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.

The free market is actually at work when Mexicans cross the border to pick our crops.

NICE try...

But the free market is skewed when the government intentionally brings in resources outside what is normally available to the free market, i.e., illegal aliens.

This results an overabundance of untrained, ignorant people who are willing to work for tiny amounts of money, forcing down the overall wage scale, thereby removing the incentive to develop machinery. It keeps the operational costs down (more money for the bigwigs of companies), and removes the capital investments necessary to improve the technology (more money for the bigwigs of companies).

In effect, the illegal aliens are being brought in to preclude the development of new technologies which would make them obsolete (and therefore want to go BACK to Mexico, where they'd be a thorn in Vicente Fox's ass, instead of ours).

Calling me a liberal only proves that you have no answer to the question.

I never called you a liberal, but that you have the liberal mindset- which is to say, you're either insane or ignorant. Whether or not the shoe fits, has no relevance on whether I have the "answer to the question." Which, BTW, I do.

Please send your suggestions of cheaper technology to the farmers of America. As it is they are losing marketshare to Chili and South America.

Big deal. Chile and the rest of S. America are largely one-trick ponies, when it comes to agriculture. They specialize in a few select crops, so that they will have market-share... But, as with any minor economy as compared to the macroeconomic picture, when the tastes of the market change to something else, they'll go right back to being poor, miserable countries, where the dictators will squander their remaining resources as the rest of the populace starves...

Yes, your examples were wonderful.

Instead, consider Australia: they have a shortage of manpower to begin with... They decide to make wines, without resorting to bringing in every loser that refuses to change their own country... So what do the Aussies do??? They design machinery to pick the crops. And they've become quite successful... You gonna' tell them to import a few million Mexicans, to pick grapes??? They'll laugh at such a stupid idea...

Would bet that we are not going to be missing two votes. If you had bothered to listen to his campaign speeches in 2002, he has done exactly what he said he would do. You don't even know the meaning of the word "socialist."

Here is an education before you toss that word around so loosely in the future about Pres Bush. Everytime I see any of you call President Bush a socialist again, you will get this same lesson from the dictionary:

Socialist:

1 : one who advocates or practices socialism
2 : capitalized : a member of a party or political group advocating socialism

Socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Is there a difference between a Republican Pretender and a RINO?

But I digress; who pray tell IS the GREAT PRETENDER?

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well
My need is such,
I pretend too much
I'm lonely,
But no one can tell

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Adrift in a world of my own
I play the game,
But to my real shame
You've left me
To dream all alone

Too real is this feeling
Of make believe
Too real when I feel
What my heart can't conceal

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Just laughin' and gay like a clown
I seem to be what I'm not you see
I'm wearing my heart like a crown:
Pretending that you're still around.

The Bush immigration proposal was in fact a directive to Congress to overhaul the obviously broken immigration system in the US. In his speech, he laid out a list of the things that he believes would have a positive impact in bringing immigration under control, but it's up to Congress to formulate the changes and send them to his desk for signature.

I have yet to hear any solution to the problem of the estimated ten million illegals already here, including the idiotic eighteen step list being bandied about in this forum, a list which fails to recognize the obvious hundreds of steps needed to arrive at a position where all those line items could be achieved...the complete defeat of the liberal wing of the government.

When making a decision on how you will cast your vote, you need to listen to what each candidate says that they will do if elected, estimate that candidate's electability (politicians can't make changes in government if they're not elected), and after you have voted for them, you need to track what percentage of their promises they kept while in office.

The problem with most people feigning disappointment with Bush's performance, is that they are judging him not based on what he said he would do, and how he carried out those promises, but rather on what they THINK he should have done according to their ideological position.

That was a very good post. I don't agree with all the premises or conclusions. But a well-constructed argument regardless.

Now I have to re-read it and try to figure out if you've been listening to Rush or if Rush has been listening to you. Your argument is very reminiscent to ones he's been using recently about how people vote for a positive message and for a candidate who credibly offers them something that they want enough to turn out and vote for it. The argument assumes that both parties will always get their activist base, no matter what.

I think both parties are trying to be more attentive to their fringes this year. We'll see if either one can pull it off. For Dims, this would mean getting the White House. For Republicans, it would be a Bush landslide and 60 Senators.

Interesting analysis of the actual facts. Thanks, CT.

Third partyers are a non-factor. They vote for Dems, they vote for Repubs, they vote for loonies, or they stay home.......but they DON'T hold the President's feet to the fire, and they WON'T keep him from getting reelected.

Good to know.

To tell the truth, I don't really try to convince them, because their minds are slammed shut..........BUT, there might be some lurkers out there who can think straight who read the logic of what has been said, and may be persuaded. THEY are the real audience here.

"Our community has had a 40% growth in the hispanic community (primarily Mexican) over the past 10 years.

This growth has done much to stimulate our economy here; one that 8 or so years ago was on the bring of bankruptcy, primarily due to the moving of IBM from the area."

Using this example, one could say that by adding a 40% growth of migrant Mexican workers to the population of the cuntry will stimulate the national economy and somehow bring a renewed job market.

Hmmm....

I have been telling some of these people that a lot of Republicans that voted for Perot wish they handn't because it taught us a horrible lesson -- we got Bill Clinton!

And Bill Clinton got us the '94 Republican House.

If Spook Daddy had been re-elected, I think the Dims would still hold Congress.

The Gingrich Revolution was the real sea-change. Clinton only had a free-run of two years and squandered his chance at nationalizing health care, his major campaign promise.

After that, we held the purse strings, not the Dims. Well, at least until the GOP decided deficit spending was good for us.

Exmarine, re your post #1,256, boy oh boy, what a list of issues and grievances! There isn't a president of any party — and I do mean ANY of them, despite their rhetoric — who could govern that way and not get thrown out on his ear about as fast as the electorate could manage it.

Last I checked, this was a country of some 300,000,000 people. Among them can be found people of all ethnic backgrounds on the planet, pretty much all political persuasions, and all religious persuasions. Also, to repeat one of the core points I made on starting this thread, last I checked the title is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not president of the Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or straights, or gays, or whites, or blacks, Latinos, or Democrats, or Republicans, or Greens, or Libertarians, or liberals, or conservatives, or women, or men, etc. He is not only the president of the people, but of the states, a function not as widely known or understood today as it was in the founders' time.

Given the enormity and variety of the populace known as "the American people," it is inevitable that any president will disappoint some segment of that populace on every issue he tackles. Now, in our era, a president has two choices in deciding how to govern: do what he thinks is right, knowing full well that somebody will be upset with everything he does, or try to minimize the number of upset people by allowing polls to drive his decisions.

Don't know about you, but I admire the former while disliking the latter.

America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

My favorite line in the speech -- and we Americans understand it, but I can see how some other (French-type) nations might feel a nonexistent threat in it. They don't understand that this is not a statement that we'll invade any nation we think might be a threat.

That whole notion of a true republic just never quite took among the French. It's like they got 3/4 of the formula, stopped their research, and popped the recipe in the oven, making for a flop-cake republic.

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.