G.O.P. Contenders Endorse Health Insurance Veto

[Hepburn]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05insure.html?ref=politics

All I can say is: Fuckin' bastard assholes! :grr:

[Ilsa]

1. I would hope that the NYT would have been more direct

about naming them specifically, but you have to wade through other political positions of the candidates to determine that the mentioned candidate is one of the four. It appears to be Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain are the ones supporting the veto. I hope they can explain their ideology to sick poor kids.

[Hepburn]

3. Yeah.....

....it took me a bit, too, to figure out to whom the NYT was referring.

I just cannot in any manner imagine why anyone would be opposed to making sure sick kids got medical care and that all kids got check ups, etc., to prevent illnesses.

What in the hell is wrong with these bastards??? I mean these are supposedly the "famiy values" candidates, right? And they are against insuring kids for medical care???

Unreal.

Edit for typo.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Of course they do.

They are playing to their greedhead big-money corporatist base who will decide who gets the nomination.

And I say, good. Because whichever beady-eyed troll ends up their candidate will have a lotta 'splainin' to do to a lotta voters who don't think it's such a good thing to take medical care away from children.

[Hepburn]

4. Seriously to individuals....

...why would ANYONE be opposed to having children receive medical coverage? This makes NO sense to me. I just do NOT understand any of the explanations of the "philosophy" supposedly behind this. Supporting corporate America is one thing...but justifying it by harming kids and then trying to link it to some righteous (pardon the pun) political reasoning? GMAFB!

[OHdem10]

5. I hope no one is surprised. Social Safety Net Programs

go against the grain of GOP Philosophy.

Economic Conservatism: Personal Responsibity means just
that. The Government owes no one anything and therefore
expect nothing from your government. For many Republicans
seeing any program(FDR and Johnson) dismantled is of
highest order. Pure and simple social programs are not
the responsibilty of the government.

When Norquist says he wants a government so small it can
be flushed down the bathtrub drain, he is serious.