Between a Veto and the Base

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The most interesting move on SCHIP came from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee at yesterday's debate. Huckabee had previously sounded supportive of Bush. Pressed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews about whether he would have vetoed the measure, however, Huckabee equivocated: "I'm not absolutely certain that that's going to be the right way because there are going to be so many issues we've got to fight. And the political loss of that is going to be enormous."

That his fellow contenders have made the opposite political calculation can be explained by GOP voters' anger at what they see as out-of-control government spending. Especially from the viewpoint of those working to convince the base of their conservative bona fides, breaking with Bush on SCHIP could be risky.

But that has to be balanced against the broad support for SCHIP expansion even among Republican voters, about 60 percent in the latest Post poll. Add Grassley's popularity in Iowa and the fact that independents can vote -- and make the difference -- in the New Hampshire primary, and the candidates' positions look less sensible.

Candidates who are in Congress or well-financed enough to have research staffs "ought to know better," Grassley told me. "They're entitled to a mistake or two, but these same candidates, if they had an opportunity to hear me and they still continued to say what they're saying . . . then that would really irritate me."

Imagine, meanwhile, the fun that Democratic ad-makers could have with this issue in the general election. The sooner these candidates can get the administration to find a face-saving compromise, the better their party's prospects for keeping the White House will be.

marcusr@washpost.com