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.

[Cold Heat]

Sorry folks, I forgot my manners........

Good morning!

[Cold Heat]

Great post! Join the fray!

Oh, I see you have done so...........LOL!

[Sabertooth]

---

To: McGavin999; Poohbah

The thing that frosts me the most is that they also convince the Republicans we can't be trusted. Politicans won't stick their necks out for constituencies they cannot trust to back them up on Election Day.

248 posted on 02/23/2004 8:25:36 AM PST by hchutch ("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: hchutch

It's called disloyalty. If they don't get 100% of what they want they conveniently forget everything you HAVE done for them and stay home. Disloyalty is NOT a conservative trait. Who do they think they're fooling?

250 posted on 02/23/2004 8:38:25 AM PST by McGavin999 (Evil thrives when good men do nothing!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Loyalty is a reciprocal relationship. The two of your are peeved this morning because not all Republicans are willing to accept the servility you find comfortable.

You were warned, you and your heroes ignored the warnings, and there is now the forewarned uncertainty in the GOP coalition. So the two of you are looking for someone, anyone, to blame.

Put the blame for the uncertainty where it belongs: on those in the GOP who ignored the warnings. After you're done with blaming each other, look to the White House.

Then, when you've got all of that out of your systems, quit being so divisive and understand that if you want a big mandate in November you'll need a big coalition. "Shut up and vote" isn't going to get it done.

I know, I know, calling folks "unappeasables," "liberals," "malcontents," etc. is a precious security blanket, but it's time to get serious about this election.

[Cold Heat]

Ditto everything you said!

Lest we forget....................

[Sabertooth]

If Bush Jr. loses, like Bush Sr., for acting like a democRat, maybe the pubbies will finally get a clue that it's not a good idea to be a Big Stupid Government politician. But perhaps they're not bright enough to understand the meaning of their defeats - we'll just have to see.

Well, let's hope it doesn't come to that.

President Bush still has time to recover from his blunders -- like his proposed Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, big spending, and socialization of Prescription Drugs -- and cobble together a decisive coalition this November.

We don't want a leftist like Kerry, but we don't want Bush to think that not wanting Kerry gives him an excuse to push elements of the leftist agenda to "take the Democrats' issues away!™"

[Cold Heat]

I know, I know, calling folks "unappeasables," "liberals," "malcontents," etc. is a precious security blanket, but it's time to get serious about this election.

At least we can agree on something!

[Cold Heat]

"take the Democrats' issues away!™"

You trade marked this???????

LOL! Really?

[hchutch]

You're one to talk about NOT being divisive. To my knowledge, you have TWICE stated a refusal to support Rosario Marin if she were to win the Republican nomination to oppose Barbara Boxer for having the temerity to support the President's policies on immigration.

[Sabertooth]

You've already said you are voting for Bush... change your mind?

Nope. I'm voting for Bush, and I think it's foolish for Bush and his supporters to piss away votes that are his to lose.

I haven't changed my mind on either proposition.

One-issue voters are dullards, to slow to understand how political parties focus on a set of values and you sometimes have to take a back seat while other values move forefront...

So?

Those votes count as much as yours and mine do. We need them, so quit calling people names and start figuring out how to broaden the coalition to appeal to those voters.

And then we have the girlish and shrill... "he's taking MY vote for GRANTED!".... prima donnas.

Who likes to have their votes taken for granted? That's a manly quality?

Way to reach out. Way to get the vote out.

Bah.

Back atcha. You want folks to shut up and vote, but your attitude is more likely to get them to loudly stay home.

I'm sure that will give you ample opportunity to pretend you're superior to those voters, and that should give you fat consolation in elections that don't turn out as you'd hoped.

[Sabertooth]

You're one to talk about NOT being divisive. To my knowledge, you have TWICE stated a refusal to support Rosario Marin if she were to win the Republican nomination to oppose Barbara Boxer for having the temerity to support the President's policies on immigration.

That's true, I have. I put certain principles over party.

If it should happen that I withhold my vote from Marin, should she be the GOP Senatorial nominee, that would still leave me with one less withheld vote for a GOP nominee than you've achieved by withholding two from John Warner.

You may now proceed to rationalize why everything's different when you do it.

The fact remains that to date, I have a 100% record of voting for GOP nominees, and you don't.

[Sabertooth]

You trade marked this???????

LOL! Really?

No, I was acknowledging the trademark of those who thought the phrase was a clever invention and rhetorial device.

I've always thought "he's taking the Democrats' issues away" was a kinda dumb excuse that self-styled Bush apologists trotted out every time he did something wrong and divisive.

Remember CFR?

[Cold Heat]

Remember CFR?

Sure do.......

I watched with great interest on C-span as the rats argued their positions and then refused to vote for them.LOL

This went on for years it seemed as they dug the hole deeper and deeper.

When Bush signed the dang thing, the first thing that came to mind was that the rats got exactly what they had asked for and the bluff had been called.

I still think I was right. I don't believe he co-opted the issue as much as he called the bluff. The Dems will pay the high price of winning the pot and losing the game.IMHO

[hchutch]

John Warner knifed Ollie North in the back first, so I refuse to "shut up and vote" - or is that refusal only allowed when the issue in question is immigration? Ollie North's vote would have passed a partial-birth abortion ban over Clinton's veto in the late 90s.

I sure as heck was not helping to re-elect Barbara Boxer in the process when I withheld my vote both times. Which means one more anti-defense, anti-marriage amendment, pro-abortion, pro-tax increase, anti-gun, anti-Bush judges Senator stays in. And there is no real change on immigration policy, either, if anything, Boxer's stance is far worse than the President's.

Then again, to you, I'm just some party hack or shill. Or a sellout. Or worse. But don't try to pin the "divisive" laben on me. Any time someone walks off because their person did not win the nomination after having a dog in the fight, THEY are the ones responsible for causing division, NOT the candidate who they stabbed in the back.

If Marin wins the nomination (I think it will be Bill Jones - who did okay in 1998; nobody else on the GOP ticket won statewide election), and loses becuase some third-party spoiler splits the vote, don't be surprised if you find yourself distrusted.

[SierraWasp]

You sure have a way with articulating sentiment in accurate ways! Bless you and ENCORE!!!

[Tamzee]

Your post #246 was stupendous... a brilliant rebuttal and stirring call to arms at the same time.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[nickcarraway]

During primary time, the candidate from each party is supposed to energize his base, then work back towards the independent voters. The Democrats have been busy playing to their base, but Bush has been doing them a favor, by not shoring up his base. This isn't anything new, it's a reality of politics for decades, if not longer. If Bush doesn't do it, he has no one to blame but himself and his team. That's the way presidential elections work.

[nickcarraway]

If you never push your candidate to the right, then he'll get the message you want him to go to the left. That's the way any political consultant will read it.

[SierraWasp]

"Some Republicans just dislike when conservatives don't "think" like they're supposed to."

Democrites have never represented ANY of my thinking, but it really upsets me when Republicans began to fail in that area. When they began to try to find love in all the wrong places, that's when they leave me and I'm forced to re-register "Decline to State!"

Until they demonstrate that appeasing despicably destructive Democrites is hopelessness, I cannot allow Repellicans to represent my "special interests!"

[nickcarraway]

But it might also be a vote telling Republicans they can drop conservative issues. There are a lot of voters out there that aren't left-wingers, and their votes count just as much.

[Carry_Okie]

If you never push your candidate to the right, then he'll get the message you want him to go to the left. That's the way any political consultant will read it.

Time to repeat an earlier post:

"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