Today's headline immediately strikes one as curious: Veto Threat Angers Republicans
Bush never vetoed their legislation when they were in the Majority, so what possibly could he veto now to get their dander up?
Chuckie Grassley of Iowa was not happy with Bush's threatened veto over the compromise legislation:
I'm disappointed by the president's comments," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who urged Bush, in an early-morning telephone conversation yesterday, to support the emerging bipartisan compromise. "Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn't constructive. . . . I wish he would engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto."
Earlier, Chuck had called Bush, well, an uninformed fool:
After hearing Bush say Thursday that he was going to veto the bill in part because it would allow families of four making $80,000 to place their children on the the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Grassley blasted the president, saying his assertion was dead wrong.
"The president has been served wrong information about what our bill will do," Grassley said Thursday between Senate votes. "There's nothing in our bill that would do that. His understanding of the bill was wrong."
Gordon Smith, doing his best Democrat impersonation:
"I'm very, very disappointed," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I'm going to be voting for it."
Orrin Hatch agrees with Chuck Grassley:
Asked whether he would vote to override a veto, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a staunch conservative, said, "You bet your sweet bippy I will."
Hatch, who helped negotiate the compromise, said it is flatly untrue that the bill would cover children in households with incomes of as much as $83,000. A recent Urban Institute analysis found that 70 percent of the children who would gain or retain coverage under the Senate bill, which resembles the compromise, are in households with incomes below twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
"We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage," Hatch said. "I think the president's had some pretty bad advice on this."
(And no, I don't know what a 'bippy' is.)
Representative Ray Lahood decides to play pundit, and talks up the benefit of rejecting Bush's obstructionism:
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said he is trying to get 20 to 30 House Republicans to vote for the compromise -- enough, he hopes, to persuade Bush to reconsider.
"I'm optimistic we can get a significant number of Republicans," LaHood said. "It'll be a good vote for them. They can go back home and try to assuage the feelings of their constituents who have heartburn about their views on the war or other things. And it shows that, if they feel strongly about something, they are willing to stand up to the president and tell him."
But Bush is playing to the true Republican base (forget the anti-abortion crowd):
The White House contends that the president is trying rein in a program that has strayed from its original mission. Since 2001, the administration has granted several states permission to expand eligibility by raising their income ceilings to as high as $72,225 for a family of four and allowing about 600,000 adults to enroll. But many low-income children are still not enrolled, and now the White House wants states to focus on them, an effort administration strategists think will win Bush support among fiscal conservatives and free-market purists.
Of course, John Boehner is a beacon of dishonesty and cowardice:
"Time is running out for the SCHIP program, and yet the majority seems intent on putting politics before the needs of low-income children," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
Come on John. This is truly a 'small price' to pay for providing health care to our children.
Comments are closed on this story.