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.

[Ben Ficklin]

I really hate to bring it up to you, but this thread seems to be drifting off-topic.

What started out as a perfectly good Bush Bashing thread has now turned into something where the fringe groups are bashing each other.

Don't ya'll have any sense of unity?

[dead]

We're all off our ritalin and can't focus.

[Scholastic]

Those that arnt paying attention that is.

[Ben Ficklin]

Sentry, would you mind stepping in here. This rightwing dude knows nothing about running a Bush Bash thread!

[Howlin]

Plus 90 percent of us approve of Bush; you're totally irrelevant, which I suspect is what bothers you the most.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[kidao35]

Pollsters, AP, and Newsday...nuff said.

[Southack]

I don't see GWB's actions as protecting Arafat so much as protecting Israel from an even worse opponent. Who would you propose to replace Arafat as the Palestinian leader?

On the other hand, I view Buchanon's calls for Arafat's ally Castro to be aided by lifting the Cuban embargo as a call for an action that harms Israel directly, as Cuba is where Palestinians are recieving their explosives training.

[caddie]

Since you said that I have so far to go, I thought I would get started right away, Thomas.

Below is a quote from a letter written by you (Thomas Jefferson) in 1807, to a man named Gallatin, IN WHICH YOU ADVOCATE A TARIFF ON CHEAP WINES, TO PROTECT DOMESTIC WINEMAKING.

(You used to make wine and collect it, I believe, so this is sort a special interest issue, it seems.)

I got it from www.memory.loc.gov, the excellent collection of digitized images of handwritten documents by you and the other founding fathers.

I gave you, some time ago, a project of a more equal tariff on wines than that which now exists. But in that I yielded considerably to the faulty classification of them in our law. I have now formed one with attention, and according to the best information I possess, classing them more rigorously. I am persuaded that were the duty on cheap wines put on the same ratio with the dear, it would wonderfully enlarge the field of those who use wine, to the expulsion of whiskey. The introduction of a very cheap wine (St. George) into my neighborhood, within two years past, has quadrupled in that time the number of those who keep wine, and will ere long increase them tenfold. This would be a great gain to the treasury, & to the sobriety of our country. I will here add my tariff, wherein you will be able to chuse any rate of duty you please, and to decide whether it will not, on a fit occasion, be proper for legislative attention. Affectn salutns.

Anyway, I would love to post the .jpg file, but I don't know how -- seriously, if you are not too p*$$ed about my posts you could tell me how.

Thought you would like to know about this 180 on your part.

Regards, caddie :-)

[P.S.: I think your petty moralizing, by trying to micromanage the drinking habits of the colonists, forcing them to drink more wine than whiskey, is Big Government Nannyism in the modern Rat tradition, don't you agree?]

[Southack]

"Sort of the same thing with Bush. He has shown he is not a conservative."

In what wierd world do you live where killing the Left-Wing Kyoto Treaty, pulling the U.S. out of the Socialist-dominated International Criminal Court, and killing the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty aren't Conservative?

Two tax cuts, both signed by Bush, one for businesses and the other for individuals, are hardly unConservative, either.

In case you haven't noticed, Bush has secured funding for our national missile defense, too.

You discredit yourself when you label those actions as not being Conservative...

[MeekOneGOP]

The article posted in #3 by Howlin is pretty good. The article originally posted here is so slanted and so anti-Bush, it could have been written by Bill Kristol himself I think. (Actually, Kristol would have given Bush a LOT more credit, on second thought!) Notice that the original article claims big loss of support of the conservative base? Wrong. He is VERY strong among conservatives, as stated in #3 by Howlin's article:

Bush's job approval rating among Republicans is in the low 90s and a bit higher among strong Republicans, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll and others.

Also I noticed that the ONLY mention of Bush's BIG focus (the War on Terror regarding WTC) was THIS:

.......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.

Those two things there prompt me to give this article a zero on a scale of 1 to 10, LOL!
Thanks for posting that on #3 so quickly, Howlin!

[weikel]

Bump I loved the guy during his 1st year but this recent leftward tilt disgust me.

[The Old Hoosier]

Unfortunately, that's the way the Senate is now and has always been--infested with moderate Republicans. But those moderates will vote for judicial nominees, which is arguably the most important thing about Bush's presidency. Also, they're more likely to provide cover for the phase-out of Social Security, national missile defense, etc.

But let's look at the candidates: One moderate running this year is Ganske (RINO-Iowa). I still hope he beats Harkin (anyone's better than him) but he won't. Norm Coleman (MN) is more on the moderate-conservative end, based on his record--but not a RINO, and I think he'll win. As for Dole and Alexander--she's posturing to the right, and will probably vote to the right as well, but not because of any innate beliefs she has. She'll be an 85 on the ACU ranking, is my prediction. Lamar is "sort of" moderate, but he's actually, in my opinion, more conservative than Fred Thompson, so no loss there--and we could even get Ed Bryant, though I doubt it. Cornyn is a conservative. Forrester (NJ) is a RINO, but at least he's good on immigration. Chambliss (Ga.) has a good record in the House, as does Thune (SD), as does Sununu (NH) (although it's a shame to see Bob Smith go).

So all in all, you're losing two conservatives and one moderate in retirement, and getting one conservative and two moderates to replace them.

You also have a conservative replacing a conservative through the primary (NH).

Then you have three conservatives trying to replace Democrats (two will succeed), and two moderates trying to replace democrats (NJ and IA, both will fail). So if you want me guesstimate, I think we'll have a net gain of conservatives, especially if Hutchinson hangs on in Arkansas--which he will.

[Protagoras]

I thought you had figured out by now that I am not the Thomas Jefferson to whom you refer. The one to whom you refer made plenty of mistakes. Setting tarriffs to protect domestic industry was one of them. He can be forgiven however since most of the important work on economics which shows the folly of these policies had yet to be done or widely published at the time.

As to the JPG posting, I'm not angry at you at all. Like Jefferson, you can't be blamed for being ignorant about things which you haven't been taught.

If you go to my profile page you will find a link to a HTML tutorial, it will contain the information you request.

[weikel]

Neither Bush nor Buchanan is a conservative Buchanan is a socialist and so apparently is Bush.

[rmlew]

Single question polls are irrelevent.

I am furious with Bush but if polled would say that I support him. The reason is that any fall in support pushes Bush to the LEFT.

A useful poll would ask questions about issues.

[Dane]

What started out as a perfectly good Bush Bashing thread has now turned into something where the fringe groups are bashing each other.

Don't ya'll have any sense of unity?

Shhh, good conservative polices can get done when the purists are at each others throats.