Mrs. Schlafly’s list just begins to paint that unpretty picture. One could more than double its length by adding Bush’s approval of protectionist policies; his appointment (over the protests of mainstream pro-Israel organizations) as Ambassador to Israel of a man who’d praised Arafat; his surrender to environmentalists on a number of issues; his support for Colin Powell’s appeasement-oriented foreign policy (Powell, supporter of affirmative action and of abortion, has often acted as though he, not the President, makes foreign policy). And more.

Under a different nom d’internet, I mentioned this problem a few times on Lucianne.com and was labeled a site pest. (Almost every morniing’s photo heading the Web site lovingly depicts Bush, preferably with Barney the dog.) In response I pointed out that blind approval of everything that Mr. Bush does is self-defeating for conservatives. He needs pressure from the Right, without which his starting point in necessary accommodations with liberals will be farther to the left than they need to be. In consequence, the final agreement will be farther to the left too. I finally gave up.

I like Lucianne.com, it’s lively and upbeat and often a source of positive thoughts about, say, the course of the war when the mainstream media is trying to make everything look negative. But it’s the last place in the world where I would think of making a “Bush is too left-leaning” argument, or for that matter any serious criticism of Bush. It’s not a conservative or intellectual website; it’s a pro-Bush, patriotic website.

I’ll add to Frieda’s list the following items:

1. Continuing the sale of sensitive military technology to the thuggish regime in China, who will in turn sell it to any Islamist with the money.

2. Continuing Clinton’s open borders/multicultural agenda. President Bush has caved to the worst kind of self-serving corporate interests who are interested solely in an endless supply of indentured servants and cheap labor.

3. Persisting in the demand that our ally Israel allow the creation of a hostile Islamic state on its own doorstep in the name of a “peace process.”

4. Supporting a Ted Kennedy-authored Education bill which destroys local control of public schools and strengthens the snake nest of leftists running things now.

5. Allowing numerous Clinton “undead” to walk the halls of the Dept. of Justice, the FBI, the State Dept., and the Pentagon where they continue to advance various leftist policies - a shing example being Norm Mineta.

6. Giving de-facto support to the Orwellian system of racial preferences known as Affirmative Action. He gave a tought speech (on MLK Day) but the brief filed by the Justice Dept. with the Supreme Court advocates continuing the policy in a slightly modified form.

In short, there’s a lot to be dissapointed about with Bush. He’s better than the alternative, and there are a few positive changes which have been made. It would be better still if there were anything resembling backbone among Republican leadership so that some of his judicial nominations could be approved. One would never guess that the Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress.

I couldn’t agree more with Phyllis Schlafly, Mr. Auster, Frieda, and Carl. This administration’s failings are extremely serious. I have never, since W’s election, felt really good about the guy. I agree with Frieda that this crew badly needs to be pressured from the right, especially Karl Rove, a truly outrageous and not very bright political operator devoid of principles who should be subjected by our side to withering concentrated attack until he’s given the boot.

Why do leftists enthusiastically govern from the left but conservatives won’t from the right?

Why does the other side get the clever people — the Bill Clintons, the Ralph Naders, the John Kerrys, the Gary Harts — while our side seems to field all the dullards — the Pres. Bushes (including to some extent W’s father), the Dan Quayles, the Bob Doles?

When one adds up the vote the left got in the last presidential election (Gore plus Nader), the GOP lost. People didn’t view W as a conservative, and either voted for someone else (I think I voted for Howard Phillips) or stayed home and didn’t vote at all. They were right. He’ll lose for real next time, and when he does, Rove et al will get it wrong still — they’ll claim we didn’t import the non-white third world into this country fast enough, didn’t put single mothers into front-line combat massively enough, didn’t impose third-world multi-culti on traditional Americans overwhelmingly enough, didn’t force AA down American gullets forcefully enough.

Karl Rove is nothing but a disaster. The Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords wing of the GOP — Rove’s wing — is not the key to defeating the Dems. How stupid can Bush be?

Unadorned,
In regard to the question, “How stupid can Bush be?” Part of the answer is that on feminism, Bush has the same opinions as Clinton. This is true of virtually all prominent GOP politicians. If there are any who don’t, they are afraid to speak out.

Bush is, if anything, even worse on immigration than Clinton was. He would win a 65% landslide next year if he backed and followed through on immigration reduction. With some Republicans, this is sheer stupidity.

“Bush is, if anything, even worse on immigration than Clinton was. He would win a 65% landslide next year if he backed and followed through on immigration reduction.” — David

David, I agree with this one hundred percent. This seems so crystal-clear that it is just mind-boggling that the GOP insiders of this administration don’t see it. Bush/Rove are at least as bad on immigration as Clinton was, and of course the Schlafly piece pointed out their equivalence with Clinton on women’s lib issues too. This administration is really a heartbreaking disappointment — in fact, in many ways an outright disaster. I felt unable to vote for Bush last election, though I might have done, with a little nudging — it was close. I still feel unable to vote for him — but far from being anywhere close this time, I don’t feel I’m even on the same planet as he is.

It is depressing to consider that in voting for President Bush I was simply choosing the lesser of 2 bad choices, although at least with Mr. Clinton in power the problems were more clearly visible to a greater percentage of the public.

President Bush’s support (albeit incomplete) of the rights of gun owners is one issue that clearly made the difference in the election. Many will support him vigorously on singles as this — and understandably so. But where can the average voter turn to channel larger concerns, such as our “national question?”

To paraphrase something said by Howard Phillips during the 2000 election: The Democrats will take us over the cliff at 80 miles an hour. The Republicans will stay within the speed limit, but they’ll still take us over the cliff.

In a way, it is a good thing George W. Bush won the 2000 election. If Gore had won, we know what he would have done on the National Question. Gore would have called for legalizing illegal aliens and celebrated Cinco De Mayo. Oops, that’s just what Mr. Bush does. But if Gore had won, we would have wondered if Bush would have been closer to us on immigration. Now we know were the GOP establishment is on the issue.

Indeed, if Gore had won and taken the above positions, he might have provoked opposition from the establishment conservatives who support Bush no matter what. This would hold true if (when) Bush loses in 2004.

Alan Wall has an interesting piece currently on VDARE. It seems that despite all of his pandering, President Bush is routinely attacked in Mexico.