October 8th, 2007
02:00 PM ET
7 years ago

Liberal groups target Republicans over kids heathcare veto

Democratic members of Congress applaud shortly after signing legislation for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) legislation

WASHINGTON (CNN) - As House members are at home for the Columbus Day weekend, a coalition of labor and advocacy groups, including the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, is stepping up the battle over the federal children's health-care program, known as SCHIP. The coalition rolled out a nearly $1 million television ad campaign and is targeting about 20 Republicans to vote to override the president's veto of the bill.

The national ad, sponsored by Americans United for Change, an umbrella group of liberal organizations, is running on cable networks. It includes images of a baby and other children with an announcer saying "George Bush just vetoed Abby." The coalition also promises to rally activists in districts of another 20 House Republicans over the next two weeks.

This push by Democratic groups comes on top of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's efforts to zero in on eight House Republicans who opposed the bill. The campaign arm started running radio ads and funding automated calls to voters last week in districts it considers competitive for Democratic challengers.

Full story

– CNN Congressional Producer Dierdre Walsh


Filed under: SCHIP
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Dave, New York, NY

    good, the GOP should be targeted for this shameful veto... What is wrong with this president that he will throw billions of our tax dollars into the pit of Iraq but refuses the relatively minor expense of *taking care of our children* ? There is something fundamentally wrong with those values.

    October 8, 2007 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  2. Billy Rubin, Chicago Illinois

    It serves the Republicans right.

    The DCCC has $22.1 million on hand, compared with $1.6 million for their Republican counterpart, simply because voters are not interested in the GOP and their lies anymore.

    October 8, 2007 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  3. spinstopper

    Who wants to slight the poor for middle class white votes??

    Americans United for Change
    AFL-CIO
    MoveOn.org
    Media Matters
    Democratic Congressional Committee

    Can you say, Culture of Corruption, how about Vast Left-Wing Slime Machine

    Sorry guys, but you lost all credibility when you attacked our war hero for trying to do his job...

    October 8, 2007 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  4. Ben Kentucky

    why don't we just give free healthcare to everyone and end up like canada. look for the real problem here not political posturing wonder why we all hate politicians. if a family makes a total of 60k a year they can afford health insurance.

    October 8, 2007 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  5. David, Gilbert Arizona

    I'm sure the million dollar ads are going to show under privileged children such as is described in this article:

    ...It includes images of a baby and other children with an announcer saying "George Bush just vetoed Abby."

    What these ads won't say is the Bush didn't veto underprivileged children at all. SCHIP still exists and still covers the health care needs of children living in homes making up to approximately $34,000.

    Bush veto'd a bill that provided health care to families earning approximately $52,000.

    Hypocrite Pelosi and her private jet while children go without health care is counting on the fact that voters can't or won't do the math.

    October 8, 2007 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  6. Robert, Vivian, Louisiana

    What's wrong with people pulling their own weight?

    Six states used money that was supposed to go to poor children to give to adults! SHAME!

    SHCIP can go to ADULTS up to age 25! SHAME!

    SCHIP can go to households making over $80,000 instead of going to poor kids! SHAME!

    If a democrat is elected in '08, do you think they'll refuse any waivers for people making 4+ times poverty level?

    The President should VETO any bill that gives freebies to middle class adults in the guise of helping poor children.

    Instead of free health care, how about birth control?

    End the war, and end the welfare state!
    Vote Ron Paul!

    October 8, 2007 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  7. Tom, Texas, USA

    First, the Democrat party was exposed for celebrating every bogus, phony "soldier" claiming to have won a war. Now, the Democrat party, in its attempt to forcibly collectivize one seventh of the booming, booming, booming Bush economy, has been exposed for exploiting a small child by having said child read their socialist talking points during the Democrat party weekly radio address. The child's parents live in a home worth at least $500,000 and spend $40,000 per year to send two kids to private schools, and the treason party wants the American tax payer to provide health insurance for these parents' children.

    October 8, 2007 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  8. Ben, Columbia MO

    I agree with Dave from New York. Well said!

    October 8, 2007 02:45 pm at 2:45 pm |
  9. RIghtyTighty

    "Liberal groups target Republicans" again, oh dear..., and enlight of the success rate of this 110th Congress, they have a lot to worry about.., NOT!

    October 8, 2007 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  10. Henry Tucker, Ga

    AFL-CIO and Moveon.Org are targeting Republicans?? The only missing party in this group of attackers is Mob Boss, John Gotti.

    Actually – this approach will simplify the choice for the American people:

    European Socialism (Baby bond, Universal Healthcare, SCHIP – $83k income & 25 year olds are "covered", Unrestrained taxpayer funded pet projects, tax cuts rejected...taxes increased)

    verus

    Return to Fiscal Conservatism
    (Winding down Iraq War, keep tax rates low, keep inflation down, keep unemployment low, invest in growing our economy, empower individuals to purchase health insurance through low taxes and strong economy)

    Which approach is better? Nanny-state or Empowering the individual?

    October 8, 2007 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  11. Brian, Syracuse NY

    Stupid kids, taking money from us while our oil companies are starving and our wars are going underfunded.

    Shame on Nancy Pelosi for wanting to help America's children.

    October 8, 2007 02:54 pm at 2:54 pm |
  12. JB Boston MA

    Instead of name calling address the issues:

    Do you believe $83,000 is the right income requirements? Higher or lower and why?

    Do you think the age limit of 25 is right? Higher or lower and why?

    Do you think illegal immigrants should be eligible? Why?

    You can call people evil etc. . . but gets us no where.

    I personally believe that income and age requirements are too high. And I believe that you should have to be a citizen.

    I am sure a great number of dems would rather just attack than give thought out, calm rational opinions. Easier to scream impeach and evil poor child hater.

    October 8, 2007 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  13. Brian, Syracuse NY

    I don't hear any Democrats screaming impeachment.

    Actually, it was the bloodthirsty GOP screaming for impeachment when Clinton was President.

    Truth hurts, donut.

    October 8, 2007 03:16 pm at 3:16 pm |
  14. Mark, Shreveport, LA

    I find it hard to believe our founding fathers envisioned welfare for abled bodied people and health care for the middle class being provided by the government.

    "God helps those who help themselves," Benjamin Franklin.

    "God help anyone who doesn't want to give things away for free to people who don't work for it!" Democrats '07

    October 8, 2007 03:17 pm at 3:17 pm |
  15. David Williams. Minneapolis MN

    I'm all for the veto. It's the only thing I've agreed with Bush on yet. The problem is, it's not our tax dollars that's paying for this bill – it's a sin tax on tobacco. If our lazy representatives in Washington would actually do their job and find some funding for the bill I'd be all for it.

    October 8, 2007 03:23 pm at 3:23 pm |
  16. Ray, Columbus, OH

    The language was also changed to not include children from conception but to provide pregnancy services for pregnant women.

    Translation: Taxpayer dollars for abortions. Unless you can show me where every dollar I have to pay for this prgram goes and can assure me it's not going to kill another child, the 83k/yr family can pay my part.

    October 8, 2007 03:24 pm at 3:24 pm |
  17. JB Boston MA

    Brian-

    Your attempts at changing the subject are noted.

    I was referring to the dems on this ticker. Go to any story and someone will be attacking Pres Bush instead of addressing the issues.

    So Brian, how do you feel about this bill? DO you think income requirements are spot on?

    Or, how do you feel about the funding of this bill?

    I am very interested to hear your opinions. : )

    October 8, 2007 03:48 pm at 3:48 pm |
  18. laura Kansas City KS

    "why don't we just give free healthcare to everyone and end up like canada. look for the real problem here not political posturing wonder why we all hate politicians. if a family makes a total of 60k a year they can afford health insurance.

    Posted By Ben Kentucky : October 8, 2007 2:38 pm "

    Uhm, 60k barely covers rent and normal living expenses in lots of the country and doesn't cover them completely in some parts. And health insurance for a family can easily cost $800 a month. I would rather my tax money go to those families who actually choose to work and yet still can't afford health insurance than those sit home on their butts all day and collect a full ride.

    I use to be a republican, but am ever so close to changing parties.

    October 8, 2007 03:56 pm at 3:56 pm |
  19. Colleen, Kansas City

    So let me understand this, if I make 51,000 a year and have to pay 12,000 of that to insure 2 kids, with a 1,000 deductable, that changes my income to 39,000. That's what eveyone is against? So if I'm middle class at 51,000 you want to make sure that I pay my childrens insurance and then make 39,000. Won't that put more middle class into the poor catagory?

    October 8, 2007 03:57 pm at 3:57 pm |
  20. Tim, Seattle

    Which approach is better? Nanny-state or Empowering the individual?
    --

    Well,we have had lower taxes now since 2000 + the economy has been pretty strong until now, and yet there are more uninsured (10 million more since 2000.
    So tell we how the empowreing the indivual philosophy has helped the problem....guess what... it hasn't. Time to try something else.

    October 8, 2007 04:00 pm at 4:00 pm |
  21. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Well,we have had lower taxes now since 2000 + the economy has been pretty strong until now, and yet there are more uninsured (10 million more since 2000.
    So tell we how the empowreing the indivual philosophy has helped the problem….guess what… it hasn't. Time to try something else.

    Posted By Tim, Seattle : October 8, 2007 4:00 pm

    Tim, exactly WHEN did Healthcare become an obligation of the American People to provide to ALL uninsured? When did personal responsibility get shelved for Government-Sponsored entitlement attitude?

    It's time to try something different? Great. Just so you know what you are voting for – many countries in Europe provide the same socialist-style programs. The current economic status in Europe:

    $12 per gallon for gasoline
    9% unemployment
    40-50% tax rate

    Yeah...THAT sounds like a great solution, Tim (insert sarcasm).

    October 8, 2007 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  22. lou, Miami, Florida

    to:Posted By Tom, Texas

    On the so called booming, booming, booming Bush economy by you... IT’S COSTING TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS!!! It’s a false economy. I can even sustain a booming economy if I could borrow, borrow, borrow...
    Read, get informed stop drinking the cool aid MAN.

    October 8, 2007 04:21 pm at 4:21 pm |
  23. Leeda, Catonsville, MD

    Here's' a thought: STOP BREEDING. If you can't afford to feed it or provide it healthcare, then you shouldn't be having it in the first place. Why not ask taxpayers out there who don't and can't afford health insurance themselves how they feel about PAYING for healthcare for someone else's child. It's absurd.

    October 8, 2007 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |
  24. Tim O, St Louis MO

    Those who mindlessly continue to blindly follow Bush in ruining our great nation are soon to see the consequences to our children, and not just from the ridiculous veto of this healthcare initiative. Bush is Nero fiddling while Rome burns. And all Bush supporters are sheep just waiting for the next slaughter. The USA is no longer a Democracy when the majority fails to win the day. We have one man acting as an ideologue and a bunch of corrupt chronies doing his bidding. We have HUNDREDS of billions to spend on killing people including are own troops in a region that will never understand western civilization let alone acting civil. Yet we have no money to spend on our children? Who cares who has the money or the means? Insure all the children! Health care to our citizens is a right not a priviledge. When bird flu mutates to a pandemic state shouldnt we want everyone to be able to be treated or should it just be for the rich? Do the members of congress pay for their own health benefits? I think not. Why not try spending money on healing instead of killing. On reasonably priced drugs instead of bombs. The only thing less patriotic than supporting our troops is supporting President Bush!

    October 8, 2007 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |
  25. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    How I read Politico comments: (1) if it's over five lines long, I ignore it because it's incoherent blather rather than concise commentary; (2) if it's from a Southern state, I ignore it because they're the intellectual armpit of America.

    October 8, 2007 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
1 2 3

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.