GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[ovrtaxt]

Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.

[Bikers4Bush]

So it's ok with you that he proposed and signed the biggest "bravo sierra" entitlement increase in history?

It's not o.k. with me.

[NittanyLion]

That gives me a bit more insight into where you're coming from. Thanks.

I've said I plan to vote for Bush in November, and I do. I think what we need to differentiate between is the posts intended to get people voting for a third-party (that weaken the GOP) and those that are legitimate criticism of the administration's policies (that strengthen it). That's not directed at you personally, just voicing my thoughts in general.

My personal opinion is that being dismissive of conservatives by [in essence] telling them their services are not needed will hurt your (really, our) cause of unifying the GOP as a more conservative party. But at least I see now that you have a strategy as opposed to reacting out of anger. Let's hope that between the efforts of all well-intentioned folks here, we can pull the party rightward.

Have a nice weekend.

[NeoCaveman]

I'm losing track. Does Karl Rove cuts my checks, or is it George Soros? My head is spinning...

I'm running out of tinfoil. Whoever is sending me money to post on FR better send me more :^)

[hchutch]

Well, I kinda feel it is personal. I lived through the 1994 Senate race in Virginia, and to be honest, I saw what happened when folks did not support the nominee.

John Warner and Ollie North probably do not exchange Christmas cards. But that race went way the hell out of control, and the result is still felt today, I think. I know I have not forgiven Warner.

And it happens time and time again. People don't like a candidate's position on an issue or a vote that was cast, and so they stay home or go third party. The liberal ends up winning the election. The folks who supported the Republican feel angry and betrayed - they feel they can't trust the third party types. The third patry types think the folks who stuck with the Republican are "party over principle" types.

Soon, honest disagreements over an issue - or even HOW to achieve the same objective - become excuses for attacks. Those attacked respond, because they feel they are as dedicated as the ones attacking them, and it goes on and on... and through all that, the liberals sit back and let the self-immolation continue until both sides on the conservative side are so disillusioned with the other that they refuse to see the common enemy. They like it, because they get that House seat, Senate seat, governorship, or even the Presidency at the end.

George W. Bush was saying pretty much from day one that he was a "compassionate conservative" - and in this case, I feel he is the victim, just as Ollie North was the victim of John Warner a decade ago.

I saw John Warner, a moderate/RINO (pick whatever term you wish for him) divide the GOP in 1994 - I saw that division help re-elect Charles Robb. As someone who voted for Ollie North and convinced a couple of other people to do the same, I felt like I was stabbed in the back. Some of those who bolted blamed it on Ollie North - after all he has a checkered past. Perhaps, perhaps not. But he was ultimately the nominee, and there was, I think, an obligation to support him after the primary.

In 2004, I see conservatives making similar threats. I see them using the same sort of blame game against George W. Bush that I saw used by Warner and other backers of Marshall Coleman against Ollie North and the GOP in Virginia. I see the possible result, and having been stabbed in the back by malcontents in 1994, I am furious to see the same thing ready to happen a decade later and with much higher stakes involved.

Am I jaded? Perhaps. Maybe I'm just a party hack. Maybe I'm too willing to compromise. But if you see where I'm coming from, maybe, just maybe, you might be willing to understand why I'm so angry at the "stay at home" and "third party" types who are making these noises.

[AntiGuv]

Took me a bit to find the figures. Total federal spending under Bush's current budget policy is about 20.2% of GDP versus a 22.3% average under Reagan. Of that, non-military discretionary spending accounted for 17.1% of Reagan's budgets and accounts for at least 19.4% of Bush's budgets. That means that Reagan's non-military discretionary spending as a percent of GDP checked in at about 3.81% whereas Bush's checks in at 3.88%.

Moreover, none of that was at Reagan's sole discretion since every spending bill passed and signed during his term had to be introduced by a Democratic House.

[Bikers4Bush]

"If Bush refuses to campaign for them, that's nobody's fault but theirs."

Right, blackmail on the campaign trail is a quality that should be revered in a republican president. So who's fault is it when he only campaigns for moderate liberals like himself?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Apparently there's a disconnect. THE MEDICARE BILL WAS HIS PROPOSAL, CONGRESS PASSED IT TO HIM, AND HE SIGNS HIS PROPOSAL WHICH BY THAT TIME BECOME LEGISLATION.

A proposal is one thing, that gives Congress a chance to tackle it. Apparently Congress fumbled the ball and Bush ran into the endzone for his touchdown.

No, it's not OK with me if the CONGRESS can't stand up to a President who's doing the work of the MINORITY PARTY.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If he's campaigning for them, he's campaigning for moderate liberals like himself.

[Bikers4Bush]

There is no disconnect on my end. I want to know why a man who campaigned for smaller government intiated, pushed through and signed the largest entitlement program increase in history.

The disconnect is that you think it was allright.

[AntiGuv]

Correction: That should be 3.92% of national GDP for GWB's non-military discretionary spending (versus 3.81% under Reagan).

[Bikers4Bush]

"If he's campaigning for them, he's campaigning for moderate liberals like himself."

So what that basically says is that the party will continue to move to the left on the back of a sitting republican president.

And people wonder why I would cast a third party vote for president. The reason is right there.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, I don't think it's alright for a Congress to fudge around all hours of the day and hand Bush something he asked for in the first place, without major corrections and changes. You want to throw Bush out of the White House, I want the perceived Conservatives on this board to do what I plan on doing, which is to campaign at the grassroots level for a TRULY CONSERVATIVE Congressional member, that will be the checks and balances to a moderate Republican in the White House.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Only if we keep the Congress "as is" while tossing the President out for a Democrat.

[North Coast Conservative]

Everything all right?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Don't blame me if we ended up with a Democrat in all branches of government.

[WRhine]

Right now, GOP election calculus reads that getting votes from the "true conservatives" costs more votes from less-than-true conservatives than the "true conservatives" deliver.

Which of course explains Bush's dive in the polls.

You are right about one thing though; I believe an impasse between Conservatives and Bush & Co. has been reached and neither side is going to give in (we certainly know George won't). Many conservatives have come to the conclusion that Bush's Open Borders/pro-Big Government brand of politics is little differentiated with the Democrat’s Agenda. Meanwhile, it’s quite clear that Bush decided a long time ago to write off a good part of the conservative vote in the hopes of attracting more left-center votes. Things have indeed come to a head in this election year.

This is truly a intra-party fight and the pots and pans are flying so to speak.

Just the kind of happy party unity that George needs to beat a committed Democratic Party effort to unseat him at all costs.

Should be interesting.

[NittanyLion]

I don't think it's alright for a Congress to fudge around all hours of the day and hand Bush something he asked for in the first place, without major corrections and changes.

Congress delivers exactly what the President proposed, and it's their fault? Inherent in your statement is the suggestion that the President proposed a program he didn't want in the first place. Are you questioning his integrity by suggesting his policy statements are little more than grandstanding?

[Bikers4Bush]

But there's our problem. The party has moved to the left and those who are in control of the purse strings want it even further left.

They will not allow us to support and elect any true conservatives to the house or senate.

[FreeReign]

What is relevant; Discretionary spending in Reagan's first budget -- FY 1982 -- was 10.1% of GDP. Non-DOD discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP in Reagan's first year was 4.4%. Discretionary spending in Bush's first budget -- FY2002 -- was 7.1% of GDP. Non-DOD discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP for Bush's first year was 3.7% and that doesn't even include increased Homeland Defense type spending which is higher under Bush than it was under Reagan.

This is false on its face. Both parts. Reagan did not spend more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush, much less do so in his sole judgment.

"False on its face?" Your facedown denial in this face-off is not a face-saver(I can post throwaway lines too).

Faceup to it.

[Kay Soze]

Yeah!

When did W loose Veto pwoer anyway?