The New York Timesexamined the President's rhetoric on vetoing the bipartisan CHIP bill, and found...well...nothing. In short, the paper's editorial board finds only "blind partisanship" behind the veto.
Washington Post's Eugene Robinson goes even further, and calls Bush's excuses "lies":
To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."
So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.
Considering the popularity of the bill - and the unpopularity of Bush's veto - it's a head scratcher that all four top-tier Republican presidential candidates - Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain -- support the veto.
I know the candidates have to win a primary before facing the bulk of the American electorate, who rank Bush right up there with wart removal and genital herpes, but CHIP is popular with Republicans. It's not like the health care industry is sending money around to squelch the bill, either. As far as I can tell, the veto is just plain partisan stubbornness.
What gives? Are these guys really this bad? And why do I keep putting McCain in the "top tier" of candidates?
