Rather than going after the kid and his family (an ad hominem fallacy), why not simply say, "this bill is an unaffordable expansion of entitlement spending"?

 

An ad hominem fallacy? Really? Exactly why did the Democrats put this kid in the center of this debate? Was it because he was an healthcare expert with years of experience administrating the program? Hardly!!! He's a twelve year old kid! He had two qualifications: he had benefited from the program, and he was a sympathetic figure. It is unreasonable to hold someone up as an example of why the program needs to be expanded and not expect scrutiny of the example.

 

Regardless of the scrutiny, did they attack the kid? No! They attacked the assertion that this kid's situation showed why the program needed to be expanded by billions of dollars. A program that the Democrats had repeatedly characterized as a programs for poor kids unable to pay for healthcare. It's only natural that a few eyebrows where raised when the prime example of the "poor kids healthcare program" lives in a nice house in a middle class neighborhood while attending a private school. Even though it seems that the kid legitimately qualified for the program, there was ample circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Yeah, Mitch was way out of line encouraging the press to look into the situation in detail. Everyone knows the press will print whatever Mitch tells them to print.

 

As far as Mitch's truthfulness, yes it appears that he has been caught in a lie. Not one of Mitch's best moments. He is deserving of a critical editorial in the C-J. Obviously, the C-J jumped at the chance but if this is the worst they can find I won't have a problem voting for him again.

An ad hominem fallacy? Really? Exactly why did the Democrats put this kid in the center of this debate? Was it because he was an healthcare expert with years of experience administrating the program? Hardly!!! He's a twelve year old kid! He had two qualifications: he had benefited from the program, and he was a sympathetic figure. It is unreasonable to hold someone up as an example of why the program needs to be expanded and not expect scrutiny of the example.

 

Regardless of the scrutiny, did they attack the kid? No! They attacked the assertion that this kid's situation showed why the program needed to be expanded by billions of dollars. A program that the Democrats had repeatedly characterized as a programs for poor kids unable to pay for healthcare. It's only natural that a few eyebrows where raised when the prime example of the "poor kids healthcare program" lives in a nice house in a middle class neighborhood while attending a private school. Even though it seems that the kid legitimately qualified for the program, there was ample circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Yeah, Mitch was way out of line encouraging the press to look into the situation in detail. Everyone knows the press will print whatever Mitch tells them to print.

 

As far as Mitch's truthfulness, yes it appears that he has been caught in a lie. Not one of Mitch's best moments. He is deserving of a critical editorial in the C-J. Obviously, the C-J jumped at the chance but if this is the worst they can find I won't have a problem voting for him again.

 

I guess the problem I have here is that it has become the standard Republican/conservative response to any criticism they receive to attack the person and not the underlying argument. The far right has apparently run out of ideas that can stand on their own merits--they must resort to attacking opponents as a first course of action. The information that spewed from the right-wing end of the blogosphere wasn't even accurate (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html), yet McConnell's office took off and ran with it before checking its veracity. You say, "Even though it seems that the kid legitimately qualified for the program, there was ample circumstantial evidence to the contrary." Well, maybe they should have checked their facts before they began circulating unverified crap from the internet. They were apparently so eager to smear this kid's story that they didn't bother to do this.

 

And, oh yeah, then McConnell was dishonest about his office's involvement. If questioning the legitimacy of the Frost family's story was a justifiable response as you claim (and not simply an ad hominem attack), why did McConnell see the need to lie about it?

I guess the problem I have here is that it has become the standard Republican/conservative response to any criticism they receive to attack the person and not the underlying argument. The far right has apparently run out of ideas that can stand on their own merits--they must resort to attacking opponents as a first course of action. The information that spewed from the right-wing end of the blogosphere wasn't even accurate (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html), yet McConnell's office took off and ran with it before checking its veracity. You say, "Even though it seems that the kid legitimately qualified for the program, there was ample circumstantial evidence to the contrary." Well, maybe they should have checked their facts before they began circulating unverified crap from the internet. They were apparently so eager to smear this kid's story that they didn't bother to do this.

 

And, oh yeah, then McConnell was dishonest about his office's involvement. If questioning the legitimacy of the Frost family's story was a justifiable response as you claim (and not simply an ad hominem attack), why did McConnell see the need to lie about it?

You cited a Time Magazine article having a title containing the phrase "Swift-Boating" to bolster you position and attack the "right-wing end of the blogosphere" while chastising the "Republican/conservative" types for attacking the messenger. :lol:

 

Contrary to the efforts of the mainstream media to promote the phrase "Swift Boat" as a verb, most of the claims made by John O'Neill and his fellow patriots were never refuted by anyone, nor will they ever be. There is a reason that John Kerry has still not released all of his military records to the public despite his repeated pledges to do so.

 

There are many good reasons to mistrust politicians, including Mitch McConnell, but there are equally good reasons for conservatives to question the veracity and objectivity of anything written by the ediors of either the Courier-Journal or Kentucky's other left wing rag, the Lexington Herald-Leader. Both newspapers do a pretty good job covering local sports news and both do a pretty good job of slinging mud during campaigns to promote the (mostly Democratic) candidates of their choice. Beyond that, I have found that they make decent makeshift fly swatters.

A related question...what news sources should we consider unbiased, therefore where we should look to learn the truth?

A related question...what news sources should we consider unbiased, therefore where we should look to learn the truth?

There are no news sources that we should consider unbiased. Editorials should never be mistaken as new sources - they are nothing but opinions. My rule of thumb is that if a liberal source publishes news that is critical of Democrats, then the news is credible. Ditto for a right wing source. If the facts are so undeniable that a newspaper criticizes one of its own, then I assume that I can rely on the story. Anything that is not reported in both the left wing and right wing media is suspect, IMO.

 

As far as Mitch's truthfulness, yes it appears that he has been caught in a lie. Not one of Mitch's best moments. He is deserving of a critical editorial in the C-J. Obviously, the C-J jumped at the chance but if this is the worst they can find I won't have a problem voting for him again.

 

The above is the reason for the thread.

 

The rest is simply ugly politics.

What was said about them that was a lie?

 

 

 

The lie is the implication that this family is wealthy .

 

Their kids attend a private school on scholarship.

 

The family makes about $50k per year.

 

They have 4 kids. $50k doesn't go very far.

The lie is the implication that this family is wealthy .

 

Their kids attend a private school on scholarship.

 

The family makes about $50k per year.

 

They have 4 kids. $50k doesn't go very far.

 

Who said the family was wealthy?

 

I don't know about you (or maybe I do) but a family that makes 50K doesn't need to be on public assistance as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to have 4 children then your need to be able to afford them. A friend of mine is in the same situation. He pays for family insurance through his job and they basically live on his wife's salary.

 

How many jobs does the father have? Does the wife work? Do they have access from an employer for insurance?

 

And I still maintain that knowing the political landscape today as well as the proliferation of political blogs the family is either very naive or very ill informed if they thought they would get a free pass after their son made his statement in a very politically charged environment. Or is this another example of a class of people (the 911 families for example) that can say anything they want but are immune to critical rebuttal.

H,

 

Answer two questions for me:

 

1. Was John Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968?

2. Who deserves credit for the correct answer to the first question being public knowledge?

And, oh yeah, then McConnell was dishonest about his office's involvement. If questioning the legitimacy of the Frost family's story was a justifiable response as you claim (and not simply an ad hominem attack), why did McConnell see the need to lie about it?

 

Because he knew that if he admitted any involvement at all it would be protrayed in the worst possible light in the liberal press. The use of the word "slime" in the cited C-J editorial is an example. That's an awfully inflamatory term. Remember, the original "crime" was encouraging the press to look into the families circumstances when Mitch's office thought that the charges were legitimate. I suppose Mitch will have to wait until he can prove a charge beyond a doubt before encouraging the press to look into something.

H,

 

Answer two questions for me:

 

1. Was John Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968?

2. Who deserves credit for the correct answer to the first question being public knowledge?

 

 

I'm not sure 'credit' is the proper term. The SBVT were very successful in smearing Kerry's military record, maybe that is the 'credit' that is due them in your eyes. An official review of Kerry's combat medals, conducted by the Navy Inspector General in 2004, found that proper process had been followed in their award. No members of the SBVT were present on Kerry's boat during the actions that resulted in his combat medals. So I'm not sure how the actions of SBVT materially enriched the public knowledge.

 

I continue to find it laughable, after three years, that die-hard Bush backers make reference to Kerry's decorated combat service in Vietnam with such scorn. George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard where he defended the skies of the Lone Star State from Viet Cong attack was, shall we say, undistinguished.

The SBVT were sucessful in "smearing" Kerry because at least some of their charges, the "Christmas in Cambodia" lie being a prime example, had the distinct advantage of being proven true.

 

As far as Kerry's actual service record, there is no doubt that he risked his life in defense of his country. For that he should be commened (obviously). As for if he did the things he said he did, some things yes, some things no, some things are still in dispute. Apparently the left is incapable of entertaining the idea that some facts are still in dispute, and Satan will be ice skating before they admit that in some instances the SBVT were actually right.