Remember the gubernatorial primary election in my home state I mentioned in this post a few days ago? Well, it was held yesterday, and not only did the Republican BushCo/fundie stooge Bobby Jindal win the open primary, he won decisively enough that a runoff election was not needed. He is the first to win an open governor's seat outright in Louisiana since the open-primary system was instituted in the 1970s, and the first Indian-American governor ever elected in any state. (Thanks to ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mshollie for the update.) The Times-Picayune reports on his victory here; I don't know whether to be more appalled by the story itself or some of the visitor posts underneath it.
So it falls to those of us who are liberals and Democrats to continue the fight elsewhere, and hope for victories later to follow losses today. Toward that end, let me point you all (especially those likea_phoenix_afire who insist on pushing the shibboleth that the vetoed SCHIP bill in Congress would allow kids from better-off families to ditch their private health insurance for a government program) to this op-ed by Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker, one of the paper's two resident liberal commentators (Jay Bookman being the other), which appeared in the paper today. Money quote: "One of the misconceptions about SCHIP, perpetuated by conservatives who oppose it, is that it should cover only "poor" children (as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children). Nonsense. It was never intended for the poor; impoverished children are already covered by Medicaid. SCHIP covers children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who still don't earn enough to afford private insurance." And she goes on to point out that, despite assertions from the right to the contrary, the bill was entirely reasonable in its request to increase funding, hardly a blip in a multi-trillion-dollar budget—and far lower in cost than the Medicare prescription-drug program Junior Bush championed.
And this surprising column by George Will ends up arguing against the President being given a line-item veto by claiming that liberals want him to have it (news to me; I must have missed that memo), even as he himself cites the late former Prez Ronald Reagan's campaign to gain it back in the 1980s. Credit must be given, however, for Will's statement that the current occupant of the White House must not under any circumstance be allowed even more power for himself—and his successors—than he has already grabbed. A line-item veto in the hands of any President, let alone an imperial-minded Nixon or Bush the Lesser, is a dangerous thing for the separation of powers; one of the things that makes Will one of the tiny few conservative pundits for whom I have any respect, however grudging, is that he at least has enough sense to understand this.
mshollie for the update.) The Times-Picayune reports on his victory here; I don't know whether to be more appalled by the story itself or some of the visitor posts underneath it.So it falls to those of us who are liberals and Democrats to continue the fight elsewhere, and hope for victories later to follow losses today. Toward that end, let me point you all (especially those like
a_phoenix_afire who insist on pushing the shibboleth that the vetoed SCHIP bill in Congress would allow kids from better-off families to ditch their private health insurance for a government program) to this op-ed by Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker, one of the paper's two resident liberal commentators (Jay Bookman being the other), which appeared in the paper today. Money quote: "One of the misconceptions about SCHIP, perpetuated by conservatives who oppose it, is that it should cover only "poor" children (as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children). Nonsense. It was never intended for the poor; impoverished children are already covered by Medicaid. SCHIP covers children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who still don't earn enough to afford private insurance." And she goes on to point out that, despite assertions from the right to the contrary, the bill was entirely reasonable in its request to increase funding, hardly a blip in a multi-trillion-dollar budget—and far lower in cost than the Medicare prescription-drug program Junior Bush championed.And this surprising column by George Will ends up arguing against the President being given a line-item veto by claiming that liberals want him to have it (news to me; I must have missed that memo), even as he himself cites the late former Prez Ronald Reagan's campaign to gain it back in the 1980s. Credit must be given, however, for Will's statement that the current occupant of the White House must not under any circumstance be allowed even more power for himself—and his successors—than he has already grabbed. A line-item veto in the hands of any President, let alone an imperial-minded Nixon or Bush the Lesser, is a dangerous thing for the separation of powers; one of the things that makes Will one of the tiny few conservative pundits for whom I have any respect, however grudging, is that he at least has enough sense to understand this.
