Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

David T. Pyne
June 4, 2002

President George W. Bush, having won an extremely close and hard fought election in November 2000, has been attacked by liberal Democrats for being "too conservative" almost from the time he was elected. However, Bush's overall record since assuming the office of President calls into question the general perception that Bush is a conservative. During his first few months, Bush seemed to set a commendable course as a moderate conservative.

Some of Bush's notable conservative accomplishments include his decision to withdraw the US from the strictures of the ABM Treaty, the US victory in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the passage of the biggest defense spending increases since Ronald Reagan and the appointment of a Secretary of Defense who is committed to furthering US national security. President Bush also succeeded in preventing a communist return to power in Nicaragua and has passed limited, but vital protective tariffs to help protect America's dying steel industry under heavy assault from America's steel-dumping trade partners.

During the past year, Mr. Bush's conservative accomplishments have been undermined by his other actions, which indicate an increasing and unwelcome tilt toward the left, likely prompted by advice from Colin Powell and Karl Rove who advocate appeasing liberals both in regards to his domestic and foreign policies. On the domestic side of the house, the Bush record has been a disappointing one as the President has submitted balanced budget-cap busting budgets which will return the US to a time of $200 billion a year deficits increasing government spending 15% over two years, a far higher rate of increase than his more liberal predecessor.

Bush also signed the radical Ted Kennedy education bill, which federalizes education and provides tens of billions more a year for the liberal-dominated Department of Education to indoctrinate America's children in their socially liberal value-free philosophy. Bush's record on social issues has been decidedly mixed with his support of federal funding for grisly stem-cell research, his failure to reverse pro-abortion executive orders signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, and his appointment of pro-abortion activist and White House Counsel, Al Gonzalez, to lead his Supreme Court nominee search team.

President Bush has undertaken a major effort to remake the GOP in "his" image, alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process. He has engineered a successful liberal takeover of the California Republican Party by a man who has branded all pro-lifers as extremists. Bush has supported moderate to very liberal candidates against their more conservative opponents in California, North Carolina, Tennessee and elsewhere throughout the country, appointed a pro-choice governor to head the Republican National Committee and helped install a liberal abortion supporter as RNC treasurer. In addition, Bush has attempted to push his proposal through Congress to grant amnesty to two million illegal immigrants in the US in a bid to buy the Latino vote in America and appease Mexican President Vincente Fox.

Most troublesome of all to Republicans, Bush broke a campaign promise in signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This Democrat congressional majority insurance bill will have the effect of legislating a permanent Democrat party stranglehold on the majority of both houses of Congress, reversing the hard-won and historic gains by the Republican congressional majority during the past decade. Initial implementation of this bill in the 2004 election cycle will likely result in the defeat of scores of Bush's loyal Republican supporters in Congress.

On foreign policy, Bush supported PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat in power and repeatedly urged Sharon to halt Israel's counter-terrorist operations until Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finally succeeded in persuading him to change course and find enough moral clarity to support the Israeli war against the Palestinian terrorists. However, Bush still supports a Palestinian state, something that not even Bill Clinton would support. In addition, the Bush Administration actually tried to enlist Iran, listed by the State Department as the greatest state sponsor of terror including Al Queda, as a strategic partner to fight terrorism back in September.

In pursuing relations with Communist China, the president has opted to pursue a Clintonian policy of accommodation, if not outright appeasement. Last year, Bush signed an executive order to permit the sale of significantly more advanced supercomputers than those allowed to be sold by the Clinton Administration. He has also championed the awarding of permanent most favored nation trade status and WTO membership for Communist China, whose record on killing hundreds of thousands of its political and religious dissidents, forcing tens of millions of Chinese women to have abortions every year, threatening nuclear incineration of American cities and continued unrestricted sales of advanced nuclear warhead and ballistic missile technology to America's enemies leaves much to be desired. The Bush policy of appeasing the Butchers of Beijing has had the effect of rewarding them for their 'bad behavior' while encouraging future offenses and escalated threats against our Free Chinese allies on Taiwan.

Bush has also forged a new, overly trusting relationship with the Russian Federation led by former KGB spymaster, Vladimir Putin. Bush has pledged to destroy and dismantle 75% of the US strategic nuclear deterrent that has kept the nuclear peace for nearly sixty years, signed an agreement admitting Russia as a full partner with veto power in NATO, and offered to jointly develop US missile defenses with Russia. It is not at all clear that Russia can be trusted to keep its treaty obligations, let alone serve as a reliable US ally. President Bush also supports the implementation of a Clinton-era plan to disarm the US Army of its tanks, tracked vehicles and much of its artillery that will likely result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American soldiers if they are called upon again to fight a major war.

For the good of the country, President Bush should move away from governing from the mushy middle and return to governing to the center-right. He may need to do so in order to regain lost conservative support and avoid a major conservative challenge in the 2004 presidential election.

© 2002 David T. Pyne

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East among others. He is also a licensed attorney and former Army Reserve Officer. In addition, he holds an MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. Mr. Pyne currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Virginia Republican Assembly. He is also a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, D.C. Mr. Pyne serves as a columnist for American-Partisan.com, OpinioNet.com and America’s Voices. He is also a regular contributor for Patriotist.com. In addition, his articles have appeared on Etherzone.com and AmericanReformation.org where he serves as a policy analyst.

"Somewhere around the point, you were unsophisticated enough to understand Political Strategy."

Of course, another possibility is that he is far-sighted enough to realize that the long term viability of a political movement is much more important than the short term political victory of a particular party. Look at the history of Classical Liberalism, they foresook principle for short term political gain. The end result was that liberalism became the chief promoter of what it originally set out to oppose. That is the ULTIMATE political failure. At the present rate, conservatism will join liberalism on the "me too" choir of those promoiting ever expanding government. Where does that leave those who hold to the ideal of constitutionally limited government?........Politically Homeless!!!!!

Apparently, I was mistaken.

Again.

You do not have any policy recommendations for the President because so many of the policies you would implement are so morally indefensible.

The crystal ball is still stuck on fast forward. You don't know what policy recommendations I would make so you can't make any moral judgements on them. And the thought that you would know morality if you saw it is a far fetched one.

"No matter that he is caving to the Democraps on virtually every domestic issue..."

Rubbish. Democrats aren't exactly big fans of Bush's national missile defense. Democrats weren't thrilled with Bush enforcing the SCOTUS "Beck" decision, either. Democrats didn't like Bush repealing Clinton's CO2 executive orders, and they certainly didn't like Bush killing OSHA's home-office "Ergonomic" regulations.

Was Bush "caving" to Democrats when he signed into law TWO tax cuts (one for individuals and a later one for businesses)?!

I have no doubt that many of the whiners here would have been b____ & moaning in the early '40's at Eisenhower and FDR, claiming they were weak, squandering, and missing opportunities. There was a lull after Pearl Harbor as we ramped up our war preparation.

FDR was far worse than weak, he was a Communist dupe who allied with the world's most murderous dictator, Josef Stalin, whom he affectionately referred to as "Uncle Joe". He built the Soviet Union into a global superpower providing tens of thousands of modern tanks, combat aircraft, ships, and trucks to the Soviets. He appointed Communists to positions of high influence in his administration. At Yalta, FDR ceded half of Europe and much of northern Asia to his mass-murdering friend, Josef Stalin. By so doing, he ensured that the Second World War was fought not to make the world safe for democracy, but to make it safe for Communism. FDR gave us the socialist New Deal. What's worse, FDR knowingly refrained from passing on the advance warning he received of the Jap attack at Pearl, resulting in the needless deaths of thousands of our brave sailors at Pearl Harbor just so he could get the US into WW2 against the wishes of 80% of Americans (before Pearl). Oh, yeah and we must never forget that it was FDR who created the anti-American United Nations that has caused patriotic Americans so many headaques since it was created 60 years ago.

On the other hand, while Ike had a hand in holding back Patton from keeping Stalin from subjecting half of Europe to Communist rule and in sending back 1.5 million anti-Communist Soviet and East European citizens to their deaths in Operation Keelhaul, he was a pretty good President. Ike got us out of Korea and paved the way for the JFK nuclear buildup of the early 1960s.

At least you got one thing right. Modern politics is war and if you are not fighting than you are losing battles. Bush, by refusing to fight the liberal enemy, is losing lots of battles and losing ground for the conservative cause that will likely never be recovered.

"We need to protect American industry, because it can be destroyed by our heavy taxes and THE LACK OF tariffs. "

Pat is called a 'socialist' for wanting to protect American industry. Those that oppose protecting American industry extol the benfits of 'free trade' agreements. These are some 60,000 pages of GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT negotiations with imput from favored lobbyists and campaign contributors but kept secret from the public and elected representatives. The drastic effect of mounting trade imbalance is having an effect on the dollar and stock market.

Oh please. The Crusader uses unguided munitions. The American military is long past needing "new" ways to deliver unguided munitions. That system is an $11 Billion boondoggle that deserves to be killed...

The Crusader is far more capable than anything else we have got. Crusader was also the last tracked vehicle to be killed in the Army. Tracked vehicles are far more capable and far more mobile than retro wheeled vehicles which the Bush DoD and the Chief of Staff of the Army are touting as somehow futuristic. Accordingly, the US Army of 2024 will have no tanks, no tracked vehicles, and will have little if any self-propelled artillery. It will be unable to do what the US Army is supposed to do--that is to win wars. This is the Clinton-Bush legacy which is being bequeathed to our noble Army which is also under seige by the Bush DoD which is questioning the need for its continued existance as a large size capable fighting force with their plans to cut more Army divisions than did Bill Clinton. As one Army general recently noted, "so much for the Bush's campaign motto that 'help is on the way' for America's military!"

Guided munitions are expensive and highly overrated - IMHO.

The Crusader can compute a targetting sequence that will allow it to fire 6 HUGE exploding projectiles and have all 6 hit the target SIMULTANEOUSLY. It has a rapid reload system and with its support vehicles it is one awesome weapon system designed to win wars on the ground.

I can't imagine why it was killed. It had to be a political decision, not a tactical one.

"bush has moved boldly left since then, especially as it applies to domestic matters."

The Bush Administration wrote to the Supreme Court last month stating that the new position for the U.S. government was that the 2nd Amendment was an Individual, not a "collective", right.

If you call that a move to the Left, then you are backwards...

No, you didn't. Pat Buchanon has publicly called for our embargo against Cuba to be lifted. That's not Conservative.

I come up with a list a mile long for why Bush isn't conservative at Post 38 and all you can come up for why Buchanan isn't a conservative is because he supports free trade with Cuba?? I wouldn't say that the issue of trade with Cuba is a very defining issue for conservatives. I think the issue of unilaterally destroying 75% of our strategic nuclear arsenal is a much more defining issue for conservatives. Buchanan opposes destroying our nuclear arsenal. Bush supports it. Buchanan opposes taxpayser subsidized trade, permanent MFN trade status and WTO membership, supercomputers, and US nuclear plants for the Butchers of Beijing who hold the record as the most mass-murdering regime in world history. Bush supports rewarding the Butchers of Beijing with all of these benefits so that his globalist financiers can make a buck or two. Bush supports the UN and his father's dream of realizing a New World Order. Buchanan wants to throw the UN out and bring the New World Order crashing down. So, I ask you, who is the real conservative here. Let me give you a clue. It ain't Bush.

Here is the CIA director admitting that the USA pressured Israel not to kill the terrorist arafat.

What are you talking about? Arafat isn't a terrorist. Colin Powell told us that it would not be helpful to call him a terrorist, therefore he's not a terrorist. He's a leader! The leader of the Palestinian people.

Honestly. You guys need to get your labels straight: Arafat is not a terrorist, he's a leader.

Tuor

/sarcasm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.