Democrats are trying to label Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., as a lapdog for the Bush administration, especially on the war in Iraq and intelligence issues. But Roberts’ latest campaign commercial highlights one disagreement he had with President Bush — though the ad doesn’t point this out or explain the context. The ad spotlights how Roberts “voted to cover 34,000 more Kansas kids.†That vote was part of a bipartisan effort to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed. To his credit, Roberts was a vocal supporter of the expansion and critic of the myths and misinformation that the Bush administration and some Republican opponents, including Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, spread about the expansion.
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Regular on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- BlueJay on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- KSGolfnut on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Regular on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- outlander on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
18 Comments
Pat Roberts has been a complete disappointment throughout the Bush regime. With his senority in Congress he could have done great things. He chose not to. This man sided with the most corrupt administration in American History. He chose to deceive the American people. He is past his prime and should not be rewarded by Kansans with another term in office.
Good on Roberts for standing up for children and the people on that one. But on the scales of right and wrong does it out weight where he stood on the Iraq occupation and the intelligences? I use the same scales to weight Robert’s actions as I do to weight McCain’s and the down side seem to have fewer items but weightier ones.
It must be the ONLY time he didnt have his head up bush’s ass, so naturally they want to “highlight” it.
Hey, if it’s all you got, you go with it!
The sad fact of the whole matter is, we can bail out the Bear Sterns of this country to the tune of billions of dollars, even though their predicament is of their own making, but we can’t find the money to help the children of this country receive proper medical care.
Something’s seriously wrong with this country, and supporting greedy businesses and politicians is definitely not the answer.
Pat Roberts did the right thing, but I wonder if it was done because he knew there was no chance of passing SCHIP, and wanted to look good. The rest of his stances appear to support that.
I agree! His track record indicates this was safe pandering. Support something for the people because it doesn’t have a chance. then use it to prove you’re a good guy no matter what your miserable record is.
He is complicit is the deaths of our soldiers for a war he knew was illegal, a war that makes NO ONE any safer. Instead of performing the responsibilities he was charged with he covered up the facts, then ran out on them. He is not only irresponsible and unreliable, but quits when the going gets tough.
Odd headline. He hasn’t been a ‘lapdog’ on anything. If you’ll check, you’ll see that the Democrats in the Intel Committee agreed with him on everything, until everything was done and they could run to the cameras.
Are we, then, supposed to forget about the elephant in the room — Bush’s Misbegotten War? His support for Bush’s tax give away to Exxon Mobil? Nope. Roberts owns a big piece of the responsibility for Bush’s deceit and his failure to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution.
Listen to Sunbeam, “Roberts isn’t a lapdog, so stop saying that!”
No, Sunbeam, he’s far worse than a lapdog–he’s a suck up, a kiss ass, a brown nose, a boot polisher, a lick-spittle.
It was easy for him to “support” S-CHIP, knowing that his party would kill it (and Bush would veto it if necessary).
KsFrmGrrl is entirely correct. The one issue in which Roberts was NOT joined at the hip with Worst. President. Ever. is the one he highlights in a glossy TV ad.
Nice try, loser.
He voted for SCHIP, that should be enough to tell you how backwards he is.
Funny story in the state where I live.
The state workers get fully funded health care, part of the union contract.
So about a two weeks ago, the Dem Guv says that we should try and raise the cigarette tax AGAIN, to pay for healthcare. This was tried in the Nov 06 election and was soundly defeated.
So a week later a Rep. state senator said that the legislature should look at making the state employees pay for part of their healthcare and the savings would pay for the healthcare of the uninsured.
Of course the union made a big cry about this saying that you shouldn’t put the cost of healthcare for the uninsured on the backs of the state workers.
I thought this was funny in regards to the double standards the Dems love. Put the cost of healthcare on just a certain percentage of the population (smokers) but don’t put it on the backs of union workers.
I will NEVER support paying for healthcare on the backs of a few. When you come to me and say let’s put the cost of healthcare as a tax on toliet paper, I’m there.
If the healthcare is to cover EVERYONE, then EVERYONE needs to pay for it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, it must have been the second time he didn’t vote with the bush administration, the first being over the Dubai Port deal, after the public outrage.
If that’s all he has to show he’s not bush’s waterboy, he’s in deep do do!
His biggest failure was to the nation, at a time he could have stood up for an equal but separate watchdog congress, he kow towed to the party.
I think that was Sen. Roberts attempt to differentiate himself from bush, he was planning for the election and thought, hey that would make a great Grandfaterly image and soundbite!
Outta here.
On numerous, NUMEROUS occasions Jay Rockefeller said aloud, publically, without hesitation that Pat Roberts had squashed every effort on the part of the Intelligence committee to do anything that would get to the truth about the way Bush handled intel.
Roberts wrote a completely partisan document directing the handling of national security from the Senate intel committee view that made national news. The guy’s behavior in itself was a laughable and in itself was covered up because it was so partisan.
Any claim that Roberts had the agreement or support of anyone, Republican or Demacrat, who believed in statesmanship - at which Roberts proved himself to be a total failure during the Bush years - and then those persons ran off behind his back to criticize him is beyond gall.
Fetch, Roberts, fetch!
gguEzZ fasdfsdaf safasf saf safsa fsafasfsa
NQtm1x htdioghrdeioh uerhuy h3oh iohgdfiogho isdfhio sdjhdf
rARiwL htdioghrdeioh uerhuy h3oh iohgdfiogho isdfhio sdjhdf
4 Trackbacks
Willie…
Perfect!! thanks for the effort….
iowa home insurance…
It sounds interesting but I am not sure that I agree with you completely….
Diabetes…
nice post about this…..
Anti Depressant…
nice post about this…..