Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/12/6 | Carolyn Lochhead

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; conservatives; dubya100pctright; dubyacandonowrong; dubyaisneverwrong; federalspending; gop; presbushisperfect; republicans; republicansellout; republicanvalues; wemustnotopposebush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 next last
So much for marching in lockstep.
1 posted on 03/12/2006 7:51:45 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

throw in Open borders, shipping jobs overseas, Nafta -cafta , expanding Dept of ED and keeping energy and labor well Mr Bush has made it clear..RINO


2 posted on 03/12/2006 7:54:50 AM PST by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

They have been saying this or similar since '94. Without new ideas the dims are still floundering.


3 posted on 03/12/2006 7:55:11 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I guess the Congress is no longer involved in the budget process? So much for separate but equal branches.


4 posted on 03/12/2006 7:55:12 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well, where could money be saved?


5 posted on 03/12/2006 7:56:52 AM PST by ketelone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; Willie Green; hedgetrimmer
"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.

Amen!

Moving to stanch the damage, Bush called last week for Congress to grant him a line-item veto to prevent members from redirecting money in spending bills to their pet projects, a practice known as earmarking that has achieved notoriety under the GOP.

Six years too late!

6 posted on 03/12/2006 7:56:58 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The San Francisco Chronicle is in a deep funk.. So funky that the odor is ripe..
7 posted on 03/12/2006 7:57:06 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Better late than never. They should have stood up to him 6 yeras ago.


8 posted on 03/12/2006 7:57:08 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

One small problem ... the Legislative branch spends, not the Executive. Note how the MSM helps them shift the blame. Yes, GWB has certain spending priorities (as did Reagan) that run up spending but Congress refuses to execute the offsetting cuts and it is all the President's fault. Nice little scam, isn't it?


9 posted on 03/12/2006 7:57:43 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("If I were a Cuban, I'd certainly be on a raft," Isane Aparicio Busto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

Maybe so,
but vote for Clinton?

I think not!


10 posted on 03/12/2006 7:57:50 AM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well, going to a different theme -- if Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) isn't chopped down to 100th of its effect that regulation alone will cause many disasters, harm and ruin.


11 posted on 03/12/2006 7:59:34 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Vote Libertarian. They are the only sane choice. If the GOP runs McCain and the Dems run Hitlery conservatives lose. So "throw" your vote away on what you want anyway, sane government.


12 posted on 03/12/2006 7:59:49 AM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

People had better understand that when a lib mentions too much "spending", they MEAN TAXES ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH!

LLS


13 posted on 03/12/2006 8:03:49 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

libertarians will NEVER win a National election.

LLS


14 posted on 03/12/2006 8:04:46 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Like I said on another thread: Congress critters create huge bureaucratic nightmares then badmouth the results. They all act like innocent bystanders.


15 posted on 03/12/2006 8:07:29 AM PST by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Gosh! Silly me! I thought all appropriations bills originated in Congress. I guess it's just been too long since my school days. Wait...let me check...nope, nothing's changed. I'm still right.

Perhaps Congress should be angry at itself...just a little.


16 posted on 03/12/2006 8:08:01 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

..throw in Open borders, shipping jobs overseas, Nafta -cafta , expanding Dept of ED and keeping energy and labor well Mr Bush has made it clear..RINO
-----
True -- but the Bots still don't get it. You did leave out "globalist", but it is implicit.


17 posted on 03/12/2006 8:09:18 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
"libertarians will NEVER win a National election. "

Of course not, the Whigs will reign forever.
18 posted on 03/12/2006 8:10:36 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

"Without new ideas the dims are still floundering."

So the republican slogan for '06 is: "vote for us, we're not as incompetent as those other guys"

....truly inspirational.


19 posted on 03/12/2006 8:10:50 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
I guess the Congress is no longer involved in the budget process?

Do the phrases "new tone in Washington" and "no vetoes" mean anything to you?

20 posted on 03/12/2006 8:11:15 AM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
I got news for you: There's only two parties last time I looked... and this public, Republican mea culpa is coming at precisely the wrong time. They behaved pathetically this weekend in Memphis.

I see the Dem's picking up seats just by showing up in November... if this whining, Republican meltdown continues.

21 posted on 03/12/2006 8:12:56 AM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

[quote]Perhaps Congress should be angry at itself...just a little.[/quote]

Congress isn't one person, the President is. When you say Congress should be angry at itself, well maybe some are. I'm sure we could find 20-30 members who, given the complete legislative power, would produce a budget conservatives would love.

What to do about the problem we have with a system biased toward higher and higher spending? We can all posit our theories.


22 posted on 03/12/2006 8:13:15 AM PST by madeinchina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ndt

I did chuckle.

LLS


23 posted on 03/12/2006 8:13:38 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is one I don't really lay at Bush's feet...

Think it's been as much Senatorial pork, as anything else.


24 posted on 03/12/2006 8:14:34 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Moving to stanch the damage, Bush called last week for Congress to grant him a line-item veto to prevent members from redirecting money in spending bills to their pet projects, a practice known as earmarking that has achieved notoriety under the GOP.

Clinton asked for the same authority, and it was granted, but struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Would Bush's luck be any better? Does Ms. Lochhead want us to believe that it's only Republicans that act irresponsibly?

25 posted on 03/12/2006 8:14:39 AM PST by Fresh Wind (Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

One small problem ... the Legislative branch spends, not the Executive.
-----
Bush basically invented and signed into law, the Medicare Reform Act (HUGE spending). He has not vetoed one massive piece of spending legislation since he has been in office. 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....


26 posted on 03/12/2006 8:17:12 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
When did the constitution change giving Bush the privilege of making law? Bush hasn't been perfect but all I've heard for the last year since Bush won the election,"separate but equal branches of Government".
BTW, Congress created CIFIUS way before Bush took office and Congress should have changed it when the Chinese took over port terminals if it's been such a problem.
27 posted on 03/12/2006 8:18:24 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
And who in the hell do we contribute the spending. All President Bush did is sign the bill that comes to his desk. Most spending is directly to blame on the House and Senate and most of the pork is add to vital bills needed to protect the Country. President Bush needed the line item veto to tear those pork project from the bills. The President believed that to build a better America it would take partisanship. Giant mistake believing in the RATS.

Also I would think the few posturing Republicans should somehow wave their magic wand and WOW! No hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, no war, and when these jacka@@ find the magic wand, let me know.
28 posted on 03/12/2006 8:23:19 AM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother

There are a handful of subversives on FR, friend. They are maneuvering to try to undercut GOP activism and generate Democrat seat gains. In general, the best defense is do not respond to them and then their pro Democrat threads stop being bumped unless they do it themselves -- which is counterproductive to their intent. Just letting you know. Concentrate your attention on the threads that engender enthusiasm for victory, both in Iraq and in 2006 vulnerable districts.


29 posted on 03/12/2006 8:23:24 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ndt

The GOP and Dems will never allow a Libertarian candidate, or any third party candidate for that matter, to enter the national debate. Sad really...


30 posted on 03/12/2006 8:24:13 AM PST by TrollBridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
They've all been pirates with taxpayers money but I get tired of congress getting a free pass. If they cut discretionary spending in half, the deficit goes away in two years even with paying for some wars but instead they brag on cutting it 5%.
31 posted on 03/12/2006 8:24:54 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother

When did the constitution change giving Bush the privilege of making law?
-----
Nobody said any such thing. He didn't. But he did sponsor it, to say the least, the Congress approved it, and he signed it into law.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/elec04.medicare/


32 posted on 03/12/2006 8:25:16 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Congress is the one with the spending problem. The problem lies there. Bush has enabled them, unfortunately, by not taking stand. No one on that end of Penn. Avenue should be complaining about spending.
33 posted on 03/12/2006 8:25:25 AM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Read the first paragraph and knew where it was going.
Shees, and from San Francisco. Hooda thunk.
34 posted on 03/12/2006 8:26:29 AM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Owen

After 2 straight weeks of watching this charade, I'm going to follow your advice. Thanks


35 posted on 03/12/2006 8:26:58 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"""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." ""



Bruce Barlett clearly suffers from BDS. Obviously terrorism isnt something that matters to Mr. Bartlett.

Bruce and other ill informed conservatives, including some here, were so anxious to get past the Clinton years, that they rallied to GWB simply based on his 1998 re-election numbers (65% of the female vote, 50% of the hispanic vote, 35% of the black vote), that they didnt bother to actually listen to what GWB was saying on the campaign trail. Bush PROMISED to free drug progam to seniors in 2000. Bush never claimed to be the heir of Reaganomics, thats where compassionate conservatism came from. These jilted conservatives are simply upset because GWB has followed thru on his 2000 campaign promises...next time pay attention


36 posted on 03/12/2006 8:27:38 AM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" - except President Reagan did not control spending either, did he?

The President - any President - should set a spending goal and veto anything that exceeds that. And that is all Bush would have to do. Veto "budgets" until they meet his expectations. But he is too busy spending "feel-good" money. Sad.


37 posted on 03/12/2006 8:28:40 AM PST by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I hope no one accuses me of being a Bushbot for pointing out two facts inconvenient to GOP congress-critters:

1. Congress is responsible for setting the budget, not the President.

2. The tax cuts -- pushed by the President over the linguini-spined fears of many GOP congress-critters -- have resulted in *much* larger tax revenues being collected in 2005 than before the cuts, adjusted for inflation.

Given that Congress has more money to spend than they would have with a Gore administration and that the GOP Congress is responsible for what spending over our real needs in defense that we have spent, my suggestion is that if they are seeking someone to blame that they stop looking at Bush and start looking in a mirror.


38 posted on 03/12/2006 8:30:32 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

""throw in Open borders, shipping jobs overseas, Nafta -cafta , expanding Dept of ED and keeping energy and labor well Mr Bush has made it clear..RINO""


Bush never passed NAFTA, is was passed in 1993 with the support of a majority og GOP in congress

Jobs going overseas is something that has been going on for decades, not since Jan 20, 2001....only massive govt central planning (communism)of the economy could prevent yesterday's jobs from moving overseas.

Expanding the Dept of Ed is something Bush promised in 2000, werent you paying attention???

Bush never promised to get rid of the Dept of Energy or Labor, neither has any GOP Presidential candidate...ever


too bad your so confused.


39 posted on 03/12/2006 8:31:27 AM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Owen; Howlin

BTTT!
Exactly.


40 posted on 03/12/2006 8:32:54 AM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
YOU guys keep bashing the only hope that we have, and we are going to see floundering of Biblical Proportions (when the dims win in '06/'08. Bank on it!

dims win and...
1) Bush will be Impeached
2) Higher Taxes, linked to massive NEW domestic spending
3) Pull troops out of Iraq, then Afghanistan (Fortress Amerika)
4) Hillarycare
5) 2nd Amendment redefined (see #5 below)
6) Liberal judges placed on Conservative district benches
7) Return of the "Great Society"
8) Socialism, Isolationism, Defeatism
9) Gay marriage will be Federally approved
10) Unionized/Nationalized industries such as ports, air travel... WalMart will be attacked until defeat is certain. Increased government interference in Small Business.
11) Mandated hybrid autos, coupled with unreal CAFE standards, Windfall Profits tax on fossil fuel, massive subsidy to ethanol etc. Gas will be at record highs.
12) History shows by this time we will be facing and "Old Time World War). History is our friend.

LLS
41 posted on 03/12/2006 8:33:08 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
"I did chuckle. "

Never is a long long time :)

I would vote for a Libertarian president in a heartbeat if I thought there was a chance in hell they would win or if the other options were equally bad or benign.

The LP is really bad at getting their message to the masses. I love the work put out by the Cato Institute, but your average Joe is not going to stop and read it much less get it. They are shooting way too high.
42 posted on 03/12/2006 8:33:30 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Anybody But Hiltlery

mc


43 posted on 03/12/2006 8:34:07 AM PST by mcshot (Rusty but trusty or vice versa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Some conservatives actually want the things you mention to happen...


44 posted on 03/12/2006 8:34:21 AM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
People had better understand that when a lib mentions too much "spending", they MEAN TAXES ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH!

Exactly.

45 posted on 03/12/2006 8:35:04 AM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So the Congress passes the bills and it's Bush's fault for not vetoing them?


46 posted on 03/12/2006 8:35:07 AM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
Vote Libertarian. They are the only sane choice. If the GOP runs McCain and the Dems run Hitlery conservatives lose. So "throw" your vote away on what you want anyway, sane government.

There's always a chance that McCain appoints social conservative judges. Will Hillary ever do that? I don't think so.

47 posted on 03/12/2006 8:35:25 AM PST by paudio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ndt

the LP party isnt serious because so many of their memebers are memebers for one reason and one reason only..legal narcotics


48 posted on 03/12/2006 8:35:52 AM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
All President Bush did is sign the bill that comes to his desk.

All President Bush did is sign every single bill that comes to his desk.

Just one veto on any appropriation bill would show he is serious. I think Clinton stole the veto pen along with the W keys when he left.

49 posted on 03/12/2006 8:35:52 AM PST by KarlInOhio (The tree of liberty is getting awfully parched.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; ConsentofGoverned; raybbr; kjo; EagleUSA; madeinchina; Moonman62
Note to moron columnists, rabid Freeper Bush haters, fringe party wack jobs and other bigoted Know Nothings, CONGRESS spends the money. Do you have any clue how stupid you all sound whining about "no Vetos" on bills that passed with MORE THEN ENOUGH VOTES TO OVERRIDE A VETO? Did you EVER bother to think a Veto is NO guarantee Congress will not simply come back with a WORSE bill? No, of course not. Would not do to let any reality into your politically bigoted, ignorant little worlds. Just scream "White House Spin" and "Drinking the Republican Koolaid" rather then actual LEARN something for once. Would NOT do for the Whine All The Time Choir to actually THINK for once.

Congress have sent every Bush Budget back as much as 1/3 HIGHER then it went up to the Hill. Can we AT LEAST have the guts to put the blame WHERE it belongs for a change? But of course not since Mike Savage did not tell you this fact it doesn't exist in your sad little bubble world of ignorance.

50 posted on 03/12/2006 8:36:05 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Are you not entertained? Are you NOT entertained? Is this not what you came here for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson