GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/12/6 | Carolyn Lochhead

[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."

[185JHP]

BTTT

[sauropod]

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

Actually, I did listen to a lot of the rhetoric in 2000 and 2004. W scared the hell out of me in 2000 and did not get my vote. JEffin'K scared me worse in '04 so W got my vote then.

Doesn't mean i'm happy with his performance.

[MNJohnnie]

Actually the ones "drinking the koolaid" and living in their sad little bubble world here are the Mike Savagites who cling to the notion that only their rabidly paranoid delusional world view is "Conservative". Actually the Savagites aren't Conservative at all. They are merely Big Govt Reactionaries.

The "real Conservatives" would have NO problem massively increasing the size, scope and reach of the Federal Govt in the areas of Trade, Border Security, Economic Nationalism and Cultural Policing. The Whine All The Time Choir continually whine about Federal Spending but really are just pissed because the Govt isn't spending on what THEY want. The Bubble World pseudo Conservatives, would spend trillions to "protect" themselves from all those nasty "wogs" living in all those nasty foreign places. Like any of the "Wogs" would be stupid enough to want to live in the same trailer parks as these clueless drones.

The Whiners have no more interest in Limited Government then the Deaniac Leftists. They merely want the Fed Govt to do different things FOR them and to their illusionary "enemies".

[SUSSA]

You know and I know that Republicans have wanted to eliminate the Dept of Ed since it was created by Jimmy Carter and never would have DOUBLED its size if Bush had not used his pulpit to force it down their throats. He did the same with Bush-Care (the prescription drug boondoggle). Republicans fought adding prescription drugs to Medicare when Clinton wanted it. Bush the Elder fought them on it. But Lyndon Baines Bush joined his left wing big government buddies in both parties and pushed for it.

Bush pushed for reversing the gains Republicans made under Clinton in the Farm bill, and welfare reform just to name two. He believes in big government and in throwing other people’s money at problems.

One cannot honestly give Bush all the credit for the tax cuts and none of the blame for the spending increases. If they are his tax cuts, they are his spending increases.

Of all his big spending Bush-Care is the worst. That alone puts him in the category with Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.

[trubluolyguy]

smoldering conservative dissatisfaction

---

Borders and Spending. Mr. President you have the power to fix this.

[trubluolyguy]

Vote Libertarian. They are the only sane choice

---

Yeah but I hate pot heads.

[Wasanother]

I have never once said it is all congresses fault but to conveniently forget the whole process just to get some cheap one liners against Bush is a bit disingenuous. I would expect that from the Democrats in order to avert attention from their faults but Republicans have always been the party of solutions.

[Galveston Grl]

We would have spent the hundreds of billions demanded by MeeMaw within seconds of the request after Katrina.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Whiners have no more interest in Limited Government then the Deaniac Leftists.

So the massive increase in the budget and size of the federal government by a Republican white house and Republican congress is merely to placate the whiners?

[ChicagoHebrew]

deep fu*k is right.

[Pragmatic Warrior]

Right you are, but Congress needs to start the process by offering the amendment to the Constitution. I believe it would take 2/3rds of the States to ratify the amendment.

I doubt if Congress will do that. They like spending our money too much, and besides, it is too much fun for them to attach pork and set asides to the Presidential budget.

I do not blame the President for this mess. As it stands now, he'd have to veto the entire bill, and hope his veto isn't over ridden. Way to risky, especially since a lot of the pork and set asides are added to military appropriations bills. In a time of war, the President doesn't want to play politics with the military being in the middle. I can hardly blame him. I wouldn't want that to happen either.

Shame on Congress!!

[Pragmatic Warrior]

Well said!!

Your post sums it up very accurately!!

[Pragmatic Warrior]

Sorry to disagree, but I truly believe Savage is in the same reactionary ilk as his name sake, Michael Moore. Both are very dangerous, using emotions, half truths, and clever editing.

In my opinion, Michael Savage is the Pepto Bismol for the intellectually challenged.

[George W. Bush]

Without new ideas the dims are still floundering.

Well said. If we hold Congress next year, it will be due to the Dims' incoherence, not the conservative agenda. Strangely, the Dims seem content to wait for the ascendance of Hillary! or voter boredom with the GOP to return them to power.

[Doohickey]

I think that's a rhetorical question, but it's difficult not to think the worst of our current crop of bend-over Republicans.

[raybbr]

I think that's a rhetorical question, but it's difficult not to think the worst of our current crop of bend-over Republicans.

Okay. Let's do the converse. If Bush was president and we had a democratic congress?

[Doohickey]

Oh, then we'd have been treated to higher spending and taxes.

[jammer]

I hear you Libertarians got the best pot.

Great post! You really elevated the intellectual level here and contributed to the forum. Your statement is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

[johnny7]

Great post! You really elevated the intellectual level here and contributed to the forum.

Thanks... I put a lot of thought in my posts. I deleted your last sentence in order to preserve whatever credibility you have left here. ;)

[DustyMoment]

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.

Great point!!! I totally concur!!