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.

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army

My disagreements with Bush's policy is that he is an accountant of the welfare state, not a visionary.

The author draws a government check from a branch of the government that lives in the glass houses of all glass houses. I actually thought Bush's disarmament move was decent politics; I have read that no one knows whether these missiles still work or not because we haven't been allowed to test them in almost 30 years. Better to scrap the 75% that don't work and focus on the trusted 25% all the while quieting the reactionary anti-anti-Communist Left.

Now, you are bad mouthing the US Army? What is your rationale for doing so? Do you agree with egghead Steven Cambone from the Department of Defense that the US no longer needs to maintain a conventional army and that airpower reigns supreme? Better to scrap the 75% of our nukes that don't work, you say? I guess that is why Bush decided to scrap all of our newest and most powerful, most accurate missiles, the MX Peacekeeper, and keep the 30 plus year old, long obselescent Minuteman III missiles left over from Nixon's first term. Yep, great policy on Bush's part. Scrap the new stuff and keep the old stuff that probably won't work, then promise the Russians that our yet-to-be built missile defense system won't work against the Russian missile threat. That way the Russkies will feel less threatened. I'm real glad we now have "adult" leadership at the White House. Makes me sleep better at night. Yeah, right...

rw2: I bought most of Sowell's books, and have gotten through his autobiography, and can't wait to get to the green book, his basic economics text.

The best thing about Sowell is his fantastic sense of humor, which is so buried in the truth that it is sublime.

hannosh4LtGovernor: Saw your site, good luck, I think you are going to win. The people of your state are dying for a person to lead who is an unashamed Christian, who loves the founding Fathers, and who will educate them about how America came to be.

Who is the Clay dude you guys are talking about?

The US Army's Delta Force, murdered children at Waco.

The US Air Force dropped bombs on Orthdox Christians on Easter Sunday on a soveriegn nation without a Declaration of War.

The US Navy obeyed immoral orders and fired cruise missiles on Aug 18, 1998, the same day Monica testified in front of the Grand Jury; they blew up an asprin factory and set in motion a chain of events that included first the suicide attack on the USS Cole and eventually the WTC attack, 9/11/02.

I know, I know, they were just following orders...

The US Army's Delta Force, murdered children at Waco. The US Air Force dropped bombs on Orthdox Christians on Easter Sunday on a soveriegn nation without a Declaration of War. The US Navy obeyed immoral orders and fired cruise missiles on Aug 18, 1998, the same day Monica testified in front of the Grand Jury; they blew up an asprin factory and set in motion a chain of events that included first the suicide attack on the USS Cole and eventually the WTC attack, 9/11/02. I know, I know, they were just following orders...

Hey, hey there. I agree with everything you wrote here. I was just trying to find out what your allegation of "the greatest national security failure in history" was--something you have yet to divulge. I'm not saying that criticizing the armed forces is not fair game, although with the exception of the Delta Force jack-booted thugs, I hardly blame the members of uniformed services for following the orders of their Commander-in-Chief even if it was Bill Clinton.

9/11 is the national security blunder I am referring too. There has yet to be a high level resignation; lots of finger pointing very little responsibility.

My intention was not to impeach the entire US armed forces, which I should have made clear, only that Conservatives should not make the mistake of confusing the defense apparatus (military and intelligence) with Conservative principals.

Again, I am challenging an author who works for the government in the "national security" industry and can still claim to be a national security expert w/o blushing, who is advising a hawkish stance towards Palestine and Iraq, whilst supporting an inconsequential steel tariff to thwart "dumping."

What so everyone and anyone who works in the national security industry is unqualified to offer foreign policy advise and counsel to the President because they are to blame for 9/11? I must admit, I still do not understand the rationale for your critique of the author here. Also, I did not see anywhere in this article where the author advised "a hawkish stance against Iraq."

Jorge;"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."

From the article: "alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process."

Dishonest claims??

Ok, I'll call them "misleading claims".

Just read the long list of issues the author claims Bush has betrayed conservatives on, supposedly "alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process."......

Add the fact that current polls show Bush with an astronomical 90% approval rating among conservatives...and the entire article, and specifically that statement really reads like BS.

There are many other misleading claims in the article;

"He has also championed the awarding of permanent most favored nation trade status and WTO membership for Communist China.."

Both the House and Senate voted to give China permanent most favored nation trade status in 1999, long before George Bush was elected. The vote in the Senate was 85-15 in favor.
Furthermore while the author wants to turn this into a betrayal of conservatives, it was in fact a GOP victory.
This vote also paved the way for China's entry into the WTO, and the US-China negotiated agreement on this also occured in 1999. Before Bush was elected.

"Most troublesome of all to Republicans, Bush broke a campaign promise in signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill."

Bush never made "a campaign promise" not to sign CFR.
Furthermore the claim that signing CFR is "Most troublesome of all to Republicans" is pretty amazing consider most Republicans supported CFR. They passed the CFR bill Bush signed.

So once again, the author's implications at distorted.

On foreign policy, Bush supported PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat in power and repeatedly urged Sharon to halt Israel's counter-terrorist operations ...

Unlike Clinton who had Arafat to the White House more than any other leader, President Bush has refused to even meet with Yassar Arafat.
And despite the delicate balancing act Bush has had to perform in negotiating the mid-east hostilities, Israel recognizes that of all world leaders Bush is clearly their best friend, and definitely a greater supporter than Clinton ever was.

So once again, the authors claim that Bush conservatives have a real beef over his Israel-PA dealings is misleading.

"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."

This of course is another falsehood.
Bush never made any proposal "to grant amnesty to two million illegal immigrants" let alone tried to push it through Congress.

Hispanic leader called on Bush to offer such a blanket amnesty but Bush refused.

My point is that there are many false and inaccurate statements in the article...and the general implication that Bush has alienated his conservative base is "misleading".

Its not my fault that you are one of the 90% mind-numbed blind Bush robots.

This is exactly what the Democrats like to say about Bush supporters.
Funny you should want to adopt their terminology.
Is a party switch in your future maybe?

Blah blah blah... I (and many others) have butted and rebutted every one of your "points" and debunked the bogus statement in each as well. It is now your assignment to go find them. Take as long as you like. The compiling of bogus lists is a long and obviously transparent gimmick here and only to serves to show how dishonest the GOP/Bush-bashers are. If you really cared about the "points" in your hit list, you wouldn't allow for the misstatement of facts in them.

The facts I present in my list are more or less irrefutable (as your failure and the failure of Republican Wildcat to respond to a single one of them so conclusively indicates) and do not present any mistatements of fact whatsoever. You say you have rebutted every point I have listed somewhere in the FR netherworld and yet you prove your own dishonesty by failing to present a single one of them. You then hypocritically task me to find them since you obviously can't which leads me to believe that you lied about their existance in the first place. All you can say is whine and say "blah, blah" and try to demean me personally without making one single valid point to support your cause. What a joke! It is not my job to rebut my own factual points, but yours. The fact that you can't merely provides strong evidence that the evidence and facts on my side is overwhelming while the evidence on your side is pretty much non-existant.

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.