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?
|
Posted on 02/22/2004 8:05:00 PM PST by 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.
Which is strange, because he tried some kind of amnesty trial ballon a yeasr or two earlier and had to drop it.
And you consider those attacks so inappropriate that you...respond with similar attacks?
I must confess, it seems to me taking the high road would make a lot more sense. When you resort to the same tactics you purport to condemn, others may wonder just how interested you are in legitimate debate v. flamefests. Just a suggestion: Next time call on the attackers to move to a higher level of debate rather than "getting down in the mud".
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?
Because I invite people to join in civil discourse wherever I see incivility abounding, is why. Moreover, were it a requirement to understand the entire context of every remark prior to responding to it, I suspect this site would be a very quiet place.
During the campaign, he said he would oppose/veto, the exact same law that arrived on his desk.
Too much pressure on California might be seen as interference with state matters, so he walks a thin line.
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?
|
This sounds so dramatic LOL There is no "groupthink" or "appeasement". We are in the midst of an election and only one of two coalitions will win. We are part of the right-wing coalition, or at least most of us are. The candidate leading this coalition has already been selected and it is George W. Bush... you either fight for our candidate, join the opposite side or just get the hell out of the way.
I doubt that all the British military leaders over in Iraq agreed with every aspect of Tommy Franks' plans. It's not "groupthink" to compromise with others for a common purpose and it's not "appeasement" to recognize that only a third of the country shares your values and you may not see them all implemented. BTW, it's nice of you to decide what we all need more of at Free Republic... just keep in mind that this is not your kitchen. Other conservatives or Republicans or mushy middlers can be reading these threads and be convinced by YOUR posts not to vote for Bush. And enemies both political and in the press can read these threads and find material to use to divide the right or hurt our chances at keeping Bush in the White House.
In retrospect, you are right. But I think they totally misjudged the reaction.
|
Yes, that happened after 9/11 and Fox had to cancel his trip to the U.S.
Bush has made this proposal prior to becoming president in 1999. He made virtually the same proposal a few weeks ago.
This was not Carl Roves doings, as some contend. It is all Bush.
No surprises to me. He thinks it will work. He could be wrong, but he has a lot of experiences in this area and certainly seems to have a solid opinion on it.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure he was in favor of some sort of bill.
This sounds so dramatic LOL There is no "groupthink" or "appeasement" The candidate leading this coalition has already been selected and it is George W. Bush... you either fight for our candidate, join the opposite side or just get the hell out of the way. BTW, it's nice of you to decide what we all need more of at Free Republic... just keep in mind that this is not your kitchen. Other conservatives or Republicans or mushy middlers can be reading these threads and be convinced by YOUR posts not to vote for Bush. And enemies both political and in the press can read these threads and find material to use to divide the right or hurt our chances at keeping Bush in the White House.
|
Well, the issue in now on the table. It was not getting nearly as much attention before, on a national basis.
I don't think that anything more could have been done based on the realities. Bush truly believes that it is in the best interest of the country to proceed this way.
I do not buy the arguement that he is pandering.
Yet the very topic of this thread indicates the White House doesn't share your beliefs on the subject. They've begun to actively reach out to conservatives; will you follow the White House's example here on FreeRepublic, or continue to flame and bash conservatives at every turn?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.