Posted on 03/12/2006 7:51:39 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I got news for you: there's only one bi-factional ruling party, the last time I looked. The only difference is who gets the spoils from our system of taxation/robbery.
""The US loses jobs to Mexico, who loses jobs to China, who loses jobs to Viet Nam or Malayasia or the worst of the worst communist and totalitarian dictatorships""
So you think someone is losing jobs to North Korea?? I dont think so.
Also you forgot to mention that all these countries are losing jobs to a real sinister force...PRODUCTIVITY
Im in a deep funk because i'm surrounded by millions of illegal aliens.
Exactly. Is that bunch of bloated Pork Pig Republicans sending W an irresponsible spending package, and then daring him to veto his own party, and then blaming him for it?
Federal debt at the end of the fiscal year as a percent of GDP, source Budget of the US Government 2007
2000 58.0 2001 57.4 2002 59.7 2003 62.6 2004 63.7 2005 64.3 2006 66.1 (estimate) 2007 67.5 (estimate)
Since when has the USA ever paid down debt?
The federal debt shrunk relative to the GDP from 1958-1967, 1969-1970, 1972-1975, 1977-1980, and 1997-2001.
The worst thing he ever did was to not veto the unconstitutional CFR bill.
What a nightmare...free speech is now considered anything that is pornographic and not people gathering together to express their disagreement with our government, its policies and the politicians who create those policies.
Unbelievable...
Ed
Congress holds the purse strings, not the President.
You're right, I wasn't listening. I was one of those "broken glass" Republicans who would do anything to repudiate the Clinton/Gore's. Since my precinct was one of the last counted, my vote was probably one of the 500+ that put him over the top.
I didn't vote in 2004, but probably would have if it was close due to the terrorism issue. I won't vote again or contribute to the GOP until they get their act straight.
Of course, you completely ignored the crux of this thread which is that the Republican controlled Congress is the one that holds the purse strings.
New tone my lily-white butt.
Right, his own legislation, authorized by Congress through committee debates and floor votes. So, what you're saying is Bush should start vetoing his own "inventions"? LOL!
I guess when facts get in your way, just start making goofy posts.
I hope you are joking.
President's throughout modern times have either been "too stingy" or "spending like drunken sailors on shore leave". There is, sadly, no middle ground.
Maybe he warned us about "free" drugs for seniors and more federal dollars for the educrats, but did he have to sign that sickening roast pork casserole the highway bill? Or the anti-trade steel tariffs? Even the tax cuts, which ended up being good overall thanks to the congress, were proposed by the president as a mish mash of pseudo-Keynesian "stimulus" ideas. And if it weren't for disloyal Republicans we'd have Harriet Miers now on the Supreme court.
Call me naive, but I hoped that compassionate conservatism was mainly strategerizing and that candidate Bush was not a socialist. Kerry would have been a national nightmare, but I am very disappointed in Pres. Bush.
No, that's why it's essential to have the line item veto. You can talk about restraint until you're blue in the face, but you'll just be ridiculed for ignoring the root cause of such outrageous pork ideas such as "the bridge to nowhere" in Alaska proposed by Senator Ted Stevens.
In a strange way, so has Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.