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.

[Tamzee]

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?

Errr, no... that's not revisionist. Not that it's any of your business, but NittanyLion was confronting me and I was pointing out that he was assuming he knew all aspects of the conversation when he clearly doesn't. And, yes, there were several nasty remarks on this thread that have now been deleted... it is due to those nasty remarks that I made my personal comments. As a matter of fact, I use the abuse button extremely rarely here and last night I hit it on one of the posts on this thread directed at another Freeper.

[Tamzee]

NittanyLion... you are making assumptions after only reading part of the thread (the part not deleted).

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth, do you not think that action should be taken to deal with those who divide the party?

Sure.

One action that can be taken is to withhold votes for divisive candidates.

Do you agree?

You want to have it both ways.

No, you do.

You want to be able to withhold your vote for what you find divisive, but would deny the same prerogative to others.

You want the Republicans to stick their neck out for you on your pet issue (immigration), but you seem unwilling to be the kind of person who they would trust enough to stick their neck out for.

False premise in the first place. There is no great risk involved in doing the right, conservative, and popular thing with regard to Illegals, and that ain't the Bush Amnesty. Bush risked much for all the wrong reasons, with predictable results.

In the second place, I've always voted for the GOP nominee since I joined the party, and you haven't.

My track record is better than yours.

If anything, you instead are saying, "Do things my way, or I'll go third-party/independent/stay-at-home". That does NOT encourage any rational politican to risk his career on your issues.

No, sorry, that's a strawman.

I've said there is one candidate who couldn't get my vote as the GOP nominee in November, and that's Rosario Marin, whose hands have been dirty on Illegal Aliem appeasement throughout her political career, since she rolled out the red carpet for them as Mayor of Huntington Park in the late 90s, and at the Treasury Department, when the guidelines for acceptance of matricula consular ID cards were being drafted.

I reserve the same prerogative to withhold a vote for Rosario Marin, should she be the nominee, that you exercised twice with John Warner.

[FairOpinion]

The gauntlet was thrown down first by a poster who's bitter that President Bush had to reach "out to conservatives to quell revolt."


===

Talking about spin!!!

Bush shouldn't have to worry about his base. His base should be behind him 100%, instead of acting like spoiled brats wanting attention.

[Sabertooth]

Errr, no... that's not revisionist.

Sure it is. Here's your first post on the thread:

---

To: FairOpinion

Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004?

Newhouse News Service ^ | Feb. 11, 2004 | JAMES LILEKS


Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.

Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.

The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.

The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding -- perhaps an attempt to placate people who wouldn't vote for him if he showed up in performance with Karen Finley and a can of Hershey's syrup. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.

And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.

Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.

continued... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080687/posts

68 posted on 02/22/2004 9:05:54 PM PST by Tamsey (Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

You and your side came to this thread ready to flame. Now you're complianing you got singed.

[Cold Heat]

which were tantamount to saying only uneducated people from flyover country were against gay marriage, since they don't know any better.

I did not see that........

I did not read any of here comments that way.

[Tamzee]

My complaint? You posted to me first, remember? You needn't bother posting to me in the future, actually, I can always predict exactly what you are going to say. For someone so set against a "groupthink" you are remarkably predictable ... just part of a different "group", from the looks of it.

I do disagree with Bush on several topics, but I don't expect to agree with the President in more than a majority of areas and I feel strongly that it is counter-productive for the right-wing to bash him during an election year in chorus with the left-wing. Apparently you disagree with that... so be it.

Bye.

[Cold Heat]

here=her

[Sabertooth]

Bush shouldn't have to worry about his base. His base should be behind him 100%, instead of acting like spoiled brats wanting attention.

That's a rather fascist thing to say, and fortunately, from the article you posted, President Bush doesn't appear to agree.

Political loyalty is a two-way street. Coaltions are raucus things, and politicians need to tend to them to hold them together. Any sense of entitlement to 100% support from a base will lose elections in free democracies, though the outcomes in totalitarian regimes are often more favorable.

[Cold Heat]

You are having too much fun "tooth".

It is really not all that productive.

[Sabertooth]

My complaint? You posted to me first, remember? You needn't bother posting to me in the future, actually, I can always predict exactly what you are going to say.

I see you have a tagline intended for the lurkers.

When I post to you, I'm posting to your lurkers, as well.

[Sabertooth]

You are having too much fun "tooth".

It is really not all that productive.

The title of this thread indicates otherwise.

[Tamzee]

No dear, I wasn't "complaining" at all... someone else (none of your business, was it?) confronted me as being divisive and I stated that I didn't enter this thread until I saw others getting attacked. My first post was actually fairly mild... it didn't confront anyone specifically and was just a supportive column about why conservatives should focus less on individual areas of discontent.

BTW, if YOU notice... it was you and others that waltzed around the thread confronting others directly looking to pick fights. Aren't there enough Bush-bashing threads for your and your fellow travelers to play in?

[Cold Heat]

Ok, ,,,,,,,,,,

I will give you credit for changing the political dynamics of the 2004 election cycle.

LOL! Happy now?

[hchutch]

In light of your threats, Sabrtooth, do you really wish to argue who's been the better supporter?

I also notice that you are ducking the questions again - no surprise there, you may not like having to make a definitive answer that myself or others could hold you to.

So, I'll ask again:
Who divides the party, is it the candidate whose position is in disagreement with a plank but wins a nomination DESPITE that or is the divisive influence those who lose the nomination battle but refuse to support the nominee?

Furthermore, should leaders of a political party expect that after a nomination battle, all those who were involved unite to win the general election? And how should they deal with those who refuse to support a nominee? Isn't distrust in the future a reasonable response to those who announce such a refusal?

If you take your disagreement with Rosario Marin's position on immigration past the primary, YOU, not Rosario Marin, are dividing the party. It's simple logic, Sabertooth. And all your strawman arguments about "false premise" and "my track record is better than yours" won't hide the fact that YOU are the one dividing the party.

My position on this is no different than that of Bret Schundler:
"Primaries are fine, but those who are not willing to come together after a primary must not be allowed to be in positions of leadership within our Party."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/570667/posts

If you were to ask Ollie North and Bret Schundler who the dividers are, you might not like the answer.

[Tamzee]

When I post to you, I'm posting to your lurkers, as well.

Yes, exactly... and that has implications during an election year. We aren't just sitting around someone's living room chatting about right-wing policy disagreements. This site comes up on google searches and politically uninvolved Americans will be stumbling onto the threads looking for information. When they see an entire thread of right-wingers ripping Bush to shreds, that can damage our common goals.

[k2blader]

That's a rather fascist thing to say, and fortunately, from the article you posted, President Bush doesn't appear to agree.

I'd been recently contemplating such subtle similarities to fascism and think and hope these make up a very small part of GOP voters.

[Cold Heat]

We aren't just sitting around someone's living room chatting about right-wing policy

The problem, as I see it, is timing.

Elections are times of solidifying and also making promises that one may/may not keep.

Substantive policy changes are not likely, even when desired, because of the late date. Changes are not a good thing at this juncture because it is always used as ammo by the other side.

times for changes have passed and will emerge again after the election is over.

This is how I see it.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Thanks. Please try to drive home the aspects summed up.

We have agents here who would have us waste time arguing with them rather than working to increase the influence of conservative principles upon the GOP.

We need to return their contempt for our ineffectiveness with our doubled contempt for their buttkissing for the elitist Establishment.

There are American wishing that the GOP would finally do what they promised.

First on my list: Here it is day 1120 something of the Bush Administration, and does anybody see the long-awaited tort reform in the Congressional mill? Hmmm?

How about enforcement of the Beck Decision? That went lukewarm the day dubya drop Linda Chavez as Labor Sec'y nominee.

Americans know when they being robbed -- especially teachers who see their union money going to promote campaigns for candidates that will only make the school systems worse against their interests.

You get the picture. Foes don't want us to care -- or, it seems, neither do extinctcats, who seem to remain lone-warriors at all cost.

[Sabertooth]

In light of your threats, Sabrtooth, do you really wish to argue who's been the better supporter?

At the end of this November, even in the worst case, I'll still have a better record of supporting GOP nominees than you.

I also notice that you are ducking the questions again - no surprise there, you may not like having to make a definitive answer that myself or others could hold you to.

So, I'll ask again:
Who divides the party, is it the candidate whose position is in disagreement with a plank but wins a nomination DESPITE that or is the divisive influence those who lose the nomination battle but refuse to support the nominee?

I don't answer false dilemmas, nor do I address every fallacy you post to me.

Politicians unite or divide based on the effects of their policies on the coalition.

If you take your disagreement with Rosario Marin's position on immigration past the primary, YOU, not Rosario Marin, are dividing the party. It's simple logic, Sabertooth. And all your strawman arguments about "false premise" and "my track record is better than yours" won't hide the fact that YOU are the one dividing the party.

You don't even know what a straw man is, do you?

In any case, if a candidate such as Rosario Marin is pro-Illegal Alien, and the party is against Illegal Aliens, then Rosario Marin is divisive.

My position on this is no different than that of Bret Schundler: "Primaries are fine, but those who are not willing to come together after a primary must not be allowed to be in positions of leadership within our Party."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/570667/posts

If you were to ask Ollie North and Bret Schundler who the dividers are, you might not like the answer.

Appeals to authority.

I've conceded your prerogative not to vote for Warner, and predicted that you'd rationalize why when you vote for a Democrat by default (at least, by your logic) it's different.