Several years ago, when Hillary Clinton wrote a book suggesting it “takes a village” to raise a child, it was derided in some quarters as reaching a conclusion that it was not a certainty.
But here is one certainty:
It takes some financially well-off, pampered politicians who themselves receive government health insurance to sour — or perhaps if the illnesses are grave even end –– a kid’s childhood because they seek to make political statements, pursue personal ideological jihads, or try to position themselves or their political party.
Their supporters will angrily deny it, but these politicians are not viewing children as physically and emotionally fragile and impressionable members of our society who deserve our utmost protection and nurturing and our highest lets-pull-out-all-stops priority.
Several other conclusions can be made about President George Bush’s decision to give half a peace sign to MORE THAN 70 PERCENT of the American public that support the health care bill he vetoed — and the half a peace sign he has even now given to members of his own party who sincerely wanted it and will now likely face the wrath of voters at the polls:
1. The only people who will still use the phrase “compassionate conservatism” to describe this administration now will be his most loyal supporters or talk show hosts. Just watch the Bush — and most likely the GOP — drop in the polls now. The once-highly coveted soccer moms are unlikely to be most concerned about the dangerous peril of Americans using government health care, as Mr. Bush suggested and most likely be outraged by the veto. Some of those soccer moms may have kids who could have used or do use that program. How many Americans, over dinner, complain about the perils of government health care? How many Americans, over dinner, complain about high health care costs or their inability to afford it?
2. When the history of the Bush administration is written, historians won’t refer to Bush as “The Children’s President” — and, although kids don’t vote, it’s likely the GOP will face a lot of angry adults at the polls….since kids have have parents, uncles, and cousins…and caring doctors who may have to turn away sick kids since there is no coverage and there could have been.
3. The veto and the probability that there will be enough GOPers to prevent an override in Congress again underscores the factional nature of this Bush administration. It is an administration that clings to power due to a relatively small group of supporters and no longer reflects a political movement or a government mass support. Bush has a solid-core of backers who will back him on anything –even if it means drinking political Kool Aid that will hurt their increasingly unpopular party’s long and short term interests.
4. Bush has turned over a new political leaf. Suddenly — when it comes to children — he is the fiscally-responsible president.
Just how big a body blow has Bush delivered to his own party?
Conservative columnist Robert Novak writes in his most recent report:
Democrats have expertly used this debate to put the White House on the defensive, rally their base and cultivate expanded support. Whether this skirmish will be relevant in a year, and whether Republicans can fight back, is still up in the air.
But Novak doesn’t sound too optimistic for his party:
… Democrats, however, have very effectively cast the debate over the bill as one over insuring children or not. Mainstream media outlets repeat the Democratic framing, and very few Republicans are able to fight back effectively.
President Bush on Wednesday vetoed the reauthorization bill that would expand the program. The White House argues that the expansion is a step towards “government-run healthcare.” This objection comes across as a vague and weak one in the face of Democratic cries that a veto will leave sick “kids” without doctors. Only a few congressional Republicans are making the more straightforward objection that SCHIP is welfare, and government shouldn’t be giving welfare to people who aren’t poor. The White House’s lack of a real compass on limited government is hurting it here politically.
Novak notes that Democrats are looking forward to targeting vulnerable Republicans by “running ads in their districts calling on them to override the veto.” He then writes:
The debate is a good opportunity for Democrats to rally their strongest base of activists: labor unions. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) dispatched dozens of children to the White House in a protest Monday.
Expanding SCHIP also endears Democrats to governors of both parties, happy to have a bigger federal pipeline of cash, and to the insurance industry, typically a GOP ally but eager to garner more subsidies under a broader SCHIP.
The avalanche of news stories on this are largely catastrophic for the image of a President who will very soon have to work hard to achieve the popularity of Richard Nixon at Nixon’s lowest point. Here are a few:
—Families Brace for SCHIP Demise
—Americans React With Anger to Bush’s Children’s Health Care Veto
—Bush Veto Gives Democrats Legislative Defeat, Political Opening
—Bush’s veto of children’s health plan puts state in bind (Massachusetts)
—Lawmakers decry veto of kids’ health bill (Maine)
And there are others.
But Bush has had his supporters. Senator John McCain applauded the move. And some argue Bush is getting a raw deal, being demonized by a biased press.
Is he?
Some reports over the past few weeks have suggested Bush would veto it on principle. One hinted it was due to the anti-tobacco provision. Yet another one suggested it was a way to set up the 2008 argument that Bush and the more loyal Republicans were battling a do-nothing Congress and preventing it from going wild on spending.
But FEW reports have indicated Bush’s genuine, heartfelt concern about flesh and blood children.
And that underlying conclusion may be what is the back of much of the sheer anger over the veto.
Childhood is always fragile and the world is so much more perilous in 2007. Health insurance rates are sky high. And when an issue that enjoys WIDESPREAD SUPPORT among the American public and some support within his own party comes up, Bush vetoes it – citing as a prime reason his philosophical differences.
If most non-Rush Limbaugh and non-lockstep-Bush-defending Americans look at this, they will likely strip it away and conclude:
He doesn’t really seem to care about the childhoods and health of these children. His supporters are furious if that statement is EVER made and go after anyone who dares make that statement (you will probably see happen now in our comments section as well) — but that is the crux of Bush and the GOP’s perception problem on this issue.
Most Americans (the 70 percent) will view Bush’s veto as him giving priority to making a statement and preserving an inadequate and dangerous status quo (and in some states remove it). His veto also shows once again that Bush doesn’t care what Americans, Democrats, independents and even some Republicans want. Repeatedly, defiance of majority opinion in a democracy seems to be considered by Bush to be a public official’s highest virtue — and in this case it’s likely to cost his party.
That party line [against the health plan], of course, is coming straight from the top, and many observers think it will come back to haunt the entire G.O.P. a year from now. While the bill passed both chambers of Congress with relatively strong bipartisan support, it failed to get enough votes in the House to override President Bush’s veto, which he issued Wednesday morning. Bush insists the expanded program, by raising the income eligibility levels, would draw children away from private insurance plans and act as a first step toward socialized medicine.
But Democrats know that ideological debates are no match for pictures of sick children, and they are already training their sights on eight vulnerable Republicans… who voted against it. “It is a defining vote; it says a lot about people’s values and priorities,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Even WORSE for the GOP: the Democrats will continue to vote on this bill to underscore the difference between what they (and the vast majority of Americans) want, and what Bush (allowed to stop it with his hardcore loyalist supporters) wants:
The Democrats’ priorities in this instance are abundantly clear — they intend on making as much political hay of the children’s health care veto as they can, whether or not they can eventually turn enough Republicans to override it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has insisted he will continue to send the bill back to Bush’s desk without modifying it for wavering Republicans, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has left the door open for changes. If the President vetoes the bill a hundred times between now and the 2008 elections the Democrats can portray the G.O.P. as voting against sick poor kids. If the G.O.P. caves, they can declare themselves the champions of children’s health care and finally have a legislative accomplishment to boast about. Either way, they think they can’t lose. “It’s our hope that these members of Congress, when they hear from their constituents, that they’ll choose children’s health,” Van Hollen said. “If not, voters will hold them accountable.”
According to Time, the Democrats are planning ads against GOPers who voted against the plan.
But Republicans won’t sit back and take it but will counter attack, note that this was a program created by a Republican Congress and argue like Bush that this is an attempt to ease in government health care.
Time’s most telling quote comes from a Democrat running against one of the Republicans who voted against it who says:
“It is rapidly overcoming Iraq and here’s why: people have a hard time finding a solution on Iraq, they just can’t. This has a solution — this bill makes sense, it is clear and evident.”
And, indeed, you don’t have to be a political scientist to predict that, if this issue remains as it is on Election Day. some Republicans who voted against the plan arguing it was a perilous step on the way to government health care will feel sick as they realize they have to send resumes out for their post-Washington work lives.
But if they feel sick, they can always go to the doctor.
After all, they’re still covered under their government health care plans…
Read TMV’s earlier post about the veto pushback HERE.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.