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

ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false.

The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.

We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.

We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.

I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.

Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.

To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

It's not the third parties which historically have been the problem. We've only seen a couple of major party realignments in 200 years.

A third party only achieves success in replacing a major party when both major parties fail to adopt a view held by nearly 50 percent of the voters. Anti Slavery is an example of an issue that made the Republican Party.

You don't worry until you see a substantial change in your solid base voters. Then you'd better find out why.

Both parties have had this in recent years, largely the result of their run-to-the-center general election strategie

BULL CRAP!!!! There is zero evidence to back up that y statement.

Strom Thruman tried to pull the Southern Conservative base from liberal Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey and the Media were certain that would cost Truman the Presidency. The base was there for Truman. In case you didn't notice Trumans hard turn to the left on civil rights did not cost Harry the election. He held enough of the South to win the election. Dewey played to his base... by not going to the center at all, It cost Dewey the election in 1948. It took Richard Nixon nearly 20 years and a defeat by JFK to figure that out.

Everert Dirkson stood at the Republican convention podium in 1952 telling the delegates if they abandoned conservative Taft for the liberal Ike, the base would abandon the Republican party and stay at home. Everett as usual was full of CRAP. Centrist Ike easily beat a vert liberal Stevenson. Ike had the Republican base in both 52 and 57. It did not matter that Ike was a centrist what mattered was that Stevenson was a flaming liberal.

There was a lot of talk that the catholic JFK could not hold the protestent Southern Democratic base.. but if you look at 1960 Results JFK won... The small amount of lost base did not matter. JFK got more of the Democrat base than did the much more liberal Stevenson. Nixon got the base... Nixon lost too much of the CENTER. He vowed to go for the center if he ever got the nomination again.. He ran to the center in 68 and won.

If you look at 1964 you will find the Republican candidate that the Republican base loved. The base loveing Goldwater did not do as well as the "baseless" Nixon did in 1960. To Goldwater the base was not worth a warm pitcher of spit although they tried their best to elect him. The center is the game. It always is the game. It always has been.

The Democrat base loved McGovern in 1972 ....That was disaster city when he ran against Richard Nixon. The center didn't go for McGovern and he lost. The republican base turned out for Nixon in both 68 and 72. The center did too.

Neither Jerry Ford or Carter appealed to their bases much but Carter won in 1976. There is no evidence that the base did not turn out for Jerry or Jimmy. It was the center that did not turn out for Jerry. They turned out for Carter instead.

Reagan spent the entire campaign of 1980 running away from the base and running to the center. The major themes of the Reagan campaign were right out of the Democrat play book. YOu can make a good case Reagan ran to the LEFT. a: Reagan constantly reminded voters he was a former UNION PRESIDENT. Imaging how much the Republican base loves Union Presidents. b: Reagan reminded voters he was a huge fan of FDR and a former Democrat. In the debate with Jimmy Carter he mentioned it. Reagan said he still held the same positions he did when he was a Democrat. His exact words were, "My Views have not changed!" Imagine how the base loved that. c: Reagan constantly reminded voters his economic plan was identical to the JFK plan of 1961. In case you never noticed JFK was a Democrat. It may surprise you to note that JFK bore an amazing resembliance to Teddy Kennedy.. Some say they may have been brothers.

Bush Sr. Ran hard to the base...Remember... "READ MY LIPS.. NO NEW TAXES..." Dumb move. Dukakis was the quintessencial base man. He got fewer numbers of the center in 88 than Bush 41. Buth the center deserted Bush 41 in 1992 for some guy who called himself a NEW Democrat. It was Clinton who ran to the center in 92 as the centrist NEW DEMOCRAT.

Clinton never ran to the base. HE RAN AS A NEW CENTRIST DEMOCRAT. Gore did not run to the center, Nader scared Gore into running to his base. It cost Gore the Presidency.

Bush has been running to the center since the day he got the nomination. Gore in trying to win the NADER votes ran to the base and got beat.

You post intuitive feelings that the base may not turn out unless they get what they want, but that is only a danger when the other parties candidate is on to your side of the center. As long as the Democrats run well to the left of center, there is zero danger in a Republican running to the center.

There are are no cases in modern history where pandering to the base does anything except insure defeat.

AS far as tracking the party data basses they just do not show what you pretend to say they show. The most important state for presidential elections is OHIO. No one wins the presidency with out winning OHIO.

The correlation you are trying to make is the exact opposite of the truth in OHIO. The more the Democrat candidate runs to the center, the smaller the Republican base turn out. A centrist Democrat does not scare the more leftist registered Republican (Clinton), as much as a left wing (Dukakis).

GET A CLUE! It is a non threatening DEMOCRAT candidate that reduces the Republican base turn out.

The secret to getting the Republican base out is painting the Democrat candidate as a real liberal. If the Republican base is scared of the Democrat candidate they will come out to vote. If the Democrat is a NEW DEMOCRAT from the more conservative South, he does not scare some of the more left Republican base and they don't turn out.

Knowing the data is worthless, if you don't know how to analyse it .

You are way out of line.

Saying that I have the answer is not "out of line." It is fact. If you're too weak, too panty-waisted to accept it... Then it's not my problem, but yours.

Who are you to decide who is a liberal or a Conservative.

Liberals depend on ignorance and insanity, like a body depends upon blood to function. When a person espouses idiotic ideas based on either ignorance or insanity, they are espousing the liberal agenda. YOU depend on the audience being too ignorant to see through your pathetic arguments; ergo, you follow the liberal strategies. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

I have been fighting liberals for 25 years.

If this is the way you fight, perhaps I should give you a stick to use, when your feeble arguments fail miserably.

Calling me ignorant or insane only proves how weak your argument was.

Or it's calling a spade "a spade."

And don't try to say you didn't with your cute little phrase. I have no more interest in discussing anything with your cheap namecalling. Out!

(((blinking eyes))) ok.....

Pray for W and The Truth

Pray he pulls his head out of his anus.

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.