Sounds to me like a "get out and vote" strategy for the Left, more than being "for the children" . Here's Matt at Blogs for Bush:
...there is a difference between a bill's intention and it's implementation and results. The Heritage Foundation has done an incredible amount of research and determined that the bill "fails children," and there's plenty of data and reports that look into various aspects of the vetoed bill, including to whom coverage has been expanded to include... For instance, the expansion would "children" up to 21 years old, as well as children in households with an income of $83,000, which would somewhere between the top 15-20% percentile of income earners in the country. Is that really what the bill is suppose to be doing? Providing coverage for kids in families that can afford it on their own?
Every time government comes to help, they create even more problems. Katrina is still a mess. The War on Poverty is the biggest and most expensive quagmire in the history of the planet. Race relations seem to be worse rather than better, and all Women's Liberation seems to have given us is Paris and Britney. And they call themselves progressive!