Home > Political Ranting > Moonbats on the March

Moonbats on the March

October 17th, 2007

Yesterday, when I suggested that right-wingers would attack the new S-CHIP poster child’s family, I didn’t expect the attack to be so quick nor so despicable. Here’s the money quote:

On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have a heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix.

The message: Bethany’s parents were irresponsible to have a baby when they couldn’t afford to pay health insurance for it–with the added innuendo, by putting “unmanageable” in quotes and not explaining why, that the mother left a better job and took a worse one because she was irresponsible. One of the details left out: the mother left the job seven years before Bethany was born. Apparently, the right path was to stay in a job you hate because sometime in the following decade you might have a kid and so need the insurance policy.

Either that, or they were irresponsible for having a child. Apparently this wingnut now feels that there should be a means test before giving birth. Presumably if people don’t have enough money for full health insurance, they should practice abstinence.

Now, most conservatives are changing tactics on this debate. No, they’re not actually debating the program itself; they’re trying to shift the smear: they say Democrats are despicable for using young children to personify the S-CHIP issue.

Hey, news flash: The S-CHIP program is intended to help young children! Exactly whom should the Democrats put forward to demonstrate the human face of the program? Or is it that children may never be shown when we are trying to help them? It has already been well-established that Bush, like just about every other politician in known history, has used kids for political photo ops before. So, apparently, right-wingers only object to Democrats doing this–either that, or they were unaware that kids were ever glimpsed in political campaigns before.

1007-Bushkids 1007-Bushbaby

The wingnuts apparently don’t know when to give up….

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. Tim Kane
    October 17th, 2007 at 14:15 | #1

    The problems with republicans is that they emphasize means over ends when it comes to policy. By means, we are talking about ideology. The antithesis of ideology is pragmatism, or more accurately, common sense. Pragmatism in the extreme takes one to hypocracy. Ideology in the extreme takes one to absurdity that offends all sense, common and not.

    Look at the absurdities the conservative/republicans ideology is taking them.

    Basically, the republicans are putting a price tage on love, and its by-product, life. If you don’t have money to pay for off spring, don’t fall in love, because, as conservative Catholics will tell you, the purpose of love is reproduction. (their argument, not mine).

    The party of pro-life is the party of pro-profit. And when push comes to shove, profit wins every time. By profit, I mean banality. By banality, I mean evil. Things like Life, love, meaning, they’re pikers.

    Trillions are spent for a worthless war that contributes no strategic or tactical value, causing nothing but death, disease, displacement, injuries and resentment. Nothing for health care that helps avoid death, disease, displacement, injury and resentment – even for children.

    …Proving once and for all, that compassionate conservative is an oxymoron.

    They have an almost seamless wall of media and corporate marketing expertise to push their agenda upon the public. But at some point, it’s going to collapse on itself – and possibly the nation, possibly the world with it.

    I believe the Chinese say, that which is unsustainable will not be sustained.

    I am starting to feel like we are in the twilight years of the Roman Empire. Something, from within or without will cause the collapse of a system or society that doesn’t care to sustain itself.

  2. October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 | #2

    Perhaps one needs to remember that most conservatives see children as property, to be owned and possessed, like their houses and cars. If one isn’t wealthy enough, they believe, to pay full price outright for a new, uh, Lexus, then one doesn’t deserve to own one.

Comments are closed.