GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/12/6 | Carolyn Lochhead

[SmithL]

Washington -- The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.

A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.

The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.

"If I had a choice and Bush were running today against (Democratic President) Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Bill Clinton," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration Treasury Department official whose book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is making the rounds of conservative think tanks and talk shows. "He was clearly a much better president in a great many ways that matter to me."

Bartlett may lie at the extreme, but his critique taps into a strong undertow -- reflected in a sharp drop in Bush's support among his typically solid Republican base, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

"Bush's compassionate conservatism has morphed into big government conservatism, and that isn't what the base is looking for," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "The White House and the congressional leadership have got to reinvigorate the Republican base. In off-year elections ... if your base isn't energized, particularly in a relatively evenly divided electorate, you've got more problems than you think you have."

[Almondjoy]

I hate to break it to you but not all Democrats are the liberals you speak of.

I highly doubt any of that would happen except for higher taxes.

[raybbr]

Concentrate your attention on the threads that engender enthusiasm for victory, both in Iraq and in 2006 vulnerable districts.

Owen: Are you one of those that decried the democrats buying votes with pork and promises? Why do you support the GOP doing the same thing?

[georgia2006]

"""socialist Medicare debacle are what us fiscal conservatives are ticked off about.""


Did you vote for Bush in 2000?

[raybbr]

"""socialist Medicare debacle are what us fiscal conservatives are ticked off about.""

I voted for Bush. Where did he bring this up in his campaign?

[Almondjoy]

Right.. that's because Congress has never wanted to help things change for the better with initivates that are bold and need undertaking even against an American public that is scared because of misleading newspaper headlines.

[hedgetrimmer]

massive govt central planning (communism) IS the reason jobs are going overseas. Communist nations are building economies that will surpass our own. The central planning agency is the WTO. In their "rounds" they decide which third world countries will get US industries. Cotton is next, African nations made it very clear at the last Doha round that America must give it up. The CAFTA nations made sugar their rallying cry, and NAFTA gave Mexico illegal immigrant labor to bolster their economy and a significant chunk of our domestic manufacturing base. That my friend is central planning, not American free enterprise that the "free traders" want to dismantle.

[Howlin]

that's because Congress has never wanted to help things change for the better with initivates that are bold and need undertaking even against an American public that is scared because of misleading newspaper headlines.

Which brought us the bill against UAE attached to MILITARY SPENDING.

[LibLieSlayer]

"How about shutting down the department of education? Maybe we could shut down HUD and auction off the property. How about the department of Mohair Studies? The Feds are really, really bloated."

Run that one by the electorate. It may be what you and I want, but if you think that there are enough of us to win elections without the "swing voters" you would be gravely mistaken. In America today, this will never happen.

Most people want sensible spending, not its abolishment. Small government is dead. Any real cut in spending beyond 5% is unattainable due to the mentality of an America that wants gubmint to do it for them.

There are far more votes to be lost proposing this, than can ever be gained. This lies at the heart of why we have the spending we have today. Our pols have proved that they bend to the "will of the people" with this ports deal. They hear far more from "special interests" wanting all of this spending. We are just "white noise" in the background.

LLS

[WhiteGuy]

One small problem ... the Legislative branch spends, not the Executive


Right you are.


'06 should be a "throw the bums out election."

[Blzbba]

"
Did you vote for Bush in 2000?"


Yep. I believed his "cut spending, no nation building" platform that he debated Mr. Lock Box about.

[georgia2006]

""Communist nations are building economies that will surpass our own.""


Name one.


The rest of your rant is full of innacuracies..this might surprise you but Mexico is LOSING manufacturing jobs, as is guess who else CHINA.



""NAFTA gave Mexico illegal immigrant labor to bolster their economy ""

""Mexico got illegal immigrant labor to boost their economy""

.....you need to calm down and actually re-read what it is youre typing

[LibLieSlayer]

I'm going to bookmark this post, and in November, if bashing of Bush continues, we will revisit if what you say is the case.

LLS

[Lazamataz]

Oh dear! Some of them are straying from the plantation. Quick, bayourant: To your job!

[Moonman62]

I guess it's a coincidence that GWB did the same thing in Texas. (His political mentor there told him to sign everything and take credit for it). Poor GWB runs into those big spenders everywhere he goes. He's such a helpless kitten.

[georgia2006]

first sensible post here

[raybbr]

It may be what you and I want, but if you think that there are enough of us to win elections without the "swing voters" you would be gravely mistaken. In America today, this will never happen.

Thanks for admitting it's about politics not principles.

[georgia2006]

well if you knew that GWB was a big spending while Gov of TX, why then are you so upset about it now?

I lived in TX and I knew what we were getting as President in 2000. It is those who fooled themselves into thinking that GWB was not another Reagan but another "projected" Reagan (The real Reagan, wasnt the Reagan that so many conservatives and made up in their minds) Reagan that are so upset with his policies.

[georgia2006]

""Thanks for admitting it's about politics not principles."


I am utterly shocked!!! That a political party , the GOP is all about politics.

[SupplySider]

He is a massive liberal spender, bar none. A totally hypocritical position when he campaigned on reducing the scope of government and spending in government....

When he talked about "compassionate conservatism" in the election, I assumed he meant bigger spending, but hoped it was just a campaign strategy. After all, in the wake of the demonization of Newt and the heartless evil Republican congress, running on "cuts" probably wouldn't have worked.

What a disappointment to discover that Pres. Bush really believes in huge government spending programs to supposedly solve all problems. Except when it comes to citizens spending for advertising against incumbents in elections, that must be forbidden, constitution be damned.

[georgia2006]

yeah, I know. It is a huge disappointment that GWB kept his 2000 campaign promises