This op-ed piece is what it is: an opinion. It’s also a textbook lesson we all need to learn: when ultra conservatives are confronted with an opposing view, they immediately crank up their scream machine” to destroy the criticizer. What is enormously frightening this time is the way they’re terrorizing a 12-year old boy who dared exercise his freedom of speech about healthcare for America’s children–even going so far as to publish his phone number so he can receive threatening calls. This is a new, despicable level of degradation–even for these slime balls. But then, perhaps I am in error. Perhaps freedom of speech is now the exclusive property of ultra conservatives.

A sobering account of the right wing misinformation machine, which all-too-often replaces policy debate with character assassination.

This story is an extremely important one leading up to the 2008 election. Along with one by Eric Boehert about the "cackle," a tiny drip of information about "framing" is beginning. How exactly are stories developed, who develops these meta themes and then who pushes them? With a sigh, a laugh, a little grooming and a sly email from a .gov address, any journalist can lead an early morning "must read" list. The question then becomes should they want to or is it now more of a badge of dishonor and laziness.

" . . . only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children." How could anyone make the point any better?

There's nothing new or particularly insightful about this Krugman opinion. He lays out the background of the story well, and presents the various problem of conservative attacks, but doesn't choose on to explore fully. I also think he's not critical enough of the use of 'poster people' in political debates generally. Whether it's Terry Schiavo or this kid, using single examples to debate complex Federal policy may be problematic.

this is worth investigating...do we trust Krugman? He seems pretty hard to ignore. Like David Corn, Paul Krugman is a godsend in a ocean of reactionary apologist, who seem un-curious, looking the other way, unwilling to investigate events, or admit a mistake. He debunks the news by, agenda, loyalty and uninformed alligation.

The 'slime job' is being done by Krugman. He doesn't provide evidence (beyond his word) that any of the disputed facts about the Frosts are untrue. For instance, if the Frost's do, indeed, own a house that they paid 55K for and it's now worth (Krugman doesn't dispute this) around 400K, they could certainly have taken out a smallish equity loan and paid for insurance *before* they had huge medical bills. That is, after all, what insurance is all about. Instead, they gambled, and lost, and now they and Krugman evidently think I should help bail them out. Perhaps if I lose money on the stock market Krugman will bail me out? The Democrats got caught in this one, and Krugman the apologist is desperately trying to distract from the ... More »

Graeme Frost doesn't have anything to do with the veto - he was already covered by SCHIP would continued to have been covered if the Democrats had merely gone along with what the President requested. But they went overboard and thus got vetoed. The fact is that the Frost family has made some poor choices - and the Democrats screwed up by making a 12 year old their mouthpiece.