill his opponents, close down the New York Times or CNN because of their negative coverage, or any one of a dozen “limited” powers exercised by Mr. Chavez.

“The Bushies have called Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez a dictator and a tyrant… but since when do dictators lose elections?”

Since the margin of their defeat is so big they can’t get away with vote rigging.

He’s a left wing populist with an authoritarian streak, but no matter what they say it’s “left wing populist” which makes the Villagers froth, not the authoritarian part. There are plenty of dictators around the world which get respectful treatment from our media, and the anti-Democratic authoritarian actions of our own president disturb them not at all.

An “authoritarian streak?” (See above). More like a meglomaniacal, power hungry, demagogue with a mean streak. Besides, some people like to differentiate between those who purport to be our “friends” to one degree or another (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and those who are declared enemies like guess who. That sort of real politik formulation doesn’t sit well with our moral betters on the left. But then, when one is a “leftist populist” all manner of sins are forgiven - especially if he’s an enemy of the United States.

“I would be the last to claim that Hugo Chavez is a saint, or even a politician worth emulating. But I do find it interesting that when faced with the will of the people, Bush ignored that will and Chavez bowed to it. One we are told, is a vile threat to the freedom of his nation becasue of his incessant power grabs and disdain for democratic process. The other is a great leader of men, fully committed to democracy in his home country and abroad. If I hadn’t attached names to this story, could you tell which was supposed to be which?

I’m not sure exactly how to respond to this idiocy except perhaps to say that if we had a President who governed solely by “the will of the people,” chances are pretty good we’d have all manner of interesting social and political baggage that the gentleman would no doubt find disgusting. Slavery? Perhaps not. It certainly wouldn’t have died as a result of the civil war. And Jim Crow would have died a lot later than it eventually did. Would women have the vote? Vox populi, vox dei makes for a nice campaign slogan but horrible government.

To be fair, a couple of lefties got it right. Kevin Drum:

So the constitutional changes were rejected (good); Chavez didn’t try — very hard, anyway — to rig the election (also good); and apparently he’s willing to accept the negative results (yet more good). All in all, a satisfying result so far. We’ll see what comes next.

As far as “accepting the negative results,” that’s true - today:

However, Chavez promised to continue his pursuit of the defeated proposals.

“Not a single comma of this proposal will be withdrawn,” he said, holding up a small red book containing the text of the proposed changes. “I will continue proposing this to the Venezuelan people. The proposal is alive, not dead.”

It makes one wonder whether Chavez will try another way to get these proposals enacted or whether he’ll simply wait a few months or a year and try again. He’s got more than 4 years to get the SI! vote he wants.

And Booman also analyzed the situation intelligently:

This is how things should be. I have no problem with Venezuela staking out its independence from America. But they should keep their Constitution and the balance of powers. When Chavez fulfills his term it will be time for someone else.

We can only hope.

The smug, self satisfaction, however, evident in many blog posts from the left leave little doubt that liberals will put up with a lot from an authoritarian socialist - just as long as he “speaks truth to power” by calling Bush childish names and sticks it to the rich. By doing that, he can get away with ruling by decree, attacking and intimidating his political foes, shutting down opposition media, and generally acting like a bully and a thug in the eyes of the rest of the world.

For most of my adult life, I lived away from “home” which, for the Moran clan, was first Mount Prospect and then Barrington Hills, Illinois. The two suburbs of Chicago are about 15 miles apart, 4 stops separating them on the old Northwest line of the C & NW Railroad. (My current home of Algonquin is only about 7 miles north of Barrington Hills.)

For many years, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving was a travel day for me. Living in Des Moines, Washington,D.C., and St. Louis meant airports, luggage, interminable flights, and the inevitable stress and strain that goes with travel.

All the feelings of frustration would fall away once I boarded the commuter train that would take me home. In those days, a taxi from the airport to Barrington Hills was considered an extravagance. So I would take a cab to the Des Plaines train station where a commuter would be along every 10 or 15 minutes at rush hour to pick me up for the nice, leisurely half hour trip to Barrington.

I used to love those old trains. In recent years, they redesigned the interior of the cars so that they’ve become much more sterile and unfriendly places. Back in the day, such was not the case. You could flip most of the seats so that they faced each other. People would take advantage of that by playing cards or just chatting. Many of the passengers obviously knew each other from taking the same train home for years. The atmosphere was usually festive thanks to the fact that everyone had Thanksgiving off.

But if you wanted to be alone with your thoughts, that was fine too. I’d spend the half hour looking out the window, finding familiar landmarks, and then passing through my boyhood home of Mount Prospect; seeing the familiar downtown with its familiar store names and streets. Pulling out of the station, we’d pass my old dentist’s office where old Doctor Heck treated me after the trauma of having three of my teeth knocked out by a baseball bat swung in a game by a playmate. I was all of 8 years old and the amount of blood scared me. Old Doc Heck fixed me up good, though, saving the roots so I could get fitted for false teeth.

From Mount Prospect, the train paralleled Northwest Highway. And the trip from there to Arlington Heights always brought back a flood of memories. I must have travelled from Mount Prospect to Dryden Street in Arlington Heights down Northwest Highway more than 3000 times over the years. St. Viator High School was just a couple of blocks down Dryden and between school, athletic events, and other activities I got to know every inch of that expanse.

Random memories would fire and it was quite pleasurable to allow the montage of images and feelings to present themselves for nostalgia’s sake. Every once and a while, some awful memory from high school would intrude on my reverie (everybody has them, I’m sure) but it was easy to ignore the pain that threatened to interrupt the warm flow of reminisces simply by clearing the screen in front of your mind’s eye and waiting for the next tableau to appear.

Then it was through downtown Arlington Heights out to Arlington Park racetrack - closed for the season but still a big commuter stop because of all the development that had sprouted surrounding the edifice with little office parks and tract homes dotting the landscape. And then a slightly longer trip to Palatine, still hugging Northwest Highway and still recalling other memories from high school as we passed several eateries where we used to hang out.

The trip between Palatine and Barrington was the longest. Here, civilization ended and the “country” began. The route was dark and nothing was visible except the trees on either side of the tracks. Often, there was sufficient snow on the ground that an eerie glow would light the way as the moonlight reflected off the trees.

Finally, Barrington. In those days it was at the outer reaches of the northwest suburbs, only recently graduated from a glorified “milk stop” where dairy farmers would send their product by rail to Chicago. One of my brothers or sisters would be waiting to pick me up and take me the last 3 miles to Barrington Hills and home.

Today, home is where my heart is. Both my parents are gone, the house in Barrington Hills sold. Our family is spread out all over the country - both coasts and several states in between. I wrote about the last time we got together here, a little more than two years ago. Everyone has their own lives and families, their own traditions at holiday time. It’s not like it was when we all made a supreme effort to travel to our parent’s house for the holidays. Back then, most of us didn’t have the complications of spouses or in laws or small children to get in the way of our goal of reuniting.

But that’s what memories are for. They remind us of what was once good and happy in life and hold out the promise of more to come.

James Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan, said “God gave us memory so that we might have roses in December.” In this, the December of my life, it gives me an inordinate amount of pleasure to remember those roses and that nurturing them will continue to give me joy until the day I no longer am.

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.

The Rick Moran Show will go live in just a few minutes at 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM Central time on Blog Talk Radio.

Call-in Number: (718) 664-9764

Join me as I go live one hour early and welcome some of my BTR hosts for a discussion of the upcoming GOP debate.

You can catch the stream here. A podcast will be available after the show.

UPDATE

The podcast is available at the links above or you can access it on the player below.

UPDATE II

Due to technical issues, the podcast of today’s show is unavailable.

This is the second time this has happened and I am no closer to any answers than I was before. I hear the intro so I know that I’m logged in properly. After that, I don’t have a clue why nothing records.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

I had a good time talking to Melanie Morgan and Brian Sussman of KSFO’s popular morning program out in true blue San Francisco.

We talked about the now scuttled Ahmadinejad trip to Ground Zero among other things. If you’d like to listen, you can stream or download the podcast here.