See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Health Care BS
2. QT Monster's Place

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pm, Defector01 said:

   that’s what the Dems in congress do best

2. #2
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm, Bob's Kid said:

   What else do they have? Certainly nothing of substance.

3. #3
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm, MissMarciLyn said:

   It’s about frggin’ time!!

   This type of information reminds me why I voted for President Bush in the first (and, for that matter, second) place!

4. #4
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm, feebiebabe said:

   tough talk is back…hope he continues.

5. #5
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   It’s about frggin’ time!!

   This type of information reminds me why I voted for President Bush in the first (and, for that matter, second) place!

   Second that.

   Now, Mr. President, about shame-nasty.

6. #6
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm, ajmontana said:

   Wasting alot of peoples time.

7. #7
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pm, Spare Change said:

   It is clear that the Democrats think they can score political points by making the President repeatedly veto legislation “for the children”, and potentially prep the battlefield for future government health-care battles by swaying public opinion on the subject now.

   What they may have overlooked is that more Americans than they expected are actually reading, thinking, and deciding rather than merely reacting to images and slogans. For the sound-byte Democrats of our current era, such forethought on the part of voters could be very dangerous, indeed.

   Put your money on Bush’s approval ratings going up, not down.

8. #8
   On October 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm, yohannbiimu said:

   I wish that Dub’yuh had realized that they were wasting our time from the very beginning. If he hadn’t tried to play nicey-nice with Teddy Kennedy and Hillary, and essentially ignored his core constituents, we wouldn’t even be having this stupid argument in the first place.

   The Republican Party is filled with a bunch of weak-kneed, lilly-livered puss-wusses. Dub’yuh’s efforts to stop these idiotic socialists from cramming their dim-witted ideas on us may be too late. He’s been saying “yes” so often to the left that all they can say is that he’s saying “no” now because of political reasons.

   I’m glad Bush is vetoing these stupid bills, but these Republicans-In-Name-Only and otherwise conservatives who run scared whenever their faced with an issue that might require a fight have me furious with the conservatives in Washington, DC. Their stupidity and lack of spine may be all that it takes to put a criminally subversive witch back in the White House.

9. #9
   On October 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pm, fred5676 said:

   President Bush and Republicans in Congress need to present FACTS (via a simple chart?) every time they speak on this issue to show what the Dem’s S-CHIP version does versus their own desired goals.

   Without comparative facts, Dems will win points on the “It’s for the CHIIIIILDREN” campaign. Without comparing facts, it’s just a “he said, she said” meaningless argument.

10. #10
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pm, lgm said:

    Bush pushed through the drug benefit, which is much more expensive than S-chip. He has spent over half a trillion (with a “t”) dollars on the Iraq operations, which seems to have done America no good at all.

    This is not a penny pincher. He never vetoed a farm subsidy bill. If he opposed S-chip, it’s political, not economic.

11. #11
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pm, lgm said:
    Bush pushed through the drug benefit, which is much more expensive than S-chip. He has spent over half a trillion (with a “t”) dollars on the Iraq operations, which seems to have done America no good at all.

    Sources?

12. #12
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm, Wile E Coyote said:

    I totally agree “lgm”. I’m all for expanding the SCHIP program with certain added limitations (on family income and legal status). The President’s veto was political.

13. #13
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    If he opposed S-chip, it’s political, not economic.

    The President wants 95% of those children living at or below 200% of the poverty line covered before he’ll consider any expansion of the S-CHIP program.

    The Democrats in Congress want to simply expand the program now - opening up S-CHIP to more people ABOVE that line, without having covered the 95% of children below it.

    Tell me, LGM: Who has the interests of the most needy in mind?

14. #14
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, Lan Astaslem said:

    Good on GWB. For those who are stating that Bush is against expanding the SCHIP program, they need to do a little more studying. He is in agreement with increasing the funds to ensure coverage of those under the 200% line — so he agrees to spend more money. He just doesn’t want to move the top bar up to the ridiculous level the Dems want. (Not to mention all the loopholes they want to add.) I completely agree with Fred (above) that somebody needs to put a chart or two together for the Prez and others who oppose this particular expansion. It’s not hard, and until they figure out a way to dumb it down so everyone understands, the MSM will continue to print things like this from the link MM provided:

    Public opinion polls show widespread support for the issue…

15. #15
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm, MissMarciLyn said:

    Bingo, JRL!

    This isn’t about the poor children; its about getting as many people to join the feeding frenzy as possible. Once we’ve all gotten used to not having to provide for ourselves, we won’t remember why we ever watned to in the first place.

    If it was about kids who aren’t covered and need to be, where are those ‘poster children’ — why do they keep hiding behind kids who are already covered??

16. #16
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm, MissMarciLyn said:

    besides….we need to make sure it’s children getting the money anyway, not lazy, greedy adults….

17. #17
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm, LarryD said:

    Off Topic: Brad DeLong, a liberal who worked on Hillary’s Health Care task force

    My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

    So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation’s health-care system…

    Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch–the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

18. #18
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm, tony the tiger said:

    Bush to S-CHIP expansion pushers: You’re wasting my time

    And all the rest of ours…
    Vote the rascals out!!!

19. #19
    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:57 pm, tony the tiger said:

    The vote unfolded one week after the House failed to override Bush’s earlier veto, and indicated that the changes Democrats had made failed to attract much, if any, additional support.

    The 265 votes cast for the measure came up seven shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. In addition, 14 Republicans who voted to sustain Bush’s original veto were absent.

    Article doesn’t mention why those 14 Republicans were absent… any guesses?

20. #20
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm, tony the tiger said:

    FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 1009

21. #21
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    Article doesn’t mention why those 14 Republicans were absent… any guesses?

    Without seeing the roll on this vote - I’m guessing it had to do with the Democrats pushing the vote when many of the California reps were in their home districts working on problems associated with the wildfires….

22. #22
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:11 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    Well - I was 1/2 right - 7 of the Republicans not voting were from California.

23. #23
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Again, one Democrat voted “nay”. Should we call it pi-partisan agreement?

24. #24
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm, fred5676 said:

    On October 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, Lan Astaslem said
    

    I completely agree with Fred (above) that somebody needs to put a chart or two together for the Prez and others who oppose this particular expansion. It’s not hard, and until they figure out a way to dumb it down so everyone understands, the MSM will continue to print things like this from the link MM provided:

    My ditto on your ditto - Republicans are TERRIBLE at this game. All during the 1996 campaign, Dems shouted “Republicans are CUTTING social security/medicare”, when in fact they wanted to hold increases to 4%. Dems wanted a 6% increase, so they called a 4% increase a CUT from their number. Leno and Letterman (That is where the battle is, every night!), and Russert kept telling the country that Republicans were CUTTING social security.

    In Jan 2007, Clinton signed a 5% increase and called it medicare “SAVINGS”.

    As Schindler said, “It’s all in the presentation.”

25. #25
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm, fred5676 said:

    Slightly off S-CHIP topic, but same message about Republicans’ inability to clearly state their message, and if they don’t learn, S-CHIP can hurt them:

    The huge pro-illegal alien marches in May, 2006, got the biggest encouragement from the felony aspect of HR 4437. Kennedy, Clinton, et al all told La Raza “We know you are not criminals!” They were using a DEMOCRAT amendment to stir up the crowds: the Dems voted 191 to 8 to make the first illegal entry a felony; Reps voted 156 to 65 to keep it a misdemeanor. Best kept secret of the immigration debate. Dems’ poison pill strategy worked to perfection against naive Reps.

    http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/#housevote

26. #26
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm, tony the tiger said:

    Bilbray, Brian P.; California, 50th R
    Calvert, Ken; California, 44th R
    Davis, Susan A.; California, 53rd D
    Filner, Bob; California, 51st D
    Gallegly, Elton; California, 24th D
    Hunter, Duncan; California, 52nd D
    Issa, Darrell E.; California, 49th D
    Lewis, Jerry; California, 41st D
    Miller, Gary G.; California, 42nd D

    Only two Republican rep’s JRL… unless I’m reading this wrong…
    Was about to check and see how they’d previously voted…

    Here’s the rest of them:
    DeFazio D
    DeGette D
    Dreier R
    Hastert R
    Hastings (WA) R
    Jindal R
    Johnson, E. B D
    Kilpatrick D
    McHenry R
    Shea-Porter D
    Shuster R
    Tancredo R
    Wilson (OH) D
    Young (AK) R

27. #27
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm, katieanne said:

    Bush is right. Don’t waste his time. If something isn’t working, instead of beating a dead horse, create something that makes sense.

    IMO, Dems shouldn’t be so confident about keeping the majority in Congress in 2008. They are beyond pathetic and people are taking notice. FINALLY.

28. #28
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, capitano said:

    Bush could paint a chart on his bare chest and the media would figure a way to ignore it.

    The RNC or some conservative think tank should air a TV ad that makes the point that the current SCHIP covers families earning $40K, that states such as Minnesota already get waivers to include adults and illegal immigrants under the current bill, and that Dems propose raising the limits to families earning more than $80K/yr.

29. #29
    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

    What part of NO do the democrats not understand?

30. #30
    On October 26th, 2007 at 4:12 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    Gallegly is Republican

    Hunter is Republican

    Issa is Republican

    Lewis is Republican

    Miller is Republican

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1009.xml

    Republican names are italicized

31. #31
    On October 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm, conservativesRus said:

    I’m still trying to figure out why I’m supposed to support somebody else’s kid instead of my own. And as far as I can tell, that’s precisely what SCHIP does.

32. #32
    On October 26th, 2007 at 4:29 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    Because, Rus:

    You work hard and support yourself and have done things right so you have money.

    While others may have made poor or wrong decisions in life, and because of that, they don’t.

33. #33
    On October 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm, conservativesRus said:

    JRL - I think you are almost right - but your second sentence is maybe still in error. I think “don’t” should be “can be bought to vote for me”

34. #34
    On October 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pm, Bic said:

    Loved the last line of the article:

    Public opinion polls show widespread support for the issue

    From surveys I’ve seen the public support quickly moves the Bush’s view when actual details of the SCHIP program are revealed. Only those generic surveys with questions like “Should we help the Children? (y/n)” ever seem to give the Dems a solid majority.

35. #35
    On October 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm, RogersUmp said:

    On October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, capitano said:
    Bush could paint a chart on his bare chest and the media would figure a way to ignore it.

    The RNC or some conservative think tank should air a TV ad that makes the point that the current SCHIP covers families earning $40K, that states such as Minnesota already get waivers to include adults and illegal immigrants under the current bill, and that Dems propose raising the limits to families earning more than $80K/yr.

    You are right about Minnesota, capitano. Our government is the biggest abuser of SCHIP in the country as we are allowed to spend 92% of SCHIP funds on ADULTS!!!! I tell people 92% and since they don’t hear it on the channel 4 news they think it can’t possibly be true! Isn’t it amazing what you can get away with when you support a liberal democrat cause?!! 92%, man, 92%!!! and they call it SCHIP!!

36. #36
    On October 26th, 2007 at 5:42 pm, leepro said:

    From the article:

    The 265 votes cast for the measure came up seven shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. In addition, 14 Republicans who voted to sustain Bush’s original veto were absent.

    “The 14 Republicans…were absent” …BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CALIFORNIA TO HELP THEIR CONSTITUENTS!!!

37. #37
    On October 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm, leepro said:

    #10 lgm said:

    Bush pushed through the drug benefit, which is much more expensive than S-chip.

    Fie on you! My Social Security benefit check is less that $500, and I am paying for the drug coverage (it is deducted from my check!). And just as a small additional advantage — I get to stay alive!

    Fie on you!

    >: [

38. #38
    On October 26th, 2007 at 9:43 pm, gayle said:

    According to DRUDGE, the Demos now want a FOUR day workweek.

    So they are expanding????

39. #39
    On October 27th, 2007 at 1:50 am, blues said:

    When you can’t find the answer–stall.

40. #40
    On October 27th, 2007 at 11:44 am, 24Klady said:

    The funding for this monster is supposed to come from an increase in tobacco tax, right? Do they collect $35, or even $25, billion now? If not, then it’s going to come from my pocket and yours. The idea is bad, and in my view funding should be cut instead of expanded.

41. #41
    On October 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm, tony the tiger said:

    #30 JRL & #36 leepro:

    Wow! I asked then looked-up the representatives via the “by state” listing - that’s where I got their district and party info (for the Cali folks).
    JRL, you’re right - some of them are listed as absent and in italics… makes me wonder which party they really are affiliated with.
    leepro - that was my immediate assumption; but I suspect it is not accurate.