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

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[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]

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...Bush's federal intrusion into education..."

So, this is Bush's fault as well.

Transparent.

[Jorge]

Great post and worth repeating;

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"That would be like preaching to the choir. I prefer to make some converts."

I'm not exagerating, it's exactly what you said.

[Sabertooth]

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.

These aren't the claims you made. You're trying to shift terms now, because you were out too far on too many limbs.

You said "measures," not "bill." Even if you had said "bill," Reagan never had a GOP House, so he never got an anti-abortion bill to sign.

You never used the "other than withholding dues" qualifier with regard to the UN, until this very post.

That fact that you're doing both now indicates that you've quite correctly realized that can't stand by your original "Reagan never did" claims about abortion and the UN.

Now, do you want to try to take on the other 5 or 6 "never dids" I posted? You may do better with those.

Funny.

I chose the battles I knew I'd win, your ongoing hole-digging notwithstanding.

Have a good evening.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You don't have to worry about making any "converts" around here.

We know the issues and the facts far too well to believe what any LP or DU mole tries to feed us!

[Nanodik]

I'm not exagerating, it's exactly what you said.

Exactly. I said my guy was "anybody but Bush". That is not the same as "vote for John Effing Kerry".

[Pitchfork]

That is exactly where I'm going. Libertarian all the way! Shrink the government, renew the Bill of Rights, limit foreign entanglements! These old conservative slogans are DEAD under this administration. Incredibly they've bamboozled many into abandoning solid principles with the smokescreen of a "war on terrorism" that they have used as a special interest power grab.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press
Sunday, October 4, 1998
Sabo Keeps Sober Eye
on Budget Merriment
Written by Bill Salisbury

Families do it every week.

But when the federal government last week finally managed to balance
its budget -- and end a fiscal year with a surplus after a generation of
red ink -- it was treated as a big deal.

President Clinton announced a $70 billion surplus at a White House
ceremony that had all the trappings on a campaign pep rally. On stage
behind Clinton, as he spoke to an enthusiastic Democratic crowd (no
Republicans were invited), was a digital sign that flashed the word
``surplus.''

While Clinton claimed his administration deserved most of the credit for
restoring fiscal discipline to government, he shared some of the glory
with Democratic lawmakers who made tough tax and spending
decisions that helped erase the budget deficits. Among those he singled
out for special praise was Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee in 1993, Sabo, 60,
played a key role in pushing through a package of tax increases and
spending cuts that sharply reduced the deficit. After Republicans won
control of Congress in 1994, he remained a key adviser to the White
House in budget negotiations.

Asked how it felt after years of effort to finally have a budget surplus,
the taciturn Norwegian replied: ``Sort of nice.''

Sort of nice, Martin?

``Well, very nice,'' acknowledged Sabo, a 20-year House veteran from
Minneapolis.

On a day when both parties were vying for credit for the first budget
surplus since 1969, it was refreshing to get Sabo's modest assessment
of the accomplishment.

Balancing the budget is important for keeping the economy growing and
not piling a huge debt on future generations, he said.

But he gently implied that politicians shouldn't risk breaking an arm
when they pat themselves on the back for doing what they were
supposed to do: Manage the budget responsibly.

Clinton claimed he and congressional Democrats laid the groundwork
for balancing the budget when they passed the 1993 deficit-reduction
package.

Republican congressional leaders countered that they deserved the
credit for pushing Clinton into accepting a budget-balancing agreement
last year. ``This is a Republican surplus, and everybody knows it,'' said
Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson.

Partisanship aside, Sabo said there's plenty of credit to go around,
starting with former President George Bush.

In 1990, Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats who then controlled
Congress, teamed up to put the first big dent in the deficit with a
package of tax increases and spending cuts. Bush paid a high political
price for the agreement because it forced him to break his ``Read my
lips: No new taxes'' promise he made in the 1988 campaign. Angered
by the tax boost, maverick Republicans, led by current House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, turned on Bush, contributing mightily to his defeat at
Clinton's hands in 1992.

Sabo said the 1990 and 1993 deficit-reduction packages took the
biggest steps toward balancing the budget. ``Last year's budget
agreement was not as big as either the '90 or '93 plans in terms of
deficit reduction,'' he said, ``but it was still a very positive act.''

The final step to balancing the budget was relatively painless. Two
years ago, many Democrats warned that it would take draconian cuts in
vital government services to erase the red ink. But because of the
booming economy, Sabo said, we ``were able to do it without a lot of
sacrifice.''

As Democrats and Republicans separately celebrated the first budget
surplus in 29 years, they conveniently overlooked the fact that the
deficits were partly their fault. The Democrats contributed to excessive
spending on the Great Society programs of the 1960s and 1970s, and
the Republicans backed the expensive military buildup in the 1980s.

Now both sides are drooling at the prospect of spending the surplus.
While Clinton says he wants to use the money to ``save Social
Security,'' his administration has proposed a $23 billion spending spree
for ``emergency'' measures. Meanwhile, House Republicans want to
use the surplus for an $80 billion tax cut.

Sabo warned that those spending impulses could jeopardize the
balanced budget. The surplus is largely a product of the booming
economy, and it could shrink or disappear if the economy weakens or
the stock market falls.

``We need to keep our eye on the target and maintain fiscal discipline,''
Sabo said. ``By doing so, we will ensure that Americans will be able to
reap the benefits of the current surplus for years to come.''

You can always count on Sabo to inject a sober note in the midst of a
boisterous celebration.

[Texasforever]

Nope, you tried a rebuttal with points not supportable. In one you compared process to substance and to the other you just failed to provide any evidence at all. Try again.

[George W. Bush]

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.

I've been thinking about military voting in '04. No doubt, those who felt their votes were stolen in Floriduh or that there were barriers to their voting in 2000 did resent the Dims' attempts to steal their votes.

But in '04, I think those deployed will want to come home ASAP. American troops fight very well and with great determination in combat but historically our troops have never liked policing duties overseas.

I'm not saying that they're disloyal or unpatriotic or shirking their duty. But I'm not sure the GOP will have any big edge with the military vote in '04 if we're still deployed there. In 'military vote', I include members of their immediate families as well.

All that said, I have no doubt that they consider GWB to be an almost perfect commander-in-chief. Clinton and Gore never appealed to them the way GWB does. GWB just puts the snap into those troops. You can see it every time he's with them.

But in the end, the troops don't like long overseas deployment. Never have.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Partisanship aside, Sabo said there's plenty of credit to go around, starting with former President George Bush."

"In 1990, Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats who then controlled Congress, teamed up to put the first big dent in the deficit with a package of tax increases and spending cuts. Bush paid a high political price for the agreement because it forced him to break his ``Read my lips: No new taxes'' promise he made in the 1988 campaign. Angered by the tax boost, maverick Republicans, led by current House Speaker Newt Gingrich, turned on Bush, contributing mightily to his defeat at Clinton's hands in 1992."

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I know exactly where you want to go....back to the '50's

The Taliban wants to go back to the 10th century, so why not support them? That's the epitome of how far "RIGHT" you can go.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Texasforever]

Bush's federalization of education is personal

Do you mean that Bush created the Department of Education? The Public School System? BTW, do you what percentage of school district budgets are federal money?

[Nanodik]

See PF, I already have a convert. Pitchfork, you are HEALED!

[dcwusmc]

The ONLY ones who really deserve the vote are the ones who have demonstrated their love of country by putting their very LIVES on the line for it. The ones who voluntarily (for the most part) stood between YOU and the ones who would enslave you (the ones besides our very own FedGov, that is.)... It's not elitist to say that if you are so concerned about your precious skin as to not want to stand and be counted where it matters, you should not be permitted to vote or hold public office. It only reflects the love and dedication that the Marine, sailor, solder, airman has for his or her country, that they would risk THEIR lives to protect and defend YOURS. If you are unwilling to show THAT level of dedication to your country, WHY should you have the franchise? Got an actual answer or will you just spew more invective? Enquiring minds want to know!

[Texasforever]

I would venture a guess that anyone calling themselves "Pitchfork" was converted long before you stumbled in out of the snow.

[Nanodik]

I would venture a guess that anyone calling themselves "Pitchfork" was converted long before you stumbled in out of the snow.

Maybe, but I am sure there are some here who are one more Bush give-away from registering LP.

So Tex, what is it you do anyway besides complaining about all those 'feriners taking over the 'ol US of A?

[George W. Bush]

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

No.

I think Bush suffered a mild recession as a direct result or raising taxes and the expenses and economic uncertainty of Gulf War I.

The economy was recovering the small downturn at or in the few months before election time, the libmedia dutifully painting it as the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

Clinton swept into office, got a temporary and unsustainable Keynesian ecomomic bump from his unrealistic policies. Then, before that bubble burst, he lost the House to Gingrich.

The toughness of the Gingrich congress encouraged the business community toward economic expansion with their early credible action on holding down federal growth and combatting regulatory expansion.

I thought this view was the conventional conservative view of the matter. You've taken me completely by surprise with your interpretation.

But, you didn't answer me. Bush I, or any other president I assume, has the right and in fact the duty to lie to us and break promises at will and we are compelled to re-elect them no matter what they promise and then deliver the opposite? Is that your actual position?

You don't believe in accountability, do you? If words and actions don't agree, then what use is free speech and the ballot box to a democratic republic?

Surely, you must be aware that your argument is weak and unattractive. Not to mention anti-democracy.

[Texasforever]

So Tex, what is it you do anyway besides complaining about all those 'feriners taking over the 'ol US of A?

I just don't like socialist foreigners. Especially Canadians.