Conservative groups break with Republican leadership ( May not vote in Nov

[jbfam4]

Conservative groups break with Republican leadership
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm
Published January 16, 2004----------


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.

[jmaier]

1. Sweet music

to my ears -- not so much because they might not vote but because they may influence * away from some faux-compassion legislative initiatives in 2004.

Looks that the Rethuglicans are having their own dissension without a contested primary season.

[wryter2000]

2. Our wedge issue

I've seen this coming for months.

[Love Bug]

3. Well, THAT's interesting

I was beginning to wonder when the true conservatives were going to start complaining about the spending going on by Shrubbie and his pals. Not going to do any good, however. They don't listen to anyone but fellow neo-cons and big-buck contributors.

Shub and company are going to implode any day now from the weight of their own hubris and form a black hole.

[lovedems]

4. What kind of lip service will the administration give to this issue?

I hope they all stay home in November. It serves them right.

[damnraddem]

5. They fell for Dubya's lies as much as anyone.

For example, the claim that he was a conservative. The reality is that he is a radical -- radically pro-business, radically pro-rich, radically religious right, and so on. Is he personally? Hard to tell; but it's what he, or those who pull his strings, represent.

[snippy]

6. They have fallen for the lies of many people besides Bush.

Fiscal conservatives have always believed lies about who is responsible for increasing government spending the most. Since Eisenhower was president the federal government has accumulated deficits totaling around $3.5 trillion. Of that total, about 90% was accumulated under a republican president and about 10% was accumulated under a democratic president. In that time the federal deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP 14 times, every time under a republican president. The deficit never has exceeded 3% of GDP under a democratic presint in that time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls (Note: The spending for the first year of a presidential term is from the budget and appropriations of the preceeding year. Also, the estimates for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer valid.)

Very, very few republicans will acknowledge these facts. The rank and file fiscal conservatives have been instructed not to believe them. So they don't.

[jbfam4]

7. Bush* also said

he would bring honor and dignity back to the white house.....hummm guess he forgot honesty.

[snippy]

8. Honor and dignity like this?

Or like this?

[wabeewoman]

9. It may not affect

the rightwingers but I think it will affect the more mainstream republicans. They WILL stay home or vote democratic. And that ought to be enough.

[DrBB]

10. And add in $3.00/gallon gas next summer

...and things could start to look a little unfriendly for the Flying Chimp.

I only hope we survive long enough to kick his fragrant fratboy ass out of office.

[candy331]

11. It shows that people are awakening from

the fear induced sleep spell they have been put under. If repugs stay home that will be just as good as a vote but I wish they could see matters as the survival of the nation is at stake rather than loyalty to a party without integrity nor principle. Of course they want reject the budget they are on a death course.

[Grins]

12. Nonsence.

Paul Weyrick not voting? And not voting Republican? Paul Weyrick who heads the "Club for Growth", the group that put out the ads against Senate Republicans Voinovich and Snowe because they dared to challange Bush on the last tax-cut go around? That Paul Weyrich?

Fat chance.

NOW he complains? He shouldn't. This is the world he helped father so he, and all his buddies like Grover Norquist, AEI, Cato, etc., should just shut the hell up. And who was Weyrich's guy that made it all possible? Ronald Reagan!

"Reaganism crushed the national government's institutional competence and capacity for compromise needed to sustain representative democracy. To start with, Reaganism's ideological fervor bred increasing polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans. Serious deliberations and reasoned bipartisanship almost vanished in Congress as that body became less and less able to carry out even its most basic functions such as passing annual budgets.

In the executive branch, presidents became increasingly secretive, pulled political control to the top, and turned the presidency into a spin machine meant to deceive the public. The White House gained greater political control at the expense of the institutional capability to make sound policy." (Walter Williams, TomPaine,com, 07 Oct 2003)

Republican conservatives have a genuinely coherent worldview they want to see reflected in its entirety. Losing on any issue is enough to rouse their anger, and they take that anger out on any member that does not accept the totality of their worldview. The rules of the Senate make it practically impossible to push any measure through without compromise, because it is divided 51-48-1; and the right wing of the Republican Party is simply ideologically incapable of accepting the kind of compromises that must be made because of the transactional nature of our government.

Diversity and lack of agreement between interests generally allows an administration to transcend this sort of parochialism. Conservative Republicans, whose ideology rejects compromise, and whose base represents just a narrow elite sliver of the economy, usually fail to take account of the broader interest. The result is an administration whose domestic actions persistently, almost uniformly, fail to uphold the broader public good; and the Republican administration becomes subservient to pressure groups.

The result is divided, and worse, bad government. The administration has to have legislative programs moved forward or risk the voters. That demands the compromise that Republican conservatives despise. The only tool available to an administration intent on soothing those conservative hard feelings - is pork.

More?

"Republicans have always enjoyed their reputation as the champions of business. The difference now is that they no longer couple their business-friendly attitudes with tight-fistedness. Discretionary spending has jumped 27 percent in the last two years; budget hawks complain Congressional pork is up more than 40 percent. Some of that money has gone to buy the allegiance of wavering party members in the closely divided House and Senate, but much of it is directly tied to the demands of big business. Agriculture subsidies to corporate farms have swollen to new heights, while energy policy has been reduced to a miserable grab bag of special benefits for the oil, gas and coal companies. The last Bush energy bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, seems likely to be remembered most for the now-famous subsidy for an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana.

The two halves of Republican policy no longer fit together. A political majority that believes in big government for people, and little or no government for corporations, has produced an unsustainable fiscal policy that combines spending on social programs with pork and tax cuts for the rich. Massive budget deficits have been the inevitable result. Something similar happened in the Reagan administration. But unlike Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bush has given no hint of a midcourse adjustment to repair revenue flow. In fact, his Congressional leaders talk of still more tax cuts next year to extend the $1.7 trillion already enacted. That would compound deficits, which could reach $5 trillion in the decade.

This, it appears, is what compassionate conservatism really means. The conservative part is a stern and sometimes intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but with a hands-off attitude toward business. The compassionate end involves some large federal programs combined with unending sympathy for the demands of special interests. If only it all added up. (NY Times editorial, “The New Republican”, 28 Dec 03.)