Conservative Bush Bash
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.
Get the rest of this story from the Wahington Times.
Matt's Chat
This has come up before and I admit it is certainly one of my concerns as well. The President has not done a good job when it comes to getting a hold on spending.My issue with those who would oppose the President on this issue is that I don't think they have really taken a look at the alternatives being offered by the Democratic Party. Every single one of them has said they would repeal some, if not all, of Bush's tax cuts (read they want to raise your taxes). And as far as spending goes, Democrats will always outspend Republicans with all their social engineering programs. At least the President has spent the bulk of this money on things that matter to conservatives.
The concern that I have for the election is that when you couple the spending issue with the "triangulation" issues (Medicare and Immigration), the President seems to not understand that his base foundation isn't as solid as it once was and that he needs to prove to staunch conservatives that he still has the country's best interests at heart.
Mark's Remarks
To me it comes down to this: Do you want Bush or do you want people you are diametrically against? It is a similar situation to the California gubernatorial election....Either you go with someone who is partly with you, or you risk having someone win who is totally against you. I urge conservatives to think about that as November gets closer.
Do I like all the extra spending? Nope. However, do I think we should unseat a President who has led us so valiantly against terror, and who is continuing to lay it all on the line in the war against terror? Nope, it would be foolish to let one of the Dim 8 in at this point, since all they want to do is cut and run and bow at the altar of the UN. While I disagree with some of the President's domestic agenda, I think he is correct on the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing us: protecting our nation and fighting the war on terror. If we do not go with George W. Bush, we will elect an appeaser who will do nothing more than supplicate to the will of terror, through failed things like detente and negotiation.
