Bush says this bill takes us in the wrong direction--HA!!!--the only direction Bush and Co. want to lead us is straight down!!!

LIKE HELL--the US Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 that "A sentencing court may consider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted," United States v. Watts, 519 US 148 (1997).

Justice Stevens dissented, "It is difficult to square this explicit statutary command to impose incremental punishment for each of the 'multiple offenses' of which a defendant 'is convicted' with the conclusion that Congress intended incremental punishment for each offense of which a defendant has been acquitted."

This raises the grim specter of rife corruption throughout the higher spheres of our Government...

The US Commission on Civil Rights report on the Irregularities of the 2000 Florida Presidential Election came right out and called on the US Dep't. of Justice to investigate compelling evidence of blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act--of course, the DOJ simply turned a blind eye...

I urge all to complain to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; e-mail at 1503@ohchr.org.

USA Today wouldn't "publish" this very comment of mine--imagine that!!!

Just when I think that this President can't do anything to further lower my opinion of his term as President, he goes and veto's SCHIP! Trying to cut the rising costs of government? Is he kidding? With the disgusting amount of money being spent on this horrible war, he wants to START watching the government's money by cutting a program to help our nation's poor childern have access to good health care? And, how have neo cons been so successful to make it sound like health care for our country is a bad thing? Cut back on funding buildings, that massive US Embassy and other things in Iraq but find money to help our our citizens....especially our young. Shame on all member of Congress that stays on the side of this President and this veto!

Ugh... that ad was as bad as Bush.

Consider that some employers have offered new hires insurance ONLY for the employee. The employee can insure other members of their families, but only if they pay the difference in premium out of pocket. It's just one reason S-CHIP needs to be expanded.

Thud! Square in the jubblies-that was a justly deserved kick in the nuts.

Compassionate Conservative who?

I'm a non-smoking Democrat from liberal Austin Texas, who voted for the other guy. I'm no fan of George W. by any means, but as citizens, we have to see the SCHIPs bill for what it was: a quick, not very well thought-out health coverage increase that would be supported on what? The backs of American smokers, whose numbers lie heavily in the poor, non-college-educated minority range. And this coming from other Democrats? It's disappointing at the least. I'm glad he vetoed it. His motivation may not have been in that direction, but the consequences of his actions have saved many of my friends a dollar increase in the Federal tax of the cigarettes they buy, which are already taxed heavily by the state we live in. Texas implemented a $1.41 per pack tax in January. And while the argument will be made that higher taxes on cigarettes would perhaps lower the number of people who smoked, the counter argument can also be made that cigarette sales would drop, perhaps making money less available for SCHIPs, and that some smokers might resort to prohibition-era tactics just to take a drag.
And what about a luxury tax?
It's ok to tax poor, uneducated minorities, but no one said anything about increased taxing of someone's purchase of a new car or a yacht.
Congress needs to stop trying so eagerly to appease the American people just because they have a little trouble rallying together to stop a little thing like a presidential veto. Boo hoo.

What does your $1.41 per pack in Texas have to do with a Federal program called S-CHIP? Not snarking - just a little ignorant about the specifics of the program and how it shakes out for 'the citizen'.
I was thinking on the drive home from work about how much more economic stress the poor and middle income people can take before we have a revolution. It seems that corporate higher ups and their politician co-horts could do some reading up on what the excesses of the Bourbon Kings did for them. Of course, French peasants weren't being appeased with the temporary sense of ease that a credit card provides, nor with the candy colors of TV and legalized drugs meant to help 'cure' once normal side affects of living such as tension, worry and irritation. Still, with the economy slipping and slipping... I wonder if this is one of those pendulum things that will straighten itself out somewhat harmlessly or if it will come to something huge and ugly? I guess only time will tell - certainly the powers that be aren't interested in preventative medicine.

"The poor, non-college-educated minority range" bears the burden? They're also the only class that gets the benefit. These are also the people who most often gamble and drink away their paychecks. So this way their kids would at least get more of their parents' pay than they do now. Bush is rightly slammed for vetoing this bill.

It is good that Bush vetoed this welfare program for illegals. We already pay enough for the illegals. They flood our hospitals and close down the emergency care. We should have Mexico pay for this, with their oil. Bring the military back from Iraq and put them on the Mexican border.