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.

Do you know how long it took to build up to the D-Day Invasion? Why didn't we go blasting in when we entered the war, why did we wait several years until 1944? How many lives were lost in the delay, how much more destruction took place, all because we were waffling and appeasing Hitler? Clearly Eisenhower was no general.

You've completely lost me here. What is your point? You are saying that Bush has some secret plan to launch a massive assault on the left and that is the reason he has been so busy appeasing and accomodating them by signing their agenda into law? If you believe this crap, I have a bridge to sell you in Moscow.

And, while justified, I don’t know how on earth you can say increasing the military is shrinking government. That’s nonsensical.

No it is not. Shrinking the pie of available dollars, and then giving a larger slice of the Pie to the military, cuts into what is left over for Domestic Investigatory, and Regulatory departments. (I.E. who do you want to have more money, the Military or the IRS?)

My goodness. So many exaggerations, and even some blatant inaccuracies...and so little time for those of us that actually work for a living. Overall it is just plain stupid.

Well instead of attacking my fact-based statements about the Bush recrod as somehow spurious, why don't you put up some facts to defend your favorite centrist President from his conservative critics like Rush, Dave Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.?

You know, it is quite possible that there is global warming, but that the Kyoto Treaty won't do anything to help it but will harm our economy. Denying global warming, if it turns out to be true, is a losing issue. Much better to do research and find out if it is indeed occurring and come up with conservative, pro-American solutions.

The research is out there, MM. It's indicative of ground-based warming due to man-made structures (roads, buildings, partking lots, etc.) The upper atmospheric readings do not indicate a warming trend, which goes a long way toward debunking the "greenhouse gas" myth.

Please cite your source for when the Bush administration called them the "occupied territories." I'll be back later for your response.

You are way too funny. I ask you for a fact-based response to my facts about Bush's record and you come back with a nitpicky challenge to the words "occupied territories." I think I will await your response to my facts about the Bush record before I address your complaint about the "occupied territories." But since you "work for a living" I think I will have to wait half a lifetime for your feeble response. Instead of getting bogged down in wordplay, all you need to know is that Bush supports a PLO led independent Palestinian state, which even Bill Clinton refused to support.

If you can provide source data I'd be interested in seeing it (that domestic programs' $$$ is being redirected to the military). If true, much of the criticism of Bush would be unwarranted.

Let me lend a hand..."Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop"

Great comeback! Seriously if this is all Wildcat can come up with to rebut my conservative critique of the Bush record, then it looks like we have won the argument over whether Bush is a conservative. He's not. So all conservatives need to unite in an effort to persuade him to doing what is right by his conservative base.

Shrinking the pie of available dollars, and then giving a larger slice of the Pie to the military, cuts into what is left over for Domestic Investigatory, and Regulatory departments. (I.E. who do you want to have more money, the Military or the IRS?)

If non-military federal spending was concurrently decreasing, you might have point.

But it isn’t and you don’t.

RW2 -- don't be so hard on the guy. After all, he must out democrat the democrats to get himself re-elected. THe tattered remnants of the Constitution are woth sacrificing as long as "our team" wins, right?

So long as "our team" wins the game it doesn't matter if the playing field and stadium are nothing but a smoking ruin when the game is over.

Winning the office is all that is important. Any amount of collateral damage is acceptable to the ruling class.

For the true believers out here in flyover country, all that matters is whether the team jersey has an "r" or "d" on it, and if their boy is in their opinion a nicer guy and more trustworthy than the other guy. Don't confuse the true believers with minor details.

Regards

J.R.

Payne's got several facts wrong (no endorsement from the WH in TN, and Bush didn't create Parskey in Calif), but this kind of thing needs to be written anyway, to keep the heat on.

Here's Bush's current mindset: Don't raise taxes, don't cave on abortion and related social issues, and I'll get re-elected. Everything else I can co-opt to eat into Dem-leaning but currently vulnerable swing groups: Jews (finally waking up to see which party supports Israel), Hispanics (pro-family, pro-life), and Union members (pro-gun, pro-life).

I'd like to add that in spite of what people say here on FR, all three of these groups are very winnable for Bush, and could result in an historic era of dominance for Republicans. But this idea will suit you well or poorly, depending on what kind of conservative you are. If your main issue is abortion, you'll be at least somewhat happy. If it's immigration, you should be at least somewhat pissed off. I think all of us feel a bit of both.

For conservatives to get much more from Bush, we have to give him the Senate in November. He should be doing better NOW, though, in bargaining with the Dems. There's honestly no excuse for it.

But his current haplessness could also be by design: Always smile, say almost nothing bitter or partisan, and you suddenly contrast heavily with Daschle, who kicks and screams like a baby to get his way and, to some extent, gets it. The discontent against the party in power somehow transfers to Daschle, and the election goes our way. At least, that's the thinking.

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.