I'll get ya next time ;-)
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.
You have no clue, apparently.
I expect it to be so regardless :-(
Really? All types of pressure could have been taken by the press to change votes. Such headlines such as "Veto override of campaign finace reform being held up by Republicans(etc.etc.)" would be going on for months right up to the 2002 elections.
But since it was never vetoed, we do not know what would have happened afterwards. Either one of our scenarios could have been played out and IMO, my scenario is more plausible given the proven liberal bias in the mainstream press.
I used to think our common goals were the same.
I used to think it was obvious even to intellectuals that this election will require sacrifice for (dare I say?) the common good.
Wartime clarifies priorities.
But some of the bloated egos hissing and snarling on this thread can't see beyond their own fangs.
You know what happens when you "assume"... so cut it out. I didn't plan on posting to FO's article and only changed my mind when I saw him or her being attacked by posters that I knew to be particularly nasty. Even then I didn't jump into the fray in a confrontational manner... I merely posted a supportive article directly to FairOpinion. The tone of bitterness was already well established in this thread before I posted one word. BTW, this thread was established by FairOpinion initially.... you and friends were in no way forced to join in, agree or respond to it in any manner.
Beautifully stated...
You are exactly right:
"...Tuesday afternoon, according to the Associated Press, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., confirmed for reporters that Bush had told him the day before that he would sign a campaign finance reform bill were it to hit his desk -- even one that contained a ban on soft-money contributions from individuals, which Bush has opposed. Then an anonymous Bush advisor told the AP that Bush "does believe that individuals should be able to give [soft-money] donations, but he wants to balance that philosophy with his desire to sign campaign finance reform legislation."
In other words: Your turn, Tom Daschle."
I'll get ya next time ;-)
That's right, Bush isn't the center of the universe and every Republican who wants to get elected or e-elected better understand your scare tactic, because our lives will go on with or without them, always has, always will.
You think 7 GOP Senators 50 reps would have changed their position and defied Bush's first veto? I'd give that a 500-1 shot.
I've stated this gently a few times, let me try again. You are forming conclusions about a thread that has several posts deleted. I can understand and forgive you for doing so in a heat of temper when you first noticed the thread, but I've pointed your mistake out to you now. You are missing important information and you are wrong. Since I know I won't be getting an apology from you I suggest you just give up and bother someone else.
The absolute truth. Bravo!
I was talking more political wise. Are you saying that the liberal press would not run headlines for weeks saying "Bush vetoes campaign finace reform, favors special interest".
See it comes back to my original point, that your perfect world doesn't exist.
There is a liberal press that Bush has to deal with. That's reality and he took away some of their bullets. I know you don't like it, but whoever said that this is a perfect world.
That proves to me that holding politicians accountable for their actions is an effective tactic, while supporting them on 100% of the issues (assuming you disagree) is not. The actions of the administration are a direct response to conservative criticism, and would never have occurred had conservatives remained meekly quiet.
Regardless, as conservatives, we should all be happy the administration is looking to adopt a more conservative stance. That will not only benefit our shared cause, but it will also gain Bush more votes in the long run. Right?
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.