President Bush on Wednesday vetoed the SCHIP expansion bill passed by Congress with strong bipartisan backing, drawing nearly universally critical coverage from the media. The AP notes "Bush vetoed the bill in private, absent the television cameras and other media coverage that normally attend even routine presidential actions." While Bush and the White House are trying to frame the debate as a battle about spending, the bill's supporters are selling their argument in a somewhat more emotional way. As the Chicago Tribune reports, Democratic leaders are "casting the battle as a conflict between the president and children." Some examples: The Los Angeles Times says that "on the Democratic side, the line of attack was laid down by Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee. 'This has got to be up there with motherhood and apple pie. This is Tiny Tim. And who is against Tiny Tim? The only person in all of literature was Ebenezer Scrooge." The Wall Street Journal notes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "called Mr. Bush's veto 'heartless,'" and Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, "chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees health programs, said Mr. Bush 'is a war president, and all he cares about is war and more war.'" The Washington Times notes House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland called the veto "a stunning lack of compassion for some of the most vulnerable members of our society." On CNN's Situation Room, Sen. Edward Kennedy was shown saying, "This is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country."
Based on media reports on Wednesday and Thursday, the President and his backers are losing the PR war over the SCHIP bill big time. ABC World News led its broadcast saying it is "not often you'll see" a politician "take a stand against a proposal providing health insurance for children. But that's what...Bush did today, vetoing the so-called S-CHIP program, that would have expanded health insurance for children by $35 billion." The country "seems to disagree" with Bush, as "72% of Americans support expanding the program, including majorities of Republicans and conservatives." ABC interviewed Lori Siravo, who "has S-CHIP coverage for her daughter, Carly." Siravo was shown saying, "Having it taken away would be devastating. You can't do that to children. It's not right." ABC added, "Analysts say children like Carly could lose their coverage. But the White House strongly disagrees."
The veto, only the fourth of Bush's presidency, is being portrayed as an attempt to energize the GOP's fiscally conservative base. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, calls it the "first volley" in "a fight over fiscal responsibility that is likely to dominate politics on Capitol Hill until the end of the year." And CNN's Situation Room explained away Bush's veto by explaining that "Republicans are petrified that conservatives are going to stay home in 2008 like they did in 2006, in part on the issue of runaway federal spending," so Bush "is trying to restore the mantle of fiscal responsibility for Republicans, but that political game may be wiped out by Democratic allegations that he's doing it on the backs of children."
But most reports suggest Republicans risk paying a heavy price next year for Bush's gambit. The Washington Post says the veto leaves Bush "as politically isolated as he has ever been." The Financial Times notes Bush's "zeal for fiscal discipline" is "designed to mollify grassroots Republicans who have grown disillusioned with the growth in government spending during the seven years of his presidency. But his opposition to expansion of S-Chip has alarmed many moderate Republicans."
Despite Political Drama, Veto Likely To Stick USA Today says "that "minutes after...Bush issued his fourth veto Wednesday, members of Congress from both parties began searching for the votes they need to override him and expand a children's health insurance program." The Politico reports that "while supporters of the children's health bill portray this intensive lobbying effort as having a realistic chance of finding 15 or so 'courageous' House Republicans to buck their president, the reality is that the veto debate at this point is more about political theater and less about legislating or changing votes."
The AP also says "Republican leaders expressed confidence they have enough votes to make the veto stick in the House, and not a single senior Democrat disputed them." Likewise, the CBS Evening News reported that "despite significant Republican support, it's uncertain if Democrats can get the votes needed to override the veto."
Bush's Olive Branch Goes Largely Unnoticed The New York Times notes Bush said yesterday that he wanted both parties "to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor children. ... And if they need a little more money to help us meet the objective of getting help for poorer children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so." But Bush's remarks are receiving little media attention.
Among the few mentions: NBC Nightly News, "The President said he's willing to work with Congress to fund the program at a lower level." Also, the Chicago Tribune reports Ed Gillespie, "counselor to the president, insists Bush still wants a compromise that covers more poor children, and not the middle class."
The Washington Post, meanwhile, says House Democratic leaders "signaled they are not yet ready to bargain. They have delayed until Oct. 18 a vote to override the veto, in hopes that a grass-roots campaign by health-policy advocates and a barrage of television and radio advertisements will win over the 15 or so Republicans they will need to overcome Bush's opposition."
Roll Call reports that even as Republicans "gleefully flogged Democrats with the 'tax-and-spend' label over a proposed special tax to fund the Iraq War, Democratic leaders predicted Wednesday that the episode would minimally affect the party's vulnerable freshmen." Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) "said he does not expect the tax proposal to overshadow his candidates' campaigns in coming months, adding that any questions sparked by the issue should serve as an opportunity for freshman lawmakers to discuss the war and its costs."
On MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Jack Murtha acknowledged Speaker Nancy Pelosi was "not happy" about the proposal: "She took us to the woodshed and said, 'This is not something we want to talk about.' But let me tell you something. Fiscal responsibility is something all of us have an obligation to. And when I voted against the taxes all these years, so many Democrats voted -- or I voted against the tax cuts, they voted for those cuts because they believed they were necessary."
The Wall Street Journal says in an editorial that the argument of Reps. Obey, Murtha, and Jim McGovern's "argument, echoed often in the media, is that such a tax is needed because war spending is busting the budget and crowding out domestic priorities." Someone's "pretending, all right, but it is those who claim that Iraq spending represents some unique and overwhelming fiscal burden. In fact, the U.S. is spending relatively little on defense by historic wartime standards, and that's including the $192 billion in 2007 to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Boehner: Democrats Won't Cut Iraq Funds The Washington Times reports House Minority Leader John A. Boehner on Wednesday "said Democrats will never succeed in cutting off money for the Iraq war, vowing that the troops 'are going to be funded -- no ifs, ands or buts.'" Said Boehner, "If they try to play that game, there will be a real war here." The Times adds the GOP leader was "referring to the threat by Democratic Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin to unilaterally block President Bush's $189 billion emergency war-funding bill from his post as chairman of the Appropriations Committee."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
In a 4,200-word, front-page story, the New York Times reports that when the Justice Department "publicly declared torture 'abhorrent' in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations. But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales's arrival as attorney general...the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret," that was "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."
The New York Times reports this morning, "Backing away from a fight with the White House, Senate Democrats are suggesting that they will not hold up confirmation of President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, despite differences over Senate access to documents involving Justice Department actions." The Washington Post reports that in a letter to the nominee, Leahy "indicated an end to Leahy's attempt to use the Mukasey nomination to pry loose sensitive information from the White House about the prosecutor firings, the government's warrantless surveillance program and other issues."
The Hill, however, titles its story "Sen. Leahy Tells Mukasey That His Nomination Is Tied To Subpoenas," and says that in his letter, Leahy simply "suggested that he would shift his focus from negotiating with the White House to negotiating with the nominee." The AP says Leahy has told Mukasey "his confirmation could hinge on demonstrating he'll keep White House influence out of Justice Department decisions." In an editorial this morning, the Washington Post writes that Mukasey "should be grilled extensively about his views," but "Leahy's effort to link the two was irresponsible and has served only to delay the installation of a desperately needed leader at the rudderless Justice Department."
In an editorial today, the New York Times offers tentative praise to President Bush for his Administration's effort to resolve the North Korea nuclear standoff. The Times writes, "To get this deal, the Bush administration, after dragging its feet for four years, displayed an admirable and all too rare mixture of diplomatic creativity, flexibility, patience and follow-through. To keep it moving forward, it will need even more. ... We...hope that with a solid foreign policy success now in reach, Mr. Bush will learn the lesson of the North Korea deal and tell his diplomats to turn the same creativity, flexibility and follow-through toward trying to end Iran's nuclear program."
Meanwhile, the AP reports President Bush "lauded US diplomats Wednesday for winning new promises from North Korea aimed at shutting down its secretive nuclear program, but U.S. officials are keeping their own secrets about what they promised in return." The deal "leaves other questions open, too, as the Bush administration tries to hold on to momentum in historically troubled negotiations." Under the headline, "To Reach Pact With N. Korea, Bush Adopted An Approach He Had Criticized," the Washington Post describes President Bush's condemnation of Sen. John Kerry's 2004 proposal for "bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang in parallel with the six-nation" process. "If there was any doubt, yesterday's announcement in Beijing of a new agreement with North Korea demonstrates how much Bush has adopted the approach he once condemned." The Wall Street Journal and New York Times also run stories on the deal.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
CNN's Situation Room reports Rep. Ron Paul's (R) long-shot, libertarian-oriented campaign "reports the congressman from Texas raised $5 million over the past three months. That's in the same neighborhood as what rival John McCain is expected to report and it's five times -- five times what former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee reportedly raised. It's also more than $3 million more than Paul raised over the first six months of this year. Paul can partially credit his big bucks to a strong following on the Internet."
ABC World News reported, "Long dismissed as a fringe candidate, Congressman Ron Paul was all-smiles today in New Hampshire." Paul: "I think the time is right. People are really frustrated, frustrated with both parties, frustrated with the war." The AP says Paul is capitalizing "on his stance as the only anti-war contender in the GOP field." Paul also "will report having $5.3 million cash on hand, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said." The Hill and The Politico also report the story. The Politico says the congressman is "still a far cry from a front-runner, he could become a spoiler." "Paul's fund-raising successes," says the Wall Street Journal, "are a sign of a fluid Republican presidential race. ... Former Sen. Fred Thompson is expected to report around $8 million in third-quarter fund raising." The New York Times runs a similar report.
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Rudy Giuliani holding a lead over Fred Thompson in the GOP primary. Giuliani leads the field with 30%, followed by Thompson, 23%; John McCain, 15%; Mitt Romney, 10%; and Mike Huckabee, 4%.
NBC Nightly News reported last night that their survey asked Republicans if their 2008 nominee should "be like President Bush or a take a different approach? Look at this. 38% similar, 48% different. And what a contrast to April when half the Republicans said be like George W. Bush. We then asked them what issues do you care about; are important to you? Terrorism is 32%. Domestic issues like healthcare, 25%. Moral issues 23%, economic issues like taxes 17%. So only 23% emphasizing moral issues. ... Brian, we asked who would be the strongest candidate against Hilary Clinton, and look at these results. Rudy Giuliani, 47%, nearly a majority of Republicans say he would be the strongest. Fred Thompson, 16%; John McCain, 14%; and Mitt Romney 8%."
A front-page article in the Washington Post reports that according to a the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, "Bill Clinton has emerged as a clear asset in his wife's campaign for the White House, with Americans offering high ratings to his eight years in office and a solid majority saying they would be comfortable with him as first spouse." However, poll respondents wouldn't regard Hillary Clinton's election "as simply the resumption of her husband's presidency. Instead, two-thirds said she would take her presidency in a different direction, and half of all Americans said they believed that would be a good development. About half of those who said it would be a resumption described that as positive."
Clinton Tops Giuliani In Trial Heat ABC World News reported last night that the poll also shows Clinton topping Rudy Giuliani 51%-43% in a 2008 general election matchup.
The New York Times reports, "Facing a revolt from some Christian conservative leaders over his stance on abortion," Rudy Giuliani "sought to reassure religious voters that he respected their faith but in turn asked them to respect his candor, even if they disagreed with him." During a day of campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday, "only days after one prominent Christian conservative group threatened to back a third-party candidate" if he gets the nomination, Giuliani "faced a barrage of questions about how he can appeal to conservative Christian voters." The "intensified assault by religious leaders poses a central question about Mr. Giuliani's viability as a Republican presidential candidate and presents him with one of his first big tests on the stump." The Politico adds that Giuliani "claimed Wednesday that religious conservatives will embrace him because at least they know where he stands. ... Giuliani's claim about his appeal to religious conservatives includes the implicit acknowledgment that he is not one of them. And that points to Giuliani's dilemma in trying to appeal to the Republican Party's base without drawing fire for pandering."
The Washington Post reports that reporters asked Giuliani "about threats by some religious conservatives to run a third-party candidate if Giuliani is the party's nominee. 'I don't worry a lot' about that threat, Giuliani said. 'You know when we will find out who will be influential in this election? When it's over.'"
Dobson Says He Won't Back a Candidate Based On Electability In an op-ed in the New York Times, James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, wrote about the meeting where evangelical leaders discussed backing a 3rd-party candidate, saying, "The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion." The group "voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate." Dobson goes on to write that he opposes the idea of choosing "a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure," saying, that "voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles."
The Washington Post reports, "Senate Republicans are bracing for another potentially costly 2008 retirement," with New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici (R) "expected to announce today that he will not seek a seventh term." Domenici, "second among Republicans in seniority, has battled health problems in recent years, but GOP leaders had hoped that Domenici would follow through on plans to seek reelection to protect a seat that looks ripe for a Democratic takeover." But "Republican officials close to Domenici said the health concerns ultimately took precedence." The AP notes Domenici will be "the fifth Republican senator to decline to seek a new term, giving Democrats an opportunity to expand their majority in the 2008 elections. Republican Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry E. Craig of Idaho and Wayne Allard of Colorado previously announced that they will not seek re-election."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "President Bush, for some reason, has vetoed the child health insurance plan. I believe his comment was 'childrens do get sick, but childrens do get better again.'"
Jay Leno: "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed $5,000 be given to every baby born in the United States. And today, Republicans attacked Hillary's plan, saying what babies need are jobs, not handouts."
Jay Leno: "Remember when politicians used to kiss babies? Now we've got to pay them off, too?"
Jay Leno: "And 'The Wall Street Journal,' you probably heard about this, is reporting that Rudy Giuliani has taken cell phone calls from his wife over 40 times during speeches. ... And each time, it was a different wife calling."
Conan O'Brien: "It was announced this week that over the summer Hillary Clinton's campaign raised $27 million while Barack Obama's campaign raised $22 million. Yeah. In a related story, Dennis Kucinich found a nickel between the couch cushions."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
