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.

[NittanyLion]

Apparently the White House has better sense than many posters on this site (Thank God). Where the posters' standard response is to alternately tell conservatives their vote doesn't matter and then threaten to hold them responsible for a potential Bush loss, the White House appears to be taking a more mature view of the situation.

Bottom line: this proves that conservatives have the power to influence politicians when they're willing to hold them accountable for their actions. It also proves that the White House realizes this election cannot be won without holding onto the conservative base.

[tubavil]

Not addressed to you, that's why I removed your nic off the reply line.

Dolt(s), plural, refers to the WH/admin wonks in the article who think spending is the key issue to recover the base.

[Sabertooth]

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.

No, as I've told you numerous times in the past, to your incessant misunderstanding, I don't have a problem with your decision not to vote for Warner, though if I was in Virginia I would not have voted as you did. I fully accept the the notion that one can not expect all Republicans to vote for all nominees in all instances, though I have managed it to date.

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

Yada yada... it's different when you do it.

When you withheld your vote for Warner, by your own logic, you were voting for a Democrat. It just bugs the crap out of you that you have to admit it, and that I've noticed.

Then again, to you, I'm just some party hack or shill. Or a sellout.

You're a sell-out on Amnesty, which you favor.

But don't try to pin the "divisive" laben on me.

Amnesty is highly divisive in the GOP, and so are it's proponents.

You are among them.

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.

Then by that logic, that's what you did to John Warner.

I disagree with your logic, by the way. I don't believe that Warner had any birthright to your vote, and don't have any problem with your decision not to vote for him.

Warner's actions against Ollie North divided him from your vote.

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.

So, are you surprised if you are distrusted, on the basis of your non-vote for Warner?

Or, are you off the hook because Warner won?

For the record, I also think it will be Jones, and I'll be voting Kaloogian in the primary unless Marin surges late.

If it's Marin, and she loses without my vote, I think it should be evidence of why I should be trusted... because it would prove, once again, that GOP sellouts to Illegals are not the future of this party.

[nickcarraway]

I think you are ignoring the obvious. This is a 50-50 country. Bush needs to get his 50%, more than he needs to win over Howard Dean voters, who are unlikely to vote for him. This could be a close election, hinging on voter turn-out, so I think the suggestion that he should dampen voter turn-out of his core voters is ridiculous.

Can you name one single president who was elected in recent memory that didn't follow the tried-and-true formula, of soldify your base, then move from there? I certainly can't think of even one. It's not like Bush has to enact every single conservative plank on the agenda, he justr has to make sure he does enough, that thos voters are eager to vote in November. This is sub-atomic physics, it's very simple. Why you would wantr to throw out a winning formula, I can't understand.

[FairOpinion]

And if you push your candidate to the right and he loses, what do you get?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

The "where else are they gonna go" strategy.

This is not a strategy. It is a sign of contempt (if I had a dripping font, I would have used it on that last word). Contempt by the elitists for the vast bulk of Americans. Most Americans, who I sometimes prod by calling them sheeple, have in their very nature (given why most of our ancestors came to this country) a "leave me alone already" inclination. In this they are indeed conservative to a greater extent than is ever acknowledged outside Free Republic, and even forgotten here too often, a reality often exploited by our FOe.

Saber, finding ways to pry the statist wing of the GOP loose of its grip over the rest of the party IS the problem, not the Dems. The Dems, especially as they've been taken over by the extreme Left, are the threat that are aided by the statist wing of the GOP every single time that wing grows the size of government.

SeeError (in our FOe), you know this is true too. Her contempt needs to be treated as such, and you've gone a long way to express it on this thread. Keep on making a point of it. She, aided by her pisse, want us to forget why we're here in the first place. We need to recognize and build coalitions with American's of every stripe who know in their bones that tyranny is growing more bold and distant with every single day we allow ourselves to be distracted from our principles by such FOes.

[NittanyLion]

When I see numbers like this at FR, a conservative website, I think it's cause for concern:

Based upon their actions as of late, so does the White House. The moral of the story is that holding politicians accountable for their actions gets results. Reflexively defending all decisions on the part of a politician merely encourages them to advocate someone else's position, since the message sent is that you'll automatically adopt that person's position to continue your defense of the politician.

[nickcarraway]

And if you push your candidate to the right and he loses, what do you get?

Don't you get it? It's primary time, when a candidate is supposed to go to the right. Then he get angle towards the middle as the election approaches. Bush needs to win over the base. Please, think!

This is a split country. Bush isn't going to win a majority of the left-most 50%. I don't know how you think he can. He needs to win the right 50%.

[nickcarraway]

And if you push your candidate to the right and he loses, what do you get?

If you push you candidate to the left, you get a candidate that is lefter and lefter.

[Sabertooth]

Apparently the White House has better sense than many posters on this site (Thank God). Where the posters' standard response is to alternately tell conservatives their vote doesn't matter and then threaten to hold them responsible for a potential Bush loss, the White House appears to be taking a more mature view of the situation.

Noticing the internal contradictions of the League of Shut Up and Voters again, Mr. UNAPPEASABLE?

You will be watched.

Bottom line: this proves that conservatives have the power to influence politicians when they're willing to hold them accountable for their actions. It also proves that the White House realizes this election cannot be won without holding onto the conservative base.

But... but... what about the Democrats' issues?

We want to take the Democrats' issues away!

[nickcarraway]

"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

BUMP

[NittanyLion]

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

The administration is obviously taking these folks seriously, hence the posted article. Why do you continue to denigrate them instead of following President Bush's lead?

[Cold Heat]

Dolt(s), plural, refers to the WH/admin wonks in the article who think spending is the key issue to recover the base.

I suppose you may need to count me as a dolt, because the spending issue is a conservative anchor issue that cannot be denied.

The illegal alien issue is one that we can debate the proper course of action, but spending is mutually agreed as a bad thing that has indeed occurred.

The immigration proposal has not occurred and is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. But, it is not moot because of this fact, only that it has not occurred. It has not yet been written and it is not law or even out of committee. In fact, it has not been assigned to any committee except for exploratory panels.

How then, is it deemed a key issue for debate when their is virtually nothing to debate as of yet.

Intentions and desires are not something we can debate rationally until they are real and not just intellectual.

The spending is real.

[Sabertooth]

And if you push your candidate to the right and he loses, what do you get?

We get to listen to defeatists such as yourself say "we told you so."

That's "if" the candidate loses.

Why do you lack the courage of your convictions?

Don't you think that conservatism has the truth on its side?

Why are you always reflexively running away from our strengths?

The time for trembling is over. If you appeasers spent half the time fighting Democrats for conservatism that you do fighting conservatives to act like Democrats, we'd advance our side of the debate twice as far as we currently do.

[monkeywrench]

Btt! Summed up nicely!

[Cold Heat]

It's primary time, when a candidate is supposed to go to the right.

Excellent observation.

[NittanyLion]

Now that the administration has adopted the position that conservatives' voices must be heeded, it will be interesting to see whether the chronic dividers on this site change their tune to match. My bet is that this will be one of the very few areas in which they'll disagree with President Bush.

[Hank Rearden]

Right. Exactly. Look at the leftie initiatives Bush has promoted when he needs support from Republicans to get reelected.

Imagine the Big Stupid Government disasters that may await us if he's back in office and doesn't have to care what anybody thinks anymore. He'd better get smacked down hard now, when it has some effect, so he learns to behave.

Professional politicians are always suspect, must be watched closely and disciplined on a regular basis.

[reformedliberal]

Do some reading. The Dems are beginning to pick up House seats. Daschle is triangulating all over SoDak and they will pick up Senate seats, too. There will be no Republican Congress. Kerry will use EOs. The Left will use the courts.

There will be no gridlock. You and all of ue will be serfs for real and this handwringing will look malevolent in hindsight.

And the POTUS is likely to be Hillary, not Kerry. She can control all critters and Senators, no matter which party. No one will stand up to her.