Politico calls it a "battle of soundbites", but i call it using history to prove one's point.

You know -- actually appealing to facts.

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle , who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a plan for state insurance for low-income children without insurance -- though I dislike the federal involvement. But given the continuous efforts to expand it, with an obvious goal of making the government the insurer of all children, I see the dangers of such programs expanding well-beyond their stated goal. After all -- since when has $83,000 been "low-income"?