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.
Many are on the proposed chopping block this year.Dozens of programs and Billions of dollars worth, as I understand.
Getting them cut is going to be a hard row to hoe.
Special interests will fight them tooth and nail.
I wish them luck and support that effort.
Thanks. Once again you've confirmed every single thing I said about you.
No take your sanctimonious attitude and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
Right.Uh huh,you bet. You live for provocation;thrive on snivel discourse and lean toward faux intellectualism and a brand of conservatism,if you can call it that, that ensures another election like 1912.
Try another statement.That quote of yours is in no way based in reality.
I just to make this clear: In your mind my calls for civil discourse are in fact provocations. No disrespect intended, but that speaks more to your mindset than it does my intentions. It appears you view any comment from someone you've branded an "enemy" as provocative, regardless of actual content.
Not a whole lot I can do about that.
and lean toward faux intellectualism
Faux intellectualism? In a sea of petty insults and "Bumps!", if you think my posts are faux intellectualism, you've got some strange standards.
and a brand of conservatism,if you can call it that,
Well, allow me to lay out my "brand of conservatism". Limited government, strong national defense, guarantee and defense of individual rights. That's pretty much it. If I'm not mistaken, that's THE brand of conservatism, not an offshoot of it.
While we're having the conversation, what's yur definition of conservatism? that ensures another election like 1912.
The White House disagrees with you - they're reaching out to conservatives as opposed to berating them. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should voice it to President Bush. Until then, your actions seem to be working counter to his intentions.
Try another statement.That quote of yours is in no way based in reality.
The facts demonstrate otherwise. Better luck next time, bait.
Indeed. One would expect that, on a conservative website, Bush reaching out to conservatives would be viewed as great news regardless of how it came to pass. Instead, one of two possibilities must be true:
1. We have posters here so invested in petty squabbles that they'd sooner see the administration track leftward just to "get those unappeasables".
2. We have posters here that are honestly upset by the fact that Bush is implementing some conservative policy. I'll leave it to you to ascribe a motivation to those feelings...but keep in mind that a number of people that are obviously upset by this have admitted that they voted outside the GOP in the past. Some for Democrats, others for Ross Perot, etc.
Regardless of the reason, this behavior is bizarre and self-destructive.
You seem to believe in having it all ways, a sure sign your intellectual depth is about that of your litter box.
Cordially,
The best you can muster is one long attack, eh? Good thing this administration is meeting conservatives' concerns head-on, as opposed to hurling cheap insults like yourself. Bush will stand a better chance of reelection, and conservatives like myself will have some of my concerns addressed; it's the best of both worlds. I would've assumed everyone would be as thrilled as I am by this news, and must admit I'm perplexed as to why you'd be so upset by Bush's conervative turn. Feel free to enlighten me on that.
Incidentally, how long are you going to continue working against this President's objectives? By your own logic, aren't you required to fall into line with the administration's policy on this issue? Or will you agree with Bush on everything except his efforts to become more conservative?
We need to win an election now - not continue petty internet bickering. Are you on board or not?
I've been on board all along.Glad to see you get on as well.You're right , we have an election to win and a Nation to preserve.
Are you under the impression that Forbes is put out by the White House?
Why do you continue to denigrate them instead of following President Bush's lead?
That very well could be one of the most hypocritical remarks I have EVER seen on FR since I have been here; until today, anybody who agreed with President Bush you called a lockstepper or a sheep or some other denigrading term.
Making things up again Howlin? Feel free to cite me an example of even one time I ever used such terms.
Actually, don't waste your time searching - you won't find one. The use of "denigrading" (sic) terms isn't my style.
Then now is no time to fall off by adopting a divergent attitude.
As stated, glad you finally decided to get aboard.
I've always been on board, bait. You must be confusing legitimate criticism intended to help the administration with destructive behavior intended to hurt it. I've always been about the former.
Well, it was rather an odd way of showing it.Anyway,I've never wavered in support, to the point of being called a bot or a kool aid drinker. It irritates me beyond belief to see many who seemed to be competing in the Bash Bush the hardest crowd now attempting to say that they were always right. Now, you're aboard, good. Save the ammo for the Dems;they are using some of the alleged "helpful" criticisms and the hysteria over certain issues to drive wedges(Think Wesley Clark's out of phase stance on immigration reform) Not one of us who have been savaged by the true believers ever stopped backing the President.It was not a lack of principles, nor was it blind slavish devotion.We just saw beyond carping and attacking the one individual standing between us and and a full on assualt on the nation, from without and within,as counterproductive at best and betrayal at worst.
Glad to see you agree with me,now. We have a fight to win and we cannot allow any kind of encouragement to those who'd destroy it all.
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.