Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Michelle Malkin, Others on Right, Try to Intimidate Kid!

See the shocking, nasty details here. Malkin, Limbaugh and others have attacked the 12 year old boy, just out of a coma, that Democrats used to show the importance of S-CHIP.  Malkin may be guilty of stalking by peering in the kids home. Several of these radio shock jocks and bloggers have given the family’s address out on the air and there have been death threats!  These are the lengths that rightwing nut-jobs like Malkin will go in order to stop something like S-CHIP that has been proven to work, save money, and is supported by 73% of the U.S., including 63% of the GOP.   The family address and other details  used in this harassment campaign seem to have come from staffers of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).The politics of mean strikes again.  The FBI and justice department should be investigating and, where appropriate, pressing charges.


October 10, 2007 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. the main complaint I’ve seen, is that it offers aid to those who don’t need it (like me). A cut-off defining less than $83k per year as candidates for aid is daft. If the sponsors of this bill used a reasonable method for means testing, it would pass without question.

    Pushing the limit so high is just a way of backing into socialized medicine.

    Calling it mean is, uncharitable on your part.

    Comment by Mark Olson | October 10, 2007

  2. That 83K figure is a bogus one, Mark. And what I called mean, as can be seen by the link, is what Michelle Malken and company did to the poor kid who just got out of a coma.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 10, 2007

  3. “Common Sense” (laugh laugh) undermines its own point. People who live in a $400,000 house are not the working poor. For some reason, Democrats think that they can shamelessly drag children into the debate, but anyone who responds to their ploy is “mean-spirited.”

    Comment by James Pate | October 11, 2007

  4. Who is living in a $400,000 house? This family’s children are on scholarship and received money in a SETTLEMENT from the accident. Their father still cannot work.

    And attacking Pelosi or Reid for “using kids” (which Republicans do all the time) would be one thing. Publishing the family’s address and phone so that they can receive death threats, Michelle Malkin stalking their house,–these are quite another. They are criminal acts.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2007

  5. I’m against death threats, let me make that clear. But I’m not against the type of investigative reporting that I’m reading on Michelle Malkin’s blog. If the Democrats are going to use a kid to say that policies should go in a certain direction, then the other side should have the right to probe the financial situation of the kid’s family. I mean, that’s the question at hand: Do certain families actually need the SCHIP expansion. The Democrats believe that this kid does, and the Republicans have a right to show that the opposite is the case. The Democrats seem to think that they can use a kid to stop all debate.

    By the way, you have portrayed opposition to the SCHIP expansion as the work of right-wing extremists and not mainstream Republicans. Well, guess who called my home today urging me to oppose the SCHIP expansion? The U.S Chamber of Commerce. I don’t think that you can get more mainstream than that. And the call is odd, if business people are becoming Democrats, as your other post argues.

    Comment by James Pate | October 12, 2007

  6. Hey, Byron, here, who, as a fellow pacifist asked about the honest of characterizing writers in First Things as extremists and far right wingers.

    Now I see you seem to be fudging the facts, again. I have campaigned for an expansion of SCIPS. But I think it is untrue to say that the conservatives are trying to “stop something.” They oppose expanding the program, which is what the debate is about, not about stopping it. Just like when we fought for the expansion of WIC, say. Those who opposed the expansion were mis-characterized as opposing WIC, when it was a question of whether or not they believed the program was adequate as it was. I am not agreeing with their disturbing refusal, but even Jim Wallis’ moving piece at the Sojo blog I felt was just dishonest to the debate.

    And did you have to call MM a “nut job.” Geesh. Is this what Christian peacemaking has come to??

    I’ve followed the links, by the way, and most are contesting the facts about the families need. The Dems choose to pull at our heart strings by putting this particular human face on the debate. Now the other sides wants to make sure the Dems were being honest. I am not sure why this is necessarily considered an attack on the kid, intimidating, nasty or any of the other huffy stuff you said. Giving out the home number, etc, is terrible, and ought to be opposed. But for one side to study up on the facts the other side put out, well, I say, let the truth come out. And be charitable towards all, even as we are suspicious of the corrupting influence of power. Do you disagree??

    Comment by Byron Borger | October 14, 2007

  7. Well, Byron, I did say that GOP leaders were trying to stop the expansion of S-CHIP in a different post. I pointed out that, due to inflation, this would have the effect of cutting many currently on the rolls.

    But Limbaugh, Malkin, etc. are NOT trying just to stop S-CHIP expansion. They have made little secret of the fact that they want the program gone.

    I was harsh in calling Malkin a “nut job,” but the woman actually tried to stalk this family and peer in their windows!

    I disagree with the characterization that they were only trying to check facts: They got the facts wrong: They claimed this family lived in a $400,000 house when they bought the house for $50,000 when it was a much poorer neighborhood. They claimed the family was rich enough to afford private schools–the kids are on scholarships. The father is unable to work because of injuries. The family was not able to afford insurance before and then couldn’t buy it at any price after the “preexisting condition.” It was the Right, not me, who got their facts wrong. These were exactly the kinds of families S-CHIP was designed to help.

    But Roger, what I called intimidating, nasty, etc. was NOT checking to see if the Dems got their facts right. THAT’S fair game. Peering in windows, posting the address and phone number of the family on your blogs (an address and phone number apparently supplied by staffers in Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office!), and, in Limbaugh’s case, over the air. THAT’S bad–and it has led to the family receiving death threats, nasty phone calls, people following them, etc. You know, Byron, that whether it is rightwing radio or leftwing (in the few cases that exist of leftwing talk radio) that some listeners are not right in the head. For a radio personality to post a private residence on a blog or give it over the air opens them up to dangers from real crazies–and it may even be criminal.

    It was THAT which I called a nasty intimidation campaign.

    Even if the Dems had screwed up and used the wrong family in trying to put a human face on S-CHIP, the rebuttals should have been on Pelosi and Reid (who can take it), not on the kid who just got out of a coma.

    So, while my tone with Malkin may have been harsh, I stand by the bulk of what I said here, Byron.

    I was angry. I remain angry. I am angry that the Right gets away with smears on everyone from fmr. Sen. Max Cleland to soldiers connected with VoteVets.com, but that any attempt to call them to account is called uncharitable.

    Thanks for worrying about the state of my soul (seriously). And for standing up for fair discourse. We continue to disagree on this one, though. You and Frank Beckwith were on firmer ground in calling to repent about my characterizations of Keith Pavlischek in a different post.

    Feel free to stop by any time, friend–whether we agree or not.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 14, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: