Skip to comments.GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending
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 ...
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
They have been saying this or similar since '94. Without new ideas the dims are still floundering.
I guess the Congress is no longer involved in the budget process? So much for separate but equal branches.
Well, where could money be saved?
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!
Better late than never. They should have stood up to him 6 yeras ago.
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?
but vote for Clinton?
I think not!
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.
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.
People had better understand that when a lib mentions too much "spending", they MEAN TAXES ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH!
libertarians will NEVER win a National election.
Like I said on another thread: Congress critters create huge bureaucratic nightmares then badmouth the results. They all act like innocent bystanders.
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.
..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.
"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"
Do the phrases "new tone in Washington" and "no vetoes" mean anything to you?
I see the Dem's picking up seats just by showing up in November... if this whining, Republican meltdown continues.
[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.
I did chuckle.
This is one I don't really lay at Bush's feet...
Think it's been as much Senatorial pork, as anything else.
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?
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....
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.
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...
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.
After 2 straight weeks of watching this charade, I'm going to follow your advice. Thanks
"""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
"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.
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.
""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.
Anybody But Hiltlery
Some conservatives actually want the things you mention to happen...
So the Congress passes the bills and it's Bush's fault for not vetoing them?
There's always a chance that McCain appoints social conservative judges. Will Hillary ever do that? I don't think so.
the LP party isnt serious because so many of their memebers are memebers for one reason and one reason only..legal narcotics
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.
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.