So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false.

The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.

We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.

We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.

I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.

Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.

To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

America's security and future depend on keeping strong pro-military, pro-American Presidents in the White House. And Bush is the only one running who qualifies.

Well, then, Bush had better get his rear in gear and earn back the voters who have been giving up on him in disgust. He doesn't have much time.

"President Bush's proposal of a guest worker program most defintely is NOT an amnesty."

Let's go over this again,

What is an amnesty? "An amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government for a past offense. Crossing a U.S. border without a visa is a misdemeanor under federal law, and reentering the U.S. after a prior order of deportation is a felony. Under Bush’s proposal, these crimes will not be prosecuted, and that means it is an amnesty."

Also, "Bush goes on to offer the perpetrators visas and work permits, so it is not entirely accurate to call the Bush proposal an amnesty. It is an amnesty with an awards program."

Would you like definitions for amnesty also? Face it, it is what it is. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duc, it must be a duck."

What's pathetic is to read ad nauseum that you aren't going to vote for him because.......(insert issue of the day).

You have all lost any credibility you may have had with reasonable dialogue, because of your emotion based, childish, "I'm going to take my ball and go home" posts....

How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone but your small band of buddies??

I'd hate to be forced to live with their decision

I guess it's all square, they have been forced to live with others' decisions that gave them a choice between frick and frack in election after election.

Nominate someone good if you want people to back your candidate.

In my case my vote is relatively meaningless. I live in TX, if GWB is in danger of losing here he has lost in to many other states to hopw to win. I therefore free to protest GWB by offering my vote to the Constitution party. In the hopes that this act and others will push the reps to the right. I vote for the most conservative person I can. I will be voting rep in the other races.

One has to wonder if there might not be a connection - cause and effect.

Sure there is.

We do such a crappy job of deciding who can come and cannot.

We never gave the unskilled any attention and they came because employers were waiting for them.

Yet the federal government satisfied the complainers in the unions and never gave the consequences a second thought.

Your point shows that history should have been a guide, yet was silenced by the loudness of the complaining parties.

The rest of us are bright enough to understand that we will disagree on issues with ANY President, and don't threaten to abandon him if he goes 'astray' from our litmus list.

Do you really believe the neo conservatives won't toss Bush aside and move to Kerry if he "strays" from their "litmus" list?

IMO, the "fringe left" conservatives will abandone Bush just as easily as the "fringe right" conservatives will.

I'm curious as to whether you find one group tossing Bush more acceptible than another., one litmus list more worthy.

Thanks.

It is a sign of character and courage in a president if he calls an issue in a way he knows is unpopular.

Come on, this is being done to try to curry favor with Hispanic voters and some types of businesses, and for no other reason. There is no principle at work here beyond pandering. Why else is this being pushed in an election year?

All the people have to do is stop whining on forums like this, get off their duffs, and work to defeat it.

Do we have your permission to do both? Can we "whine" on FR and lobby elsewhere to defeat Bush's assault on our country? Can folks use FR to rally the like-minded and explain how to lobby?

...And if someone didn't know that the President was going to pass this... then they weren't paying attention to the 2000 campaign. Because he said he was going to do it...

Your argument supports the idea that we were all stupid to vote for him in the first place.

He said he would attack the first amendment and he did.
He said he will attack the second amendment, so I guess he will.

And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

People who mindlessly chant this particular mantra simply do not know their American history. Public education was extremely important to all the founders. During the Constitutional Convention, there was a proposal to created a national university. This was defeated not because the founders were against public education, but because they wanted to leave the matter to the states.

It's no accident that every state in the union has a system of public colleges and universities. The Founding Fathers led by example. Thomas Jefferson started the University of Virginia. Other framers of the Constitution helped found the public university systems in their states. People interested in knowing the truth about the founders' attitude toward public education should read: "Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania," written in 1749 by one of the greatest early Americans, Benjamin Franklin. He founded the University of Pennsylvania. Click this link to read it for yourselves.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.