When liberal journalists put on their political pundit hats to ostensibly handicap the policy stances of Republican politicians, you can rest assured that conservative or center-right stances will almost always be panned as political/electoral suicide.
Time magazine's Karen Tumulty is no exception in her recent Swampland blog post, "SCHIP: A Really Dumb Fight for Bush to Pick." in which the veteran reporter took President Bush to task for his veto threat for Democratic legislation that seeks to expand the size and mandate of the federally-backed State Children's Health Insurance Plans (SCHIP).
Of course nowhere in her post did the magazine reporter/blogger flesh out the rationale for the veto: the legislation that would hit his desk would expand government health care programs to children already covered by private medical insurance plans. Rather than reporting both sides of the SCHIP controversy, Tumulty played pundit/political consultant, dusting off liberal Democratic gripes from the Reagan and Gingrich years:
When Republicans try to prove their conservative bona fides by taking on a program aimed for children, the outcome is usually the same. Remember the Reagan Administration trying to declare ketchup a vegetable? And the House Republicans deciding to "curb the growth" of the school lunch program in 1995?
Of course, Tumulty failed to explore the substantial role a helpful, liberally-biased media had in furthering storylines about how evil Reagan and Gingrich supposedly were when it came to "cutting" social spending. Of course that shouldn't be surprising given Tumulty's penchant for liberal politician puffery.
As MRC/NB's Tim Graham noted in May:
Time magazine's list of "The Most Influential People in the World," or the Time 100, has already earned controversy for implausibly leaving President Bush off the list. But in a magazine stuffed with valentines to important people written by their friends, admirers, and family members, Time's staff writers promoted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as not only influential, but naturally moderate. Karen Tumulty claimed Hillary "has always been a more moderate and pragmatic politician than either her admirers or her detractors believed."
The bottom line is that Tumulty is convinced Bush's veto threat is political theater to appeal to Republican base voters on his right, even though he's finishing out the waning years of his second and final presidential term:
Given how averse this President has been to using his veto pen, he is under pressure from conservatives to take a stand. But this one strikes me as a fight he is going to lose, and one that will haunt his party right through 2008.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'll bet Time and Tumulty
September 24, 2007 - 11:19 ET by motherbeltI'll bet Time and Tumulty couldn't name ONE thing they think it would be smart for Bush to fight over.
When it comes to the word
September 24, 2007 - 16:47 ET by bigtimerWhen it comes to the word and definition of smart...
Please omit Tumulty.
Tumulty
September 25, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Fred GregoryYou cares what old horse face sez
"Put more money into it......
September 24, 2007 - 11:51 ET by ForeverOnTheRightand expand it. That will fix the problem.", so the liberal thinks. It's not, "What is the real problem? Let's address that." It's always cheaper and more effective to address the root of the problem that to deal with the symptom. If you deal with the root cause the problem will go away for good, treat the symptom and you'll always have the problem.
I think the liberals
September 24, 2007 - 12:59 ET by jdhawkI think the liberals are right!
President Bush has cost us, the taxpayers, hundreds of billions in a give away prescription drug program (that polls showed at the time that seniors didn't need or want and which doesn't consider the seniors' income level) and now is suddenly fighting over the difference between his plan an outrageous 20% increase in SCHIP and the even more outrageous plan that the dimocrats are attempting to foist on us.
By the way, the school lunch program was touted by the liberals as cutting the program for the children when, like in this case, it was a reduction in the amount of the increase in the program.
Same story; different day - but it's for the children!!!
When are Republicans going
September 24, 2007 - 14:41 ET by motherbeltWhen are Republicans going to learn that with liberals, it is never enough? Bush thought he could please some people with the drug plan, but now they....and he thinks by increasing SCHIP 20% they will.....
oh, I give up!! Just forget it!
Republicans NEVER NEVER learn!!!
My 2-cents Worth
September 24, 2007 - 17:27 ET by stratmanThe SCHIP controversy is a squeeze play by Democrats to extract more taxes from the wealthy (part of their "wealth redistribution" scheme) and give it to more of their partyline voters. It is part of their backdoor maneuvering for Socialized Medicine.
What is really irksome is that Democrats want to be able to give SCHIP medical coverage to children of families that earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level (currently $20,650 for a family of four), which would mean a family of four with a total earned income of $82,600 would receive free healthcare for their children! Guess which state is leading the cry for looser standards for eligibility -- New York! In order to do this, Democrats want to increase the SCHIP coffers by $50 Billion to a total of $75 Billion for a 5 year period!
Part of the extra money would be raised from an additional 61-cent tax on cigarettes for a total of cigarette tax of $1 per pack. Wonder what happens when people stop smoking - how whill SCHIP get money then? Another way to fund the SCHIP treasure chest is by enforcing a 9.9% and 5% Medicare payment reductions as previously determined legislatively for 2008 and 2009. Upwards of 50% reduction in reimbursements to physicians/providers over the past 15-20 years or so, with more on the horizon, does not bode well for encouraging people to become physicians. Who will take care of the SCHIP kids when people stop choosing medicine as a career? It will be the same pool of doctors that Great Britain recruits from, but hopefully not the foreign nationals involved in the Scotland Airport car bombing attempt. (/end of brazen xenophobic rant)
The irony is that the Republicans want to raise the SCHIP funds kitty by $10 Billion to a total of $35 Billion and lock eligibility at 250% of federal poverty levels ($51,625 for a family of four).
This adjustment seems to be fair both fiscally and where the public's health is concerned:
But the Bush Administration is not as cold hearted as the Democrats would like you to believe. States can petition to loosen eligibility for SCHIP if they can prove that they had enrolled 95% of children at or below 200% of poverty, show that private health insurance enrollment had not declined more than 2 percentage points among targeted income groups and that new SCHIP enrollees had been uninsured for one year. Sounds like good fiscal restraint to me and an example of Conservative Compassion that Mr. Bush espoused in his origional campaign in 2000. Of course the Democrats will complain the rules are impossible to meet. What else is new.
My opinion is if the family income is greater than $51,625 per year and you do not pay for health insurance for your two (or three) children then you either have children which insurance companies will not insure for reasonable rates due to existing problems (would require solutions outside of or in concert with SCHIP), you need to move to an area with a lower cost of living or you need to rethink your budget.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Silly President
September 24, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Dr_LibertySilly president! Creeping socialism is for kids.
<insert witty signature here>