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]
Again, one must consider the source. Muslim scholars are not the brightest bulbs (or most objective bulbs) in the chandalier. Morey is one of the best scholars there is and he documents very well. His books are an eye opener - you can get them on Amazon.
I like your plan, spread the good word, tell the truth.
It is rare to run across people who are aware of America's true unrevised history. I'm glad there are people like you out there! I have heard it said that Calvin was the true founder of America (haha).
Our gubament schools teach kids lies - that our founders were deists or atheists, that the pilgrims and puritans were bigoted and oppressive, that our founding fathers were bigoted slaveowners, that Christianity had nothing to do with our founding documents, etc. etc. And kids believe everything they are taught in school is they don't have knowledgeable parents who monitor their studies. The best way to deal with govt. schools is to GET OUT OF THEM NOW.
Nonetheless, you send an infinitely stronger message when you vote for a respectable independent or 3rd party, such as the Constitution Party. That message will be felt not only by the pollsters, but by the public at large as well. There's simply no reason to stay home instead.
Bush's spending increased from Clinton's. IOW, he was essentially saying that Clinton didn't spend enought. Really, what more needs to be said?
Okay, if you insist, but only since you are having such a hard day.
An expression or term liable to more than one interpretation: ambiguity, equivocality, equivocation, equivoque, tergiversation.
"A double entendre is you claiming you are for true conservatives."
The double entendre is claiming you are for true conservatives but declaring your opposition to the only conservative President we have had in the WH since Ronald Reagan (and Bush is more conservative than Reagan in some areas). This occurs while a war continues from enemies that are trying to kill millions of us. America owes you a debt ...
True Americans are dying to allow you the freedom to post inane comments.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If you can't lead, won't follow, just shut up and sing or get out of the way.
I say he was not as conservative as George W. Bush. He was certainly more conservative than Michael Dukakis or Bill Clinton. I assume your preferred them.
You're telling me to lead, follow or get out of the way when you're the one following?
I told you to shut up and sing.
In 1964 Goldwater carried what we now think of as the conservative base of the Republican party. He swept conservatives off their feet and inspired them. He worked on Phyllis Schafly's theory that there were millions of disgruntled conservatives out there who could win an election if they could be brought to the polls, and made little effort to win over moderates in the Eastern states, or even in the big Middle Western states. But seen in the context of what came before, Goldwater lost his party's historical base: small town Yankees, farmers and shopkeepers on the plains, and rich "Main Line" suburbanites in the east.
Just how relevant this is to 2004, I don't know. But if a candidate Dean lost the Black and Hispanic vote and swept liberal suburbanites would he have carried the base? And if free market libertarians deserted President Bush and evangelicals flocked to him, would that mean he won or lost the base? What I think I'm trying to say is that just what the "base" is changes over time.
Maybe the base shouldn't be thought of in strictly ideological terms. The "sociological base" of a party may be different from its "ideological base." Each party's base has at least two parts: there are social conservatives and free marketeers in the GOP and social liberals and lunch-pail "yellow dogs" in the Democrat party. Carrying or losing the base can be a complicated thing.
Or maybe "base" and "center" are affected by the same dynamics. In 1988 GHW Bush had to make great efforts to win votes in both the base and the center. Looking back, it's a bit of surprise that he was able to make things like gun control and the pledge of allegiance his issue and still do well in what we now think of as "blue states." In 1992 his uninspired campaign lost the center, but may have left many in the base sitting on their hands.
When a candidacy hemorrhages it has losses in the ideological and sociological base as well as in the center. You can see this with Bush in 1992, Carter in 1980, and for that matter, Hoover in 1932. Johnson was headed that way in 1968, before Humphrey stepped in to save much of the sociological base of the party. When a candidate seems headed for victory he picks up in all three groups.
Each party seems to have a solid base of about 38% (as defined by the losing campaigns with the lowest percentage of votes: Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972, Bush in 1992, and probably Hoover and Landon in 1932 and 1936). But maybe that's illusory. The "base" that Ronald Reagan left to GHW Bush was probably bigger than that. It was pretty solid for Reagan, but soft and crumbly for Bush.
I think that the defining issue in that election was the DNC add showing the little girl picking flowers, when a Nuke explodes behind her.
Are you saying that nationally, no bloc consists of enough voters subscribing to one core value (based either on sociology or ideology), to elect a president?
So, what's the bottom line?
The theory of triangulation attributed to Morris?
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.