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.

Nonsense. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court. NWO proponents support the ICC, yet Bush clearly opposes it. New World Order types are big on the Kyoto Treaty. Care to admit what Bush did to that one? No. Let me guess, you'll claim some Rush-esque Kyoto-lite nonsense now that you've been called tot he carpet on that one...

Yes, Bush announced the US will not be bound by the ICC despite the Clinton presidential signature. However, Bush has signed an agreement with Russia to unilaterally disarm the US into a second-class nuclear power. How much more New World Order can you get than that? Bush also supports implemention of the Kyoto Treaty on the sly according to a couple of recent conservative editorials in the moderately conservative Washington Times. Bush supports a Clinton-era plan to disarm the US military of its tanks, tracked vehicles and much of its artillery. Bush refused to reverse Clinton's executive orders federalizing millions of acres of land. He has failed to oppose the UN Biodiversity Treaty which claims sovereignity over such federalized lands. Bush supports the UN and enforces UN edicts with US military forces used as UN peacekeepers in scores of nations the world over from Iraq to Kosovo. Hardly the record of an anti-NWO President.

I guess we are suppose to believe he's better at politics then what he does for a living?

Well, I would argue that you don't have to make a career at something to be good at analyzing a given subject. For example, some of the best political commentary is done not by politicians but by columnists, journalists and editorialists. Plus, this guy's bio says he's a VP with the Virginia Republican Assembly so that means that he is probably politically savvy.

Who was Buchanon's running mate?

Ezola Foster, a renowned black anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-feminist lady who is a former member of the John Birch Society. I rest my case. Buchanan is and always has been an arch-conservative. Otherwise, why would he have chosen a former member of the John Birch Society to be his running mate? To say otherwise, is being intellectually dishonest.

Dopey Pat let them string him along for a while, with dreams of a big money and endorsements from the corrupt socialist cabals.

Post #144 is for you. I'll await your response to my rhetorical question of why Pat Buchanan chose a prominent member of the John Birch Society to be his Vice Presidential running mate if he was the socialist scum-sucker you claim he was. Man, have you got egg on your face on this one!

Spewing Goebbel's big lies? Pat's VP was Foster, a black lady.

You’d have a point if I said otherwise. But I didn’t. Learn to read.

I said Lenora was Pat’s Marxist sidekick, which as co-chairman of Buchanan's (not Perot’s) campaign, she undoubtedly was.

Sorry if his choice of political bedfellows embarrasses you, but you voted for him, not me.

Pat wants to conserve America first. That makes him the best conservative in politics today.

Usually one must open a Hallmark card to find such an astute and irrefutable nugget of political insight.

I am arguing for some more intellectual honesty in the "conservative" crowd. You seem to have it with your fair-minded comments, but a lot of Bush apologists don't.

What part of the above did you not understand. If you would re-read what I wrote you would have realized that I was praising you for having the intellectual dishonesty that Bush apologists don't. Why do you keep insisting that we are at odds, taunting me with "flame wars" and such when it is painfully obvious that we are in 90% agreement with each other?

"Post #144 is for you. I'll await your response to my rhetorical question of why Pat Buchanan chose a prominent member of the John Birch Society to be his Vice Presidential running mate if he was the socialist scum-sucker you claim he was. Man, have you got egg on your face on this one! "

Man, have you got egg on your face on this one!

I never brought up Pat's VP selection (she's a fine lady, other than her insurance fraud problems.)

I brought up his Marxist campaign co-chair.

(The egg you're seeing is the one Pat laid on election day.)

"I said Lenora was Pat’s Marxist sidekick, which as co-chairman of Buchanan's (not Perot’s) campaign, she undoubtedly was. "

Half-truth. But she was bounced by Pat, wasn't she? You should be happy that Pat did not let a Marxist take over the Reform Party. Pat's 'sidekick' during the campaign was black conservative, Foster.

Hey their supply of name calling knows no limits. Now Pat will be called a Fascist. You know just keep repeating some Goebbel's smear balls until something sticks. Some people just don't like Pat's putting American interests first.

Pat Buchanan is a conservative hero and always will be. To me, the JBS is laudably conservative, not some kind of Commie-smear! Dead can lie and say Pat's a socialist all he wants but it won't change the facts. Pat's VP appointment proves beyond all doubt that Pat Buchanan believes in putting America and conservative principles first all the time and on every issue.

O.K., one issue was the Abortion Funding. He re-instated the Ban that Reagan had put into effect -----Bush To Reinstate Ban
On Federal Abortion Funding

(MCNS) -- In his first major policy action since becoming president on Saturday, President George W. Bush signed a memorandum today reinstating a policy bars U.S. aid to overseas family-planning programs that include abortion counseling.

The so-called Mexico City policy, which President Reagan announced in 1984 and which remained in place until President Clinton overturned it in his second day in office.

Good, and Correct Move.

Then he approves Stem Cell Funding (btw, where do the Stem Cells come from?)

	Bush OKs Stem Cell Funding By Kristen Philipkoski
	Print this • E-mail it 1:40 p.m. Aug. 9, 2001 PDT President Bush will allow the government, with certain restrictions, to fund embryonic stem cell research, a decision that could help scientists find cures to several ailments, but could cost the President votes among conservatives.

Then he overwrote two Pro-Labor Union E.O's that Slick issued. -- Good Move.

Then he starts further easing illegal Migration from Mexico of massive amounts of Cheap Labor.

So what has the Nation Gained except a different way to Rule?

I can suggest some history books for you to read, as well.

History is replete with examples of the harm done by the ignorance and oppression of rulers with regard to tariffs and the harm that can be done by misusing them. I was going to suggest some history books to you as well, but I figured you should start with one thing at a time when you have so far to go.

Dead can lie and say Pat's a socialist all he wants but it won't change the facts.

Speaking of lies, you’ve repeatedly said that I called Pat a “socialist”, which I did not.

I called Pat a suck-up to the “socialist unions”, which he is.

Reading comprehension has never been a brigadeer strong point.

The funny thing is, I spent my first few posts on this thread trashing Bush, but the brigadeers always kindly remind me of the dearth of conservative alternatives I was presented with on election day.

I never brought up Pat's VP selection (she's a fine lady, other than her insurance fraud problems.) I brought up his Marxist campaign co-chair. (The egg you're seeing is the one Pat laid on election day.)

You never brought up Pat's VP selection, because it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS your intellectually dishonest hypothesis that Pat is some kind of socialist scumbag! How many socialists do you know choose members of the ultraconservative John Birch Society as their running mates. I mean, you just don't get any more conservative than the John Birch Society. You still have failed to explain why Pat would do that. I shall await your answer. What's that, you say you don't have a response? Oh well, that's what I thought...

BTW, Pat Buchanan discarded Leonora Fulani like a used cigarette after he refused to back her attempt to become the Reform Party Chairwoman. Why? Because Pat Buchanan didn't support anything that she stood for! This was an alliance of convenience to accomplish the laudable conservative end of Pat's goal of capturing control of a "major" political party and Buchananizing it, thereby transforming it into a socially conservative agent for change. I guessed you missed the whole point of that strategem, didn't you.

Still repeating lies to try to make your case, I see. I never called Pat a socialist.

From John Birchers to socialist-unions, from Marxists to Perotistas, Pat courted any group he thought he could draw into his quixotic campaign.

If Charles Manson had a voting block, some campaign funds, or some ballot access connections, Pat would have promised him a cabinet position.

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.