There’s one undeniable truth in the universe– professional politicians will do anything to get themselves elected/reelected. It’s despicable. Michelle Malkin has some truly depraved examples of exploiting children for political expediency.
What I find the most disturbing is the exploitation of children. Whenever a politician wants something– wants it real bad– they’ll trot out a few kids and say what they are doing is “for the children.” So if you vote against the bill, guess what? You voted against the children! You heartless bastard!
Are you really voting against the children? Probably not. What this tactic does is it plays directly to your emotions. I love my kids, and don’t want them hurt. I know that there are many parents out there who feel the same way. So when I hear about tragedies befalling the most innocent members of our society, I immediately empathize. It’s a natural response. But it’s also natural for feelings to override reason and analytical thinking, so the entire thrust of these ads is to disconnect you from your capability for rational thought.
So now think about it. If someone is using advertising to consciously rouse you into an emotional state, then it’s clear that there’s an alterior motive. It’s all misdirection.
That’s what we’re seeing with the S-CHIP legislation. Democrats wanted to pass a bill that would get health care to all children in the United States. Wow. What a great bill! Who could possibly be against it?
Oh, the Bu$$$hitler. He just vetoed it because he hates kids. One of his has just gotten engaged, and the other’s on a book tour! He’s probably all bent out of shape and he’s taking out his frustrations on your children! I can see why the left hates him. If he hates kids, then he’s a monster.
Or is he? The key is that S-CHIP was put into place in 1997, and it was the “little Hillarycare” at the time. It costs $40 billion a year to run, and Congress wanted an additional $35 billion for it, and Bush vetoed it.
This SCHIP plan is nothing but creeping socialism. Hillary’s already talking about a new national health plan that requires health insurance (it’s got some serious flaws, but at least it’s not mandating government health care for all).
In all of these plans, we fail to ask ourselves the all important questions. Is this something the government should be doing? (There’s about 60% of all government programs that doesn’t fall into that category.) Does handing something over to the government for management ever make something run efficiently? And, most importantly, no children are turned away from routine medical examinations. Free clinics do this all the time. So why do we need this?
Is this really for the kids? Or is it for some kids? Or is it more of a political trick?
Beware someone reaching to pluck your heartstrings. They may have something else in mind.