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 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Happy2BMe
So you're saying Bush had no knowledge of it, correct?

Once again...the article you linked to did not mention that the memo came from the Bush administration, it clearly stated the memo with the directive came from the chief patrol agent for the greater San Diego area.

1,681 posted on 01/23/2004 6:14:44 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1315 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
So speaking out is whining? That's news to me.

I couldn't care less what you think about me, you're a faceless name on the internet who can't refute my concerns about the current administration.

1,682 posted on 01/23/2004 6:15:18 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1515 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I hear ya. I wish we had a republican running in this election. We sadly do not.
1,683 posted on 01/23/2004 6:17:27 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1677 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
So i have stated that I'm willing to allow all the things you listed to happen? And apparently I'm going to bring the world crashing down on us all by pushing for more conservative politicians?

My comment was until you can prove I said all those things shut your mouth. Ranting on about what you THINK I said as opposed to what I've said is not proving that I've said them.

So until you do shut your trap with respect to what you THINK I've said.

As for caring about the troops, I have a nephew serving overseas who would disagree with you. I've talked to him, I know well about the state of his moral and those serving with him.

They are soldiers not candy asses. They aren't demoralized by people shooting at them so I dare say they wouldn't be crushed if what you fear mongers claim will happen comes to pass.

The only person with a weak position here is you.
1,684 posted on 01/23/2004 6:23:10 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1597 | View Replies]

To: international american
No that is SECOND of all.......I said OR!! and you know it!!

Good grief...you talk in circles as bad as Protagoras does. You could have stated "Calling people liars is highly unproductive", but instead you included the term "or racists" implying that I had used that term, which I most certainly did not. I caught her lying and called her on it, get over it. Talk about unproductive conversations...sheesh.

1,685 posted on 01/23/2004 6:29:08 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1265 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
"I couldn't care less what you think about me, you're a faceless name on the internet who can't refute my concerns about the current administration."

Oh, that is such a relief! I just laid awake all night worrying that I had hurt your wittow feewings!

1,686 posted on 01/23/2004 6:43:55 AM PST by Redleg Duke (tStir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1682 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
"I couldn't care less what you think about me, you're a faceless name on the internet who can't refute my concerns about the current administration."

Oh, that is such a relief! I just laid awake all night worrying that I had hurt your wittow feewings!

1,687 posted on 01/23/2004 6:44:01 AM PST by Redleg Duke (tStir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1682 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
She stated the following in response to Howlin's reference to a link to an article that stated that Bush had 91% of the Republican vote:
You posted this, it's a fairy tale. You cite an article by a Bush apologist who cites only two issues, both slam dunks for conservatives and Republicans. Never mind the other four or five issues which, if asked by an honest pollster, might show a different result. You fell for it because it told you what YOU WANTED TO HEAR. It's pathetic.

It was not hearsay, it was an article that Protagoras asserted was not true based on her perceived notion that the article was written by a Bush apologist. I merely gave her Zogby's numbers which backed up Howlin's statement and she went off the deep end and tried to state she never made the above statement, so I called her on it.

As far as her being here as long as I, trolls are not a new phenomenon on this forum. When someone makes a quick exit stage left after making outrageous statements and/or outright lying about an issue, they are suspect.

1,688 posted on 01/23/2004 6:47:13 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1367 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I thought you had posted the Homeland Security Act and not the EO. My bad for posting it again.

And you're exactly correct the EO forming the office and council does not include the acronym INS in only mentions coordinating the immigration and naturalization.

Through the EO the office and council were created and the rest was rolled in through the act. So I was wrong when I said the INS was rolled up through the EO.
1,689 posted on 01/23/2004 6:54:17 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1276 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Cute, imature but cute.
1,690 posted on 01/23/2004 6:55:47 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies]

To: skip2myloo
We would be far more effective at our local levels working to fill them with Tom Tancredos, Ron Pauls and Tom DeLays than raging on with each other over just one (albeit an important one) position.

Problem with that approach is the RNC of late has been attempting to replace and/or neuter those who don't march in lockstep with the new faction of the party. They've given Ron Paul trouble for years, now Tancredo is persona non grata at the WH. Hard to support a party that stabs it's conservatives in the back.

1,691 posted on 01/23/2004 6:59:02 AM PST by steve50 ("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
pardon all of the illegal aliens in our country and allow them to stay isn't really an amnesty.

Yeah we had McCain on the radio here talking about the Amnesty program and how it forced those who are illegal to go to the back of the line. I practically threw my radio out the window. The back of the line is OUTSIDE the country. There are people who are waiting to get a visa just to enter the country. How is it we can let illegals stay in the country and say we have sent them to the back of the line?

1,692 posted on 01/23/2004 7:00:59 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Well, I don't think your data supports all that you say, relying as it does on election results from the time when there were not significant numbers of non-aligned voters. The list somehow reminds me of all those proofs the Dims and libmedia had in '88 about how no sitting vice president had won election since Polk (?), something like 150 years. Somehow, all that math didn't stop Bush I from winning. And in '92, Clinton ran on the issue of nationalizing health care which seemed pretty far Left to me. I'm not sure how you can cast that as being more centrist than Bush. I suppose the conventional explanation for the failure of the run-to-the-center routine was the Arousal Factor. Or you can rehash the Perot-robbed-us routine.

But, let's read your points as taken for the sake of argument.

Your underlying assertion is that the base is completely irrelevant once the nominee has secured the nomination. Anything he does to win election or re-election after that has nothing to do with his base or whether he fulfills anything he's every campaigned for in a primary.

Obviously, threads like this one would be inevitably irrelevant in your view because you (attempt to) demonstrate that the base is worthless to the nominee and will vote for him if he tells them to go straight to hell.

There is, IMO, a fatal flaw in your analysis. The electorate, the two bases and the swing voters, are not as statistically predictable as you imply. There is a dynamism in politics and in elections that is not so easily placed into these kinds of analysis.

You offer the conventional wisdom on running to the center. I just don't believe the evidence for it is that strong.

At any rate, you can rest easy. Bush can safely ignore the base entirely. So FReepers don't need to bother to discuss it. But it seems to me that ignoring the base is exactly what his daddy did in '92.

Actually, either your view or mine probably is irrelevant to Bush's re-election in '04. Barring an economic downturn or serious losses in Iraq or a major terrorist incident on U.S. soil or foreign interests, Bush will win it as easily as Clinton did in '96. The greater impact of running-to-center or appealing-to-base in '04 is probably the outcome for downstream candidates on the national, state and local tickets.

We'll see.
1,693 posted on 01/23/2004 7:05:01 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait
How does this assertion square with two Clinton terms, Perot and the current crop of Democrats running now?

I think that voters try to ignore shortcomings if it isn't blatant. Monicagate was never in this category anyway. Clinton never campaigned on the single theme of his personal marital fidelity. We knew he'd cheated before he was elected. And Monicagate didn't break until after the '96 election anyway.

You can't compare the Bush repudiation of his own no-new-taxes pledge to Clinton's record. Bush raced around the country chanting no-new-taxes like a Buddhist monk. Clinton's main issue, inasmuch as he could be pinned down on it, was national health care. And he did try for it, using Hillary as his congressional proxy. So he tried to fulfill his major promise. The key difference is that he didn't do the opposite of what he'd promised.

What I'm saying is that trying to fulfill your campaign agenda works well enough for re-election, whether you succeed in enacting it into law or not. But when you stab the voters in the back by campaigning for one thing and then do the exact opposite, they aren't going to like it. Because even the stupidest voter knows that voting for such candidates will render their votes completely meaningless.

You can't tolerate blatant liars (on policy) in public office. It makes voting completely absurd.

And I'm not sure how Perot enters into it. He wasn't elected so discussing him in the context of presidents who break campaign pledges isn't relevant.
1,694 posted on 01/23/2004 7:21:15 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait
He has done this how?

By campaigning for it in 2000. By pledging to sign it if Boxer and the Dims could pass it.

Fortunately, DeLay put his hammer on that one. It was stillborn. You could argue that this was a dog-and-pony show, Bush offering it to the Dims while ordering DeLay to kill it. It might be true.

Personally, I'm just glad we have DeLay. But then, DeLay is my favorite Republican hands-down. (Honorable mention for Ron Paul, a Libertarian transplant, and the Liberty Committee members.)
1,695 posted on 01/23/2004 7:31:43 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1667 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Judges is an overriding issue, however, it appears that the Republicans fight like sissies on this issue. In addition, I am not convinced that Bush's nominations are true conservatives - we shall see, won't we? I know his daddy appointed liberals, and I believe George W. appointed liberals on the Texas state court (this came out in the 2000 campaign).
1,696 posted on 01/23/2004 7:34:34 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Yes, that is true - but, assuming a best case scenario, if ALL of them were pure ideological conservatives, then it would be impossible to stab them in the back -- the party leadership necessarily would become equally conservative.

The best we can do is proceed one seat at a time.

1,697 posted on 01/23/2004 7:35:47 AM PST by skip2myloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1691 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I'll take Tancredo. Interestingly, this man who, unlike the rest of the yes-men in the GOP, wants to enforce our immigration laws is persona non grata at the White House.
1,698 posted on 01/23/2004 7:36:37 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1695 | View Replies]

To: skip2myloo
The Democrats apologized but only after the networks ran the controversial ad over and over.

I've read before that 'Daisy' played just once nationally. But everyone who saw it remembered it clearly.

Got any evidence for repeated showings of 'Daisy'? I can't find it via Google.
1,699 posted on 01/23/2004 7:39:01 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1670 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Last I checked, this was a country of some 300,000,000 people. Among them can be found people of all ethnic backgrounds on the planet, pretty much all political persuasions, and all religious persuasions. Also, to repeat one of the core points I made on starting this thread, last I checked the title is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not president of the Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or straights, or gays, or whites, or blacks, Latinos, or Democrats, or Republicans, or Greens, or Libertarians, or liberals, or conservatives, or women, or men, etc. He is not only the president of the people, but of the states, a function not as widely known or understood today as it was in the founders' time.

Your comment would have more validity if "diversity" were a true moral value, but it's not. Diversity serves to accentuate the differences in people.

Further, have moral principles changed sinced the founders? Has truth changed? Have right and wrong changed? Bush is obliged to DO THE RIGHT THING regardless of what any group thinks. He isn't doing that in many cases as I have noted. It is WRONG to give legal status to lawbreakers, it is WRONG to praise a gay church, it is WRONG to favor any level of racial quotas, it is WRONG to squander taxpayer money on social programs, etc. etc. If it's wrong, then it's WRONG!

1,700 posted on 01/23/2004 7:41:52 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 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