Bush asks worried Republicans to Keep the Faith..

[thew]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/37773|top|05-20-2004::15:27|reuters.html

Bush Asks Worried Republicans to 'Keep the Faith'

May 20, 3:16 PM (ET)

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush asked fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill on Thursday to "keep the faith" as he sought to ease their jitters about Iraq and his lowest approval ratings ever.

At a closed-door meeting described by some as a pep rally, Bush vowed to "stay the course" and do what is right for America, prompting lawmakers to shower him with ovations, Republicans said afterward. A top Democrat fired back by calling Bush incompetent.

"He asked us to keep the faith," Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a member of the Republican leadership, said as she emerged from the meeting. "We're all behind him."

Bush's approval ratings have slipped to the mid-to-low 40 percent range, the lowest of his presidency. No recent president has been re-elected with such numbers this close to the November elections.

"The color code alert level has moved from yellow to orange," a senior Republican aide said. "There isn't panic, but there is considerable concern."

"We'll all be concerned until Election Day," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said 5 1/2 months before the nation votes. "But we remain confident. We believe in President Bush. He will win re-election."

Many Republicans offered such talk publicly this week even as some privately gave the White House advice on how Bush could best rebound -- from holding more news conferences, to coming out in support of a buyout of hard-pressed tobacco farmers, to better articulating his message on Iraq.

Bush intends to lay out in a major speech on Monday his strategy for handing sovereignty to Iraqis.

NO TALK OF POLLS

"We didn't talk about polls," Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, said after the meeting with Bush. "He believes in what he's doing and he will stay on course for his beliefs, no matter what the political cost is."

Lawmakers voiced frustration that good economic news in recent months has been drowned out by events in Iraq, from rising violence to the prisoner abuse scandal.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican, said Bush told lawmakers when they go home for the Memorial Day recess this weekend "tell your people the economy is going in the right direction."

Bush took no questions from lawmakers as he prepared them for the upcoming elections, underscored his intentions to "stay the course" in Iraq and thanked them for helping him get key bills through Congress the past 3 1/2 years.

"The overall thing he accomplished was it's clear to everybody in the room this guy is leading," said Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. "I've wanted this frankly for months, for the president to come up and talk to the troops himself."

At a news conference, House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said, "I believe the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate he is incompetent in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said, "We are in the middle of a war and in the middle of a political campaign," but Pelosi's comments "cross the line."

Democrats hope a damaged Bush could undermine Republican efforts to retain control of the closely divided Senate and House of Representatives in the November elections.

Republicans argue they will prevail, noting congressional races are traditionally determined by state and local issues -- not presidential coattails.

Republicans say they are encouraged that Democratic White House challenger John Kerry is essentially running about even with Bush when voters are asked who they want to be president.

"The good thing for us is that John Kerry is not catching on," said Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican.

House Republicans have become frustrated with some of their Republican colleagues in the Senate who they complain have failed to adequately stand up for Bush on TV talks shows.

"What's been causing a lot of heartburn is that some of these Senate Republicans who get on these talking head shows aren't 100 percent aligned with the president or his agenda," said LaHood. "We need House members on these shows."

(Additional reporting by Vicki Allen and Donna Smith)

[thew]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20040520.shtml

Bush's shaky base

Robert Novak (back to web version) | Send

May 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- During George W. Bush's keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union (ACU) last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president's remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper but conservative stalwart Donald Devine.

As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. Furthermore, he is one of about 20 percent of Republicans that polls classify as not committed to voting for Bush's re-election.

The conventional wisdom portrays the latest Zogby Poll's 81 percent of Republican voters committed to Bush as reflecting extraordinary loyalty to the president by the GOP base. Actually, when nearly one out of five Republicans cannot flatly say they support Bush, that could spell defeat in a closely contested election. When Don Devine is among those one out of five, it signifies that the president's record does not please all conservatives.

In a time of crisis in Iraq, Bush spent more than an hour at the J.W. Marriott Hotel Thursday night to celebrate the ACU's anniversary and woo his conservative base. His speech was crafted to evoke the maximum response from that audience. There was no mention of either "compassionate conservatism" or "no child left behind "

Why, then, did Devine dismiss a consciously conservative speech as "long and boring"? At age 67, Devine has spent a lifetime as a party regular and faithful conservative. I first encountered him some 30 years ago when, as a University of Maryland political science professor, he was adviser and strategist for conservatives in rules fights at Republican national conventions. Directing President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management, he was one senior administration official who took seriously the Reagan Revolution. He was a political adviser in Bob Dole's presidential campaigns and ran himself for Congress and statewide office in Maryland.

So, the question remains: Why would Devine stay seated at the ACU dinner when everybody else was standing and clapping? To begin with, he shares concern with many Republicans about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and where it is going. Businessmen I have talked to recently exercise limited patience in how long they will tolerate the bloodshed and confusion.

What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine's purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government's reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending. A study by Brian Riedl for the conservative Heritage Foundation last December showed government spending had exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Riedl called it a "colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998."

Curbing this expansion surely has not been on the top of Bush's agenda for much of his time in the White House. Until recently, when a presidential political aide heard conservative complaints about runaway spending, he predictably would point to the partial-birth abortion ban and tax cuts rather than address the grievance. In the last few months, the president's men have talked a better game about spending. Nevertheless, it is too late to satisfy Republicans such as Devine who care deeply about governmental growth.

Bush is also under pressure from his conservative base to speak more clearly and more frequently against same-sex marriage. At the ACU dinner, he drew one of his many standing ovations by declaring: "We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society." That was all he said on the subject in a speech that went on at length about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Bush's saving grace for the 2004 election may be John Kerry. In the end, I am sure Don Devine will cast his ballot for George W. Bush, if only because the alternative is noxious. How many of the rest of that 19 percent of non-Bush voting Republicans in the Zogby Poll will fall in line may determine the outcome Nov. 2. That is the importance of Devine's little sit-down strike.

[thew]

BUSH FLOPS [Rich Lowry]

I'm hearing that Bush flopped in his meeting with congressional Republicans. He gave them a pep talk, telling them how good the economy is and how determined he is to prevail in Iraq. Then he didn't take any questions and left. The members, expecting a more substantive session, were disappointed

[NoCalMike]

it sounds like conspiracy talk, but the longer this president in office, the more I get the feeling that Bush is surrounded by about three to four people 24 hours a day seven days a week, who keep tabs on what Bush does and is told and they filter every piece of information that comes to him. How else could this idiocy be explained?

[@DCGoldPants]

This isn't really a story.......yet.

He's doing the right stuff by going to his team....give a pep talk and gets back to whatever he's doing these days.

People are trying to make a lot out of alittle right now. When you've got two people running for Prez who flat out suck, its not easy.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

This isn't really a story.......yet.

He's doing the right stuff by going to his team....give a pep talk and gets back to whatever he's doing these days.

People are trying to make a lot out of alittle right now. When you've got two people running for Prez who flat out suck, its not easy.

Why do you think Kerry sucks? I know your feelings on Bush and I share your resentement, but I was wondering what part of his platform you think sucks.

[@DCGoldPants]

ummm, how do I say this? He's the same as the rest of those guys on the Hill. I don't think he has any message for grand idea for the direction of the nation. I think anybody's position on Iraq is better than Bush. I think he's fully blown something where the whole world used to support the US. Even if the intentions to get rid of Saddam were good....which they were. When its planned out and executed so poorly...then intentions don't matter anymore. Its now bad policy.

If I lined them both up. I think while their faults are different. I think they both have a ton....maybe a similar amount with Bush have the slight edge in crappiness.

I think Bush has had enough time and will be voting for Kerry.

[Ancalagon the Black]

"The color code alert level has moved from yellow to orange," a senior Republican aide said. "There isn't panic, but there is considerable concern."

This isn't the first Republican whom we've seen comparing the possibility of a Democratic victory with the possibility of a terrorist attack.

[Jay Master Jay]

Didn't his father blow his reelecton also? Like father like son.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

This isn't the first Republican whom we've seen comparing the possibility of a Democratic victory with the possibility of a terrorist attack.

:laugh:

[Art]

Originally posted by chomerics

Why do you think Kerry sucks? I know your feelings on Bush and I share your resentement, but I was wondering what part of his platform you think sucks.

I think raising taxes sucks. I think not supporting the troops pretty much blows. I think a desire to play step and fetch for the U.N. is not ideal. I think opposition to partial-birth abortion bans is immoral and frightening. I think he has no core beliefs, but is trying to poll belief his way to the Presidency.

The only thing I can find that's remotely good about him is that he would consider a corporate tax cut to help job growth. That's a fantastic idea. As a Senator he should take the lead to push that through now. Of course, that would mean he actually bothered to be a Senator anymore.

[Commander PK]

I really don't think Bush has anything to worry about. Despite what the polls say. I doubt it will even be close. Like Bush or not, (most of you know I like him) I don't think that this is a time we want to be changing leaders. I know, some of you would say this is a perfect time to change leaders, but consider that if Kerry wins, it will probably take him atleast a year, just to figure out what the hell is going on, much less accomplish anything.

[Sarge]

Aside from tax cuts and giving the military a boost, Bush has done very little that can be considered conservative. He won't shut the border, he let teddy al kennedy write the bloated education bill, medicare etc etc. The war needed to be done, but he's backed off of that to go into a media induced PC protection mode. He is going to have trouble with his base this year because of that crap. A lot of people are going to stay home, probably myself included

[NoCalMike]

I think not wanting to go to war in the first place, was in much more support of the troops, then sending them to die for whatever the "flavor of the month" reason Bush and Rumsfield decide to give.

Seriously, I am tired of people claiming certain politicians don't support the troops. Get over it already. It is pretty much a given in Washington that they are willing to send the troops off to war, while throwing their benefits and veterns entitlements out the backdoor in the same breath.

I am supposing "kerry doesn't support the troops" comes from his vote against the 87 billion, which for the 100th time, had more to do with Bush never explaining how the money was going to be used other then, "well it is for the war, duh" So since the 87 billion bill was passed, we find out that soldiers are still in the battlefield without adequate armor and material, so IT IS FAIR to question just what in the hell happened to the 87 billion, without an answer of, "I dunno, but we need more"

[Ancalagon the Black]

if Kerry wins, it will probably take him atleast a year, just to figure out what the hell is going on, much less accomplish anything.

That might be optimistic. Bush has had four, and he still hasn't figured it out.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Seriously, I am tired of people claiming certain politicians don't support the troops. Get over it already. It is pretty much a given in Washington that they are willing to send the troops off to war, while throwing their benefits and veterns entitlements out the backdoor in the same breath.

Sorry............that's a load. When Teddy Al-Kenedy starts making comparisons to Vietnam in speeches on the Senate floor, and three days later some terrorist suddenly discovers what "Vietnam" means to a lot of AMericans, then he might as well go on AL Jizz and make his speeches.

ANd the bennies are the same as they always have been. Actually, for retired guys they got a lot better lately. The VA reorg that is going on is exactly that, a closing of VA centers that don't get used as much while opening new centers in more populated areas.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That might be optimistic. Bush has had four, and he still hasn't figured it out.

Nice Ancal

I set myself up for that one.

[NoCalMike]

I am not sure why people have faith in either one, honestly. Bush, well he has proved over the past three and a half years to be totally inept and clueless about anything that Dick Cheney isn't trying to whisper into his ears, and as far as Kerry goes, I just don't feel he can be trusted.

The american people need to distance themselves from the Democrats & Republicans and politicians overall, we need to rethink the way we elect public officials, and start spending more time learning about issues, rather then just watching soundbites and scroll bars on cable news networks.

Both major parties are about one thing and one thing only, WINNING. They don't care what it takes, what they have to tell you, and who they have to take money from. All they care about is winning. Once in office they become more useless then before anyways, as our bueracratic system only allows for so much of the president's will anyway.

I mean we are at war here, troops and civilians dying everyday, yet Bush has the time to speak out against Gay Marriage? Why the hell is gay marriage even an issue that the President should care about right now? I will tell you why, because he wants to throw the red meat to the hungry pack of wolves, namely the religious right in this country. He is catering to them in the name of votes. Any other time this would be perfectly understandable, but in this time of war, when everyone is lashing out at liberals for being anti-america and all that other junk, look to your own superhero president who doesn't feel the issue of war is important enough to have to cut out rants on petty issues like Gay Marriage. Don't get me wrong Democrats do the same damn thing, but I was just giving the example of Bush.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

I mean we are at war here, troops and civilians dying everyday, yet Bush has the time to speak out against Gay Marriage? Why the hell is gay marriage even an issue that the President should care about right now? I will tell you why, because he wants to throw the red meat to the hungry pack of wolves, namely the religious right in this country. He is catering to them in the name of votes. Any other time this would be perfectly understandable, but in this time of war, when everyone is lashing out at liberals for being anti-america and all that other junk, look to your own superhero president who doesn't feel the issue of war is important enough to have to cut out rants on petty issues like Gay Marriage. Don't get me wrong Democrats do the same damn thing, but I was just giving the example of Bush.

That's part of his problem. He's a war time president, but when's the last time you heard him speak on the war, prison abuse aside. How 'bout a little pep talk now and then? But you're right, the war is serious, but he has time to campaign and speak on gay marriage, his education plan etc

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Sarge

That's part of his problem. He's a war time president, but when's the last time you heard him speak on the war, prison abuse aside. How 'bout a little pep talk now and then? But you're right, the war is serious, but he has time to campaign and speak on gay marriage, his education plan etc

Well, have you heard him actually try to talk about the war without a script? The guy is a putz when it comes to explaing something.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Well, have you heard him actually try to talk about the war without a script? The guy is a putz when it comes to explaing something.

I agree. He ain't the most ar-tick-u-late guy around. But he's alot better than he was. That said, I still think the vision of what he wants to do in the middle east is a good one, I just wish we'd get on with it.

[thew]

Someone got an extensive grammar lesson from George Will today in the Post. Wonder if that editorial has anything to do with Bush's reportedly failed attempt to rally the "faithful".

Bush as I'm sure even his most faithful will admit is typically in need of a grammar lesson worse than any other political figure.

I would kill to know where Bush made his gaff with respect to comma’s, semicolons, and colons. George Will won't tell us but we might find out this weekend on the Sunday morning talk shows..

A Dash of Comma Sense

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43938-2004May20.html