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 ...
Or "Republican operatives" as opposed to "Democrat consultants".
"""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?""
Im confused, seems like most here on FR would approve of Bush's steel tariff, which by the way expired over 2 years ago...are you still angry over Reagan's quotas on japaneses motorcycles
I'm certain you think that statement is brilliant, even though it is not.
To expand for your understanding...
The headline states the GOP is in a "funk
over Bush's spending. The headline seeks to INDICT Bush, even though Congress is complicit...more so infact since they are the ones Constitutionally mandated in this area. To allude this is BUSH's spending is DISHONEST and agenda driven.
Infact BOTH have played a role, with Congress playing the greater one since this starts with them first. As I noted Bush DOES have a role, and that is where a VETO comes in. he has also pushed for some programs that take money to work, which Congress accepted and expanded on. I didn't absolve him, I INDICTED the agenda of the hack that wrote this for focusing on the lesser of the responsibles for this spending.
To take your OTHER brilliance apart, Congress can take some credit for passing the tax cuts. But YOU know and I KNOW there would be NO tax cuts if the president hadn't used his pulpit to force it down their throats. YOU know and I KNOW that spending would be occuring with or without him in large amounts. the highway bill proved that. That's why Bush gets MORE credit, in this specific instance of taxes, because no fair minded person out there honestly thinks absent Bush those tax cuts would have happened.
""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."
Well given that they won and had a record year for fundraising in 2004 without your support, I'd say youre basically irrelevant.
""The federal debt shrunk relative to the GDP from 1958-1967, 1969-1970, 1972-1975, 1977-1980, and 1997-2001.""
That is not the same as paying down debt...debt continued to rise is most of those years, GDP grew faster. In 2003 and 2004 and 2005 GDP grew faster than the accumlation of debt, so your figures are wrong. Your numbers from 2005 to 2006 say that debt grw nearly 2% faster than did GDP. Thus The budget deficit in 2005-06 would have had to been over 6% of GDP or nearly 700b dollars. Those figures you posted make no sense.
Bookmarked right here!
I can't speak for most Freepers, but I'm not a protectionist. Yes, the tariffs are gone, thankfully, due to disloyal Republicans who put up a huge stink about it. I'm not angry about that, but I'm still disappointed, as I thought it revealed a faith by the president in big government economic manipulation that I hadn't expected. I don't remember the motorcycle tariffs, but I doubt I would have supported domestic producers over consumers then, either.
you and I are the only ones here then
the only way that is accurate is if they arent counting the surplus in SS, which they should be because using the SS surplus to spend on non-SS spending simply shifts borrowing today to borrowing in the future.
it is clear from your link, that they arent not counting any trust fund surpluses in the annual deficit. But if that money in the trust funds offsets current borrowing, then they should.
Let me shock with a further heresy: I thought Bush Sr and Clinton were great on trade. About the only thing I liked about either of them, but I have to give the credit.
True. Do you think congress would have spent the same amount under Kerry?
Do you think they would have spent just as much with a Kerry presidency or would they have fought his spending proposals?
Would they have spent as much with a Kerry presidency or would they have fought all of his spending proposals?
Bush has a virginal veto pen. Why hang this all on CONgress?
Get rid of Pills for Grandma.
That would save a couple trillion $$ in outyear expenditures all by itself.
BTW...debt is good. The Clintons had paid down the debt by 2000....running high deficits keeps the rest of the world collectively more interested in each of our wellbeing, as well as the wellbeing of our children.....
If you got rid of ALL the pork, that would still be only a drop in the bucket and would not solve the problem we all face.
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.