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.
I just don't know how and why you could come to those conclusions.
By handlers I don't mean to say that Bush relies on other people to do his thinking for him. But everybody has handlers.
I come to my conclusions thusly:
Bush wants to build a safer and better America...ok I'll buy that
In order to build said America Bush must be in a position to do so and that means getting elected.
In order to get elected you need supporters (in the form of: endorsements, electoral college votes, popular votes) and money (in the form of cash even if it looks like monopoly money)
Therefore, anything that can either ensure or threaten those things (support & money) will make Bush take notice.
You mean if voters are still dumb enough to let that happen again after 8 scandal-filled years years of Clinton. Isn't that what you mean? Isn't it. I can't hear you....or are you one of them?
In any case, I don't vote for Big Stupid Government-promoting professional politicians of any stripe.
It happens with or without your vote....and with the Democrats, you get the rest of their anti-America agenda, pro-choice, anti-military, Liberal judges/justices, etc., etc., etc. Yes? No?
Principles mean something to me, unlike George Bush Jr. and Sr.
Bullpoop. Principles are a dime a dozen — everybody has them and everybody thinks their principles are better then the other guy's. If you don't like big and powerful government, then your are in deep doodoo because it ain't going away.
And quite frankly, all the whining does is to convince a LOT of Republicans that conservatives can't be trusted to back them up in a pinch. Bush campaigned on an education bill, prescription drug coverage, and a guest worker program. So, why are people so damn upset at a politician who is trying to keep his campaign promises?
These folks act like they are annointed - and those who dare to disagree with them on whatever issue (immigration, foreign aid, education, etc.) must be evil and seeking to undermine the country. That is horsecrap!
Which one of them is running in 2004?
If he can't, I can:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?GOV. BUSH: I do.
WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res — restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I — I - I think there's been two versions of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. . . .
There you go.
Actually it seems that your anger should be directed at the Founders since they did not put your dream election rules into the Constitution.
The initial comment on the thread was a blatant attempt at baiting. Then I see your attack, which is little more than another attempt at baiting. Not much of an assumption on my part.
Like I said, if you're concerned about incivility on this forum, why lower yourself to that level? Why not instead invite others to discuss things rationally and honestly, as I'm inviting you to do here?
I think we're all fortunate this administration has adopted a different attitude than the one you espouse here. As opposed to calling conservatives "spoiled brats", President Bush is actively trying to reach out to them.
Yet you continue to bait and bash conservatives here at FreeRepublic. Why not follow the administration's lead on this issue?
And you continue to insinuate that those of us who don't agree with you are not conservatives.
The bills are substantially the same. Close enough that, if one believes McCain-Feingold violated people's right to free speech, one must also believe the eventual bill signed into law violated that right as well.
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.