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 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
So, this is Bush's fault as well. Transparent.

Well, he's never tried to hide it, I'll give him that.

But then, denying it would be ridiculous.
1,621 posted on 01/22/2004 9:25:18 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1601 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
You would probably think my name PSYCHO has some predetermining effect on why I would chose such a name.

I did not chose the name, it was given to me by my Brothers in arms. (SF, RVN,'70-'72)

The name has a very special meaning.....

1,622 posted on 01/22/2004 9:26:09 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1617 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
My position is that you take actions in accordance to what is in the best interest of the nation, and if the best interest of the nation calls for a broken pledge from a politician, so be it.

As you can plainly see, if you actually took the time to read the article posted, this is not MY interpretation, but the reality of what happened.
1,623 posted on 01/22/2004 9:26:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1619 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I like the name. I also like the name "pitchfork" it is so rebellious. LOL
1,624 posted on 01/22/2004 9:28:37 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1622 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I just don't like socialist foreigners. Especially Canadians.

But you just love those down home Texas socialist like yur buddy Bush!

1,625 posted on 01/22/2004 9:28:57 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1620 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
You lose your last shred of credibility when you call President Bush a socialist.
1,626 posted on 01/22/2004 9:31:23 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1625 | View Replies]

To: onyx
You lose your last shred of credibility when you call President Bush a socialist.

Yeah, that drug plan of his was a great example of his faith in the free market.

1,627 posted on 01/22/2004 9:34:58 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1626 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Why don't you do us all a favor and give us some detail about just why the President's drug plan is "Socialist"

Also, give us a point by point analysis of the plan as you understand it.

We are curious about how well educated you are about the facts.

1,628 posted on 01/22/2004 9:40:25 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies]

To: onyx
One thing I really liked --- Bush promised to cut the federal deficit in half ---- I hope that is done immediately.
1,629 posted on 01/22/2004 9:42:20 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1626 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
And I always thought Pitchforks are for throwing B.S.!

You know....I guess that they still are and always will be. And those that use them are still stuck in the '50's.

1,630 posted on 01/22/2004 9:44:36 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
911 threw a monkey wrench in the fan as far as the budget is concerned, but in time, hopefully things will stabilize and the deficit will come back under control.

The economic recovery has a lagging effect on the deficit. It isn't evident until a year or so after the economic numbers show a positive gain.

1,631 posted on 01/22/2004 9:50:48 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Also, give us a point by point analysis of the plan as you understand it.

Here is all you need to understand: Congress with the approval of POTUS has authorized $400B over 10 years to cover a "slot" of senior's prescription drugs expenses. So what we are doing is taking taxpayer dollars and transferring them to individuals based upon "need" as defined as having drug expenses that fall into that slot. This is a far cry from any market-based reform.

1,632 posted on 01/22/2004 9:54:38 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1628 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
One thing I really liked --- Bush promised to cut the federal deficit in half ---- I hope that is done immediately.

Me too. We hold the House and Senate. It can be done.

I was disappointed he's allowing a 4% growth in the Federal budget. I would have liked him to freeze it at this year's level or permit a growth of 2%.

1,633 posted on 01/22/2004 9:55:57 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies]

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

I assume, then, that you have the various psychiatric certificates and pieces of documentation attesting to the mental instability of people who don't automatically go weak in the knees at the mention of President Bush's name?

1,634 posted on 01/22/2004 9:58:42 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Death is certain; little chance of success; what are we waiting for???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1590 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You can believe that libmedia piece praising those wonderful budget-balancing Dims if you like but I don't think you'll get many takers here at FR.

It's bilge, lad.

Gingrich brought the fiscal discipline with his in-your-face tactics against the Dims.

Do you honestly think the Dims cut spending and government before Gingrich made them do it? Did you believe Klinton's claims to have cut 300,000 jobs from government too?

"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."


Oh, well, then that settles it. This Sabo, a liberal Dim no one ever heard of is obviously an impartial source of information.

This reminds me of all the weeping the Clinton gang did over those noble Democrats who laid down their public service careers when those mean gunowners threw them out of office in '94 because of the AWB ban.

Luis, I think we aren't going to agree if you really believe such things. I'm still hoping you're just being very very very sarcastic or trying for comedy points.
1,635 posted on 01/22/2004 9:59:28 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1608 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Do you mean that Bush created the Department of Education?

Given your age, you can't possibly be so ignorant. I mean when we had it on the ropes, he revitalized it and has now hugely expanded its funding again.

I suppose we can look forward to lowering our standards to those of Texas. A historic low for my state.

BTW, do you what percentage of school district budgets are federal money?

Relatively small in direct funding. And it varies by state and by district within the state. In some states, the federal monies are brokered through the state departments of education and the governor. Much of the funding is actually indirect. A meaningful breakdown of the actual funds and grants would be longer than anyone here would read. It's a complex web of funding and varying levels of qualification and participation.

It is the assumption of an unmandated federal role as the ultimate arbiter of testing that is the real mistake. It's a very liberal policy. There is no other way to define it in American political tradition.

At any rate, the rest of you can argue with the feds over it. They can force kids into sodomy education and teach Satanism under a federal mandate. Here is one less person who gives a solitary damn about it.

I can't think of a single conservative that I know who will run for re-election to any public education boards in my area. Actually, I don't know of any conservative candidates anywhere in the state. At least, I haven't heard of one. Not even one. And we will be replaced by liberals when we go.

Bush has told us that we have no role. Only federal bureaucrats under presidential directive do.

It's said that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Next time, I'll let you be vigilant. After Bush's education idiocy based on ideas from a backward state, I'm done with it. I have only two remaining policy objectives in my term and, given the circumstances, I don't think I can be stopped. After that, I'm done and they can pump any kind of raw sewage into the public schools that Bush or Hillary or Eddie Kennedy likes on any given day.
1,636 posted on 01/22/2004 10:50:01 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Bulls**t. That is slogan of the despot and the tyrant. All citizens deserve to vote and all citizens should respond to the call when needed. That's a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.

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.

You are spewing the very definition of elitism. Reserving power to your own chosen few.

We don't need an armed force 60 million strong in times of peace. We need enough volunteers to maintain a deterrent for peace and the first reaction to threat - just like we need those of us who volunteer as cops, firemen, and paramedics to preserve life on the streets. All members of a society should contribute and be willing to do what is required for that nation. All members of a democratic society are equal in contributing to the consent of the governed, the franchise.

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.

Placing oneself between harm and home is an honorable service - if done with the honor of service without airs or demand for reward. Otherwise it is nothing but the braggadocio of a mercenary. Like I said before all vote, all should be willing to rise to the cause or need.

But to compel all through mandatory draft for franchise or worse, to restrict the most vital act of a democracy to only the military goes beyond elitism and militarism.

It becomes the basis of fascist dictatorship of the oligarchy - the rule of the few over all. If you don't see that, then you have no idea of what you claim to have defended.

1,637 posted on 01/22/2004 10:57:42 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1616 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
After Bush's education idiocy based on ideas from a backward state,

Yeah all of us uneducated rednecks would be so much better off if all of you educated Yankees helped us become New York or Massachusetts or even California. So come on down and save us but bring a lunch.

1,638 posted on 01/22/2004 10:58:53 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1636 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Yeah all of us uneducated rednecks would be so much better off if all of you educated Yankees helped us become New York or Massachusetts or even California. So come on down and save us but bring a lunch.

You miss the point. I don't want anything to do with education in your state. It's your problem and only you can fix it. And I don't want you to have anything to do with my state. And I don't want unelected Washington bureaucrats and presidential appointees to dictate education policy to any state.

It seems you don't grasp the basic idea.

And, yes, Texas is a backward state in education. At least, it is to those of us who consistently are in the top 10% decade after decade.

And it's not about how much money is spent or what kind of students are put into the schools. But then, if Texans knew that, they would have had higher achievement all along. I suppose we Yankees really should be more tactful to those states who clung so stubbornly to the Dim party until the last decade.

If Bush wants to export a Texas policy to the nation, how about the legal right to shoot trespassers on your property? Instead, he cuddled up with the Brady Bunch on the AWB.
1,639 posted on 01/22/2004 11:27:34 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1638 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I don't want anything to do with education in your state

That is great but you should get a passing acquaintance with it somewhere. When some ignorant jerk calls a state “backwards” especially a state that could drive the country into bankruptcy should it so desire, just shows how stone stupid he is.

1,640 posted on 01/22/2004 11:32:52 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1639 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 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