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.

[WFTR]

President Bush would also be wise not to say anything else in support of extending the assault weapons ban. If that law is not allowed to sunset, conservatives will be very upset in November. President Bush doesn't need the votes of those people who may or may not vote for him if the ban passes, but he cannot afford to lose the votes of those who will be angry with him if the ban passes.

If he tries to be all things to all people to win 55% of the vote, he may end up losing the election. If he maintains his base and adds the votes of those who fairly understand that he is doing a good job in attacking the terrorists, he will almost certainly win with 51% or 52% of the vote and have a real mandate for true conservative change.

Well, four and a half
Bill

[Cold Heat]

Congress with a few line-item vetos, of which he has yet to ink a one.

Courts killed that little gem some time back.

No, I am not happy that he has not used the pen either.

I think that because of the election and no mandate, they felt that the first term should be more amenable and not divisive with congress.

The second term should be vastly different.IMHO

[cyborg]

wow quick

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for posting this. I missed that thread!

Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080687/posts

"Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems."

[Reagan Man]

Let's hope these advances the administration is making towards certain members of the conservative movement, isn't a case of too little, too late. Fox News recently reported a drop in support for Bush among Republican's, from 92% to 88%. Since the GOP base is made up of a majority of conservatives, this could be a bad omen. People sometimes have difficulty seeing the truth through all the political mudslinging. Keep your eye on the prize!

[Carry_Okie]

"Presidents, regardless of party, face constant pressures from the Left -- from the Big Brother government, neofascist, high tax, property-confiscating liberals, from the econazis and global warmists, from the pro-abortionists, from those who are pro-one world and anti-American and from those who advocate cradle-to-grave socialism. (Have I left anyone out?) And, unless there are constant counter-pressures from those on the Right who believe in small government, low taxes, America first and individual liberty, presidents, under Left-wing pressure, tend to drift that way." --Lyn Nofziger

What Mr. Nofzinger should have added is that leftist policies breed leftist power in corporations, through social dysfunction building demand for government services, and through regulatory policies that kill the businesses that support conservatives. Your propensity to flail at conservatives feeds that trend.

[cyborg]

My mom wants to know what the point of a tax cut is when other taxes go up and government spends more money. Hmmm...

[SierraWasp]

I have no delusions of grandeur as you seen to have a terminal case of. I'm not punishing anyone! I don't have that power! I do have a keyboard and an opinion and I am long suffering in taking the insults of those who only understand political expediency and little else!!!

Haven't you ever heard the expression "You can draw more bees with honey than you can with vinegar? There! There's a platitude for you, dudette!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sweety pie!!! My long suffering of your insufferable attitude has just about run it's course.

I'll stick around just in case you sweeten up your caustic disposition just a little in the weeks to come, but I seriously doubt it. Leopards have a hard time changing anything, let alone their spots!!!

[MEG33]

You may feeel good about spanking the pubbies but you would be picking a CIC who has voted against funding important weapons we are using now.His voting record is a disgrace.

He has the soul of a 6os limosine liberal,he betrayed and slimed his brothers in arms ,exposing them to taunts of baby killers and to being spat upon.He is unsafe for the defense of this nation.

[FairOpinion]

Just read the posts here and you will see that people do indeed want to see Bush defeated, cutting off their nose, to spite their face, sell out their country to the Democrats, because Bush is not accomodating their little pet agendas.

[SierraWasp]

Nay! Thou mayest indulge thy voyeristic tendencies if thou doest so desire. (smirk)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Damn I needed that graphic on the Same-sex marriage threatens real marriage thread. We had a very serious infestation of three or four alias from the same gal apparently!

[Cold Heat]

Never in my memory have the Democrats been so blindly angered by a president.

Not even the Repub anger over Clinton compares to it.

They have this stolen election issue that they are using to energize people who have no clue as to what went on.

It is going to be a rough few months.

I expect that Bush will handle it, but he may lose patience.(I know that I would) We shall see.

[FairOpinion]

Some people take real offense when someone points out to them the simple truth, such as, that in this election, the winner will be either Bush or a Democrat, if they don't vote for Bush, we WILL get the Democrat.

This simple statement is what some people find real offensive.

[McGavin999]

I've got more than one conservative friend speculating on how a Democrap President checked by a Republican Congress would keep a lid on spending

Ask them how they like the judicial branch approving same sex marriages. Ask them how they'd like a Supreme Court making those kinds of decisions for the next 20 years.

[FairOpinion]

The Assault Rifle Ban renewal will NEVER get out of Congress. We already heard that from the Republicans in the House, so why are you still keep harping on this?

[templar]

They will have to pass it over a VETO

Well then now, let's see: Bush has used the veto .... hmmmm.... how many times now?

[Liberty Valance]

Great post Tamsey

Bump

W'04

[templar]

Ask them how they like the judicial branch approving same sex marriages.

I'm wondering if you're referring to the USSC with it's 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats? Other than that, I don't think the Prez appoints State justices.

[jammer]

Punishing Bush's Father worked out really well for conservatives, didn't it: gave us 8 years of Clinton.

I stand second to no one in my hatred of Klinton. But, actually, Bush I losing to Clinton manifestly WAS better for the country, and conservatives, than another RINO term. Compare them. No way would we have had a Republican Congress had Bush I won. We would have had even more crap like the ADA. And probably more tax increases. Judges? Well, Bush I DID appoint Thomas, but sort of left him hanging to win approval by a thread. I think Souter or Kennedy probably are as bad as, say Ginzburg. Their only saving grace is that they aren't as smart as the Klinton appointees. So, yes, an unrepentant liberal who tries to screw the country and is seen for what he is is better than a RINO like Bush I.

Reagan was correct: conservatives don't win elections by blurring distinctions, but by emphasizing them. Bush I got an object lesson, but I doubt he learned from it. Bush II seems to be going the same way.