- Don't vote for Jim "Idon'tknowski." David has two great posts on how the wannabe Rep won't be Repping the truth on children's health care, the S-CHIP program. Idon'tknowski says he wants children to have health care, just not undocumented immigrant children. Um, considering the program requires a valid ID, I fail to see how that's a problem. (Though, as David notes, the Globe's still confused.)
- Now Idon'tknowski says he just wants to rewrite the bill, which would effectively kill it (though you won't get that from him). The program would expire and hundreds of thousands of kids would lose access to health care. What a swell guy. Meanwhile, this was a completely bipartisan bill: no re-dos, Mr. Idon'tknowski.
- Why was this guy within 10% last poll? Expect that margin to increase, by a lot - and work for it too. Obviously, the kids can't afford
OganowksiIdon'tknowski in Congress (never mind the troops in Iraq).
- Meanwhile, for all those who were just dying to tear me a new one for being pragmatic on ENDA, you never can tell what will happen.
Now, I wouldn't expect him to actually sign the bill, but as I've said all along: we could send the blandest, worst ENDA possible to his desk and it would only help us in the long run if he vetoed it. I doubt most rational human beings know that glbt people can be fired from their job, in most states, simply for being gay, bi, lesbian or transgendered. There's no better way to put that issue on the map than a Presidential, George-W.-Bush veto, especially when the media can go on and on about how bland the actual bill was. Unfortunately, though, it's a lost opportunity: it seems we'll have to wait for a Democratic President to even have a chance on issues like ENDA, all because certain (loud) folks don't know how to be pragmatic and won't stand for anything less than a Titanic bill.
"Although Bush said during his 2000 election campaign that he does not support ENDA, neither he nor the White House has said whether the president would veto that legislation."