Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt

Forbes ^ | Feb. 20, 2004 | Adam Entous

[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.

[BigSkyFreeper]

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!)

Seriously, that "base" is like babies crying for attention.

[Howlin]

What's even more ironic is that the very ones who have sneered at us and called us Locksteppers, incapable of thinking on our own, are now demanding that on these issues, we -- er.....um....march in lockstep with them........LOL.

Ain't life grand?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Principles aren't little heirlooms handed down through the ages. Principles are just but one ingredient that makes us human. We all have them. I can just imagine some of the principles that were stricken from the Constitution from some wise founding father from Virginia wanted added in there. Doesn't mean he was an idiot or lessor of the whole, even if he had stuck to his principle. The same thing is true here. Ideas and opinions are flayed around here, and the ones who disagree with the "Bushbots" use the "unprincipled" argument as if the Bushbots were the lessor of the whole.

[BigSkyFreeper]

LOL! Life is grand indeed!

[BigSkyFreeper]

I suppose if you took a photograph of it, the Fish and Game warden will say "thats a nice photoshop job!". LOL

[Tamzee]

I bet they would!!! LOL

[The American Man]

> Principles aren't little heirlooms handed down through the ages. Principles are just but one ingredient that makes us human <

Thank you for your reply.

Principles are standards whereby we can measure: right from wrong, good from evil.

They are what make a Man more than a two legged animal.

A “man” without principle is not a Man.

The same goes for a country.

When a Country (a people) loses it’s Principles -- it’s moral fiber(virtue: strength), it’s ability to judge good from evil and right from wrong -- it’s demise is then a forgone conclusion.

What is most precious to a Man is his Principles, not how many coins he has in his pocket. One may “lose” ones money though robbery and other means, but one has to give away -- “compromise” away -- his Principles.

The same goes for a Country. What applies to a person, also applies to a people.

Our founding fathers were Men. Great Men. Men of Principle.

So no,“Principles aren't ‘little heirlooms’ handed down through the ages.” To a Man: They are His greatest treasure.


...>ones who disagree with the "Bushbots."<

I have nothing against the “Bushbots.” In fact, I have somewhat softened in that regard. I understand how people can hold a charismatic leader in high regard. In a way, this devotion is a fine thing. Sometimes, whilst in the heat of battle, -- arguing for “Principle”-- I have lost sight of this very truth.

However, many charismatic leaders have led the people down the "primrose-path" to perdition. This is why there is a saying: “Principles Before Personalities.” This DOESN’T mean that personalities are not important -- they are! Many of the founding fathers were great personalities. But, they were still human and liable to err. Moses was a great personality. It is said that Moses “Saw the very face of G-D”... and yet he was given a set of “Principles” -- the ten commandments -- to give to the people...Principles that they were to “live” by. Those that venerated these Principles (the gift) also Venerated the messenger (Moses) AND the giver. (G-D) They lived! Those whom Venerated the “Golden Calf” (a material god) -- died!

...or so the story goes!

[dcwusmc]

A question for you... were you born dense or did you have to study to become the way you are? Do you or do you not recall that, in 1994, the Pubbies took control of the Congress for the first time in decades, precisely because they were running to the right? They EMPHASIZED the differences between themselves and the Liberal RATS and WON handily. That they did not actually DELIVER on their promises speaks more of their lack of character and the selling out by the party hierarchy than it does of the electorate which seems to WANT conservative/Constitutional values. It also speaks volumes about your lack of personal and political integrity, that you speak as you do...

[NittanyLion]

What's even more ironic is that the very ones who have sneered at us and called us Locksteppers, incapable of thinking on our own, are now demanding that on these issues, we -- er.....um....march in lockstep with them........LOL.

Actually, we're pointing out the irony here. I've never seen you criticize this administration - so I find it...interesting...that the first time you choose to do so is when he adopts a stance in agreement with conservatives. One of three conclusions might be drawn:

1. You're so invested in online arguments that you'd sacrifice your beliefs to assure you "beat" your online opponents.

2. You don't believe conservative policy actually works, hence the reason you're worried about enacting it.

3. You're legitimately distressed by conservatism.

I don't pretend to know which it is, but no other possible reason exists.

[NittanyLion]

Do you or do you not recall that, in 1994, the Pubbies took control of the Congress for the first time in decades, precisely because they were running to the right?

I suspect these folks do not believe conservatism actually works, hence the reason they automatically equate enacting it with losing voters.

[EllaMinnow]

Is this truly the only GWB policy that you feel is conservative enough for you to support?

[NittanyLion]

Is this truly the only GWB policy that you feel is conservative enough for you to support?

I never said it was. His policies have been a mixed bag in my opinion. I voice support, or displeasure, on a regular basis.

[EllaMinnow]

I voice support, or displeasure, on a regular basis.

But make a mockery of others when they do the same.

[NittanyLion]

But make a mockery of others when they do the same.

These folks are unwilling to hold themselves to the same standard to which they insist others adhere. Apparently all criticism of the administration is to be condemned (except on issues they don't personally approve). I find that laughably transparent and enjoy pointing it out; frankly they make a mockery of themselves.

[dcwusmc]

EXCELLENT post. Very concise and straight to the point. "Appeasers" is absolutely the right label: appeasing evil, a la Neville Chamberlain, only begets more of the same. (Unless that is what these people WANT... Hmmm... I'll have to think on that point.)

[b9]

Red: "Is this truly the only GWB policy that you feel is conservative enough for you to support?"

Nittany: "I never said it was."

Please tell us, sir, for the benefit of us who haven't had the pleasure of knowing you long enough to have ever heard you voice support of President Bush before. Redlipstick's question is a fair one.

[Mo1]

Actually, we're pointing out the irony here. I've never seen you criticize this administration - so I find it...interesting...

I guess this explains why you seem to follow her posts from thread to thread so much

And yes .. it is noticeable

[My2Cents]

I think what she means is that Pres. Bush shouldn't lower himself to pander to knuckleheads on the right.

[NittanyLion]

Please tell us, sir, for the benefit of us who haven't had the pleasure of knowing you long enough to have ever heard you voice support of President Bush before. Redlipstick's question is a fair one.

Tell you what? Which policies I support?

The administration's foreign policy in its entirety, the tax cuts, partial birth abortion, for starters. I've voiced many more compliments as well, on various threads.

[NittanyLion]

I guess this explains why you seem to follow her posts from thread to thread so much. And yes .. it is noticeable

Utter nonsense. But thanks for trying to play the victim on Howlin's behalf.

Although I should admit it's possible there might be something to your comment: I confront foolishness wherever I see it. When one person (or group of people) delivers a disproportionate amount of said foolishness, they're likely to get more than their share of replies from me.