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.
Okay. I appreciate your restraint.
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.
No mistake. As I mentioned a few times myself, if you felt these comments were too uncivil (as I'm sure they were), I'd suggest responding with an invitation to engage in more polite debate. Resorting to the same tactics yourself makes you little better than the original poster, IMHO. It also opens you up to legitimate criticism, which is what you're getting here. Don't get down in the mud (so to speak) and folks like myself will have nothing to criticize.
You are missing important information and you are wrong.
I think I have all the info I need to draw my conclusions. See above.
Since I know I won't be getting an apology from you I suggest you just give up and bother someone else.
I'd happily apologize, if my points were proven incorrect. That hasn't happened here.
There never was a great deal of public interest in CFR, contrary to what a few media organizations would have you believe. Had Bush clearly explained that this bill was unconstitutional and instructed Congress to strike the problematic parts and resend him the bill, he'd have come out of this episode looking better than ever (and immune to criticism).
Think back to stem cell research: he explained his views to the public and they respected his integrity. This would have been no different.
You're remarkably confrontational and prone to personal attack for someone who is brand new.
That's easier said than done. You know and I know that the ad bans were wrong, but Joe Q. Public, they don't like seeing negative ads before Friends and the demo talking points would still have been Bush is protecting special interests, yada, yada, yada.
If he would have vetoed then it would have become a bigger issue, but since he didn't it went away with those same 1 or 2% mad about the ad bans.
See the lack of public interest can work both ways.
Good heavens... you ventured into this thread willingly? It's pretty bloody in here, don't slip and fall ;-)
I too used to think the common goals were the same. Actually they might be and what we are hearing is just a disproportionate clamor that doesn't represent his supporters now or even those back in 2000.
Yep... won't work. There are too many of us determined to see the Democrats defeated and Bush back in the White House for another four years.
And the White House knows this...that is why the President continues to try to appease the demos...he knows that even P.O.ed conservatives would suffer fingernail removal with vice grips before voting for Ketchup boy.
Before any of you jump to your little keyboards and start pounding a response, remind me again how much legislation has been vetoed by current President Bush??
#1: if one does not vote for a republican then a democrat will be in office
#2 there are only 2 parties in our lifetimes that will garner enough votes to put their nominee in that office
#3 just surviving a democrat in office and the damage he or she can do to this nation (always have and always will as you say) is not good enough if one has the power via the vote to prevent it.
You can name call all you want and try to be cynical and clever but it won't change what a dem can do - remember Chinagate, World Trade Towers, etc.!
Imagine. Republicans upset over growth in government spending. Scandalous!
Good one...although for even broaching the subject you are open to ridicule.
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.