Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt

Forbes ^ | Feb. 20, 2004 | Adam Entous

[FairOpinion]

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The White House has been reaching out to conservative groups to quell a rebellion over government spending and budget deficits, hoping to shore up President George W. Bush's political base in an election year.

Conservative leaders who have taken part in private White House meetings in recent weeks said on Friday officials have promised to all but freeze non-defense spending, and assured them Bush will follow through on his threat to veto major highway legislation if Congress refuses to scale it back.

The price tag on a six-year highway and transportation bill stalled in the House of Representatives is $375 billion while a Senate highway bill calls for spending $318 billion. The White House has proposed a $256 billion measure.

"Bush has been very attentive to the critique from the right," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful conservative group -- offering tentative praise where once he talked openly of a brewing rebellion.

But if the White House does not follow through, said Heritage Foundation vice president for government relations, Michael Franc, "all bets are off."

"This is not something you can address with a handshake, a pat on the back and an invitation to the White House. You address it by actions," he added.

The White House is used to being attacked by Democrats, but it came as something of a shock when fellow Republicans broke ranks over growth in government spending, hurting Bush at a time when his job approval numbers were already falling.

Conservatives from the Cato Institute criticized the president for overseeing a nearly 25 percent surge in spending over the last three years -- the fastest pace since the Johnson administration of the mid-1960s.

Others singled out his failure to lay out concrete plans to reduce the federal budget deficit, projected at a record $521 billion this year. Even some of Bush's Republican allies in the House warned of a backlash against his budget priorities.

In what one administration official called a "concerted effort," senior White House officials have been meeting with Republicans in Congress to smooth over their differences.

Joel Kaplan, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, has been meeting with conservative groups, an aide said. The effort may be paying off.

"Stung by a lot of the criticism from the right, Bush is going to be steadfast about sticking to his spending targets," said Moore, who warned in January that a rebellion among conservatives was brewing.

Now Moore says, "They clearly are trying to reach out. I think the complaints of conservatives have been heeded."

Heritage analyst Brian Riedl once described the mood of conservatives as "angry."

Now Riedl says, "I think the White House is definitely moving in the right direction," though he added, "There's a lot of work ahead of them."

William Niskanen, the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute who advised former President Ronald Reagan, said he has personally not seen much of an outreach effort. "We'll have to see" what the White House does, he said.

[Sabertooth]

Now that the administration has adopted the position that conservatives' voices must be heeded, it will be interesting to see whether the chronic dividers on this site change their tune to match. My bet is that this will be one of the very few areas in which they'll disagree with President Bush.

No doubt they'll be embittered that they don't get to make up the secret handshake to the clubhouse.

[StolarStorm]

Actually, most of us would be happy if Bush moved to the Middle. His immigration proposal and massive spending have put him to the LEFT of the divide.

[Tamzee]

Saber, you'd be a lot more credible if you seemed to approve of President Bush's actions occasionally. It appears that close to 100% of your time here at Free Republic is spent criticizing him, not just proposing alternate policies but using sneering insults toward President Bush and sounding almost like a woman scorned.

So I have a bad attitude in your mind? Well, I can only assume a few different reasons for a member of Free Republic to spend most or all of their time attacking President Bush...

1. The Freeper is actually a liberal who does in fact disagree with MOST of what Bush does.

2. The Freeper is a one-issue voter who doesn't CARE about "MOST of what Bush does", that Freeper only cares about that single issue. In other words, that Freeper must have a pretty shoddy sense of values, not actually any more admirable than a liberal's set of values, really.

3. The Freeper actually DOES agree with "most of what Bush does", but they expect to be able to agree with ALL of what Bush does... they want a president that mimics their own values to a "T". Well, that's a prima donna voter with a fairly spoiled sense of entitlement. Yes, it IS a sense of entitlement to expect a president to closely match your ideals when your ideals are shared by only approximately 30% of the population. The left has their welfare queens, we have our "conservative value" queens.

[nickcarraway]

It's nothing new or brilliant, just an old, but true formula. Bush should brace the conservatives now, so it's okay down the stretch. If he doesn't he could be in for a lot of trouble.

[NittanyLion]

Why do you lack the courage of your convictions? Don't you think that conservatism has the truth on its side? Why are you always reflexively running away from our strengths?

Excellent points. In order to demonstrate that conservatism works, we need to actively enact policy. A proven line of successes will attract additional voters to the cause - and I'd expect folks on this site to believe the most success will come if conservative policy is put into place. If liberal policy will lead to failure, why would we want to be associated with it (let alone advocate it)?

Yet we have many that run in fear from it...one wonders to what extent they actually believe in conservatism.

[hchutch]

Stop being sanctimonious, Toothy.

I don't expect you to understand - you weren't the guy who had their candidate stabbed in the back by a sore loser whose candidate did not win a nomination. By your logic, it was Ollie North who divided the party. I disagree: Ollie North and his supporters did not divide the Virginia Republican Party. John Warner did by being a sore loser, and by recruiting and supporting a third party candidate AFTER the issues he raised against Ollie had been discussed by the Republicans.

Should Marin win the nomination in the primary, who is the divider? Is it the person who might disagree on an issue (be it immigration or any other issue), or would the divders be those who will REFUSE to support her as the nomineee even AFTER the issue had been raised in the nomination battle (in this case, a primary campaign) and then actively take steps that would throw the election to the only likely opponent?

Finally in response to your last statement:
"If it's Marin, and she loses without my vote, I think it should be evidence of why I should be trusted... because it would prove, once again, that GOP sellouts to Illegals are not the future of this party."

Did Ollie North go groveling to John Warner, begging for forgiveness after the knife was placed in his back? No, he didn't. You flatter yourself if you think that, and you must live in an alternate dimension if you think any politican but a fool would trust you enough to stick his neck out for you.

[Cold Heat]

This article indicates that he is doing just that.

I don't believe that he will go back on his prior statements however.

He will make new proposals and throw some red meat, but not recant prior statements as some demand.IMO

This would be viewed and used by the rats as a weakness and confusion.

[nickcarraway]

What statements is he not going back on?

[nickcarraway]

I don't know why he is scared of the gay marriage issue, that alone could be his ticket.

[Cold Heat]

I refer to the immigration proposal that has gotten so much criticism.

[Sabertooth]

Well, I can only assume a few different reasons for a member of Free Republic to spend most or all of their time attacking President Bush...

That speaks to your own self-imposed limitation.

Here's a #4:

This Freeper recongizes that there is no shortage of "shut up and vote, Bush can do no wrong, an we can't talk about it anyway" cheerleading on this site. There is no useful purpose to be served by more of the same unrealism.

So, I prefer to go get the facts that give pause to the site's self-hypnosis and bring them back here, so that people can make more informed decisions.

I distrust groupthink and appeasement, therefore I believe dissent and debate are legitmate and valuable functions to be served, and that there is far too little of both at Free Republic.

You think I lack credibility? Suit yourself.

I have trouble with the credibility of those who can't construct consistent arguments, and who are forever making lame excuses for President Bush when he errs.

I prefer to build my own through informed argument.

[nickcarraway]

This would be viewed and used by the rats as a weakness and confusion.

I think you give them to much credit for being rational. Whatever Bush does will be bad to them. Bush promised in no uncertain terms to veto the exact same Campaign Finance law he ended up signing. Did they say he was weak and confused?

[Tamzee]

The administration is obviously taking these folks seriously, hence the posted article. Why do you continue to denigrate them instead of following President Bush's lead?

I wasn't, until I saw Freepers getting attacked on this thread by some of these "folks". Why are YOU so eager to confront people on a thread when you missed parts of a conversation and can't possibly know everything that was said?

[Cold Heat]

I think he is 4 square against gay marriage, but is also mindful of the use of a amendment.

It takes years to do a amendment and he seems to be pursuing a quicker result as he waits for public opinion to gel.

A amendment may be needed in any case and I support going in that direction as we pursue other legal remedies.

[Paulus Invictus]

And what did he promise about the Illegal Immigrant scandal? It's called amnesty in certain conservative circles. May we have the envelope please? And his answer is....???? He might even win the Calipornia vote if he does something about the illegals and soon.

[nickcarraway]

You really think he is better off not letting that one go? That is especially bad for him because it undercuts his strengths: defense and the war on terrorism. He hasn't appeased anyone on the other side, but he's managed to anger his supporters. That was just not smart.

[Sabertooth]

I don't expect you to understand

I fully understand why you won't apply the logic by which you harangue others to yourself.

When you didn't vote for Warner, for whatever reason, your logic says that you as good as voted for a Democrat.

There it stands.

[Cold Heat]

to veto the exact same Campaign Finance law he ended up signing.

I know that he came out against it, which is certainly true, but I do not recall a promise to veto.

[Cold Heat]

That was just not smart.

In retrospect, you are right. But I think they totally misjudged the reaction.

[nickcarraway]

I don't think the ammendment has much hope, but there are other steps he can take. The whole ammendment thing is a vague promise. But I think Bush needs to be make his position on gay marriage clear. It is not heartening to see Barbara Boxer being more critical of what's going on in San Francisco then Bush was. This is an issue he can win on, but he seems afraid of it.