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.

, they'd have had to have voted against Reagan.

They did. The Far right hated the Gipper just as vehemently as it hates GWB. That is why they put forward the MYTH of Reagan to use against Bush instead of the reality of Reagan. Bush has followed the Reagan model more closely and more effectively that Reagan himself.

"How about enforcing the current laws? What makes you think they will pay the fine? What will happen if they don't?"

Sorry .. I don't have any control over whether or not the current laws are enforced.

What makes you think they won't pay the fine ..??

How on earth should I know what will happen if they don't .. but common sense would tell me they won't get a workers' permit, and they might be deported. But .. I have no information to confirm or deny that info.

I would agree that it is incredible. The thought never passed my mind actually. IF the senator in question was just a junior senator I would've just passed it off but considering the status of the senator, it seemed very credible. I do question how that could be possible as immigration issues (I believe)must be passed though Congress if I am not mistaken. But as I said, considering who the senator is, I took the statement very serioulsy.

I understand .. but others will pick it up and run with it and then before you know it .. there is a whole new flame war of attacks going on things that aren't accurate and factual

Do you understand my point??

Your post made it appear that you thought I was saying something that I didn't. Seems to me that would make it more, not less likely that someone might take my hypothetical and run with it.
Frankly, those who think too much is being made of the President's Amnesty proposal haven't done much with the actual facts already presented to them. There's a price to be paid for ignoring the issue and hoping it would go away for the past few years.
The President, unfortunately, has made sure that this will be a polarizing issue throughout this election.

I don't recall your being in charge of setting the parameters for anything at all, but I will continue to note your attempt at steering the discussion away from the facts.
I am not saying that I am in charge of anything. But, for you to make the statement using the words "least" and "most" to describe ALL the presidents, when you ONLY mean four of the 44, your statement sound stupid.

It would be like me saying EVERY MEXICAN RAKES SAND TRAPS AT COUNTRY CLUBS, and you saying "that is not true", and me responding "well, there are FOUR at my club"

heh, heh -- Well, I think I was conceived in Ohio, but I thank God my parents had the good sense to get to San Antonio in time for my birth.

Being a native-born Texan may be more significant than being considered an American by birth, at least in Texas.

Growing up, all my schools were named for heros of the Texas Revolution: Stephen F. Austin, Ben Milam and others.

We didn't study any world history, or American history until near the end of the 8th grade.

Believe me, I understand exactly how Tex feels.

In 1984, President Reagan issued a directive during the Mexico City Conference on Population which would prohibit foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving population aid from the United States from using their OWN funds for providing abortion services and from holding discussions on possible abortion services. (Note: U.S. money for abortion overseas has been prohibited since 1973).

Reagan's EO was to prohibit private organizations from using their own funds for overseas abortions.

LOL!

It's wrong, and the fact that the poster I was responding to, or you for that matter, are repeating erroneous information that neither he, nor you have bothered double-checking, makes the both of you the "bots".

The fact of the matter, is that that statement was so completely wrong, and that the people repeating that lie, over, and over, and over again are simply allowing themselves/yourselves to be led by the nose is pathetic

Government spending, measured as a percentage of the GDP was significantly higher from 1982 through 1992.

Government expenditures per person has remained fairly steady over the past twenty years, and the national debt per person spiked from 1982 through 1997, when it dropped significantly, then began to rise again in 2001 as it always does during times of war. All these figures are calculated in inflation adjusted 2002 dollars.

All this information is readily available on the Internet for those of us who refuse to be led by the lies of others.

Some, are just to lazy to find the truth, so they instead opt to believe whatever others tell them.

If you're looking for mindless "bots" that would be them...maybe you.

What EO did Reagan EVER issue regarding abortion? I have to see it.

Here's one...
The abortion provision that Smith wants would write into law an executive order issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Clinton reversed the order in 1993, shortly after taking office. The United States has barred direct financing for abortion since 1973, but the 1984 policy, known familiarly as "Mexico City" since Reagan announced it during a United Nations conference there, denied grants to international family-planning organizations for any purpose if they promoted abortion rights. Since gaining control of Congress in 1994, Republicans have tried to write the provision into law. And since 1997, Smith has pressured Republican Speakers Newt Gingrich of Georgia and now J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois to support him in attaching the abortion provision to bills that would repay the United Nations.
Abortion Discord Holds Up UN Dues and US Budget
Eric Schmitt - November 11, 1999 - New York Times

Sorta takes care of your "Reagan never dids" on both abortion and the UN, in one shot.
I think there was another EO by Reagan regarding funding for abortions for women in the military, or something along those lines.

Reagan's EO was to prohibit private organizations from using their own funds for overseas abortions.

1. No, not quite. See #1513. Reagan denied federal grants to private orgs that were funding abortions or promoting abortion rights.
2. In any event, your claim was "Bush has actually signed anti-abortion measures, Reagan never did," and it's not true.

OK...let's limit the parameters of my post to the last twenty years, before that, expenditures during wartimes outpaced Bush's under wartime.

Now, Reagan and Bush I outspent Clinton by a wide margin.

In your book then, was Clinton more of a conservative than Reagan, and did you support him while in office?

So, quit parsing my post, and let's discuss current political realities...shall we?

We didn't give a rat's ass about the fact that Clinton's economic policies were by far more in line with conservative ideology than either Reagan's or Bush I...we just wanted him out of office.

I am using the "we" in the sense that this is what most posters on this site wanted, I am not assuming that you felt the same way. I have a feeling that you helped put him there.

If the Republicans loose enough votes to a third party to loose the presidency, maybe that will be the slap in the face they need to stop dissing their base. If one of the Dems wins, they will be neutered by the strengthened and even more conservative house and senate. IMHO.

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.