Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction

INSIGHT magazine ^ | May 27, 2002 | Jamie Dettmer

[Stand Watch Listen]

Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.

Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.

Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.

Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.

Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.

The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.

The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.

Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.

So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.

The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.

But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.

One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.

Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.

The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.

Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.

The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.

Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.

email the author

[mountainfolk]

After years of watching democrat socialists win elections I finally realized the futility of republicans saving money for democrats to spend. The voters did not appreciate the efforts made on their behalf and voted for tax and spend democrats. Until the national mindset can be impressed with the fact that one persons taxes are anothers windfall I figure that republicans can do better spending money than the socialists. Viva George Bush.

[NittanyLion]

After 8 years of Clinton, Reno, and the near reality of a Gore win, I am still thankful there is a voice in the Whitehouse that resembles my mind-set.

So am I, believe me. That said, we can't use Clinton as our benchmark - even Gore would've been better than him. Bush is somewhere between Clinton and true conservative principles - the question is, where exactly is he? On foreign policy he's been great, on the domestic he's extremely shaky. At least that's my take.

[Republic of Texas]

Unfortunately, this article is correct. I would even vote for a "Real Conservative" in the Republican primary if one would run against Bush. However, I will never participate in electing a Dem (socialist). That means, NO 3rd party candidates for me.

[Reagan Man]

Passing the buck to the USSC is a cop out.

LMAO. It's no cop out. That's the way our constitutional system operates. When the Federalist and Treasary Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wanted Congress to enact laws prescribing a central banking system, Republican leaders, Jefferson and Madison, opposed it and said it was unconstitutional. George Washington signed it into law. As far as I know, it was never challenged in the USSC, but could have been. The same thing is happening here. In fact, certain provisions have been placed into the CFR legislation, that allows the USSC to find certain portions of it unconstitutional, without having the whole law overturned. Those are the facts.

[billva]

This is certainly true if you are a liberal democrat. Bush is nothing more than an FDR and LBJ rerun. Use the war as cover to implement a liberal agenda..

I'm not a liberal Democrat and what you say is pure nonsense. I might use a stronger word but I might get banned here. But you're wrong! But hey I kind of get used to narrow minded posts here, what's another one matter?

[gunshy]

Open borders, amnesty for 3 million illegals, largest education funding in history, largest domestic budget in history, survival payments to gay live ins, no prosecution of the clintons, and many many others. Delude on dude.

[serinde]

In fact, certain provisions have been placed into the CFR legislation, that allows the USSC to find certain portions of it unconstitutional, without having the whole law overturned. Those are the facts.

The facts are that the unconstitutional parts should never have been put in in the first place. Yes, the USSC has a role in countering those items - that's part of the checks and balances system. But when Congress knowingly and deliberately includes unconstitutional items in a bill, they are breaking their sworn oaths to uphold the constitution. That's when leaving it to the Court is a cop out. If they were serious about their oaths, the issue wouldn't come up.

[Reagan Man]

Truth is, I didn't agree with PresBush signing CFR. I happen to oppose all restrictions on political campaign contributions. As long as there is immediate and full public disclosure, I'm satisfied. But i'm a realist too.

>>>The facts are that the unconstitutional parts should never have been put in in the first place.

The facts are, there are many in Congress, who didn't see this law as unconstitutional. There were many others, who agreed to it, knowing the USSC would strike down certain portions as unconstitutional. This was one of the purest political issues, to come along, in quite some time. As a conservative, I'm thankful, there were many smart legislators, who understood how to handle this issue. The whole idea was to get this over with, once and for all and get John "McManiac" and his rabid partner Russ Feingold outta the way for good. This was an issue that barely showed on the publics radar screen, but had tremendous potential for growing into a monster political issue and one that would have further clouded the atmosphere in Wash-DC.

[Paul Ross]

Proposed the largest defense budget increase since Ronald Reagan? That wouldn't be hard since the previous Prez between then and now were GHWB and CLINTON. We had coasted...and on progressively thinner ice during the last two administrations based on the legacy of forces developed and deployed during Reagan's terms. So GWB's increases were so minimal they did not keep up with the deferred maintenance, replenishment of stores, ammo, spares, supplies, let alone allow for increased training, or equipment modernization.

To repeat: Do you realize his budget 'increase' as originally issued, then supplemented, FAILED TO ARREST THE SLIDE in real defense capabilities? It was so pathetic, the DOD, and Secretary Rumsfeld told GWB what was needed (at least another $45 billion in emergency funding), and he rebuffed them, implying they were asking for pork. He even sent around his agents from the OMB and Treasury to scoff at the DOD numbers. Let's face it, he is not really interested in arresting the continuing slide. He masks it under his 'transformation' rhetoric...which coincidently is totally unfunded. No money for DD-21. No money for crusader. No money to keep the B-1b's in a survivable...and efficient basing mode. No money to actually deploy a sea-based national missile defense despite clear proof it works, and far cheaper than his Clintonian-option which protects 1% degree of azimuth for attacks, and would also be a near-term solution. What is his defense spending litany? "No, no, No. No. No. NO." The monetary increases so far, even after the War on Terror budget increase are still not addressing fundamental erosions in preparedness, training, spares, and ammunition, let alone allowing for modernization. I.e., where are the new cruise missiles? Where are the new Patriot missile batteries to defend American cities from aerial attack? I'll tell you: No Where. They are not being built.

And a relatively simple cure for a lot of budgetary ills in the DOD would be to reverse course on 'affirmative action' hirings GHWB and Clinton required, and the feminization of the forces...but that isn't on the table, that would be politically incorrect. And a lot of money is going to be spent DISMANTLING perfectly good weapons, from the nuclear arsenal on to our armorered tank forces. H'mmm. Sounds like a con game of Clintonian proportions to me.

[hchutch]

Are you saying there is no room for people pointing out a potential (arguably a likely) CONSEQUENCE of your actions?

[NittanyLion]

Are you saying there is no room for people pointing out a potential (arguably a likely) CONSEQUENCE of your actions?

I suppose he's free to point out a possible consequence. That said, I reject the implication that anyone who voices disagreement with a GOP president implementing liberal legislation is somehow harming the conservative cause. If the goal is to get R's elected (and I'm an R myself), then I guess stifling dissent is good. If the goal is to implement conservative legislation, I would argue it'll only happen when we hold the GOP's feet to the fire.

[Paul Ross]

That's not true. Strategic weaponry are ICBM`s. As in, weapons designed or trained to strike an enemy, at the sources of his military, economic, or political power. There were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles, targeted at the US during the Cold War. Today, there are fewer then 7,000 and that will soon be down to 1700-2200. The Red Chinese have anywhere from 18 to 50 missiles that could reach California. May be. The British and the French have no reason to attack us with nuclear weapons. Just who should America be afraid of? Korea? India? Pakistan? Iraq? Iran? These countries don't have strategic capabilities that could reach the US. I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM. May be a tactical nuke, may be a dirty bomb, but not a strategic WMD.

Re: China. They just successfully tested a satellite launcher that proved out their MIRV technology. They are now able to proliferate high-accuracy warheads as we and the Russians did. Re: Korea. They can already hit Japan, Alaska, Hawaii, ...and maybe the West Coast with just a test or two more. Your Russian numbers are pathetically wrong. The treaty does nothing about IRBM or tactical warheads...only strategic supposedly. By ALL accounts, The Russians still have well over 20,000 nuclear warheads today. And tactical warheads can be easily retrofitted to strategic use. The Russians have developed a 'barrage' technique for example as one method of cheating. The numbers you see of 8,000 (no one supports your fanciful 7,000 number) is based on strategic launchers, and wishful-thinking about RV-loading on those launchers.

Consider who we are dealing with. These are the same people as before. They wanted their own illegal ABM system while we were to be kept having none. And then there is the INF Treaty. Remember that one?

And of course you did see what the Chzechs discovered in 1997? 73 HIDDEN SS-23s. Missiles the Soviets/Russians failed to include in their INF treaty numbers submitted. Each SS-23 was loaded with 3 warheads. The "Russians" had said right up to this discovery that they were complying fully with the INF and SALT treaties made by the former Soviet Union. Now it looks like they were caught out in the lie, and they had made the Soviets lies their own. And if there were uncounted SS-23s in Czechoslovakia, how many more in Ukraine and Russia proper? And Boris's science advisor at least came and gave testimony to warn us that 85 Russian tactical nukes had gone AWOL. Now we have old Boris gone, and an ex-KGB guy suddenly in charge, and his guys say all weapons are accounted for, and they never were missing. And this is going to be someone we can trust?

Your moniker is an interesting misapplication. Reagan would have seriously considered everything with the so-called 'ex-communists' through the lens of possible deception, (i.e., see Anatoly Golitsyn, "New Lies for Old") As Reagan said, 'Trust, but Verify'. Let me verify first, thank you very much.

[serinde]

The facts are, there are many in Congress, who didn't see this law as unconstitutional.

LOL, this I agree with, only because so many in Congress don't know the Constitution, or don't care even if they do.

And the concept of "just getting it over with," is also a crock. Once laws get on the books, and once govt. gets power, the situation very rarely gets corrected.

In the short term, playing politics is all very well and good. But in the long term the country is worse off -- only the average people pay the price, nothing improves, and the country continues its downhill slide.

Just once I would like to see politicians actually try to make the country a better place, instead of making peoples' lives worse.

[Reagan Man]

RE:#149.

Sounds like a con game of Clintonian proportions to me.

Hardly.

You make many generalizations and content, that President Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your remarks have been noted for the record, but its an opinion that few people, in or out of government agree with.

It's my opinion, this is just typical Bush bashing.

RE:#152.

You make some good points on defense related issues.

>>>Your moniker is an interesting misapplication.

First you attack the President and then you make an incorrect assumption about my screen name. Hmmm. Contrary to your remarks, I never said America shouldn't be vigilant, quite the opposite is true. I also never said, there wasn't a need to increase spending on DoD related matters, over and above the levels the President is submitting. After all, the main purpose of the federal government is to serve, protect and defend the American people, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So I support a pro-active approach to improving America's military, from R&D, right up through the best weapon systems and programs available. The very best that money can buy.

The President just submitted his second budget since taking office. Bushes first budget for 2002, shows an increase in defense spending to $336 billion. His 2003 budget raises that to $368 billion. That doesn't get us to the spending levels seen during the Reagan years, but its a robust upward trend. An 8.6% increase, is significant. Next year Bush has budgeted a 5.6% increase, but I expect that will go up substantially, considering the the war on terrorism will be expanding.

[Reagan Man]

>>>And the concept of "just getting it over with," is also a crock.

It's not a crock, its politics. And in case you don't know it, that's how the game is played. In the short term, or the long term, politics remains a part of our society, culture and governemnt. You can't take politics out of life, its part of being a human being, its part of human nature.

Only libertarian deadheads, believe in some idealistic utopian society, where everything is perfect and everyone gets along. That's shear nonsense!

Remember, the Founding Fathers weren't just great revolutionaries, they were the consumate politicians of their day. They knew how to play the political game with the best of them and they usually won out, over the lesser players.

>>>Just once I would like to see politicians actually try to make the country a better place, instead of making peoples' lives worse.

We can always do a better job, but no one is perfect. To say that American's today, don't have the ultimate freedoms and liberties, of any nation in world history, is to overlook the obvious. Why are so many of you people, so damn pessimistic? I've never heard such doom and gloom BS in my life.

This is by far, the best place to live in the world.

Enjoy yourself!

[Paul Ross]

You make many generalizations and content, that President Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your remarks have been noted for the record, but its an opinion that few people, in or out of government agree with.

Never claimed he was incompetent. Rather that it appears he is willfully derelict in some key portions of his duty. The surmise is that he is just faithfully following his father's dogma about a new world order. As for your opinions about numbers of people not agreeing, that does not make them...or you... right. 75% of the people polled think we already have a missile defense shield. And they get angry when told we in fact never deployed even a squirtgun. So it would simply appear I have a big job ahead to educate them about GWB.

As for being a Bush-basher, I voted for him over Gore, I paid big bucks to get him in, then he 'Moved On' and ignored his oath of office and failed to prosecute the outgoing criminals, and submitted a completely and totally inadequate defense budget...and attacked the DOD JCS who had told him honestly what they needed. And he continued the appeasement and trade deficit policies with China. (As Dick Cheney would say, "BIG TIME") He even allowed the DOJ to run interference for their little spy, Wen Ho Lee, and continued, in effect, the Clintonian cover-up, and smearing of Notra Trulock.

I won't be fooled again. I will focus purely on getting conservatives into Congress and worry about the Presidency only when an authentic conservative runs. Sorry to say, that does not appear to be GWB. That he has been a disappointment is an understatement. And for me, the last straw was his traitorous 'Moscow Treaty.' So don't ask me or anyone else to feel proud of him again, or support the rascal. He is no Reagan. And if you were really a Reaganite you would know it in your bones, and not be sticking up for him.

[Reagan Man]

>>>... it appears he is willfully derelict in some key portions of his duty. The surmise is that he is just faithfully following his father's dogma about a new world order.

I don't buy into any of your assertions. I see absolutely no truth in any of the remarks contained in your last post. This new world order stuff is nothing but paranoia feeding fringe extremist propaganda.

It's not my opinions that are driving public support of President Bushes job approval, but rather the American people and that includes overwhelming numbers of conservatives.

>>>So it would simply appear I have a big job ahead to educate them about GWB.

Folks aren't listening to the trashtalk you have to offer. You can express your opinion, but when it crosses the line, expect folks like me to be there and denounce your distortions and exaggerations.

>>>As for being a Bush-basher, I voted for him over Gore, I paid big bucks to get him in, then he 'Moved On' and ignored his oath of office and failed to prosecute the outgoing criminals...

More exaggerated rhetoric and more Bush bashing. The hatred you have for President Bush is quite revealing and that's why, I'm not so sure you voted for him. To reverse your support for Bush, after a mere 16 months in office is irrational behavior. As for prosecuting Clinton and CO., thats always been a dead issue. President Bush said, he had no desire to go down that road and after three different IC`s had little success, its was politically stupid to attempt any investigations. That would only waste the taxpayers money and besides, American's wanted Bush to move on.

>>>And if you were really a Reaganite you would know it in your bones, and not be sticking up for him.

I've spent 35 years involved in American politics, at one level or another and I can honestly say, I think George W.Bush is doing a fine job as president and I'm proud to support him. You're right, Bush43 is no Ronald Reagan. There was only one Reagan and if he could voice his opinion today, I believe he'd be firmly behind our President. While critizing elected officials, is our civic duty, standing by the President and supporting his efforts, is the patriotic thing to do, especially with America at war. If you consider yourself a real American, start acting like one.

[rightwing2]

There were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles, targeted at the US during the Cold War. Today, there are fewer then 7,000 and that will soon be down to 1700-2200. The Red Chinese have anywhere from 18 to 50 missiles that could reach California. May be. The British and the French have no reason to attack us with nuclear weapons. Just who should America be afraid of? Korea? India? Pakistan? Iraq? Iran? These countries don't have strategic capabilities that could reach the US. I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM. May be a tactical nuke, may be a dirty bomb, but not a strategic WMD.

Your statements here on the nuclear threat go way beyond the realm of mere ignorance. First of all you seem not to know the difference between missiles and warheads. The Russians NEVER had 25,000 missiles pointed at the US and they most certainly do not have 7000 today. In fact, they never had more than 2000-2300 strategic missiles even at the height of the Cold War. Today, they have 40,000 nuclear warheads, but only about 1500 strategic missiles according to Jane's Defense Weekly with at least 6000 of those warheads being strategic. The US on the other hand has only 932 strategic missiles including 432 Trident I and II SLBMs and 500 obselescent Minuteman III ICBMs and a total of about 6000 strategic warheads. The Moscow Treaty does not limit the number of launchers or missiles on either side. It only limits the number of deployed strategic warheads to 2200 on ONE SINGLE DAY--December 31, 2012. So the Russians could have 6000-7000 strategic warheads deployed on December 30, 2012 download their MIRV'd missiles down to 2200 on the 31st and upload them back to 6000-7000 on January 1st, 2013 and still be in full compliance with the treaty. Since this treaty has no real verification provisions, I doubt they will even do that.

Since the treaty does not prevent them from MIRVing any of their missiles and does not require them to destroy ONE SINGLE WARHEAD OR MISSILE, it is doubtful that they will downsize their arsenal at all in the next 10-15 years beyond replacing thousands of old warheads with new ones as they have been doing for the past decade. The US on the other hand plans to destroy the bulk of its deactivated warheads and keep some in reserve to deploy several months after a crisis breaks out. ChiCom missiles can hit virtually the entire continental US as can the North Korean Taepodong II according to CIA estimates. According to a recent offhand remark by a Russian lieutenant general reported in geostrategydirect.com, the Iranians already possess a small quantity of weaponized tactical nuclear warheads, but no ICBMs only Shahab III IRBMs. Shahab V will be an ICBM with a 6000 mile range. It is due to be deployed within the decade according to CIA.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Your statements here on the nuclear threat go way beyond the realm of mere ignorance. First of all you seem not to know the difference between missiles and warheads.

You're right of course, my error. Thanks for the correction. No ignorance though, just a brain fart. I should have used the term warheads and not missiles in my discription and did the research for the actual figures. Your other points are well taken. If the figures I used were off, no harm was intended. My point was, to show the reductions, in the Russian's overall strategic strike capability, since the Cold War ended.

I was responding to this remark, "The fact is that the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war".

The strategic nuclear threat to the US, is much lower today, then it was during the high points of the Cold War.

[rightwing2]

OK. Well, sorry for coming on a little strong. I was exaggerating with the ignorant comment. The truth is the majority of Americans probably don't differentiate between missiles and warheads either. I have seen gaffes like this in the liberal media all the time. For example, they say that the US will be limited to only 2200 nukes by this treaty ignoring the fact that this number is only for strategic weapons and that we will probably keep about 1500 tacnukes as well.