George W. -- Master of disguise

The New American ^ | 9-6-02 | gary benoit

[john bell hood]

Spouting patriotic rhetoric and enjoying the support of fellow Republicans, George W. Bush has masqueraded as a conservative while actually advancing a liberal agenda.

When Bill Clinton boasted that "the era of big government is over," there were probably more belly laughs than nods. After all, Clinton was widely recognized as a big-spending liberal. He was seen by many as a dangerous demagogue with an insatiable appetite for power, an appetite that might have consumed our liberties if not for public and congressional resistance.

But with the election of supposed conservative George W. Bush, the public vigilance that helped keep Bill Clinton’s lust for power in check appears to have waned. Many Republicans and conservatives — who were quick to challenge President Clinton’s every power grab — fail to recognize the hypocrisy when President George W. Bush challenges Congress, as he did with a straight face during a radio address on August 17th, to "show spending restraint" lest the president "enforce spending restraint." Promising that his administration "will spend what is truly needed, and not a dollar more," Mr. Bush zeroed in on the Senate for "ignoring fiscal discipline": "I requested $2.4 billion for public housing; the bill moving through the Senate includes $300 million more. I requested $2.2 billion for agricultural research; again, the Senate wants to spend $300 million more." But such statements beg the question: Why is George W. Bush requesting billions of dollars for unconstitutional welfare state activities in the first place? How can an allegedly "conservative" president be so free with the taxpayers’ money?

Unfortunately, although Bush enjoys the reputation of a conservative, his own record shows that he is a liberal. In fact, his liberalism may be more dangerous than that of his immediate predecessor. Bill Clinton, a lifelong Democrat with a far-left pedigree, often provoked resistance from congressional Republicans and conservatives in general. Yet Republican congressmen who refused to support Clinton’s liberal policies have willingly supported similar policies when offered by fellow Republican George W. Bush. Consequently, Bush has been more effective than his predecessor, in many ways, in advancing Clintonian liberalism.

Bush’s Bloated Budget

A month after becoming president, Mr. Bush explained in a press conference (February 22, 2001) that his budget would reduce the rate at which spending is increasing — but without cutting spending in the absolute sense. "We’re going to slow the rate of growth of the budget down," he said at the time. "It should come to [sic] no surprise to anybody that my budget is going to say loud and clear that the rate of growth of the budget, for example, from last year, was excessive. And so we’ll be slowing the rate of growth of the budget down."

Bush, in other words, didn’t promise to shrink the size of government, but merely to slow the rate of big-government expansion — to put the brakes on the car speeding towards the precipice, but not to stop it, much less change its direction. But in the end, Bush didn’t even put on the brakes, but hit the accelerator instead. In the budget he submitted in April 2001, Bush proposed spending $1,961 billion in fiscal 2002 as compared to an estimated $1,856 billion in 2001 — a 5.7 percent increase. That, of course, was before September 11th. In a midterm budget summary released in July, the Bush administration estimated fiscal 2002 spending at a whopping $2,032 billion as compared to actual fiscal 2001 spending of $1,864 — a nine percent increase. The July budget document also proposed spending $2,138 billion in fiscal 2003, a 5.2 percent increase over 2002. During the Clinton presidency, the rate of increase in the federal budget from one year to the next never exceeded 5.1 percent (1999 to 2000), and it was as low as 2.6 percent (1996 to 1997). The bottom line: Federal spending is increasing at a faster rate with George W. Bush in the White House than it did with Bill Clinton in the White House.

[RnMomof7]

Unfortunately, although Bush enjoys the reputation of a conservative, his own record shows that he is a liberal. In fact, his liberalism may be more dangerous than that of his immediate predecessor. Bill Clinton, a lifelong Democrat with a far-left pedigree, often provoked resistance from congressional Republicans and conservatives in general. Yet Republican congressmen who refused to support Clinton’s liberal policies have willingly supported similar policies when offered by fellow Republican George W. Bush. Consequently, Bush has been more effective than his predecessor, in many ways, in advancing Clintonian liberalism.

Bush is his father's son.

Yep New world order...If a Democrat had promoted some of the things this administration has done the Republicans would have yelled bloody murder..

Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing

[RnMomof7]

And Gore would have been what? Good for America, There are 2 choices in this country, Democrat or Republican. Either don't vote, which hurts, or hold your nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

Gore would not have gotten away with half the stuff that Bush has.......and that is the truth and why I will never vote for Bush again!!!

[RnMomof7]

Sorry people, if you are conservatives (normal people that is) you must understand that you can no longer take over the GOP. They've learned the Reagan lesson and it won't happen again

This is true. At election time they make some conservative grunts and attend church...Bingo the religious right in in their pocket,. They then do as they please...there in no difference in the parties..Both are influenced by the cash of the international corps(thus the open southern border and the continuing China courting)

There is no one in government that gives a D*** what happens to this country anymore..it is all about personal power and personal wealth...

[J. L. Chamberlain]

Gore would not have gotten away with half the stuff that Bush has.

Exactly! Gridlock is our friend!

J

[RnMomof7]

Exactly! Gridlock is our friend!

Yep it is what preserved our nation for the last 13 years

[J. L. Chamberlain]

A great quote from dead:

Gridlock is my favorite politician.

J

[1rudeboy]

After all, it's only politics.

Truer words have not been spoken. Let's run a candidate on an anti-education, anti-immigration, anti-foreign-aid, and anti-free-trade platform.

In honor of the Mendoza-line (.215 BA) in baseball, we can inaugurate the "Le Pen-line," and cheer when our candidate reaches 17%. Then almost 1 in 5 voters will take us seriously.

[RnMomof7]

Absolutely. But he CAN spend all people's resources making sure that 'no child is left behind', helping illegal Mexicans express their 'family values' by illegally settling in our country, giving away money to support African mass-murdering regimes, encouraging to commies of China to destroy whatever is left of our industrial capacity, etc., etc.

You have said it all....do not forget the "new "Department of Government Intervention into our previously personal lives called " Homeland security" LOL.

All to be put ALL under HIS control...this my friend is one dangerous tool. Now the government will be able to read your mail. Read your email ,listen to your phone conversations...make you "show your papers"...send "spies" into your home to check on ya (cable or repair men to "inform") Hidden camers on street (to "prevent street crime) etc...and all this power under the control of one man , one party , ...If this does not sound like the old USSR ....Ohhh well the sheeple are happy...Blind but happy

[Amelia]

The GOP must either be destroyed or suffer a major defeat for some reasonable alternative to the commie-like 2 parties of today to develop.

8 years of Clinton wasn't enough to do it?

I will agree that GWB isn't as conservative as I'd like him to be.

I will note that there were several more conservative candidates in the primaries - I voted for one of them. However, IIRC, the Green Party ended up with more votes than all of the "Real Conservative" candidates put together. This - among other things - tells me that either the country as a whole is not very conservative right now, or the country as a whole has other problems with the conservative candidates who run.

IMO, our energy should be expended right now in changing hearts and minds of voters, so that perhaps a more conservative candidate could be elected, and in praising the conservative things that have been accomplished, rather than seeing how many criticisms we can find.

[Mo1]

Oh Goodie .. another Bush Bashing thread

[Mo1]

OK, the John Birch Society isn't pleased with GW. Peel off another layer of the disguise, and you'll find he's sapping our precious bodily fluids.
What else is new?

I'm sure they will think of something

[Mo1]

If this president really thinks he is at war, the first thing he would do is close the borders to eliminate illegals from entering the country. The next thing he would do would be to round up all illegals and deport them. Then he would get rid of undesireable immigrants.

Now how exactly would you like him to close the borders .. If you line up the military .. who will be available to fight our enemies .. then there was that suggestion I read in a post that we put land mines along the borders .. Gee what a GREAT IDEA

As for rounding folks up .. personally I don't have a problem with that .. but also keep in mind that every ALCU lawyer will be screaming up a storm and will have the Courts busy for YEARS!!

Yes I agree there are MANY MANY things this country needs to fix and correct but you make it sound like all he has to do is click his finger and POOF everything is fix

That all nice and good .. but in reality .. it ain't gonna happen REGARDLESS of who is President

[Enough is ENOUGH]

In the budget he submitted in April 2001, Bush proposed spending $1,961 billion in fiscal 2002 as compared to an estimated $1,856 billion in 2001 — a 5.7 percent increase. That, of course, was before September 11th. In a midterm budget summary released in July, the Bush administration estimated fiscal 2002 spending at a whopping $2,032 billion as compared to actual fiscal 2001 spending of $1,864 — a nine percent increase. The July budget document also proposed spending $2,138 billion in fiscal 2003, a 5.2 percent increase over 2002. During the Clinton presidency, the rate of increase in the federal budget from one year to the next never exceeded 5.1 percent (1999 to 2000), and it was as low as 2.6 percent (1996 to 1997). The bottom line: Federal spending is increasing at a faster rate with George W. Bush in the White House than it did with Bill Clinton in the White House.

If these numbers cannot be refuted then they will remain as fact. I cannot understand why anyone who calls himself a conservative wouldn't be outraged at the direction the GOP has taken the federal budget according to these figures. The simple truth here is that we have been deceived. Does that make me angry? You bet it does.

Some people say that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Then, are we resigned to accept the fact that we are forever stuck in a catch-22 position for more of the same with a corrupted two-party system that is taking us on a leftist socialist top heavy federal government controlled path. Based on the leftist media influence over the electorate isn't it also realistic to believe that conservatism stands no greater chance of regaining its influence over the GOP than a third party candidate has of being elected? Let's call a spade a spade.

How can an influential grass roots movement toward conservative principles be allowed to germinate and win the hearts and minds of the electorate in a nation held captive by a leftist socialist controlled media and in a world that has embraced the leftist ideology as its creed? How can such a movement take hold if we are not allowed to openly express our dissent over policies that are inconsistent with the principles contained in our Constitution? The only hope we have to overcome these obstacles rests in the courage of those who dare to speak out against the direction this Country is being taken by their elected representatives.

[gunshy]

So we invade Iraq, and guess what, Saddams army is not there, they are invading the US through our open borders. Great strategy. We're supposed to be at war, remember. That means that all Americans are going to have to sacrifice. If that means that you and I have to spend 90 days guarding the border so be it. The defense of this nation should be the number one job for this government.

[Mo1]

So we invade Iraq, and guess what, Saddams army is not there, they are invading the US through our open borders. Great strategy

Are you serious???

[gunshy]

If I were Saddam, thats what I would be doing. An army of terrorists 10,000 strong could wreak havoc on this country. Think about it, it's not that far fetched.

[Mo1]

10,000 strong huh??

You REALLY think that is going to happen

Don't get me wrong .. I do believe he will try whatever he can to get us .. but I'm thinking 10,000 is a bit much

[gunshy]

There are over 5 million illegals in this country, 10,000 is a small number.