George W. Bush Angers Conservatives

NewsMax | February 8, 2004 | NewsMax e-mail

[COURAGE]

George W. Bush Angers Conservatives

Howard Dean isn't the only presidential candidate suffering a self-inflicted meltdown. There's a certain Republican with the same problem, and we don't mean Wesley Clark the former Reaganite.

President Bush has so angered his conservative base by spending more than any Democrat in history and pandering to illegal aliens that Republican congressmen, stunned by constituents' complaints, met privately with Karl Rove to unload, the Washington Times revealed Friday.

"I would say 97 out of 100 of our members who asked questions laid into him pretty good about spending and the lack of discipline on the administration's part," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.

The White House, however, does not seem to be taking the problem seriously. Presidential spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush wanted "to broaden the party."

Good luck with that sorry strategy. Those who try to be all things to all people end up standing for nothing and having nothing. Proof of this tactic's failure: The more money Bush squanders, the Democrats attack him.

Wall Street Journal columnist John Harwood notes that Bush is getting socked from the right and the left and has only himself to blame.

Harwood traces the recent plunge in Bush's popularity to four events:

The uproar caused by former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill undermined Bush's biggest asset: his image as "a strong leader, with capable advisers, who talks straight."

The State of the Union speech deepened misgivings on Capitol Hill. Bush blamed the GOP-controlled Congress for his own massive spending and deficits, and angered Democrats when he "improbably suggested that he had been vindicated" on what he now calls "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities."

After insisting his humongous expansion of Medicare would cost $400 billion over a decade, he jacked up the estimate to $540 billion. Democrats, of course, say the program should be even more gargantuan, and conservatives don't want it at all.

The latest insult: a record deficit of $521 billion this year in a $2.4 trillion budget that pleases no one. This from a man who said "we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits." Most damning of all is a statistic the Journal published recently. Bush increased domestic discretionary spending by a record 8.2 percent, compared to 2.5 percent for Bill Clinton, 2 percent for Jimmy Carter and 4.3 percent for Lyndon Johnson.

Harwood notes that "just as with the nose-diving candidacy of Howard Dean, the problem is largely self-inflicted."

[waRNmother.armyboots]

Actually, the Republicans do not own the Senate. Democrats have made everything meet the criteria of filibuster proof to pass unless it has something for them.
I am disappointed to say the least in the spending of the Congress and in President Bush lack of use of the veto to control spending.
I was just making the point that the blame lies both with Congress and the President. By the constitution the congress controls the purse strings and is responsible for the budget. Congress can override a Presidential veto, but if the President cannot get enough votes in the House or Senate he has no avenue for overriding a decision by Congress and Congress can mute his veto. If Congress does not pass the legislation it never makes it to the President's desk.

[whadizit]

"Even more fired up, IMO."

I agree. There is more anger going around with the liberals than I have ever been witness to in a pres. election...against an incumbent. I saw a poll this a.m. where dems. care more about economy/jobs than nat'l security. THAT IS A FORMULA THAT WILL GET US ALL KILLED!!! HAVE THEY FORGOTTEN 9-11?! THIS IS SCARY!!

[WayneM]

"broaden the party"

Kinda like what some churches are trying to do by ordaining homosexuals. Sounds like a plan - NOT.

[LdSentinal]

W and Rove have always been about doing it on their own time and letting things blow over. What they have to realize is that the Democrats are as fired up as Republicans were in 2000 to get Clinton out of office.

Weren't Democrats fired up in '02? You know, to get revenge for Florida? Weren't Democrats fired up to oust Jeb Bush?

[whadizit]

"....making no one happy."

Through all his big spending, he has had re-election in mind. However, you are correct. By trying to please everyone, he has lost his base and, frankly, he cannot, has not and will not, ever get a vote from libs. They vowed after the last election never to let him have a restful moment. He has courted the Dems. by honoring Kennedy, etc. and neglected his base. That will hurt him more than he would have been hurt by fighting Dems.

[Texasforever]

My life's not affected in the slightest by who's running the show in the White House.

The executive branch runs every federal agency that affects your life every day. Imagine a Kerry Cabinet and who would be regulating everything you do.

[claudiustg]

What a bunch of swill! Who'd vote for a Massachusetts liberal because they're afraid of budget deficits? Kerry's a stiff. They practically have to wheel him up to the podium on a dolly. To top it off he's a Jane Fonda pacifist. Most folks realize we can't vote or demonstarte the Islamic terrorists away. That's only in Dim imaginary (dimaginary) politics. Kerry's a no-go.

[COURAGE]

They ignored 9-11.

[FairOpinion]

Link to the article at newsmax:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/8/213337.shtml

[LdSentinal]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when the repubs took congress in '94 it was the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

Unbelievable . . . Worst thing to ever happen to this country?

[claudiustg]

--He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.---

Rope-a-dope!

[FairOpinion]

Sadly, it's actually at the newsmax site. I was a bit sceptical, but there it was.


Insider Report: George W. Bush Angers Conservatives
Special from NewsMax's Most Informed Sources
Sunday, Feb. 08, 2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/8/213337.shtml

The short-sightedness of conservatives is astounding.

[Texasforever]

One thing is for sure, he can beat the liberals but he can't survive a circular firing squad.

[Shery]

There is one thing that we all suffer from in this life. Amnesia. When our beloved Reagan was in office, he made conservatives very unhappy on MANY occasions. However, he still survived the criticism and went on to a second term. He was criticised as not being a fiscal conservative, except in rhetoric, and for all kinds of other things. Now, in retrospect we forget those things that angered us so much. We look back and see the overall good things, forgetting those things that had us all ready to bolt. We cannot like everything that Bush does. It's not possible for him to please us all. He is the president of the whole country, and while I agree that I'm very unhappy with some of his decisions, they may need the test of time to see whether they were good or bad.

The real issue for the election is integrity of character. There is no comparison in that issue. We are too easily moved on issues, without understanding them fully. The best thing is to register our complaint with our congressmen/women and senators and ask them to rein in theose areas that seem out of control. Like one commentor said...where were they? They didn't exercise their own duty to cut areas in the budget that could and should be. The problem is that everyone has some special interest that THEY don't want cut, and to take an axe to one would mean someone taking the same axe to theirs. Accountability is to the people. Not to special interests.

We have lost our republican form of government. It was never intended for majority to rule (have their every wish and desire), as then the majority would vote themselves all kinds of favors, wrecking the survivability of our economy. It is not entirely our fault, as former presidents have made large inroads into disruption of the Constitution. However, it is our fault when we go along with the status quo and either remain silent or push for our own wants and wishes without regard to what is best for the WHOLE country. Some issues are not so black and white as they appear. We are not informed as the president is. And we do not understand the many different ideological persuasions that the president NEEDS to listen to before making decisions. We ahve rightly hated the presidentila decrees, made without the chance of congress overturning...at least right away. So we should be careful not to demand that Bush use this form of government too often. It was abused by one former president, and we have his spouse waiting in the wings to design her own agenda with this power. We had better loosen up a bit and start praying more. Seriously praying! This is more than about immigration or the budget as such. It IS about survival of our country.

[thedugal]

I would say No. The country was still swinging to the right after 9/11. The swing right has come fullstop and now appears to be thrusting leftward. The left has the momentum. The question is, what is Bush going to do about it?

[FairOpinion]

"One thing is for sure, he can beat the liberals but he can't survive a circular firing squad."

==

I agree. It seems like conservatives are bound and determined to give us a repeat of 1992, and 8 years of President Kerry. God help the country!

Kerry wanted to disband the CIA and put US troops under UN control. Can you imagine what that will do to us during these critical times?

"He was quoted in The Harvard Crimson as saying he would like to "almost eliminate CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

From article:

With antiwar role, high visibility
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

[Texasforever]

The question is, what is Bush going to do about it??

By himself? To the Left he is Hitler to the Right he is Marx. How do you fight that?

[LdSentinal]

The country was still swinging to the right after 9/11. The swing right has come fullstop and now appears to be thrusting leftward. The left has the momentum.

Of course the left has the momentum; it's their primary campaign. Once Kerry is nominated their bounce will fade just as did in 1996 for the Republicans and Bob Dole. The country was shifting to the right even before 9/11 due to attrition of Democratic voters and it continues to today.

And no president was ousted with a unemployment rate at just 5.6%.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

W may feel that he did all he could this term and wouldn't mind joining his pop on the golf course and in box seats at ballgames.

Bush is behaving like someone who wants to lose the election. I think you are right. It's too bad he didn't step aside for another candidate to run.