I am sure that everyone already knows that President Bush has threatened to vetoed a bill that would provide 60 billion in medical care for poor children over the next 5 years. His motives are clear, he hates babies and loves war. So lets stop juxtaposing his unsurprising unwillingness to expand government's involvement in health care (which is something he and the Republican party have been against for as long as I can remember) to his eagerness to fund the reconstruction effort for the aftermath of the war he led us (and I mean all of us) into. Lets move on already and talk about something interesting, such as the politics behind the timing of the "bipartisan" bill's proposal to save the babies.
Hillary and the Democrats have known that Bush would be asking for more money for Iraq since they put their benchmarks in place months ago. So when Hillary went on her talk show circuit last weekend pushing her health care plan and when the Democrats fabricated their bill in such a way that they knew Bush would veto it what were their motives? Were they trying to save babies, or did they just want to be able to say that Bush only wants to fund the killing of babies abroad and not the saving of babies at home? Possibly both, but probably much more the latter. Not that there is anything wrong with being strategic, but lets see it for what it is. If the Democrats really wanted to help, they would have worked with the White House to produce a bill that was truly bipartisan. But they didn’t. Instead they got a handful of Republics, not nearly enough to over rule a veto, to sign on to a bill they know won’t pass and call it bipartisan. Then, when threatened with a veto, they exploit 12 year old Graeme Frost (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/washington/29health.html?ref=policy) by having him give the Democratic response to President Bush’s radio address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070929.html). This isn’t about the war or health care, it’s about campaigning. So stop talking about the war and health care!
2 comments:
I tend to distrust all major legislation that is cooked up during an election year for precisely this reason. It is designed specifically to politicize an issue in order to use it against the opposition.
With that said, you have to admit that S-CHIP was a brilliant strategy on the part of the Dems. Of course they knew that Bush would veto it, so it would produce headlines like "Bush Vetos Child Health Care Bill" that would make Republicans cringe and provide excellent fodder for election ads.
Now the fact that the Dems will likely pass it with veto-proof majorities is like a Democratic wet dream. If Bush vetoes the bill and Congress issues their first override of his Presidency, it will be humiliating and even more disastrous for the GOP candidates running for President.
The S-CHIP I am familiar with was created by Clinton in 1997 so I assume the brilliance your referring to rests in the changes that the Democrats have recently made to it in this bill. To be honest, I haven't actually read the bill (don't laugh, I bet most of our reps haven't either!). All I know is that the bill doesn't satisfy Bush or enough republicans to pass. Do you have a link to a synopsis of the changes so I may comment on there brilliance, or lack there of.
Post a Comment