It’s unanimous:
The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party.
It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general.
But defending the veto is really all that counts, isn’t it? Essentially, these candidates are impressed with the idea of denying health insurance coverage to children. They may have different reasons for doing so, they may be more or less direct about it, but they all endorse the policy. And that’s because they all need to win votes from a conservative base that is fundamentally out of step with American values.
Every so often you’ll hear some commentator swear that the GOP nominee will eventually distance himself from the President. Don’t bet on it. If they really wanted to, S-CHIP would have been a perfect opportunity. It’s not going to happen because the real problem with the Republican Party is not George W. Bush, it’s what the Republican Party now stands for.
Here’s a perfect example. This is right out of the Bizarro world:
“I don’t think the candidates can run with the president, and on the president’s positions, over the long haul because eventually they will trip you up,” said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant who is advising Fred D. Thompson, one of the leading candidates. Mr. Thompson has been strongly defending the veto.
There is too much at stake for these candidates to ever drop their love of Bush Republicanism, which is still pretty popular in conservative circles.
3 Responses to “Right’s Field To Bush: Not So Fast, We Hate Kids Too!”
To Matt,
I abhor David Dayen’s use of the word “hate” in his title (whether spoken tongue in cheek or not) because it is totally inappropriate and undermines his cogent opinions about the pressures for Republican Presidential candidates to support President Bush’s veto of this bill.
However, it is absurd for you to care more about his inappropriate title than about the points and facts he has presented about the income levels of those families eligible for the SCHIP.
People expressing conservative viewpoints are just as prone to name-calling as those expressing progressive ideas, so it’s up to mature adults to ignore these distractions and stick to rational analysis of the issues.
Accordingly, I await your response to David Dayan’s 12:23pm post.
Something to say?
typical liberals, if you oppose tax increases to pay for upper middle class children to get free heathcare, you hate kids, just like it you want to enforce border laws, you hate brown people, and if marriage as stated in every doctrine in every country is between a man and woman, you hate gays. liberals use ‘hate’ as their only arguement, because their socialist views are out of line with the founders of this country and the constitution. in liberal land, if you make 90 grand a year, average americans should have to pay for your kids healthcare instead of it being your own responsibility. and so goes on the stripping of our liberty, and the bee-hiving of america.
Left by matt
October 6, 2007 at 1:45am