PDA

View Full Version : Conservative groups break with the BCE!



FORD
01-18-2004, 10:43 AM
Conservative groups break with Republican leadership


By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well.

"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."

Warning of adverse consequences in the November elections, the leaders said the Senate must reject the latest House-passed omnibus spending bill or Mr. Bush should veto the measure.

"The whole purpose of having a Republican president is to lead the Republican Congress," said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, whose co-chairman is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in — but he hasn't done that."

"If the president doesn't take a stand on this, there's a real chance the Republicans' voter base will not be enthusiastic about turning out in November, no matter who the Democrats nominate," Mr. Beckner said.

Mr. Weyrich warned that if the Senate passes the omnibus bill and the president fails to veto it, "in all probability the party's conservative-activist core voters aren't going to work to help win the election for Bush and the Republicans, and they may well not even vote."

The Heritage Foundation has projected that passage of the bill would "mark the third consecutive year of massive discretionary spending growth" following increases of 13 percent and 12 percent in the previous two years.

"Congress' continued fiscal irresponsibility is clearly exhibited in the thousands of pork projects contained in the bill," the Heritage report noted.
The Heritage report says the omnibus bill will set the stage for discretionary spending to increase by 9 percent in 2004 to $900 billion, not the 3 percent claimed by Congress.

Asked for comment, Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, said that while the last Clinton budget "proposed a 15 percent increase for spending unrelated to national defense, homeland security, entitlement programs and interest on the national debt," the first Bush budget "proposed lowering this increase to 6 percent, the second budget to below 5 percent and the latest to 2 percent for next year."

But conservative critics said that Congress opted to spend far more, and Mr. Bush didn't move to stop it.
Mr. Bush and the Republican lawmakers are expected to face another barrage of criticism next week, this time from some 4,000 activists at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican congressional leaders are slated to speak.

"A lot of Senate Republicans will be speaking at CPAC, and the grass-roots conservatives attending won't be shy about their displeasure," said Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union.

Citizens Against Government Waste, the Club for Growth and National Taxpayers Union also joined yesterday's conservative protest of excessive spending.

For more than a year, a rebellion in Republican ranks has been brewing over the spending issue. Conservatives, including some House Republicans, finally revolted openly over the $400 billion prescription-drug benefit passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Bush last year — which would expand the government with the largest new entitlement in a generation.

lesfunk
01-18-2004, 11:38 AM
I always felt that Bush was too Liberal

BigBadBrian
01-18-2004, 11:41 AM
FORD, you posted this shit in another thread. You didn't make a valid point then and you don't now.

I guess all the liberal groups will fall in line and support the Dem nominee? I think not.

FORD
01-18-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
FORD, you posted this shit in another thread. You didn't make a valid point then and you don't now.

This is from the Moonie Times. it's right wingers making the point about other right wingers. If you won't take it seriously when I say it, then take it from your own side. No valid point?? The point is that George Bush Jr is alienating his own base. This thread, the Sierra Times threads, and the Pat Buchanan columns are proof of that.


I guess all the liberal groups will fall in line and support the Dem nominee? I think not.

Depends on the nominee. Dean will be able to attract voters from the left, from the middle, and even a few from the right. Clark might be able to attract the right leaning voters, but not the Greens and other left leaning Dems. The DLC establishment candidates probably won't be able to draw in any new voters at all, and might even repel some of the Democratic base after their attacks on Dean.

John Ashcroft
01-18-2004, 01:36 PM
That's the issue here. Will Republican voters turn out for Dean? Of course not. The article does make a valid point as far as enthusiastic voter turnout. Let's face it, the base of the Democratic party is so enraged with their hatred for Bush that turnout isn't an issue. However, they still only make up about 25% of the voting public. Not near enough to beat Bush. But I will say I'm definitely concerned. I'd hate to see a repeat of Bush 1 here. Although I do think even Conservative folks remember how that turned out (no matter how pissed they are at Dubya, I still think (and hope) they'll turn out simply to prevent another 2 term Clintonite). And let's face it. Politics during my lifetime has always been about picking the lesser of two evils.

Like I mentioned in another thread, spending no longer seems to be an issue of concern to either party. So that leaves national defense as the only election day issue, so Dubya should win. However, we certainly can't dismiss the hatred factor. The hard left could give a damn about national defense so long as Dubya's defeated. It may make a far more interesting election than I previously thought...