Thanks to Christy and TRex for the great tutorials.

-S

In other words, I make sure that my letters, as I send them, are as close as possible to the way they would finally be published. My thinking is that there’s less for the editor to do, and that may sway him/her. I know my references have been retained, as I sent one in which I had referenced an article with the incorrect date, and the letter was published with the wrong date.

My local paper is the Balto. Sun, and they print most of the ones I send. I’ve also had 7 letters in the NYT over the last 4 years.

Just saw this verbatim, on Brian Lamb’s c-span, on the abbreviated Capital ‘News’ briefs given at the bottom of the screen:

“Sandy Berger who stole documents from the national security archives endorses Clinton.”
-That’s language right off Tom Delay’s desk -hardly worthy of c-span.

But would Brian Lamb do the same oh, say with a Republican Senator?

“Larry Craig who tried to solicit gay sex in an airport bathroom stall speaks on the Senate floor today about SCHIP for kids.”

We hope so!

The 360-45 vote you link above is the Small Business Tax Relief Act. The reason we didn’t discuss it beforehand is that these were closed-door negotiations for the most part — and I didn’t see the bill until it became public, so I didn’t know about the compromise until it was already made. I’m not omnicient, neither is Jane — we do the best we can with what we have.

christy, my wish wasn’t meant as a complaint… that part of my comment really was wishful thinking. and if it was anyone’s fault, it was mine if i’m the person who cares about it.

about the other stuff though…

1) if i linked to the wrong roll call vote, where is the roll call vote for house approval of the original bill? i’m confused.

2) do your really think that it won’t be more difficult to get coverage for immigrant children if they have to get it on their own (and not as a package with citizen children)? isn’t it more likely that by cutting them out now, they are locked out?

but if that’s true, then why did the bill that covered immigrant children get more votes than the one that didn’t?

i could be really wrong. but at least, that’s the way it looks to me. i wish we’d discussed all this out in the open before getting to this point.

precisely because otherwise they could not have overridden a veto with this particular Congress.

are you sure about that? it looks to me like the original bill got more votes in the house than the modified version: 360 – 45 vs 265 – 159, from the time line here.

or do i have it wrong?

They were up against a timing wall this time and it was either pass a measure that covered the children already in the program so that they can continue to have healthcare. Or stand on principle and have none of the children get healthcare.

It’s unfortunate, but that is the reality at the moment. And no amount of wishing people in Congress were more decent human beings makes it different. It is how things are — which is why we keep working to get more and better Democrats into the mix. It’s an incremental process, and one we are not — ever — going to let go. But sometimes you have to look the harsh reality right in the face and, frankly, this is about as harsh as it gets — and the truth is, that’s juts how it is at the moment, whether we like it or not, no matter how much we know that decency dictates that they take this further.

The way to get it moved further is to get better people casting the needed votes.

selise — My understanding is that legal immigrant children were not included this time around — precisely because otherwise they could not have overridden a veto with this particular Congress. It was a get everything we can now and do better on the next round decision based on what was achievable. Sometimes you take everything you can get on the first round and work the edges the next go around, which is what is planned, as I understand it. It’s one of those “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” things for me — knowing how necessary this sort of care can be for the well-being of millions of kids across the country, and the potential to add in a few million more, we don’t have the votes now to get every single thing on the wish list. But we do likely have the votes to get most of it.

well, i think the possibility of getting health care for immigrant children goes down significantly if they have to get it on their own (and not as a package with citizen children). can you tell me that you really think otherwise?

isn’t this EXACTLY the same kind of issue as teddy has been writing about on ENDA?… about how it’s important to not leave behind the weakest and most vunerable?

and in this case, isn’t it pandering to the worse kind of racist bigotry – because immigrant children are more likely to be brown?

i don’t think this has anything to do with getting “every single thing on the wish list” – if it was, we’d be talking about universal single payer. it’s about whether or not we really believe in immigrant rights.

Your incoherent ravings upset the dog. Please stop.

Disappointedly yours,

Hugh

PS The canary does not care for you much either.