« It's Not About Virtue. It's Not About Principle. | Main | Let's Debate »
October 09, 2007
Ashley's Story
The Right's current defense is that the Democrats are hiding behind children. That the kid was fair game because he was used for political purposes. Malkin says, "If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage." In comments, TLB says, "I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all?" So here's a question: Anyone remember Ashley's Story?
And here's another question: Does anyone remember DailyKos launching a feeding frenzy trying to smear or discredit Ashley? Anyone hear of Markos Moulitsas camping out outside her house to see if Ashley was really grieving? His readers interviewing her teachers to see if her academic performance had actually improved as a result of the President's hug? Did any of that happen? Or did the Left raise some questions about the political appropriateness of the ad without trying to destroy the family's name and reputation?
There's a difference here. And it's not in which side elevates sympathetic stories and individuals into the public eye. They both do that. It's in how low the other side stoops in response.
October 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Though I wish there were not, I'm sure there are clowns out there who read about this stuff and then decry the "bitter partisanship" of the left and the right. Uh, no. There's a difference, thank you very much.
Posted by: Xanthippas | Oct 9, 2007 6:33:56 PM
There is a difference, you're right. It's fine to criticize the commercial; fine even to go on Hardball or Fox News or whatever and complain about how democrats are hiding behind children and cynically using them to advance their politics. The Right is, well, right when they do that. All fair. But that doesn't give them the right to invade these people's lives.
Posted by: MMGood | Oct 9, 2007 6:41:20 PM
Here's one example of those on the left engaging in, er, "direct action":
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200404/ai_n9357403
And, here's one threat involving kids. Note that the group in question not only receives public funding, they're protected by the WaPo and the local Democratic politicians.
But, enough of the tu quoque.
While I don't support overly-intrusive activities, the Dems should have realized that their plan of trotting out a 12-year-old might be looked into. Not all of the coverage available meets the low accept-anything-at-face-value standards of the Baltimore Sun.
Perhaps they did realize that and they also realized that something like the current situation might result. Perhaps Ezra might consider turning just a wee bit of his anger towards whoever came up with the scheme in the first place. And, perhaps he might consider suggesting that the Democratic Party takes the high road and stops using children as foils.
Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 7:08:11 PM
one side effect of lying a lot is that you get hyper-vigilant about other people stretching the truth.
one reason the right wing noise machine works so hard to discredit its critics and opponents is that those on the inside know how far their own poster child stories are from the truth.
once you've defended the party line for jessica lynch, pat tillman, the swift boat vets, and the war against christmas, imagine how shocked you'd be if a struggling middle class kid who's relying on a social assistance program *is actually* a struggling middle class kid who's relying on a social assistance program.
Posted by: p m | Oct 9, 2007 7:14:14 PM
Perhaps they did realize that and they also realized that something like the current situation might result. Perhaps Ezra might consider turning just a wee bit of his anger towards whoever came up with the scheme in the first place. And, perhaps he might consider suggesting that the Democratic Party takes the high road and stops using children as foils.
Go fuck yourself, moron.
Get back to me when you can find a quote from a wingnut--*ANY* wingnut--that has unconditionally defended this family.
Never mind the thirty zillion instances where the Republicans have used "children as foils". You know, all those times where you so bravely criticized them for doing so? Oh, wait...yeah. I remember you doing *exactly that*.
Go fuck yourself, moron.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 9, 2007 7:27:07 PM
I'm sure there are clowns out there who read about this stuff and then decry the "bitter partisanship" of the left and the right.
Not quite, but close, is Karen Tumulty on the Time blog with a post saying the following:
This, apparently, is what passes for a policy debate these days.
Which links to an ABC news story that uncritically delivers the "he said/she said" story as presented on the one hand by a Freeper dude and an editor from the wingnut Washington Examiner and on the other by Harry Reid's press secretary. Tumulty updates her post later with a link to a Think Progress report that presents a more detailed picture of the crap-flinging behavior of the wingnuts Steyn, Malkin, et al. But, both she and the ABC reporter, Rick Klein, take the typical dimwit MSM stance of "Oh look, the wingnuts are out to destroy an innocent family. Isn't that interesting. I guess there's two sides to this story...." The title of her piece: "Graeme Frost: Swift-Boating a Seventh Grader" Does Karen or Klein have an opinion on the morality of political operatives ridiculing a family that's faced a lot of misfortune? Of course not. I'm betting there will be an AP wire story in the next day or two about the "controversial Frost family, who critics say don't deserve subsidized health care because they live in a home worth several hundred thousand dollars." Just wait. It'll happen.
Posted by: pinson | Oct 9, 2007 7:28:20 PM
There is a difference here... but I think one thing to realize too is that there's a different use of a kid for political gain here; the most analagous thing to Ashley is maybe the 9/11 widows and Ann Coulter, and that, too, is complicated by the wives being more outspoken on other issues and 9/11. I'm not suggesting that all of the craziness that's followed Graeme Frost's radio address is appropriate; however, and I said this back when Michael Fox was campaigning in Missouri, this setup of "unassailable victims" is problematic. If we are supposed to feel bad for Graeme Frost because he's a victim, that's fine; but having it all ways - in which his insurance status and his care is part of a political debate, but we can't ask questions about the particulars of his case is... a hard line to draw. Ashley's basically saying "gee I felt bad about losing my Mom and President Bush gave me a hug."... which leads to me ask, what would we investigate? The problem with the Ashley ad is the bigger problem with both of Bush's campaigns - in which the willingness to hug people somehow substitutes for discussing policy. And the problem with that isn't Ashley, God love her. I want to hug her and grieve for her loss. But there isn't one substantive thing in that ad. And in that, really, there's a difference. And we should face that.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 9, 2007 7:33:11 PM
Tu quoque? You found a community action group based in Chicago that organizes pressure campaigns. In the other, you have an organization threatening to picket outside schools -- no smearing of families, nothing of the sort. And none of it by national Democrats, or drivers of opinion on the left. Come back when you've got something real and comparable. Until then, don't pretend that you do.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 9, 2007 7:33:28 PM
And, perhaps he might consider suggesting that the Democratic Party takes the high road and stops using children as foils.
Or in other words, stop putting human faces on very real problems. And honestly we should know better, for when the right-wing is confronted with unassailable moral authority, they will respond by attacking the patriotism/integrity/sanity of source of the moral authority, even if it's a child and his family. Yes you're right, bad on us for helping people on the right prove that they're in fact crazy.
Posted by: Xanthippas | Oct 9, 2007 7:35:59 PM
Among Republicans and their media operatives, there are no principles, there are no ethics, there are only tactics and outcomes. In public exchanges with these people, it's essential not just to point out the hypocrisy but to explain the tactics to those who might mistake them for principled opinions.
Posted by: allbetsareoff | Oct 9, 2007 7:39:45 PM
TLB: OH, now I get it. One group representative says something which is quoted incorrectly and out of context by another group which is itself distasteful, already engaged in distasteful tactics - then it's fair game for anyone? The group in question, Casa de Maryland, have not so far stalked anyone. Perhaps they are sick of the games that are being played out daily - who knows. The point is, this is not about the Casa De Maryland. It is about Malkin, who stalked an American family to only report on one aspect and skew opinion to her way of thinking so she could make more money - and don't kid yourself, she is in this for the money, nothing else.
And bud, if they receive public funding, guess who's in charge of that public funding these last seven years. Perhaps they still receive public funding because they are being set up as a Judas goat, but more likely, because they are harmless and are doing some good, and they qualify under stringent federal rules? Gosh, if only we could have one country that had nothing other than Stepford people.
What Malkin and Riehl etc did was deplorable. It doesn't matter what party they belong to, it is a blueprint for the type of people they truly are...and I don't want to live anywhere near them ever.
Posted by: HCT | Oct 9, 2007 7:41:28 PM
What about The Decider using snowflake babies as props when he vetoed the Stem Cell bill?
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 9, 2007 7:46:36 PM
Why didn't the Dems check the family's backround before trotting the kid out there? This seems to be a problem for them. They want a story to be true so bad, that they just run with it without vetting.
Kind of like Jesse Macbeth. How dare anyone look into the backround of a US soldier fighting for his country who happens to disagree with George Bush.
Posted by: abg | Oct 9, 2007 7:49:07 PM
There is no floor or bedrock below which the GOP would refuse to or try to go on issue avoidance by personal attack. They have no shame, no sense of balance, and no recall of their own acts.
For a political party that has a healthy percentage of religion-based adherents, it is truly strange that the GOP has amended the ten commandments to airbrush out the part about lie-telling - with no kickback from their 'base'. And the golden rule is now the lead rule for them - with the expected effects of lead poisoning on the brain. The Lead Rule: Do onto others as you would if you didn't give a crap about anything but Power.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 9, 2007 7:50:08 PM
"It's in how low the other side stoops in response."
Yes. They stoop so low as to say that conservatives really could not care less if children die just so long as they get their campaign contributions and their fat cat friends get richer.
Posted by: ostap | Oct 9, 2007 7:52:18 PM
ABG wrote: Why didn't the Dems check the family's backround before trotting the kid out there?
Is this a joke? Cuz the family's background is legit. It's exactly as it was represented. What's your point, dude?
Posted by: MMGood | Oct 9, 2007 8:22:09 PM
Oh I remember it well. I personally saw several liberals raise an eyebrow! It was disgusting. I sure the poor girl was scarred for life.
Posted by: justawriter | Oct 9, 2007 8:30:57 PM
The actions of some the right are beginning to take on a distinctly "Lord of the Flies" feel. They're moving beyond mere "shrillness" or "bullying" into creepy territory. A feral pack of children in adult bodies hunting "the other" and smiling bloody chimpanzee smiles at the misery they can bring to the lives of their victims.
Posted by: Cuzco | Oct 9, 2007 9:15:25 PM
Trashing a 12 year old or dealing with this:
A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.
Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
http://www.attytood.com/2007/10/betrayal_how_bushs_iraq_politi.html
Posted by: owlbear1 | Oct 9, 2007 9:36:59 PM
Ezra Klein says: you have an organization threatening to picket outside schools -- no smearing of families, nothing of the sort.
I have to think it's a fake Ezra Klein that says that, either that Ezra is really far gone.
The group in question wanted to picket outside the schools of members of an opposition group, and there's an excellent chance they would have called the members of that opposition group the vilest names possible: racist, etc.
Meanwhile, the kids inside the school would be seeing their parents called racists, and their schoolmates would see that as well.
And, Ezra Klein says that's not smearing?
He's letting his support for illegal immigration get in the way of what few thinking abilities he has.
Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 9:59:46 PM
TLB wrote"excellent chance they would have called . . . kids inside the school would be seeing . . . And, Ezra Klein says that's not smearing?"
Well, no. It _would_ be smearing if it happened. Didn't happen. But, just for you, I'm _hypothetically_ outraged!
Posted by: MMGood | Oct 9, 2007 10:19:25 PM
and I said this back when Michael Fox was campaigning in Missouri, this setup of "unassailable victims" is problematic. If we are supposed to feel bad for Graeme Frost because he's a victim, that's fine; but having it all ways - in which his insurance status and his care is part of a political debate, but we can't ask questions about the particulars of his case is... a hard line to draw.
weboy, are you an idiot, or are you simply disingenuous? Michael J. Fox was not an "unassailable victim". His advocacy of stem cell research did not mean that you couldn't question of the substance of his position. But if you think it's unfair that you can't mock his disease and accuse him of deliberately altering his medication cycle because he's a sad case, well, you've got serious problems when it comes to human decency.
And you're not supposed to feel sorry for Graeme Frost. He's not a victim. He's a success story. You're supposed to see him as someone who was helped by this program. And if you still disagree with SCHIP, argue the merits. Maybe say "it worked like it was supposed to, and therefore doesn't need expansion." But you're also not supposed to stalk his family and his parents' co-workers. You're not supposed to accuse him and his family of lying with no evidence whatsoever. And if it disappoints you that you feel bad about attacking a little kid, well, tough shit. People should feel bad about attacking a little kid. People weren't "asking questions". They were making all kinds of innuendo and generally talking out of their ass. They were essentially accusing them of fraud.
In other words, in weboy-speak, apparently an "unassailable victim" = someone polite society says it's wrong to make fun of and call a liar without evidence. Ah, poor, poor weboy.
What a dick.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 9, 2007 10:22:00 PM
Hey that ad is pretty freaking good!
Posted by: Korha | Oct 9, 2007 10:56:06 PM
I have long known that I choose to air perspectives that don't necessarily fit the prevailing worldview and I wouldn't say things that I say were I not prepared to take heat for them; and that said, I think "what a dick" was unnecessary. I am not - as I said - remotely defending most of what has happened to Graeme Frost and his family. I think a lot of stupid, uninformed things have been said, and yes, much of it was unnecessary. And I am entirely in favor of S-CHIP expansion, which is something I've also said, repeatedly.
However, I'm standing by two things - first, the attempt to parallel Frost and this ad about Ashley is something that I think doesn't have equivalence and does not, as Ezra says, prove that liberals do not do what conservatives do. There may be a more exact parallel, but this isn't it. Second, I continue to think that there are reasonable questions to ask about the Frost's case in order to understand their need for S-CHIP, and I think that's the nature of becoming a part of a political debate. It's not pretty, it's not nice, and indeed, it can get very ugly and mean. Which, I'd tend to say, is why many 12 year olds, and their parents, might think twice about doing it.
And yes, I think our culture is all too susceptible to the attractions of presenting attractive "unassailable victims" - including, in the stem-cell debate, Michael Fox - as a way to short circuit a certain sort of debate, and influence public sympathy for a cause - something that Ashley, in that ad up there, is meant to do as well, and which I'm also not in favor of. I agree with you Seitz, the debate on S-CHIP ought to be on the merits, because on the merits, we're right and they are really, really wrong. But if you want that debate, I just think it might be worth doing it without involving the 12 year old and his family in a way that leads to this. I know it's not the popular thing to say, certainly not everyone's or even anyone else's view, and I don't expect to be liked for it. I don't mean to be a dick about it; it's just an alternative view.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 9, 2007 11:06:13 PM
Why didn't the Dems check the family's backround before trotting the kid out there? This seems to be a problem for them.
Your concern is noted. Of course, had the family's background involved a birth in a stable and a mysterious conception, the Malkins and Kellys would be talking about the welfare bastard, slut mother and deadbeat dad.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 9, 2007 11:24:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
