Not to deny that he has any. But asides from the marginal tax cut, and the hopefully strict constructionist judges, I am forced to ask: Such as?
For balance's sake, it needs to be pointed out that his liberalism greatly transcends the issues you alluded to, the running roughshod over a balanced budget with his deficits, and his trampling of fiscal sanity with the prescription meds, and his misconcieved increased federalizing of education...not to mention the McCain/Feingold constitutional travesty. No, these are merely the Tip of the Iceberg. His multiculturalism is clearly liberal. His endorsement and continued pushing for totalization with Mexico is clearly liberal. His illegal alien scoff-lawism is difficult to reconcile as "conservative". His SPP is at best, suspicious. His Feminist rights stance in the military is clearly liberal...catering unseemly to the PC lobby. Same with his don't ask, don't tell policies. His use of the liberal Harriet Meiers for his General Counsel for 6 years has severely damaged countless conservative causes, from sabotaging the reversing of affirmative action, to creating a climate where the Kelo decision could even happen.
His pushing for the Law of the Sea Treaty, which Reagan terminated and fired its negotiators, is Globalist Marxism on Steroids. It will allow the UN to directly tax the U.S.
His defense of the World Trade Organization...letting it's cabal of anti-Americans cavalierly disregard the factual findings of U.S. bodies authorized to investigate foreign market manipulations, such as dumping, and recommend appropriate self-defense policies. All "rights" supposedly guaranteed in the WTO's Bylaws, which are now shown to be worthless.
Egregious from the get-go was his "New Tone" keeping on Clinton-holdovers, en mass, who then returned the favor: from their Federal sinecures they were able to successfully sabotage and frustrate W's policies with political sniping and monkey-wrenches thrown into the works. And then still-ongoing refusal to enforce laws against any of the Clintons, such as Sandy Berger, is just plain "whack." More liberal than conservative.
Meanwhile, the core conservative value is national defense, not phoney free trade, and he has been unilaterally disarming the United States of its primary strategic deterrents, such as the land based missiles, and the bomber forces, and even our submarine deterrent. The Navy has been allowed to atrophy frm the 344 ships he inherited, down to 286 ships...with most of the retirements being of ships still having over half their service life. He has proven remarkably and obtusely unwilling to recognize...and logically respond with a comprehensive Reagan approach to China's Declaration of intent to deploy a Blue Water Navy which can only have as its purpose...the sinking of the remaining U.S. Navy.
Bush has consistently refused to deploy an robust missile defense, but intentionally keeps it "limited" to far under what is needed to protect the American populace against the vast majority of missile attack avenues. He killed "Brilliant Pebbles 2". He killed Theater Ballistic Missile Defense. He killed deploying dedicated Aegis Missile Defense ships as a functional NMD bulwark (22 recommended by NMD advocates). He killed deploying (despite repeated Navy insistence on it being needed) Aegis SM Mark 3 Flight IIa, which would have been an inexpensive replacement for the killed-TBMD. He killed deploying Patriot missile and air-defense batteries around our cities. All to "reassure" the Russians and Chi-Comms? Reagan would not have done this...remember him walking out on Gorbachev over their demand that SDI stop? Bush's "limits" are a defacto "stop." Such "limits" to ineffectualness, are nothing if not liberal.
I will give Bush credit for appointing Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton in the first place. But then, when confronted with a Liberal Congress... he fired them. Those were not volunteered resignations. They were asked for. Not the behavior of a staunch conservative. He's doing the liberal's dirty work. Reagan successfully kept his seriously conservative Cabinet members onboard in the face of a Democrat Congress.
And these faults are the Short List.
His de facto globalism is much more evident than you credence. Not so different from his father after all.
First and foremost. Bush's tax cuts (plural) were not marginal. They were enormous, when combined together, from a historical perspective. From the Tax foundation:
Tax Legislation Tax Cut in Billions of Current Dollars (a) Tax Cut in Billions of Constant 2003 Dollars Tax Cut as a Percent of National Income (b) Surplus or Deficit (-) as a Percentage of National Income (b)
The Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) ($11.50) ($54.90) -1.90% -1.00%
The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) ($38.30) ($68.70) -1.40% -2.80%
Bush Tax Cuts:
Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 ($73.80) ($75.80) -0.80% 1.50%
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 ($51.20) ($52.00) -0.60% -1.70%
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 ($60.80) ($60.80) -0.60% -3.20%
2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 NA ($188.10) -2.00%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html
This is WHY the economy has reacted the way it has.
the running roughshod over a balanced budget with his deficits
The FY2006 Budget Deficit Was $248 Billion/1.9 Percent Of GDP, Down From An Original February Projection Of $423 Billion/3.2 Percent Of GDP. At this level, the deficit is 0.4 percent below the 40-year average of 2.3 percent of GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-6.html
This, despite fighting two hot wars on the other side of the world, and spending billions more on homeland security and building up the military.
and his trampling of fiscal sanity with the prescription meds, and his misconcieved increased federalizing of education
Bush ran on both of those issues in 2000. And on those I can agree they are liberal. However, Bush has supported school vouchers, charter schools, metric and testing, school choice and non discrimination against religious schools--which are all conservative positions. In addition, all the libs keep screaming that "no child left behind" is severely underfunded. So he obviously ain't follwoing the dems party line. He did what he said he would do.
not to mention the McCain/Feingold constitutional travesty
Yes McCain Feingold is an unconstitutional POS, and needs to be axed. The President had deep reservations about it and should not ahve signed it, instead hoping the court would expunge the unconstituional parts. Bush signing was a crappy deal he made with McCain to get McCain's campaign support in 2000. A faustian bargain, but one that resulted in GWB and not Algore being CIC. And for all of MFs sound and fury it did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to reduce money flowing to campaigns. It did not reduce ad money, it did not stop Moveon.org or the the Swiftboatvets or the NRA, it did not silence talk radio, it did not stop editorials, it did not limit campaign stops, rallies doorbelling, billboards, debates, TV appearnaces, etc, etc. So the effect that McCain Feingold had was the exact same effect, as all smart people knew it would be, that all the other dozens of unconstitutional campaign finance laws have done over the decades; namely nothing.
His multiculturalism is clearly liberal
What the hell does that mean? Did Bush create a dept of Multiculturalism. Did he start hiring diversity advisers? It's a nonsensical statement.
His Feminist rights stance in the military is clearly liberal
What are you smoking? Did Bush put a bunch of nags in charge of the Pentagon? Hire nags for the joint Chiefs? Order women into combat positions? Hire sensitivity coaches for the Military?
Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief...
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/
Bush caught a ton of flack for that, but he stood his ground.
His endorsement and continued pushing for totalization with Mexico is clearly liberal.
This is that globalist nonsense again. He's pushing no such thing, despite what the Jerome Corsi's & Savages of the world think. This ntion that he is a puppet of the Mexicans is absurd. He has allowed executions of mexicans by state governments DESPITE the howls of protest from Vincente and the boys. And despite the big brouhaha over the two recently sentenced BP agents, there have been MANY BP agent shootings of mezcans that were not prosecuted, much less reprimanded. Does Bush get credit for that? Nope, only if something bad happens, then the Birchers come out and protest.
His use of the liberal Harriet Meiers for his General Counsel for 6 years has severely damaged countless conservative causes, from sabotaging the reversing of affirmative action, to creating a climate where the Kelo decision could even happen.
Bush has had a VERY strong record on judge nominees, and obviously, Harriet Meiers was leading the screening process. Whether or not she herself was qualified, is certainly debatable (I certainly think he should not have selected her), but the federal bench has moved in the best direction under Bush than under any POTUS in recent history. And blaming Bush for Kelo is such a stretch that its not worth refuting.