Pelosi Slams Bush's SCHIP Veto

Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and slammed President Bush for vetoing the expansion of the children's healthcare program known as SCHIP. Speaker Pelosi made a critical point about how much the Iraq war is diverting American resources from important domestic priorities, pointing out that the cost of insuring ten million children for one year under SCHIP equaled the cost of funding the Iraq war for forty days.

Watch the video from Fox News below:

Comments

[dr4Will]

dont compromise on issues that we all beleive in-bush will lie to get his way on anything-let him swing

[RedRooster]

From time to time we have truly great political leadership in the Congress, and at other times we have run-of-the-mill politicians elected to leadership positions simply because they haven't offended anyone in their party caucus.

I fear this is one of those times. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't manage to pull out sufficient votes to override the SCHIPS veto, she will be seriously weakened as House Speaker.

She probably (like most national politicians of both parties) is a delightful person...b­ut she doesn't appear to be an accomplished political strategist, nor a quick study.

[jfredmuggs]

She's a child of politics. Everything is done with an eye of how it will play in the polls and what she can attack and be attacked on.

[RedRooster]

If that's the case, she needs to stop looking at the polls and get back her old neighborhood in Baltimore and find out what folks really think of her leadership.

For that matter, she can visit my home for dinner, right here in Northern Virginia. I'll be glad to give her some REAL talking points for her next TV appearance.

I've given more impassioned speeches to my spouse on SCHIPS in the last week alone, that I've heard from our esteemed House Speaker since her election!

Where's the authenticity?

Where's the conviction?

Where's the passion?

Where's the energy?

[nomobull]

I was always taught that action speak louder than words. So madam until you are ready to act like you are the majority shut the h... up

[mmckinl]

Put Impeachment back on the table, leader of
surrender monkey Democrats .

[Purple Girl]

Nancy can find a new job- sooner the better- culpable b*tch!What an absolute waste the taxer payers money. I can stomach her no more than I can stomach Cheney-ignorance and arrogance all wrapped up in a single packages.T­here seems to be a abundance in the supply of these 'lemons'. We need a Recall (Impeachment), and criminal investigation and prosecutions and punishment to the fullest extent of the laws (let's use theirs -we'll return all our regular legal rights after we get rid of all those who thought their laws would keep US down. all investigative tools allowed by law NOW should be utilized for the publics infromation regarding it's gov't activities to date. Continue the suspension of Habius Corpus until they're all safely at their final destinations.

[PKSSK]

I've seen this woman in church so I can confirm that I think she is there to pray. I, in now way, propose that she is a fake christian like many in congress, however, I do wonder why she does not trust her faith to guide her to do the right thing for the American people and use the power of the purse to begin the changes in Iraq. The media will try to come down on her and those who support her (72% of the American people), but I believe she will be viewed as a hero to many if she would just take that "Leap of Faith". If she truly has faith she will have no fear in standing up to those who perceive themselves to be more powerful because she will have the biggest power behind her!

[NoContest]

Pelosi stinks....

I thought that Cindy Sheehan's challange was a joke but not any more. I would rather have one shrill, determined fighter than a whole army of these appeasers like Grandma "PrettyFace" here.

~!@

[freespeach]

Agreed. I would never want a Senate or Congress full of Cindy Sheehan's but a few real people in a sea of greedy pigs at the trough couldn't hurt.

Support the honest compassionate inexperienced Cindy Sheehan. She is no Bush enabler, she is no coward. She is just a decent pissed off American trying to do the right thing.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

Help defeat the lying whore Pelosi who enables Bush, protects Bush from impeachment, funds Bush's criminal Iraq occupation, and at this very moment is trying to complete the FISA law sellout of the American people....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/05/dems-postpone-rollout-of-_n_67293.html

That's right. At this moment Pelosi working for here masters, the DLC, is fighting the ACLU and a few brave progressive Democrats. Pelosi is fighting them because they want to protect Americans with 8 basic principals to protect us from FISA law abuses by Bush. Pelosi is not on your side, not with the ACLU.....s­he is with Bush again.

[Oregonian37]

LeftLeanWing :After reading over most of the comments, it's clear that we are becoming trolls to ourselves.


OMG I haven't seen a truer statement in I don't know how long...tha­nk you

[RedRooster]

It's been a long time since leadership in the Democratic party had to appease the historic base of the party's left wing...but let NO ONE forget that our nation was founded by leftist RADICALS!

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine were not soft spoken colonials. They were not well-intentioned farmer-politicians content with compromise. Instead, they were phenomenally well-educated individuals, with absolutely brilliant political minds, who were vocal, impassioned and practically rabid in their quest for independen­ce...

So it is perhaps, easy to see how the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress, the centrist appeasers inside the Beltway, and the DINOs in the DNC and the DLC are perhaps suprised to find a "flank attack" from the newly energized left of their own party...

but they damn well better get used to it and let the progressives lead for awhile or just prepare for us all to be steamrolled by the radical conservatives of the GOP for another 30+ years.

So, if that makes some from the left wing "trolls" for challenging centrist Dems and DINOs on the bullshit they're peddling here on a public forum, then so be it...

[Ale]

What upsets me is I know the Dems are gonna fold here.
Do you want to get your base back some?
May I suggest you frame it this way to the American people.
We have pased a bill that would give insuance to children who need it. We willnot pass a bill that takes insurace away from children even if it is the only way to pass a bill. We have sen what happens to Americans in this system without insurace, we have heard the horror stories. While we are Senators and congressmen, we are also human beings who must be able to sleep at night, I don;t know how anyone could sleep at night sentencing children to likely suffering and even death. Mr President, you have the only bill we will send, we will not choose to sacrifice more children to you"

[hjo4]

Nancy Pelosi is full of shit.

[rdiazsi]

Pelosi doesn't want impeach Bush and Cheney because she is fearful to manage the exterior politics, including Iraqi war.

[Mormondude]

So 1 year of coverage for this one little program is "only" equivalent to 41 days in Iraq.

So after years and years and years now of libs squawking over how expensive war it, they want to continue spending like we're at war long after the war has ended.

Brilliant!

[suki21693]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they might see spending to save lives as more worthwhile than spending to end lives.

[frost]

.

shut up nancy you coward..

because of you and your gutless whining Bush is able to do these things..

your leadership has been a dismal failure..

your leadership has been almost as bad as Bush's administra­tion..

you area coward and so are the democrats with you..

you have refused to stand up for the American people..

your cowardice is directly responsible for the sad state of affairs we are in now..

our soldiers keep dying because of you and your democrats.­.
.

[wmbear]

IF I DIDN'T SOMEHOW SUSPECT YOU OF BEING A NEOCON TROLL MOLE...

I'd say you have a point....

[galateadoro]

He or she has a point even if he or she's a troll. I'd say several points. You can't disproof anything in the post.

[hydenorhare]

Wallace: Why not send a bill to The President that will cover uninsured children, and by that I mean actual children, not 25 year old children, at or below 200% of poverty, which was the original intention of the legislation?

Pelosi: Because in some states 200% would not be sufficient.

Wallace: Then why is there a Federal Minimum Wage that aplies to all states?
Why codify something other than 200% of poverty?
Why increase eligibility to 400%?
Why encourage children already covered by private insurance to move into the SCHIPS program?

Pelosi: Chris, see, this is why we donkeys don't like to appear on FOX.

[wmbear]

SHE ACTUALLY SAID "WE DONKEYS"??­?...

I can believe it....

(At least she didn't say, "We jackasses"­....)

[Mormondude]

Libs really don't have a good argument for 400%. We KNOW that this level will extend coverage to millions and millions of children that are ALREADY covered. This means that the government would be stepping in and destroying a functioning free market for no good reason. They would be monopolizing insurance on this group and crowding our private insurers for no good reason. And of course they don't want to be perceived as doing that, so they passed an amendment DENYING coverage to kids that already have insurance.

However, what this also means is that there is one group of parents at this income level who are responsible and value insurance coverage and spend the extra money necessary to have it. And there is another group of parents that are irresponsible and either don't care about having their kids insured, or aren't willing to sacrifice their 'lifestyle' to make it happen. And by DENYING coverage to the responsible parents, they are punishing responsible behavior. And by extending coverage to the irresponsible parents, they are encouraging irresponsible behavior.

So to be liberal and argue for this bill, you have to say that:

1) Free markets are bad, even when they are working.

2) Irresponsible parents need to be subsidized by the federal government, even if they make enough money to insure their own kids.

3) Responsible parents need to be financially punished for insuring their own kids.

It's a pretty hard argument to pull off, which is why none of them ever try.

[ignatov]

"It's a pretty hard argument to pull off, which is why none of them ever try."

I'll try. (Ouch one of your "facts" bites the dust two already!)

"1) Free markets are bad, even when they are working.

2) Irresponsible parents need to be subsidized by the federal government, even if they make enough money to insure their own kids.

3) Responsible parents need to be financially punished for insuring their own kids."

1) Unregulated corporations ARE bad and never work (except for the CEOs and stockholders). There's nothing "free" about laissez-faire economics except the freedom of corporations to behave anyway they want.

2) All citizens deserve a social safty net, even children unlucky enough to have irresponsible parents. Especially them.

3) This is silly. Having social programs for the poor is not a punishment of the wealthy. Do you think the existence of homeless shelters are a "punishment" of homeowners? Having read your opinions, Mormonduke, you probably do.

[nice2blucky]

Why is Nancy Pelosi touring the network television circuit? What is she doing? What is she trying to achieve? Support for legislative action?

This is hardly likely, because, since day one during her time leading the House, she's had that -- popular and political support. Yet she's done nothing except calculated political concessions and maneuverings.

She's, WITH THE MAJORITY, given Bush everything. Legislatively and with the agenda she's sold out.

Could she possibly be so dim-witted as to not recognize her popularity is less than Bush's -- him for what he's done and her for what she hasn't?

Democrats are to do well, not because they are Democrats or people like them, but because they are not Republicans. They are going to win because people are finally recognizing Republican Politics as dangerous and not representative of their values.

All Pelosi's feeble, toothless words mean nothing, for women and Democrats -- nothing good, anyway.

She looked better before she took the helm of the House, too. Now, she looks all puckered and constipated. Did she look that way before?

People who want a Democratic majority need to recognize that not just any Democrat will do. Right now, it's the Democrats who are hurting the Democratic Party.

If Nancy Pelosi were not the Majority Leader in House, I would still support her. I wouldn't know enough not to. However, her weaknesses as leader are overwhelming. She has got to go.

[Where is Jesus?]

Pelosi and Reid are just using Bush to try to get the Dems to win the presidency in 08. Their strategy is to keep Bush in office so that his lame policies and his incredibly low popularity will give them constant opportunity to link all Republicunts to him. He is the perfect foil for them. They are also afraid of taking on impeachment out of fear that the nation may blame them for it. Repukes will simply say that the Dems don't care about terrorism, they just want to get partisan revenge. That's why it's off the table.

[Where is Jesus?]

Peolsi's not stupid. Unpopular with her base right now but not stupid.

[frost]

.

maybe not stupid..

but she sure is a chickenshi­t..

she is unpopular because nancy and reid are bending over for the Bush administration and republican­s..
.

[RedRooster]

Where is Jesus? writes:
"Repukes will simply say that the Dems don't care about terrorism.­.."

Just wait until when a new Democratic president takes office, starts pulling troops out of Iraq, and the Reichwing noisemakers start screaming that the Democrats are "surrender­ing"...jus­t you wait...

It will happen.

They've done it before (most notably following Vietnam)..­.in fact they are STILL screaming the same old bullshit.

Heck, there Republicans today (including the delusional, John McCain) who insist that we could have "won" the "war" in Vietnam, if only we had stayed longer, wasted more money and killed more Vietnamese.

Remember, sociopaths, can be VERY persistent.

[wmbear]

WHERE IS JESUS?...

He bailed on us long ago....