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.
Nor would Jesus; can't you just see it now, all about how Jesus wears dresses and hangs out with just guys -- and, horror of horrors, acutally wants to HELP the poor!
We need to pressure our legislatures to rewrite the election procedures to allow for the "instant run off" where you can vote for your first, second, and third choice for every office.
I've said for years "None of the Above" should be one of the choices!
I used that term for lack of a better descriptor. Although I'm sure there are some who'd prefer I used the term "unappeasables", "one-issue voters", or some variant. Of course, that isn't what I believe these folks to be.
I think you're missing the part about helping the poor through his own actions and the voluntary donations and efforts of others. Leftists use the power of government to FORCE other people to "help the poor."
Because they've suddenly found themselves in disagreement with the administration? :D
Don't you dare presume to lecutre ME about my interpretation of what Jesus said and did.
One of the problems of your holier-than-thou's is that you read too much or too little into every single remark on this forum and think that it is your purpose here on earth to tell everybody what they should or shouldn't thinnk.
How dare you imply that I don't know what Jesus meant just to further your damn agenda!
Yep there you go. That interview was done 2 years before the bill actually got out of Congress.
Bush as president did say when the legislation started that he would not veto it and he hoped that the parts that he found objectionalble would not be in the bill.
They were and he still signed it. Fine cry betrayal and flagellate yourself, but you leave out other factors. There was the possibilty that a CFR veto could have been overridden, which would have been a big blow to the Bush administration.
Yeah you all on FR, would be saying he stood for his principles while the other 99% of the population that don't read FR would be reading healines such as "Bush ovrerriden in his attempt to stop campaign finacce reform".
JMO, you all should deal with the real world instead of your perfect world of principles where politics does not exist.
BTW, your perfect principle world does not exist.
I'm not disagreeing about anything with THIS administration; who didn't think that Bush was going to play to his base?
It is those who have been characterizing themselves as "the base" who jumped off the ship first, not Bush, holding themselves afloat with the "list of demands."
Now he has to pander to them for a while. (Isn't that ironic? after all the moaning about who Bush panders to, those who would tell us that they, unlike us, are Bush's "real friends," now demand to be pandered to!)
As far as I've what this thread is about, nobody in the administration wrote this article, nor the title.
That's all true. He signed a bill contrary to what he claimed during the campaign. That's okay, because I understand people's views change, or promises are made during a campaign that can't be kept. What's inexcusable is his full acknowledgment that the bill had constitutional problems as he was signing it.
Fine cry betrayal and flagellate yourself, but you leave out other factors.
Actually, I'm not doing either. But let's check out these others factors...
There was the possibilty that a CFR veto could have been overridden, which would have been a big blow to the Bush administration.
I believe the bill had approximately 240 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate. The chance of multiple Republicans defecting to override the President's first veto is essentially zero. Would never happen - not a chance.
Yeah you all on FR, would be saying he stood for his principles while the other 99% of the population that don't read FR would be reading healines such as "Bush ovrerriden in his attempt to stop campaign finacce reform".
Actually, that wouldn't be the case. See above.
JMO, you all should deal with the real world instead of your perfect world of principles where politics does not exist.
See above. I'm not the one who isn't basing my argument on real world statistics.
BTW, your perfect principle world does not exist.
See above. I'm not the one who isn't basing my argument on real world statistics.
I am "the base", and I didn't jump, I was pushed off.
Talk about hyperbole.
LOL. If you say so...feel free to point out a single instance if you'd like.
Why do you assume that I assume so? I expect lurkers will come in all shapes, colors and flavors... the only ones I'm worried about are the ill-informed moderates who might be swayed to stand against Bush because they read a series of criticisms against him on both left-wing and right-wing sites. Oddly enough, were you and your fellow malcontents to complain LESS about Bush at Free Republic, I would feel able to complain more about him.
There is already too much poison directed at him here for an election year, in my opinion, and "freepers" going so far as to call him a liberal and socialist. I think we are precariously close to the leftists giving America away, this election is critically important to stopping that and I'll be damned if I sit around and ignore right-wingers that are helping our enemies.
Speaking of hyperbole, you've done an excellent job here.
For you edification, my great great great great great grandfather was an aide de camp to George Washington during the American Revolutionary War and at the Continental Congress, so yes, I do, in fact, know exactly what we're all about in this country.
Your need to denigrade anybody who is living with the facts as we have them today speaks volumes about you, not me.
It’s obvious that if the founding fathers were here today: you would consider THEM your enemies.
Again, your need to totally destroy anybody who doesn't follow your line of thinking shows the depth you will sink to to win a converstaion.
Frankly, there are no words to begin to describe the tenor of your remarks. Disgusting and revolting come to mind. Perhaps others can add to the list.
Get over yourself.
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.