Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?
SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

Posted on 01/22/2004 7:07:09 AM PST by Wolfstar

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:

[BEGIN EXCERPTS: Bold/underscore emphasis by Wolfstar]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.]

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[END EXCERPTS]


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bushamnesty; sotu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,521-1,5401,541-1,5601,561-1,580 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Texasforever
It was an EO that Bush reinstated. That EO had nothing to do with domestic abortion Bush signing the PBA ban did. The 1988 abortion bill ONLY prohibited abortions at Military hospitals it did not prohibit military personnel from having an abortion. Both the Reagan EO and the 1988 bill were process measures NOT bills actually restricting abortion procedures. The only restrictions placed were the locations that could not perform abortions, Military facilities, and international restrictions concerning population control aid when abortion was an option.

This is all discraction. That Bush reinstated a Reagan EO doesn't mean that reagan didn't sign the EO.

Here are your statements in question, from #1474:

"Bush has actually signed anti-abortion measures, Reagan never did."

"Bush has stood up to the UN Reagan never did."

Your comments here, "Reagan never did," are false, and these are the subject of my challenge of fact to you.

As has been shown, Reagan signed anti-abortion measures, and stood up to the UN.

To say he "never did" is untrue.

What you said about Reagan, in the quotes above, is untrue.


1,541 posted on 01/22/2004 8:10:14 PM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1523 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Now Nanodik (proud of your shortcomings?), please post your candidate's name so that I may examine his or her record.
1,542 posted on 01/22/2004 8:12:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1524 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Which makes you a liberal. Nice to have outted you.

Liberal in the classic sense, yes. You don't think those programs Bushy is pushing through are socialist? Do you think we would have free drugs for geezers if Gore had been elected? You think the Rep congress would be at his beck and call?

1,543 posted on 01/22/2004 8:14:28 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1535 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
As I said, ALL he did was place a restriction on WHERE a service member could receive an abortion. He did NOT prohibit that service member having an abortion. That is NOT an anti-abortion bill. Reagan NEVER signed an actual anti-abortion bill.

You're just splitting hairs now.

Reagan prohibited abortions in US military hospitals, by EO. Reagan denied federal funds to international groups promoting abortions, by EO. Those are both "anti-abortion measures," that Reagan "signed," and that's the language you used at #1474.

I challenged you on that, and you were factually incorrect.

Nice try, though, shifting terms from "measures" to "bill."


1,544 posted on 01/22/2004 8:15:47 PM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1530 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yep Reagan really stood up for Isreal in the UN

The Israeli justification, advanced by then Prime Minister Menachem Begin, claimed that the attack was vital to Israel's security because, he alleged, Iraq was building a nuclear bomb that will be used against Israeli targets.

After several days of debate and U.S.-Iraqi negotiations behind closed doors at the United Nations, Reagan's ambassador to the world body, Jeane Kirkpatrick, joined the other 14 members of the UN Security Council in a 15-0 vote on June 19 that "strongly condemned" the Israeli raid - a vote which Time magazine described then as "one of the harshest United Nations rebukes of Israel that the U.S. has supported."

1,545 posted on 01/22/2004 8:15:54 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1541 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
There you go again with that Socialist Canadian logic.

If you wish to call yourself an American, learn your facts about our history first.

You are only flame-baiting and most all you have ever done is flame-bait.

1,546 posted on 01/22/2004 8:16:22 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I have shown that my assertions were both accurate. You on the otherhand have only helped me do it.
1,547 posted on 01/22/2004 8:17:24 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1541 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Not only do I believe that Gore would have enacted a prescription drug entitlement, but I know that the retiring baby boomers would have elected whichever candidate would have guranteed them the most benefits.

The issue is now off the table, and we don't have a wild race among Democrats as to who will pay out the most.

If you can't stop it, then control it as much as possible.
1,548 posted on 01/22/2004 8:18:55 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1543 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The "don't listen to what he says, watch what he does", was flaunted around here by his apologists for months as you well know Mr See No Evil, Hear no Evil.

That "He's been right up front about himself from the begining" just goes over like a lead door stop. He's also up front about a free trade zone "From the north of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn". He just neglects to mention that means a Federation of the US, Mexico, and Canada, killing off the Constitution and placing us under international law. If detesting that idea makes me a "rigid ideologue", then hello there, that's me.

So if loving that idea is a trait of "moderate republicans" then you are as great a danger to the republic as any other socialist/communist/marxist liberal democrat. The only differnce between you would be that you infested the Republican party making it useless.
1,549 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:09 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1311 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Toward the end, I think he was too senile to have a rational political affiliation. Maybe his brain was just pickled ??

But, I concede his behavior was bizarre his last days in office.

I believe, but cannot attest factually, he WAS a true conservative when he ran for President as the GOP nominee.

Maybe I'm wrong - I was much younger then and not paying close attention to politics -- at least to the best of my recollection, I wasn't paying much attention to politics then. I think I remember being distracted by girls.

Sort of wish that were the case tonight :-)

1,550 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:44 PM PST by skip2myloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1539 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Another example of Reagan's support of Isreal against the UN

“The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.” Reagan Plan –September 1982

1,551 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:58 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1544 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
"Liberal in the classic sense, yes."

You just stated that a Democrat in the White House is your preference, that makes you a liberal in the Pelosi/Clinton sense.

1,552 posted on 01/22/2004 8:20:28 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1543 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Now Nanodik (proud of your shortcomings?), please post your candidate's name so that I may examine his or her record.

Just making a statement about how most guys on this board like to fancy themselves big, macho and intellectual, say like a famous baseball player, when in reality they are probably a 98lb pencil necked geek would couldn't hit a underhand pitch tossed by the 3rd string pitcher on a girl's highschool softball team... but I digress. Your premise is like saying, go to the whore-house and find me your choice of gals so I can check into her past. Most politicians who have been elected are there because they are whores. The "two-party" system keeps politics to it's lowest common denominator. I guess you like Bushy's record so vote for him. Just keep in mind that I am not the first to point out that there is not a dimes bit of difference between the Reps and the Dems these days. People who want to restrain govt can at best hope for gridlock and we won't get that with Bushy in the WH>

1,553 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:40 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1542 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Who is your candidate of choice?
1,554 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:44 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1543 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Now, Reagan and Bush I outspent Clinton by a wide margin.

Did they amend the constitution when I wasn't looking?

Bush has had a far more powerful position with his congress than these others did. Given 9/11, he has enjoyed a lot more support, has been given a pass even by many liberal voters on both spending and as commander-in-chief.

I think that Reagan proposed huge budgets to get the Dims to pass his defense increases. In other words, he offered the Dims a huge expansion of all spending in order to get his defense spending. His advisers believed it was important enough to make this trade and let the Dims take us into deficit. Even economically, you can defend their judgment in this. The alternative was a much higher level of defense spending forever.

Bush I was simply weak and caved to the Dims on a tax increase, breaking his only campaign promise "Read My Lips...". And the voters didn't like the higher taxes and they didn't like the lie. They liked kicking Saddam out of Kuwait but didn't forgive the broken promise. And Clinton had the Arousal Factor with the female vote.

Clinton's first two years were big-spending liberalism, actually spending more than he probably was comfortable with. He listened to the big-government liberals in Congress. They were wrong. And Gingrich led the GOP to take the House for the first time in, what, 42 years. So Clinton spent big in '92-93, then had to deal with the Gingrich House who then impeached his sorry ass (An' we he'ped!).

It's pretty hard to say that Bush II faces the same problems with proposing a budget to an opposition congress as compared to his immediate predecessors. Or the problems he has had with strong judicial nominees for that matter.

Of his predecessors, only Clinton had a two-year run with both houses of Congress in his own party's hands.

No president is king. The veto has its limits. But some presidents have a better excuse for failing to rein in Congress than others. And the conservative criticism of Bush is that he proposes and campaigns for expanded funding and the intrusion of the federal government into areas like education where it has no constitutional mandate whatsoever.

But the president and the federal government do have a responsibility to protect our borders. It is the original purpose of the federal government. No one seems very serious about it though.
1,555 posted on 01/22/2004 8:22:37 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1518 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
My choice is simple...we need to elect a President in the very near future...who is your candidate?
1,556 posted on 01/22/2004 8:23:10 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1553 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
If you wish to call yourself an American, learn your facts about our history first.

Sorry, but all they offered when I came here was English as a second language. I learned how to spell labor and color without a "u".

1,557 posted on 01/22/2004 8:24:35 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1546 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
My choice is simple...we need to elect a President in the very near future...who is your candidate?

Anybody but Bush. As I have said, gridlock is the key until we can get someone who is fiscally responsible and knows how to play the game. If we accept your premise that all roads lead to the same place, we might as well stay home and lube up the ol' backside for what is to come.

1,558 posted on 01/22/2004 8:26:54 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1556 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
"Bush I was simply weak and caved to the Dims on a tax increase, breaking his only campaign promise "Read My Lips...".

Let's start there.

Bush I broke his tax pledge in order to get some much needed budgetary concessions from congressional Democrats. His broken pledge helped balance the budget, and helped fully realize the Reagan economic recovery.

Thinking challenged right wingers failed to understand what was happening, and allowed themselves to be led away from the GOP by the Democrats, and in fact, handed the bragging rights to the combined efforts of Reagan and Bush I, plus the greatest economic boom in recent history, to William Jefferson Clinton.

1,559 posted on 01/22/2004 8:27:41 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1555 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
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

Only because the term "conservative" has ceased to have any meaning other than "not uttered by a Democrat politician".

1,560 posted on 01/22/2004 8:28:28 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,521-1,5401,541-1,5601,561-1,580 ... 2,001-2,015 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson