Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

The American Partisan ^ | June 5, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Nice to know that you follow me around on different threads and that was a legitimate discussion.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Republicans supported CFR. They passed the CFR bill Bush signed."

The fact that CFR made it through a Republican dominated House is simply more proof that many Republicans are more concerned about re-election and their "image", rather than being a true statesman and voting on principle.

President Bush's decision to delegate the CFR issue to the U.S. Supreme Court shows not only his lack of principle, but his disregard for his staunch conservative grassroots base, not to mention that his actions on this issue showed a clear dereliction of duty.

The fact is that Bush didn't lose an ounce of sleep over the CFR issue because he knew that people like you would always support him. I had observed a great many conservatives whine and complain about Bush's signing of CFR, but what did they actually do about it? Nothing, because they (including you Jorge) will still vote for him in 2004 anyway. The fact of the matter is that no true conservative can possibly defend Bush's signinf of the CFR bill or his pitiful stem cell compromise.

The Republican Party line has been stretched to its limit and is bound to snap anytime soon. Perhaps it is time for a new conservative party to get itself into the mainstream, such as the U.S. Constitution Party.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The truth does hurt and some obviously were not equipped with the emotional stability to handle it.

[A.J.Armitage]

Shouldn't you be off somewhere, making nasty little irrelevant comments about peo...

Oh. Carry on.

[A.J.Armitage]

The president's oath of office says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not "and ignore the Constitution because hey, the Supreme Court can always fix things up later."

[rightwing2]

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.

[rightwing2]

Proof positive that the truth does hurt.

Yes it does. I have to laugh when people like Deb attack me (and the author) with personal attacks but leave the entire substance of my Bush betrayals of conservative list on post #38 unrefuted. My objective here is that every Freeper casts an informed vote. I want them to have no illusions about who they are voting for. That way, the chances that Bush will face a strong primary challenge from the right that will encourage him to return to a center-right course of governance will be increased. Conservatives shoot themselves and their causes in the foot when they roll over and play dead like this every time Bush betrays conservative principles just because he happens to be a Republican, albeit not a conservative one. If they were united in being more vocal about their discontent like we are, they would be amazed as Bush began to embrace some of the very conservative positions that he has repudiated.

[Jethro Tull]

Well stated, rightwing2. The Bushies are being led through the nose by a non conservative politician and tough love is needed, imo.

BTW, conservative writer Cal Thomas wrote this today.

I suppose he's also a "liberal disruptor" to the crowd of likely suspects here on the FR.

Global Warming Bush - by Cal Thomas

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"The president's oath of office says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not "and ignore the Constitution because hey, the Supreme Court can always fix things up later."

Exactly, and well stated too.

[Paul Ross]

Man, you are so TOAST on virtually every assertion, it is mind-boggling. RW2 will undoubtedly nail your jello to the wall, but let's just point to the Amnesty for Illegals provisions that was introduced by a bizarre parliamentary maneuver by the Speaker of the House due to extreme pressure from the White House. Let's say that either you are right, that GWB had NOTHING to do with its *MAGICAL* appearance on the voting calendar... and thereby Dennis Hastert is dishonest, or GWB did do as was claimed, and therefore you are, at best, simply wrong. Which is it?

[Jorge]

"Republicans supported CFR. They passed the CFR bill Bush signed."

The fact that CFR made it through a Republican dominated House is simply more proof that many Republicans are more concerned about re-election and their "image", rather than being a true statesman and voting on principle.

I agree with you. But I don't see what is so surprising about the roll politics (over principle) played in promoting CFR.
And I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to stand up alone against both the House and the Senate on this.
Bush did say that he expected some of the provisions to be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court...and if they are truly unconstitutional, I think Bush will be proven correct.

[Jorge]

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.

Where did I say that was the point of the article?
Go back and read my post again.

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.

I never said it was.
In fact I never said a word about the "Congressional Majority Insurance Bill".

In any case the author didn't say that conservatives were "disappointed"...he said they were being alienated.

And with current polls showing Bush with a 90% approval rating among conservatives...this sounds like BS.

[Jorge]

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.

[HalfIrish]

You're still hanging around here fighting with these brainless Bush worshippers? God bless you!

Wish I still had the time..

[rightwing2]

Yep, still around butting heads with the blind Bush RINOs. So what have you been up to?

[Tauzero]

bump

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[GoMonster]

it's called winning my friend. we live in democracy, not dictorship. chill. Bush is doing just fine. incremental conservatism.