Even the "Right " is unhappy with Bush

The hawks are unhappy with the Bush administration because of incompetence and the Herritage Foundation is unhappy with the Bush administration because of fiscal irresponsibility. James Ridgeway tell us all about it in Bush Has Pain on Right.

A week before the $40 million inauguration, right-wingers are tearing themselves to pieces. A dispute simmering since last summer between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Arizona senator John McCain has turned into an open and bitter fight. Republican pols think it's bad enough to hurt upcoming election chances. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation, the prominent right-wing think tank, likened Bush to Clinton, suggesting that the current president was just another big-spending liberal.[excuse me, isn't Clinton the guy who balanced the budget and in fact had a surplus?]
McCain rankled the administration by stating he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld, prompting right-wingers to start calling McCain an "anti-Republican Republican." Then Rumsfeld sent McCain over the wall when he told the Arizona senator he was hindering the war effort by using his rights as a senator to stall congressional approval of Rumsfeld nominees for top Defense posts. In addition, McCain has attacked Rumsfeld's plans to give a non-competitive contract to Boeing for leasing air tankers at a cost that could reach $30 billion. When McCain sought to investigate the deal, the Pentagon and the White House balked, insulting him by restricting documents and insisting he could read some papers but not copy them. Eventually the Pentagon relented, and McCain went on the Senate floor to read e-mails from then air force secretary James Roche that browbeat members of Congress into supporting the tanker deal. McCain said the proposed tanker leasing was "a case of either systemic failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness, or rank corruption."

The Heritage Foundation in this year's Mandate for Leadership, a well-accepted planning document for incoming Republican administrations since Reagan's, rakes Bush over the coals. Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage president and heretofore regarded as a strong Bush man, chastised the president, noting, "Sadly, commitment to principle has been missing in Washington's politics for quite some time." The document paints Bush as a big spender, adding to entitlements with his Medicare drug plan and loading the economy with regulations. Echoing criticism of Reaganites, Stuart Butler and Larry Wortzel, Heritage veeps for domestic and international studies, respectively, write, "Public diplomacy has been weak, and sound foreign policy initiatives have failed to win support from our allies because they were not accompanied by well-planned public diplomacy efforts. Observers can therefore be forgiven for concluding that Bill Clinton's declaration that 'the era of big government is over' now seems rather premature."

We have seen this break coming for some time. Few can be honest and not admit that the Iraq war was totally botched. There seems to be no possibility that the budget will be balanced again in the next 20 years. Social Security reform would seem to be dead on arrival. The religious right is complaining already that Bush is not delivering on his promises. So much for political capitol.