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.

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

You are completely missing the entire point of this article. The point of this article was not to say that conservatives were dumping Bush for a real conservative candidate. It was to say that conservatives have been disappointed by Bush’s very real betrayals of conservative principles and the Republican Party on several far-reaching issues of importance to conservatives of which the Democrat Congressional Majority Insurance Bill was the first and foremost. This is not a misleading claim. This is fact. It doesn’t mean that he won’t get enough conservatives to support him in November, although it certainly does put some of the conservative Republican vote in play whereas Bush would otherwise have it pretty much locked up.

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.

What you euphemistically describe as “a GOP victory” was in fact a great betrayal of the conservative cause. Don’t fall into the trap of confusing a victory for the pro-Communist China leadership of the Republican Party with a victory for the conservative cause. The Liberal Republican Establishment that dominates the Republican Party today is by no means conservative in outlook. The vote you cite took place not in 1999, but in late 2000 immediately prior to the President’s election. Bush championed both the awarding of permanent most favored nation trade status and WTO membership for the PRC. You have challenged neither the validity or the factual basis of that statement because you have no grounds for doing so.

The effect of this vote was to increase taxpayer subsidized trade with Communist China above the level of $100 billion a year to help finance their strategic nuclear and military buildup to superpower levels. This vote also serves to strengthen and prolong the Communists in power in China by making their oppressive and murderous system economically viable, which it would not be without massive Western trade and assistance to prop it up. If the West were to cut off trade, aid and technology transfers with Communist China, the PRC would be transformed to the level of a North Korean economy within a decade and would have no money to modernize its military or build any more nuclear missiles with which to threaten the US. Yep, what a fine “GOP victory” this was.

"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.

Bush made a campaign promise not to sign the liberal Democrap version of campaign finance reform, which is exactly what this was. In fact, Bush scored point after point against the slightly more liberal Sen. John McCain during the debates as he chastened McCain for supporting such a patently unconstitutional bill. Bush was applauded by conservatives like me for taking such a principled stand during the campaign. Then he betrayed all Republicans by signing it and legislating a permanent Democrap Congressional majority beginning when the bill is implemented in 2004 and continuing as far as the eye can see.

Furthermore, your statement that “most Republicans supported CFR” is patently false. In fact, only 38 Republicans in the House and about 9 Republicans in the Senate. Put another way, 83% OF REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE AND 80% OF REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE VOTED TO KILL THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MONSTROUSITY EVEN AFTER THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE GAVE THEM THE GREEN LIGHT TO VOTE FOR IT BY SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT IT WAS “A GOOD BILL” AS WRITTEN AND WOULD SIGN IT IF PASSED. Accordingly, what we learn from this exercise is that Congressional Republicans are by and large considerably more conservative and considerably more principled than President Bush, which is why I will continue to support my conservative Republican allies in Congress and why my previous support for Bush is now in question.

The fact that Bush signed such a massively unconstitutional bill that does such great damage to future Republican electoral prospects has caused many conservative pundits to question whether he is willing to veto any congressional legislation no matter how liberal or how offensive to conservatives. My personal opinion is that Bush's desire to be well-liked by his liberal Democrap friends makes it unlikely that he will issue more than a very few vetoes during his Presidency, if any at all.

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.

Actually, the fact is that the Bush Administration has flipped flopped and gone back and forth on this one, but the latest reports indicate that Bush is going back to supporting Arafat as the rightful leader and representative of the Palestinian people with which the Israelis should deal and negotiate. I do concede that Bush is more supportive of Israel than Arafat, but his renewed support for Arafat and a Palestinian state is certainly troubling to conservatives like me and show a profound lack of moral clarity on his part.

"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".

In fact, it has been reported nationwide that President Bush was trying to appease President Fox with a continuation of an exemption to 245i which would have the effect of granting de-facto amnesty to as many as two million illegal aliens now in the United States. What’s worse, instead of letting this issue be decided on its merits, Bush ordered Speaker Denny Hastert to attach it to a Border Security bill and hold a stealth vote in the wee hours of the night to try to get it passed through. It barely passed, but thankfully was defeated by Senate President pro-tem, Robert Byrd who amazingly was well to the right of President Bush on this crucial issue.

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?

No, that is what they say about Rush Limbaugh’s supporters. Unfortunately Rush’s “mind-numbed robots” have malfunctioned and are not following the counsel of Rush in calling Bush to task for his increasing betrayals of conservatives. I only adopt their terminology because it fits blind mushy moderate Bushies like you only too well that are willing to put their allegence to one man ahead of both party and principle. As for a party switch being in my future, there is not a chance. I have been a die-hard conservative Republican for my entire life and I don’t believe that third parties are a viable option for conservatives or anyone else for that matter. Conservative GOP is the way to go for me. Hopefully, one day it will be the way to go for you and some of your fellow resident Bushies here on FR as well.

Jorge;"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."

What you euphemistically describe as “a GOP victory” was in fact a great betrayal of the conservative cause. Don’t fall into the trap of confusing a victory for the pro-Communist China leadership of the Republican Party with a victory for the conservative cause.

And you can argue that the Republicans in Congress are not really conservative if you want.
But my point was that the author of the article cannot claim that Bush position on China trade is alienating the conservative Republicans when the Republicans lead a vote of 85-15 in agreement with his position.
The author makes claims that simply make no sense.

The vote you cite took place not in 1999, but in late 2000 immediately prior to the President’s election.

I stand corrected. The Senate vote took place in the fall of 2000, the House passed it in early 2000 and it was the US-China agreement for China's entry into the WTO that was negotiated in 1999.
What's important is my point that they all occurred before Bush was elected President.

Bush championed both the awarding of permanent most favored nation trade status and WTO membership for the PRC. You have challenged neither the validity or the factual basis of that statement because you have no grounds for doing so.

I have no need to.
Let me restate my point;

The author claimed that Bush's position on China entering the WTO or most favored nation status was "alienating" his conservative Republican support, and he made it sound like Bush lead the charge.

This is of course false since the legislation and negotiations for both these initiatives occurred before Bush became President.
And more importantly they were championed by the Republicans.

These facts prove that the author exagerates and misrepresents his complaints which really only speak for a small number of disgruntled conservatives.
That is my point.

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.