George W. Bush is no conservative.

ITEM: The February 6, 2004 Washington Times, in an article entitled "GOP slams Bush policies at retreat," reported that "growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia." According to the Times, "House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity, of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful...." In fact, "Many of the 218 Republicans at the retreat said immigration and overspending had emerged as the top two issues in their home districts."

ITEM: William Rusher, in a column posted on February 12 on WorldNetDaily, observed: "The disgruntled mutterings about President Bush in conservative circles are getting too loud to ignore. From National Review to The Heritage Foundation, not to mention such libertarian redoubts as The Cato Institute, the grumbling is reaching impressive levels. It doesn't (yet) amount to outright rebellion. The protesters are still on board for November; few of them are seriously threatening to stay home on Election Day and let John Kerry waltz into the White House. But it is fair to say that, in the opinion of many serious people, the integrity of the conservative movement as we've known it is at stake."

ITEM: The February 23 issue of Fortune posed an interesting question in a headline: "Kerry and Bush: Who's the Liberal?" The article observed: "There was a time when the Republicans could effectively paint the Democrats as 'tax and spend' liberals, while portraying themselves as the party of fiscal restraint. This election, however, that logic will be turned on its head, as President Bush is likely to face a Democrat whose credentials as a deficit hawk are surprisingly strong." Of course, Bush's bloated budget proposals should not cause conservatives to flock to the big-spending Democrats, no matter how they might sugar-coat their message. But the question raised by the title is very apropos. "[I]f one had any doubts that budget politics have gone through the looking glass," the article noted, "just guess which former GOP punching bag would get the largest funding increase in 20 years under the Bush budget: the National Endowment for the Arts."

AHEAD OF THE CURVE: That the neoconservative National Review or Heritage Foundation would grumble about Bush's conservative apostasy shows just how far to the left the administration has tilted--or how transparent that apostasy has become among the grass-roots conservatives the Establishment neoconservative network wants to lead astray. Until recently, of course, no discord could be heard from the neoconservative chorus that trumpeted Bush's supposed conservatism. But it was obvious even before George W. Bush became president that he was no conservative --and THE NEW AMERICAN said so during a time when many good, conservative Americans, having endured eight years of Bill Clinton, did not want to hear the truth.

In an article entitled "The Power Elite & George W." in our July 17, 2000 issue, we acknowledged that "it is difficult to conceive of any administration that wouldn't be an improvement over Mr. Clinton's sordid pageant of sellout and scandal." But we also cautioned that "Bush is unlikely to pose any serious challenge to the ongoing bipartisan effort to railroad us into socialism and world government." And why wouldn't be pose a "serious challenge"? We pointed to candidate Bush's foreign policy team, noting that nine of ten advisers belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations. The internationalist-minded members of this establishment powerhouse, we noted, "have shaped U.S. foreign policy for decades, regardless of whether the president in power happened to be a Republican or a Democrat." And we concluded: "Bush's own connections with this same Insider-Establishment club means that it would not be realistic to hope for a radical change in policy under a Bush administration."

After the November 2000 presidential race, but before the outcome was determined, we wrote in our December 4, 2000 issue: "The unprecedented presidential election impasse, according to conventional wisdom, illustrates 'grave divisions' in our nation. That a clear division separates partisans of Vice President Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush is self-evident. However, the candidates themselves are separated more by style than by ideology --not unlike previous presidential elections when the American people were offered a choice between a Republican 'Tweedledee' and Democrat 'Tweedledum.'"

Since Mr. Bush became president, we have repeatedly documented the president's liberal agenda on the basis of his own record. In our August 13, 2001 issue we observed that "the record compiled by the new administration during its first six months in office shows that the media generated conservative image is only skin deep." And in our September 9, 2002 issue we opined: "[Bush's] own record shows that he is a liberal. In fact, his liberalism may be more dangerous than that of his immediate predecessor. Bill Clinton ... often provoked resistance from congressional Republicans and conservatives in general. Yet Republican congressmen who refused to support Clinton's liberal policies have willingly supported similar policies when offered by fellow Republican George W. Bush. Consequently, Bush has been more effective than his predecessor, in many ways, in advancing Clintonian liberalism."

But with Bush's liberal record becoming better known and his popularity dropping, he may now be less effective at "advancing Clintonian liberalism." It's about time!