Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

The American Partisan ^ | June 5, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[rightwing2]

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.

[ex-snook]

"You seem quite obsessed with Foster's skin tone. I don't know why. "

Sort of prevents those who do name-calling from smearing Pat as a racist, doesn't it? Well maybe it doesn't, when name callers feel bound by truth, they come up with half-truths or something out of context.

[rightwing2]

Phony lists...the last refuge of a coward/liar/phony.

Absolute blindness to truth...the last refuge of what Lenin appropriately termed the "deaf, dumb, blind mutes" who would happily sell the Marxists the rope with which to hang themselves as Bush is doing with your support. Daschle/McShame/Clinton/Gore thank you for your support in enacting the liberal Democrap agenda. Your failure to respond with my factual assertions with even one specific refutation shows that you do not have nothing to use to do so. All the facts are on my side. Your lack of a specific response proves it.

[NittanyLion]

Phony lists...the last refuge of a coward/liar/phony.

You may want to tell hobbes1 the same. He posted a very similar list, albeit from the opposing viewpoint.

[dead]

Sort of prevents those who do name-calling from smearing Pat as a racist, doesn't it?

I wouldn’t know. I never called Pat a racist. Ever.

You I worry about, though.

[caddie]

There may be too high tariffs, in some sectors, but with the US government taxing the bejeebers out of every domestic person, company, and entity, and letting in most things and persons without tariffs or restrictions, I doubt there are many.

I also doubt it because other countries are far more tariff-happy than we are, putting us at a disadvantage with respect to our balance of trade.

Example: Textiles. If we ship everything in from Madagascar, then, we are going to kill any of the American textile industry left. This has essentially happened. You can say: "Well, tough toenails. Those dudes in South Carolina can learn some other trade." It's not that easy. Plus, sending a whole sector of our economy overseas means that there will be much less innovation in that field done by Americans. This can not be good for our diverse economy.

Example: People. If we allow anyone with a technical, academic, or medical degree into the United States without any restriction, it will drive down the salaries of Americans, till they reach the world's (much lower) levels.

This doesn't mean jack to those on this forum who work in law, most businesses, media, or other high profile positions where a foreign pedigree or look will be a strong negative.

But it means a hell of a lot to doctors, programmers, chemists, and factory and semi-skilled labor, whose job is more product-related and less personality-related.

Buchanan is against unrestricted immigration, so as to protect certain labor segments, as he is for selective tariffs.

[flamefront]

On your radar right now is Monsoor Ijaz with reports of 3 recorded attempts to inform Clinton about OBL in detail. He is to be part of the Congressional hearings. When this who-what-when is known it will force Bush (and others) to finally come to account for the Clinton policies, behavior, and perhaps even treason IMO. Bush will be forced to part company with the carried-over Clinton policies you well list above. Of course, heads should roll too but we will see.

Regards.

[rightwing2]

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.

With your accusations of pandering to any group including gays and Latino non-citizens, you seem to be confusing Buchanan with a well-known liberal who happens to occupy the high office of the Presidency of the United States. The truth is that you will never find and cannot name a more principled conservative American alive today than Patrick J. Buchanan. Your willful blindness and failure to recognize the fact that he was a champion of all things conservative does not change that fact. Your dubious support of mushy moderate George W. Bush proves that you are no friend of conservatism or even to the Republican Party for that matter since Bush signed into law the McCain Feingold Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill that will ensure scores of Republicans are defeated and the party reduced to permanent congressional minority status come election day 2004.
Buchanan is so much more conservative than Dubya, it ain't even funny. He makes Dubya look like a committed Marxist in comparison. Pat Buchanan had the near unanimous support of all conservatives until he committed the unpardonable sin of leaving the increasing leftist, globalist Republican Party. After that the liberal Republican Establishment declared that he was to be ridiculed as a Marxist socialist or whatever term of denigration could be imagined because they knew that he was a threat to them just like the Communists knew that Senator Joe McCarthy and the JBS were a threat to them. Never mind, that Buchanan, like fellow conservative hero Senator Robert Smith (R-NH) left the GOP on grounds of pure conservative principle. You Bush liberals always like to ignore little factoids like that, don't you?

[ex-snook]

"I wouldn’t know. I never called Pat a racist. Ever. "

But a little guilt by association (Fulani) is OK.

[GSWarrior]

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.

Maybe when Pat writes him memoirs we will find out who his first (or second, or third) choice for a running mate was.
But I don't mean to bash Pat. I voted for him.

[rightwing2]

That would be good. I hope you are right.

[rightwing2]

Maybe when Pat writes him memoirs we will find out who his first (or second, or third) choice for a running mate was. But I don't mean to bash Pat. I voted for him.

Pat's first choice was former Rep. Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican who probably would have joined the ticket had Buchanan remained at 8-16% where he was early in the campaign and not sunk to 2% in the polls by convention time. Incidentally, I successfully predicted Buchanan's VP choice about a week or two in advance. I said that she would be the logical fall-back choice if his first-tier candidates fell through.

[ex-snook]

"Maybe when Pat writes him memoirs we will find out who his first (or second, or third) choice for a running mate was. But I don't mean to bash Pat. I voted for him. "

Good question but if there were others, I'll bet they were all good pro-life conservatives.

[GSWarrior]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if we would ever know.

[dead]

Unlike the doe-eyed, smitten Buchananites, who would die for Pat no matter how many Marxists he appointed or unions he sucked up to, I have no qualms about pointing out Bush's failings.

His capitulation on the education bill was a disgrace. His signing of CFR was gutless. His spending is atrocious. His tariffs are vote-buying, with the American consumer picking up the tab (which was also a large part of Buchanan's campaign strategy.)

I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary, but when faced with the choices in the general, he was the best choice on the ballot.

Buchanan is a former conservative, turned irrelevant, protectionist, populist.

[Scholastic]

some people cant argue the facts like a grown adult. Your remarks about this column are as great and pointed as your cartoons!

[Scholastic]

Clinton had high approvals too. So what.

[Scholastic]

Bravo and bump to the author!

[Howlin]

So what is that THIS is CONSERVATIVES, not the general population.

[SerpentDove]

>>Definitely no conservative and I now doubt his christianity entertaining such as Arafat and Saudi Arabia and other terrorists or terrorist countries.<<

I have no reason to doubt his Christianity, but remember when he allowed a
Muslim Prayer Service
in the White House?
That was extra freaky.