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.

Those were three good posts.

Actually, it's naive to think that any President, no matter how virtuous, can save this country from its moral freefall into total depravity.

Actually, I don't blame Bush for it all. If he only held to the status quo, I wouldn't complain that much. But he is accelerating it and is leading the charge. His re-election doesn't depend on it. He wants to do it.

But I guess I can still be a good Republican as long as I don't call it amnesty or mention the ending of our national borders.

You know, our predictions about Bush are coming true. The 9/11 attack distracted him but he's clearly on track to implement the full agenda now.

Goodbye to the America we knew.

You're completely out of touch with reality on this. A "conflict" needen't meet your formal definitions in order to be considered a "war." Read another way--the commonly and universally understood definition of "war" contains no reference to whether or not an American congress issues a declaration. Whether you think so or not, Korea, Viet Nam, and the current fight against Islamic terror are all "wars."

Take your silly technicalities somewhere else. In fact, we've really been "at war" with -- at least under attack by -- Islamic terrorism since around 1980. President Bush is the first president to decide to actually fight back.

And I'll repeat--those who *trash* our president, those who claim we shouldn't be fighting or shouldn't have fought, are encouraging our enemies to work even harder to destroy us.

I think if the terrorists brought a nuke or bioweapon over the Mexican border and used it in an atrocity greater than 9/11, we'd have martial law. And even if it was proved that it came over the open border, those borders still wouldn't close, no matter what.

Yes, The U.S. Govt is "whistling past the graveyard" aren't they? However, if an attack does come from the south, which they are gambling in hoping it doesn't happen, The Bush Admin. will lose all credibility overnight and unless they do declare martial law and suspend the Constitution, he can kiss his presidency good-bye at that point - any sane American would then vote for a president who will close the border.

Bush and the rest of the U.S. govt. enforces the laws they like and ignores the ones they don't like. Selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny.

I can't speak to whether Americans believe we are at war or not.

However, I can observe and compare our government responses to the attack at Pearl Harbor and the 9-11 attacks.

Twenty-eight months after Pearl Harbor, we had mobilized every national resource to fight WWII and were conducting major campaigns on two fronts.

Twenty-eight months after 9-11-01, we've deployed our troops and established a Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, growing the federal government and creating thousands of niches for bureaucrats who are on the public payroll.

Screening the bags of innocent air travelers does not achieve enhanced security. Expensive, a lot of hard work, it looks good, doesn't gain much, except deprive grandmothers of their fingernail clippers. Medal of Honor winners are detained at the gate and pretty teenage girls with underwire bras are singled out for increased scrutiny and other intrusive, unwanted "attention."

Air cargo and mail still are not inspected.

Having a F-16 shoot down a civilian airliner, killing all aboard, is a penultimate resort preferable only to arming pilots.

Airport perimeters are virtually unmonitored and the backdoor services for airports are a sieve for any who wish to enter.

Recently, a couple of stranded boaters waded ashore at JFK and walked to the terminal undetected.

Basically, we're searching the innocent and protecting the guilty.

In the meantime, our bureaucrats are busy filling out budget requests, sending out RFP's and hoping to issue contracts soon to multinational corporations.

The government has not acted with any sense of alacrity to secure our borders, they have not instituted any meaningful security to guard our transportation systems.

I don't know about the people, but our government doesn't act as if we are at war.

No wonder our leaders estimate it will take decades to defeat terrorism.

You made the point that our country will never be the same.

The whole world changes from day to day and will never be the same. This is simply the way the world is. 911 changed this country faster and to some very necessary degrees. There are changes most of us do not like, but in time, we will learn what works and what makes our lives better as a result.

To blanket everything in such negativity only serves to confuse us from solving the problem. The same goes for our views of the President. We either see the glass as "half-empty" (Cynicism) or "half-full" (optimism). from those two simple outlooks, which one of those do you suppose will make us happier and fulfilled as well as figure out what it takes to solve the problem?

I am not familiar with the Brigade. Could you give me a brief synopsis? I was told that JimRob banned some of the Brigadiers from this forum. Could you also comment on that?

Just Buchanan supporters. Some were opposed to the WTO, most were opposed to the NAFTA/open borders thing. All opposed the U.N., world courts, etc.

I don't mind losing the free trade argument anywhere near as much as the sovereignty issue.

The funny thing is that had Clinton even hinted at this stuff, FR would have resounded with calls for armed rebellion. Let Bush do it and nary a peep.

As far as the banning of a few Brigade members, JimRob gave them plenty of chances. I had no disagreement with his choices. They caused a lot of trouble and complaints here. Heck, even more than I did. And one of them set up a website to criticize FR and JimRob (can't recall the name of it). And now they, along with many other non-Brigade ex-members, hang around on the anti-FReeper forums, heaping abuse on FR and JimRob. JimRob keeps an eye on them. All fine by me. This is JimRob's personal property and someone has to make some rules. And JimRob does believe in freedom of speech. But freedom to be utterly obnoxious and vicious is not freedom of speech. Given how some of them tried to use fake or multiple logons to sneak back in after being banned, JimRob banned them permanently. And even then, he gave some of them a couple more chances to come back.

Like I said, they don't have any cause to complain. Far from it.

JimRob, just flagged you since I mentioned the Brigade and your policy from that time. But I think I didn't need to flag you for you to know about it. Heh-heh...

"On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard."

You're missing the key words here. To this President, issues like "the public's opposition to open borders and unlimited illegal immigration; the confiscation of taxpayer money for international causes..." and I might add the public's opposition to out-of-control legal immigration are NOT "issues of such great consequence".

These issues mean nothing to Bush.

Those who believe that these are issues of great consequence matter even less to him.

I don't believe that comparing 911 to WWII is at all fair.

To begin with, We mobilized our troops against Hitler and Japan after Pearl harbor. Japan had already taken the entire area of the South Pacific and Germany had overrun most of Eastern and Western Europe. Because of our Pacifist tendencies, We had to act immediately because it was nearly too late.

The War on terror is the direct opposite. Our enemy is in hiding and very few in numbers. They also do not prescribe to the Geneva Convention's protocol, as well as, they are scattered across the globe. They are also very primitive and have their ideals centered in the 11th century.

You call bloating entitlement programs and big government, allowing the 1st to get trampled and rewarding illegal aliens conservative?

Ditto.

And don't forget the Patriot Act.

Remember, "Conservative" simply means that a politician adheres strongly to the Constitution without modification.

I'm pretty sure the forefathers would have found the Patriot Act Tyranical, the current tax rate obsecene (didn't they flee England over a 1% tax rate?), and I am almost positive they never envisioned "Press 1 for English".

GWB doesn't meet my definition of conservative.

And I'll repeat--those who *trash* our president, those who claim we shouldn't be fighting or shouldn't have fought, are encouraging our enemies to work even harder to destroy us.

Oh? I hadn't noticed this great influx of Al-Quaeda seminar posters here at FR. Is it really that big of a problem?

As far as "shouldn't be fighting", we aren't fighting, we're policing in Iraq. As far as "shouldn't have fought", I was part of the vocal majority at FR who were impatient for Bush to act. But I'm not one of the mad-dog contingent calling for widespread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11 either. I opposed it.

You really do object to freedom of speech, don't you? You'd love to have the return of seditious libel laws and that stuff.

Well, you'd love it until a Dim got elected anyway. Then you'd have a great awakening and your passion for the constitution would be inflamed. Once it was too late.

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.