GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[ovrtaxt]

Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.

[FreeReign]

We're not going to get what we want if we throw Bush out of the White House while keeping the gutless wonders in Congress.

Isn't it amazing how some here think that the R congress will fight tooth and nail against a D president.

The last time the R congress did that was back in '95, and if I recall leader Newt had his roly-poly head handed to him on a platter by the Clinton's.

That's how we got this "compassionate" president thingy.

[My2Cents]

Please. Legislation is suppose to be initiated in the Congress. The President will often send over suggestions, but the bills are drafted, introduced, discussed, and amended in Congress. If your representative is such a push-over, replace him or her.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The GOP can blast the president all they want. It is them who sent every piece of Socialist legislation to the president's desk. It's apparent to me that they can't take responsibility for their own actions while flamethrowing the president for their linguine spines. If they wanted to get rid of CFR as they said they would, they should have voted NO rather than just going by the wishes of John McCain.

[Constantine XIII]

Good on 'em. Now they can set a good example and stop passing those bloated budgets in the first place!

[My2Cents]

If you think the Pres. and congress have sold out GOP principles, please consider the post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072863/posts

[BigSkyFreeper]

If Bush continues his present course, that is the fault of the GOP Congress who doesn't have the tenacity to say NO when is necessary. Congress sets the course of this nation by tackling the issues set forth by the president. If they can't change the course, that's their fault.

[AntiGuv]

First, the increases in 2002 discrestionary spending over 2001 discretionary spending are due to Homeland expeditures.

Really? And here I thought nonmilitary domestic spending meant foreign aid to Egypt....

Second, Reagan in his sole judgement spent more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush. That's what discretionary spending means.

This is false on its face. Both parts. Reagan did not spend more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush, much less do so in his sole judgment. Moreover, discretionary spending does not mean Reagan spending more than Bush in his sole judgment regardless of the fact that Reagan didn't do so anyhow.

[My2Cents]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all of this "slamming" weren't part of a grand Karl Rove strategery to show the vital center of the electorate that Bush isn't the right-winger that Hillary and company are always saying he is. Being dressed down by the likes of Tancredo! That should earn Bush some votes in the center of the electorate.

[NittanyLion]

Please. Legislation is suppose to be initiated in the Congress. The President will often send over suggestions, but the bills are drafted, introduced, discussed, and amended in Congress. If your representative is such a push-over, replace him or her.

If a legislator who votes for a bad bill is a pushover, then I suppose - by definition - a President who proposed and signed it would be the same. Right?

[Poohbah]

I'm sorry to see the advice I provided up in 294 is going to go unheeded. I realize it may feel good to make these pronouncements, but surely you realize this divisiveness actually damages the cause you support. Right?

No, it doesn't.

I used to be one of these "my way or the highway" idiots--I voted for Buchanan in the 1992 primary, and Perot in the general election.

Big mistake--one that I shan't repeat.

I got a "Dutch Uncle" lecture from a conservative.

And he wasn't kinder and gentler about it. He told me, quite bluntly, that conservatives working to split the GOP and then going third-party had probably damaged conservative prospects for a decade or so--because the Republican Party had reason to believe that "conservative" no longer meant "thoughtful and principled," but instead meant "spoiled and unappeasable."

He got me to wake up.

And, as I said, he didn't do it in a way that you would characterize as "unifying." You'd call it "divisive." Frankly, you'd characterize him as a "complete a$$hole." And you'd be absolutely right.

But he got the point across, and that is what I'm trying to do here.

I'm just pointing out the consequences.

The GOP won't trust any of these folks or their leaders.

The GOP will put its effort into issues that these folks don't champion.

Why?

Because, in the end, the GOP will conclude that these folks and their leadership are not to be relied on in any crisis.

If they work to deliver votes--and build a solid track-record of doing so--and an amazing thing will happen. They'll be listened to.

Unfortunately, that involves patience and hard work--and far too many "true conservatives" are repelled by those concepts.

[Bikers4Bush]

I disagree, he can refuse to help them campaign ets. He also will hold sway over the GOP purse strings.

In addition he bullied to get the medicare prescription nightmare passed. It was his baby and he used his clout to get it pushed through. He's steering the ship regardless of who's voting.

If anything he is more responsible, he has the power to veto. Nobody else in congress has that power.

[Petronski]

To push his Medicare Prescription Drug benefit through Congress he the President took off his gloves and beat the Republican faithful to a pulp until he found enough votes to push it through.

To get his nominees through the vetting process, and out to the floor to be voted on, up or down, he has done what? He hasn't used the bully pulpit, he hasn't worked through his Republican Senate to force a real filibuster, not the flimsy excuse for one, he did not go to the recess appointment route except for Pickering.

That is an excellent comparison. Thanks.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's amazing to me that people think the Congress will all of a sudden become truly Conservative once a Democrat resides in the White House.

We can either live with a hair thin voting margin in Congress, a moderate Conservative President, or go back 10 spaces and go back to the days when we had Democrats in control of all branches of government.

[hchutch]

John Warner doesn't even get my vote.

[Kay Soze]

"If I were GW, I would tell these guys to piss up a rope when they come hat in hand begging for him to help them out in their reelection in 2004"

You mean as in Teach them a lesson?

How would that promote the spread of republicanism?

or conservatism?

or whatever your definition is for those that voted or would vote republican.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra. He signed his own legislation because the the Republicans and some Democrats passed that "nightmare". I've yet to see a president veto something he proposed.

[NittanyLion]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all of this "slamming" weren't part of a grand Karl Rove strategery to show the vital center of the electorate that Bush isn't the right-winger that Hillary and company are always saying he is.

I'm losing track. Does Karl Rove cuts my checks, or is it George Soros? My head is spinning...

[af_vet_rr]

he is trying to lead the country, to broaden the party.

If he broadens the party anymore, they should start calling it Republicrats or Demicans. I know he's desperate to win this election, but hopefully he and Rove are hearing what many of us have been saying for a long time.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If Bush refuses to campaign for them, that's nobody's fault but theirs. Since they're out there blaming the President for their passing of Bush's medicare bill, I have two words for them. "Tough S___".