After all, the President has proposed an increase, just not the gargantuan expansion of the health insurance program for poor kids to include adults and middle class kids, too.

And Republicans in Congress have proposed an even bigger increase than the President -- but again, keeping the program for poor kids, not the children of families making $60K a year.

But that isn't enough for the NYTimes, which has the audacity to complain about the president being driven by ideology.

The House approved a revised bill to finance the children’s health insurance program yesterday by a 265-to-142 margin — a strong mandate, but still not enough to overcome another promised veto by President Bush.

If the president carries out this threat, we hope Congressional tacticians can find a way to enact this important measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the president’s visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.

Desire to protect the tobacco industry? Where does that one come from?

And is it just me, or is the complaint by the editors of the New York Times to ideologically driven positions on policy issues somewhat akin to complaints about from a hooker about the loose sexual morality of women in contemporary society?