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 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Texasforever
Another example of Reagan's support of Isreal against the UN

OK, look, you don't seem to get, or seem to hope that others don't get, that you dug yourself a big rhetorical hole with your "Reagan never dids."

I don't have to show that Reagan "always," "usually," or even "sometimes" did any of those things to disprove your statements. I only have to demonstrate it once. Once trumps "never," when the assertion is "never," as yours were.

As to Israel, Reagan, and the UN: You said Reagan never stood up to the UN. I gave a few examples where he did. UNESCO, funding, abortions, and Israel.

You're now giving an example of where Reagan didn't side with Israel in the UN. That would be sufficent if I'd said Reagan "always" stood up to the UN on behalf of Israel. However, I didn't.

Like "never," "always" is a claim to avoid making, as it can be easily disproved.

All I have to do to support my claim is show that Reagan stood up to the UN on behalf of Israel even once. This is actually pretty easy to do, for any U.S. President, GOP or Dem, as it's part of our UN Ambassador's unofficial job description to give Israel some cover against the cabal of anti-Semites infesting the UN.

Here's the example for Reagan I've chosen, to support my claim that he stood up to the UN on Israel:

Approximately 35 Americans working with the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) were removed from their jobs out of fear they would be attacked by Shiite Muslim guerrillas. Fears of an attack have heightened since February 28, when the U.S. indicated that it would veto a Lebanese-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its new "iron-fist" policies in southern Lebanon.
A Chronology of U.S.-Middle East Relations
March 2nd, 1985 - wrmea.com

1,581 posted on 01/22/2004 8:47:34 PM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1551 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Houston. Where in Canada are you collecting your benefits?
1,582 posted on 01/22/2004 8:48:29 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1579 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Nanodik.....

Democrat mole since 12/05/'2003

1,583 posted on 01/22/2004 8:48:45 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1577 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Interesting that even you won't take Bush back. Are you going to be as kind to his brother Jeb when he gets in office and decides to go to town like a drunken sailor on shore leave?
1,584 posted on 01/22/2004 8:49:12 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; PSYCHO-FREEP
PSYCHO-FREEP wrote:
This guy belongs on our "A" list Luis..


_____________________________________


Hey, way kool!!
How bout you guys publish your 'lists'?

Got the guts? -- I'd bet not..
1,585 posted on 01/22/2004 8:50:07 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

This is some really bizarre spin. I have to admit, I've never heard it spun this way. But then, I never liked or trusted Spook Daddy. I actually like the present Bush much better as things have turned out.

I'm not sure exactly where you get this interpretation of economic policy. I don't think I've ever read this before, even here at FR.

So your position that Bush lied to us and broke his no-new-taxes pledge was actually a Good Thing? That campaign promises should be broken whenever they like? That their word is meaningless?

If so, why should we ever vote again?

I think we have to hold them accountable. When they promise something over and over and over and over (like Bush I did), then our ability to keep them accountable will disappear if we vote for willful dissemblers.

The biggest problem with your theory is that the voters just don't like blatant liars.
1,586 posted on 01/22/2004 8:50:38 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1559 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Amusing. The Soviet government classified some of its critics as mentally disordered also. Doesn't say much for your line of reasoning...
1,587 posted on 01/22/2004 8:51:39 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Death is certain; little chance of success; what are we waiting for???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Houston. Where in Canada are you collecting your benefits?

Interesting, I know some people in Houston. I used to collect them from southern Ontario. Interestingly, they all thought I was too American and you think I am too Canadian.

1,588 posted on 01/22/2004 8:52:12 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1582 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yep and when we took casualties he promptly abandoned the field. Look, you tried to make your stand on the flimsiest evidence. Regan NEVER signed a bill limiting abortions in any way, and he NEVER stood up to the UN in anyway other than withholding dues. Now, do you want to try to take on the other 5 or 6 "never dids" I posted? You may do better with those.
1,589 posted on 01/22/2004 8:53:55 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1581 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Soviet government classified some of its critics as mentally disordered also.

However they didn't need evidence. Now don't take this personally, but there is a LOT of evidence on a few around here.

1,590 posted on 01/22/2004 8:56:23 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1587 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Then get yourself over to DU, they need all the help they can get getting a Democrat elected.

That would be like preaching to the choir. I prefer to make some converts. You may not believe this but most of my family is RP down the line and most of them are totally pissed off at Bush right now so I know it can't just be me.

1,591 posted on 01/22/2004 8:56:33 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1580 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
I used to collect them from southern Ontario

So you just collect them here I guess.

1,592 posted on 01/22/2004 8:57:17 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1588 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik; Jim Robinson
So Jim, we have a guy in here trying to get votes for Democrats.
1,593 posted on 01/22/2004 8:57:56 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Doubt he'll have much luck.
1,594 posted on 01/22/2004 8:58:41 PM PST by Jim Robinson (I don't belong to no organized political party. I'm a Republycan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Here's the link I gave him Tex: click
1,595 posted on 01/22/2004 8:59:48 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1590 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
So you just collect them here I guess.

No, I'll probably have to wait for the Bush amnesty program for that.

1,596 posted on 01/22/2004 9:00:23 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
I think that's quite obvious from the posts you have placed on this thread. Don't play dumb now. You've made your comments, now they are to be scrutinized--and no, I'm not going to 'shut my mouth'. If you don't want your statements scrutinized, don't make them. I don't post things on a public forum and then expect no one to comment on them. Your response indicates you yourself aren't exactly comfortable with your own statements.

Furthermore, let me add to what I said before: you don't care about the troops, either. Think of how demoralized they'd be if one of the Dems defeats Bush. Think of how that would affect those that are deployed in dangerous places, and how it would affect our national securtiy.

The fact you won't defend your own statements and try to deflect the implications of them proves the weakness of your position.
1,597 posted on 01/22/2004 9:01:21 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Give them enough rope...

Luis, you are an hopeless optimist.

I'll merely point out that there are certain divisions of responsibility, federal/state/local, that are a part of divided government.

When the Dims finally get back into power and seize control of Bush's federal intrusion into education, I think you're going to regret your naivete. Hopefully it won't happen. But I've seen this stuff happen too many times.

Federalizing anything other than defense and highway systems is, in general, a liberal tactic. That's the Dim's game, not ours.

You should understand, Luis, that for me Bush's federalization of education is personal. Because of Bush's agenda in education, I will not run for a third term. It would be entirely futile. Maybe eight years is enough anyway. I know a lot of other conservative education activists who have reached the same conclusion.

The Clinton gang never defeated us. Bush has.
1,598 posted on 01/22/2004 9:02:04 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1566 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Which part of the scenario did you not understand...I can type slower if it helps you.

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency?

If you do, then you likewise believe that the recent downturn came about as a result of Bush's economic policies.

In other words, you believe that a multi-gazillion economy turns on a dime.

Clinton's boom was Reagan's and Bush I's boom, Dubya's recession is actually Clinton's.

Now, you may not like the answer, but it does not change the facts.
1,599 posted on 01/22/2004 9:02:50 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
So Jim, we have a guy in here trying to get votes for Democrats.

Now you are exaggerating. I said my guy was anybody but Bush. I would actually prefer that all my converts vote straight line LP.

1,600 posted on 01/22/2004 9:03:00 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 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