Posted on 06/05/2002 8:47:43 AM PDT by 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.
Thanks for that. Pat is for America first and that is what drives all who aren't for America first into smearing name-calling Goebbel's fits. Commie, Fascist, Nazi, Socialist, anti-Semite, Protectionist, Racist, Homophobe, Isolationist, Pro-life extremist, Irish Papist, Xenophobe, ad hominem, etc. Obviously, name-calling is the last refuge of scoundrels to kill the messenger when they can't refute Pat's message of American economic and political nationalism.
Go Pat Go - Keep America First. In time, although Pat may not see the promised land, all Americans will be Buchananites. Protecting our borders is just a start.
For some reason, given the wording of his response, I don't even he knew whether or not he had really said it.
Nonsense. Bush has 90% support of Republicans and 75% support of the nation at large. Someone would have to either be clueless or deliberately lying to claim that 90% base or 75% national support was equal to "many" being alienated.
Good point. It's to bad that so many of these so-called conservative challenges to Bush's politics have to ruin their objectivity with what are down-right dishonest claims.
A 90% approval hardly sounds like an alienated base to me.
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.
This author calls the steel tariffs a conservative accomplishment? This should tell you something about his crediblity. Government subsidation of an industry is not a conservative policy. I was and am strongly opposed to this move by the President, and said so at the time he took the action. (as you can see, my response calling into question this articles accuracy is about its actual facts, not about it being overall critical of the President).
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.
I'd disagree with just calling this Ted Kennedy's education bill, but we'll take it for sake of argument. Apparently, the bill requires schools to actually educate students or have their funds yanked. I don't see any evidence of Secretary Paige being left-wing social activist...I would agree that if such power were in the hands of an administration like Clinton's (which hopefully we will never have again), then their would certainly be cause for concern. On this, I'll partially concede a point, but an exaggeration it is.
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.
That stem-cell research is a blatant attempt to mislead the reader. He does not support funding for research that will destroy embryos. Moreover, in making his decision, for perhaps the first time in history, a President had all major networks carrying the pro-life message live in prime time for the American people to see and hear. It was remarkable. Moreover, his move prevented a push by Congress to override him in fully funding embryo-destroying stem-cell research. He has overturned at least one pro-abortion Clinton Executive Order (I'm sure there are others), and the refusal by this author to mention that appears to be another attempt to mislead. The characterization of Al Gonzalez as a "pro-abortion activist" is also rather ridiculous.
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.
Racicot does support restrictions on abortion and is certainly not "pro-abortion." I don't think anyone can agree that while Gilmore was much stronger on this issue that he was a superior head of the RNC. The head of the RNC's job is to lead the party to campaign victories, not be an ideologue. Moreover, the treasurer's job is to raise cash, which apparently that guy is very good at...just so long as he's not allowed to write the party platform.
On immigration, that is indeed a problem. I think the solution should be to block anymore from getting in. It's quite difficult to just round up 2 million that are already here. Moreover, a lot of farmers can't find any labor other than them that are actually willing to do that kind of work. Amnesty is not the solution, and the President claims to not be for it...though a "guest worker" program is close. On this, the author has a partial point, but to say it is merely to "appease" Latinos and Fox (for whom I don't know why we need to appease), is an exaggeration, yet again.
Most troublesome of all to Republicans, Bush broke a campaign promise in signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
A mere technicality, but for the record, I believe this was the Shays-Meehan bill that originated in the House (correct me if that is not correct).
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.
A gamble, to be sure. I strongly disagreed with this, and I believe Bush underestimates his ability to connect with the people. All he had to do was to make a speech to the American people explaining the rational for vetoing it. (It was nice that he signed it without any fanfair to poke a finger in McCain's eye). However, back to the reality that it was indeed signed, this author ignores the portions added to the bill for expedited court hearings which could lead to portions being struck down (the 30/60 day rules could be prime targets). Moreover, the increase in hard money limits gives Republicans, not Democrats (who are much more dependent on soft money) the advantage now. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional, but that was not the premise the author is arguing from.
On foreign policy, Bush supported PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat in power
Yes. Just look at all those times he's been invited into the White House and has met with Bush elsewhere so far. Even more than Clinton. < / sarcasm >
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.
LOL!
However, Bush still supports a Palestinian state, something that not even Bill Clinton would support.
Such incredible stupidity. What about Ariel Sharon saying the exact same thing? This author is either deliberately trying to mislead the readers here, or is so clueless as to the facts surrounding this situation that he has no business writing on this subject.
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.
Iran borders Afghanistan, and they sent out the olive branch first (at least their President did, but he doesn't have much power). Of course, it became clear later they weren't going to be any help, and it is rather clear we aren't trying to cozy up to them by calling them part of an "Axis of Evil", so trying to make something of out of this is literally trying to make something out of nothing.
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.
Let's make sure they don't continue to increase capitalist characteristics so they will always be communist with no chance of a change--ever. That'll show 'em.
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.
Ah, yes. Those OPEC nations are certainly more trustworthy to deal with. And President Bush certainly cowered to Russia when they told us not to back out of the ABM treaty, didn't he? LOL.
Oops. Gross inconsistency here on your part. "The author is right" on calling steel tariffs conservative, yet you oppose farm subsidies and call them liberal, when they are along the same lines. It appears that not only are the arguments of this author that you hold in such high esteem incorrect, but you do not even know what your own arguments are, you just want to bash Bush for the sake of bashing Bush. See through you, we do.
So although I am happy to have him as President, and as of right now I would likely vote for him again as President, he has definitely disapointed me in many of his positions. I also wonder that anyone unwilling to admit many of his positions are liberal, and claim 100% satisfaction with his performance, likely have some liberal leanings themselves, at least in certain circumstances. I think the argument is being generated by those that refuse to admit ANY of his positions are questionable when reviewed in a true conservative context.
So what? Perhaps you should re-read the editorial (or at least the last paragraph). The author claims that Bush has lost his conservative base. Howlin posts an article that suggests otherwise.
It is extremely disingenuous to accuse someone of relying on polling data when "popularity" is the assertion on the table. I wonder how many folks are intelligent enough to figure that out. I wonder how many folks think they are intelligent enough to get away with your sort of an argument.
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.