|
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.
Believe it or not, often these folks actually are right. The fact that the administration is actively seeking to satisfy conservatives is not an accident; rather it's a result of the dissatisfaction they've been voicing. And rightly so: Bush will stand a better chance of reelection as a result, and conservatives get what we voted for. A win-win for all parties involved.
|
In "actuality", we are not only at the forefront--we're probably the only conservatives on here. If you are not enraged by this President's domestic actions, then you are either have no principles, are dishonest about those principles, or your principles are not conservative. The situation in Washington has deteriorated beyond the point of the low intelligence level of some of Bush's defenders being a defense.
You claim it but you use DNC talking points. In a way, you and the clowder are much like Alcibiades in both outlook and action.
That's an ad hominem argument. Debate the points that are made.
Besides, your argument is wrong. I hear no DNC people complaining that Bush has proposed preposterous spending increases, that we should have no Medicare drug bill, that Bush should veto the AWB, that we should have no CFR, etc. In fact, Bush's defenders on these issues sound more like DNC than we do. No, you can call names, but they don't register except to the willfully blind.
You no more represent mainstream conservatism than Ralph Nader does.Fact is ,you and your ilk are closer intellectually with the Deaniacs and Naderites than you are with conservatism.
Frankly,I see no point in further dialogue with you as ,in reality, you've shown me you cannot think past groupthink, something another semi-malcontent loves to accuse the President's defenders of doing. We have nothing further to discuss.
Cordially,
beautiful
There you go again, driving a wedge between conservatives and the administration, just when President Bush is attempting to mend fences with conservatives.
It seems folks like yourself will defend the administration only up to the point it agrees with those you'd label your "enemies" (i.e. conservatives). That's very sad.
Johnny-come-latelys rather bore the the rest of us. Take that for whatever you so wish.
Cordially,
Excluding, of course, backing for initiatives aimed at solidifying the conservative vote. When that's the case, you actively work counter to the White House's goals. Isn't that right, bait? You're doing it right here after all.
I guess for some folks internet debate is more important than principles. How sad.
Yes, you being the saddest of them all.Are you really Ed Asner?
Cordially,
That's a mutual consideration.You do understand that, don't you? You do understand attacking the one candidate who will at least open the door to those "principles" you claim to support is tantamount to suicide, right? By the way, your taste in class acts is a tad skewed.
Cordially,
As for the AWB being popular, who cares? If it's that popular, then pass a Constitutional Amendment that does away with the relevant portion of the 2nd Amendment. That's why we HAVE a Bill of Rights--to delineate rights that aren't at the whim of popularity.
And to address the second of gatorbait's lame "arguments", YOU are the folks defending AWB. That makes YOU sound like Naderites and Deaniacs. You can't even define what you are for/against or what they are for/against.
I have pinged a lot of Freeper and non-Freeper friends, and they are also getting a lot of laughs watching you folks squirm. Thanks for the entertainment. Reading your posts is like watching the Three Stooges. But you do have imagination. I'll give you that.
Brilliant analogy LOL
This looks exhausting, BTW, and I admire your stamina and patience. You've stated the case beautifully, IMHO, and anyone reading the thread can see how the values of each poster stack up.
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.