Gillespie is indeed a partisan hack, but I’d give anyone a pass on that who was the party chairman. I mean, they pretty much have to be hacks, don’t they? And Gillespie is head and shoulders above that used car salesman who came after him-- Ken Mehlman. Hearing that guy talk always made me want to make sure I had may hand on my wallet.
Yeah, without at least an occasional tuning in to NPR it would be easy to forget that interviews are, you know, supposed to be like that.
The follow-up question seems to be a dying art. While her show isn’t strictly political, I enjoy Terri Gross’s interviews in large part because she’s frequently perceptive enough to realize “hey, this person just said something odd, unclear, or simply interesting enough that we should explore it further, and not just drive on to the next question on my list.”
It was the part about adults being kicked off, demonstrating that Gillespie’s primary argument for the veto wasn’t even remotely true.
What’s an S-Chip?
That was his “primary” argument? Also note that the adults being kicked off part was the one thing he said he wasn’t completely sure about. He said something like:
I’ll have to check, but I don’t think the bill does that [kick adults off]
I haven’t read the bill, but I’d bet that they are both right. The bill probably does have some language to kick adults off, but there is probably some loophole to let at least some of them stay on. From wikipedia (emphasis added):
Frankly, I don’t want to slog through the language of the legislation itself, but if you want to do so to back up your claim, I’d be interested to see what you come up with.
I have no intention of slogging through such verbal tedia, but am willing to allow you to do so, so long as my argument stands as correct until you do.
The OP made the original argument, which he has failed to back up. I’m suggesting that there is more to this than meets the eye (ear, in this case, since it was an audio file), as noted in the wikipedia article. I think that cite is sufficient to indicate that I am correct.
Of course it all boils down to a subjective evaluation of what it means to nail someone anyway. If this is the OP’s, or your, idea of what that means, then run with it.
State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Bush vetoed legislation that would have funded and expanded it, and instead offers a plan that reduces the number of children covered. (Whatever happened to ‘no child left behind’?)
Sure, if by “children” you mean offspring still living at home and up to 25 years old…
That’s why I stopped listening and supporting NPR - because they WEREN’T doing that. If you say they are doing so now, I cannot argue against that, but they certainly haven’t been good examples of “hard hitting” interviews over the past decade. Siegel might, on occasion, ask a “Wait a minute” question, but all the interviewee has to do is repeat what they said and he’ll move on.
They may seem hard hitting compared to the rest of the media, but then again, so does my grandmother, so that’s not saying much.
Heh.
(Paraphrasing)
Siegel: Doesn’t the bill kick off adults and move them into Medicaid?
Gillespie: Yes . . . uh, na-No! That’s why the president vetoed it - he wants a different bill that will move adults into Medicaid.
(later)
Siegel: We looked at the language of the bill, and it does kick off adults and move them into Medicaid.
(To be fair, the vetoed bill doesn’t oust parents of kids in the program right away, but reduces their benefits over time, which Siegel noted as well.)
ETA: Hentor, I’ve heard some of each from NPR. They are definitely better than privately owned broadcast media.
Hey, didn’t the Bush administration give some serious shit to a BBC reporter for gasp actually interviewing Bush and not lobbing softballs a few years back?
Actually, as far as I can tell, that’s not an uncommon definition of “children” when it comes to health insurance. My mother’s insurance covered me as long as I was both a) under 25 and b) a full-time student.
I thought she was from an Irish paper or station.
In any case, I listen to some BBC on my local NPR station, and I love how the reporters interview PMs and Foreign Ministers of lots of countries, ask hard questions, and don’t take no gruff. Perhaps it’s a leftover from the Empire, but we can sure use a lot more of that kind of attitude in the States.
Sorry my real life often takes up the time I could be using to point out what was clear as day (to me, and perhaps most sentient life) when I heard the story last week.
Basically, Siegel and Gillespie were going back and forth on what the vetoed bill would do. Siegel trying to figure out the truth, and Gillespie trying to spin. They agreed to disagree, and mentioned that follow up was in order. Siegel did indeed follow up, and proved Gillespie wrong. I might speculate that he knew he was lying, and I would be surprised if he weren’t.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter- the program is what, $35B over 5 years? Close to what we’re dropping per month in Iraq/Afg? (too lazy to cite- fuck you, it’s the Pit. In GD, I’d take the time, yadayadayada). Proves to me that not only is Georgie Porgie a brainless, coke-addled, dry drunk fuck, but a heartless one, too.
I’d put Charlie ahead of Tom, and PJ rounds out the only five panelists that should ever be included.
According to the wikipedia article I linked to, it doesn’t. At least not completely. But if you’d like to quote the section from the bill that supports your claim, I’d be interested in seeing it.
I won’t defend spending on the Iraq War, but reasonable people can disagree about the SCHIP program, and how best to change it. As for Bush being a dry drunk, well that sounds like a lot of spin on your part. 