Redstate

Bush is not required to veto a bill the same day it is presented. He has 10 days to act. If he's got anybody with brain left on staff, there will be no veto until later in the week, after the protest and the news coverage of it.

Hoyer has his work cut out for him. The House is short the votes to override, and there were only 8 Democrats who voted against the original bill. That means convincing Republicans who voted against to vote FOR an override. And that assumes that none of the 45 Republicans who voted for the original bill defects and votes to sustain the veto.

I'll have more later.

...you'll have to excuse me if I don't get too outraged about politicians acting like, well, politicians. :) It's all just theater and marketing. I'm happy when it's done in the service of good governance, and I get cranky when it's done in the service of crappy governance.

Congress is lower than Bush in the Gallup & other polls, which of course are ignored by the MSM. Representative government for the elites.

Just who do they expect to attract to their cause by sticking a 12-year-old out there?

behind a 12 year old for SCHIP. Are the Democrats going to hold a rally to encourage smoking so that they can pay for the expanded coverage?

But we should already be doin Opp Research on the kid's parents. Don't attack the kid, attack the parents and the idiot Dems who want to exploit the kid.

Is the kid enrolled in SCHIP? Where's the family from? How much do his parents make? Can they get insurance through an employer or existing program?

The President made a blunder by stating he would refuse all applications for waivers. He should have focused on the bill and not broadened this into how to deal with the existing program - at least not right now.

... he would wait until Friday to veto the bill, after some of the hoopla has died down. That's the best we can hope for (especially with this Presidet) in addition to hoping this doesn't play out like it's likely to next year during the general campaign i.e. "Republicans want sick children to die for corporate profits."

"Moderates" and swing voters (A.K.A. the ignorant) tend to fall for this stuff hook, line and sinker - especially if every major news outlet is repeating it over and over again. The twelve year old boy thing is great political theater and Democrats are quite good at that. Make no mistake, a veto is going to hurt us ... the only question is how much.

A politically smarter President, on the other hand, could turn all this around with a little effort. I'd advise him to veto it on Friday still, only this time on primetime national television. I'd first of all advise him to make it clear that keeping the program at the same level would still take care of children like Greame Frost. Then I'll have him explain with graphs, facts and figures ready for a concise 10-15 minute multimedia presentation on why the expansion is a bad idea with an (optional) supporting cast of award winning economists ... and a nine year old child (representing the future).

After the presentation, the President would then sit at his desk, veto the bill, and proudly hand the pen to the child. The media would shriek ... but it would easily cancel the Democrats' stunt and even make sense while doing so.

The Dems are experts in hiding behind children (as noted), soldiers (Cleland), hiding behind Elizabeth Edwards (as noted on here) and Cindy Sheehan, in order to justify their policies.

They are a group basing their ideas and actions off emotion, not reason and facts.

Enough is enough on this nonsense.

that a 12-year-old is being exploited this way. I wonder who wrote the speech for him?

Shane Vander Hart
Check out my blog - Caffeinated Thoughts.

Was down there today and saw very few "protestors." The ones I did see looked like rich white college students or post graduates, and had on purple shirts that said "I'm a health care dem" or something like that.

I'm getting the feeling that this is backfiring.