The NY Times has more followup on Mr Bu$h’s insistence that poor children just have to get by without health insurance.

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.

It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general.

It’s a troubling scenario. A Party rocked by scandal, crime, sexual perversion and public disgust implacably trundles on, oblivious to the American public it pretends to serve, in desperate pursuit of the ca$h of corporations.

As for the children’s insurance veto, the candidates, in aligning with Mr. Bush, are mindful of the concerns of fiscal conservatives that expanding the program could result in huge future costs. Unlike with Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush’s capacity to be a drag on the candidates’ fortunes is smaller on the insurance veto, Republican analysts say, because the veto is not especially unpopular with Republican primary voters. They are the current target audience for the candidates, according to their campaign advisers, so the electoral gamble of supporting the veto — if not Mr. Bush — is relatively modest at this point.

If they really think conservative Republicans support George Bu$h’s spitting on poor and middle class children with no health insurance they are dumb enough to deserve what will happen to them. Social conservatives are appalled by MrBu$h’s callous disregard of helpless children.

There is a class of American who does have the same contempt for the average American that Mr Bu$h has. Mitt Romney is a multi-millionaire, and is interested in amassing as much political power as he can. Rudy Giuliani, a junior multi-millionaire, wants desperately to join the big boys, seeking the acceptance they will always deny him, although they do like his inner viciousness and hatred of dark-skinned people. John McCain, who once had a moment of fear and heroism amid the pain of a horrible imprisonment, is now old and tired, and suffers a confusion possibly caused by his wartime experiences, and that is publicly embarrassing.

Messers Romney and Giuliani publicly state they are troubled that some children who are presently covered by private insurance, or who could be, will be covered by this bill. Of course, that’s a small percentage at best, but Republican doctrine requires that uninsured children be denied coverage in order to protect any alleged private insurance companies’ profits.

To properly comprehend the dynamics of the program, one must first understand that Mr Bu$h is intentionally misrepresenting both what the program does, and what its expansion is intended to do. Appearing at a public meeting yesterday, Mr Bu$h lied like the trooper he is when he claimed as yesterday’s NY Times reports,

Mr. Bush argues that the expansion is too costly and would push people who could afford private insurance onto the government rolls, steering the program away from its initial aim of helping poor children. He said that states like New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico spend more money on adults than children, and he reiterated his contention, which the authors of the bill dispute, that the measure could benefit some families earning up to $83,000 a year.

“That doesn’t sound poor to me,” the president said.

Strangely enough, Democrats state there is no such provision in the SCHIP insurance bill. Utah’s Senator Orrin Hatch, as selfish an elitist as any blue-blooded Republican in the Congress, agrees, publicly supporting the bill on moral grounds.

“If we’re truly compassionate, it seems to me, we’d want to endorse this program.”

It should be noted that Senator Hatch doesn’t have to stand for re-election until 2013. He has no reason to pander, which to me is the soundest reason why he’s being truthful about his supporting this bill.

A cynical man would think Mr Bu$h just can’t stand the thought that none of his friends will get richer with this law.