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

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[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]

[gatorbait]

Skip, you said it all,including some of my own disappointments with W .You are right though,bottom line, it HAS to be George W.Bush. Anyone else is a disaster Too bad the "principled" cannot get past their adolescent tantrums and see this for what it truly is.

[gatorbait]

No, I was not a Perot supporter.

Thank God.. Okay, then , let'ssee if we can get this back on track and keep the really bad guys out and let Kyl and Tancredo take care of immigration.

[gatorbait]

Wel ,honeygrl, you and intolerance continue to prove mine.Grow up or go away.

[gatorbait]

Your next statement about how FReepers were knocking off Senators sounds loony. I'll admit, I didn't find the Slade threads interesting and didn't read them regularly. But I don't recall anything that could be credibly described as 'bragging about knocking [him or others] out'.

Go back and read them again,then.No I don't think he bothers with thissite and no, I know you are not the President.I do get the impression you tend to be borderline unappeaseable. It seems you have fallen into true believers' syndrome, and that's too bad. By the way, when did you become a constitutional scholar?

[George W. Bush]

Remember back then, Congress was only in session for a few weeks each year. And Congresscritters were located across a wide geographic area and communication was slow. The founding fathers knew that the defense of the nation might require the President to act both quickly and decisively. Thus, the Constitution does not tie the Presidents hands and compel him to await Congressional action to deploy forces in defense of the nation.

I also remember that back then, we didn't have a large standing federal army.

To be constructionist, we need to look at the basic authority derived from the Constitution and then see how it is employed by the Congress. The War Powers Act demonstrates this.

Look, Congress has a known history on this. They are very hesitant to take any action to undercut a president who deploys. It's not a real problem. I suppose someone will be tempted to make some Ollie-style whining about Central America but I'm largely indifferent to it. That entire mess illustrates yet again the problems with executive war and weaselly cowardly Congresses who won't uphold their responsbility.

You should understand that I generally blame Congress on these matters. Just like I blame them on deficit spending and liberal welfare expansion programs and pork. They hold the purse, not the executive.

And there is precedent to consider. The Constitution doesn't establish the concept of Judicial Review, the first Chief Justice John Marshall created it out of thin air – but, to this day it is the law of the land so to speak.

Yes, but the Constitution only stipulates that there will be a supreme court. Almost by definition, that first Court had to state its purpose and its scope of authority which was implied by its creation. Given the rights of states at that time, this was the only role possible. So it was not some radical development. Had they not adopted this role, they would have had to dissolve. It was the only possible role they could have.

I don't think this example proves anything, one way or the other.

Thomas Jefferson set another lasting precedent when he sent the Navy halfway around the world to quell the Barbary Pirates , and thus it has been evermore.

I'll just grumble that I'm no great fan of Jefferson. I think he's overrated and created more mischief than good when he became president. And the precedent Jefferson set had more to do with our assuming a militant freedom-of-sea-lanes and from raiders, just like any other maritime commerce nation has pursued since ancient times.

I don't see this as a vital feature of constitutional history though some people try to make a mountain out of this molehill. You know, just because many books have been written about it doesn't mean it's too significant or remarkable. Sometimes, there's an academic career to consider so they publish or perish, whether they have anything significant to say or not.

This is the second of your points of constitutional law about which much is written but which are actually truisms.

You know, we inherited high courts and maritime protection from English common law. These are not exactly the radical features of the American experiment which merit much scrutiny. Unless the republic had failed, they were inevitable and were the assumption of duties previously held under British authority or that had been withheld by the British sovereign from its colonial subjects.

FAS: Barbary Pirates

Nice. Most people don't know that we tried to pay them off like the Europeans did. When they got too greedy, Jefferson went after them. Heh-heh. And that this is the first use of Marines overseas in amphibious assault, that it is where we got 'shores of Tripoli' from, etc. Nice to remember how we got our Marines, probably a better point to remember than trying to make some exaggerated (IMO) constitutional point about Jefferson's war powers.

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...

And, with respect to Iraq, in 1998 during the Clinton administration, Congress passed an act calling for regime change there. Before, we went to Iraq, Dubya asked Congress for their blessing, and they gave it – including Kerry who now says he meant it only as a hollow threat. And Congress has passed appropriations authorizing the continuation of hostilities specifically in Iraq and for the War on Terror in general.

Not sure of your point here. How many times must I say I had no procedural objection to Bush's handling of authorization from Congress? (Three, four times I've written this at length now?)

Okay, one more time: Under law and Constitution, every 'i' was dotted and every 't' crossed by Bush and this Congress for war authorization in '04. That a couple of Dims want to have it both ways (vote for it but deny authorizing) is irrelevant. Bush did this right. No coherent criticism is even possible.

In fact, your mentioning of Clinton's silly little request for regime-change intent legislation in '98 (exercise in futility) needs more attention. Bush had every bit of the authority he needed as president once they passed the resolution for him. Clinton antics don't matter and shouldn't even be brought into the discussion. No matter what, Congress has authorized when it votes and no 'precedent' in this matter is required or even desirable. Any military authorization request should be judged on the merits and given a straight up/down vote in less than a week. No stalling around when the prez asks. No votes by previous congresses or actions by previous presidents are relevant or binding or precedent-setting in war authorization. We should not even cite it as a support for war in Iraq. We don't need it. And we certainly did not need to go, hat in hand, to beg the U.N. for its blessing, my main complaint with the opening phase of the war.

So what's yer point?

[George W. Bush]

Okay, then , let's see if we can get this back on track and keep the really bad guys out and let Kyl and Tancredo take care of immigration.

But I don't think Tancredo will be allowed to deal with it. Bush has indicated that he intends to try to pre-empt congressional leaders on this.

Either I'm too cynical or you're too gullible. Time will tell.

[George W. Bush]

I can see you're not a country boy GWB. Or maybe they never plowed with oxen in Texas (but, I bet they did). If you've ever plowed, or pulled logs, behind oxen - they are slower than molasses at the North Pole. My grandfather used to use a team logging in the hill country of Ohio. The other granpa kept 35-40 workhorses.

Very few people in rural America are more rural than I am. My grandfather preferred mules. But if you knew him, you'd figure they were cronies.

Me, I have trouble enough with getting a good ride out of my lazy but uppity geldings.

[gatorbait]

But I don't think Tancredo will be allowed to deal with it. Bush has indicated that he intends to try to pre-empt congressional leaders on this.

How has he indicated this? I'm not gullible, and cynicism is the hobgoblin of a loser, and you are not a loser. I think you have concerns as we all do. I have yet to see ,read or hear anything indicating this Presdent is planning to steamroll Tancredo or anyone else in Congres over immigration.

[skip2myloo]

Well, frankly you've confused me - I no longer know what my point is because I fear we've lost the bubble.

You offer construction as a talking point, but then you raise an issue about the size of a standing army - construct has nothing to do with whether there is one soldier or 11 million, or none. Principle is principle.

English common law has more to do with civil issues of tort than to offer interpretive guidance about our constitution.

I'm not aware of any rulings of the SCOTUS in constitutional matters where they've invoked English common law as a guiding precedent - but, maybe so.

Apparently, I have an entirely different view of Thomas Jefferson than you.

I think we're in a kabuki dance, and I'm gonna sit out this one.

[skip2myloo]

OK, mules and horses are fine.

But oxen, they're as strong as -- well, they're as stong as an ox -- and they are SLOOOOOW.

[George W. Bush]

Oxen are strong as an ox? Who would've thought it?

I need to go do some real-world stuff and give this thread a rest. FR was overdue for a traditional bushbot vs. bashbot thread. I guess everybody has had their say now unless someone wants to keep it going.

[George W. Bush]

I have yet to see ,read or hear anything indicating this Presdent is planning to steamroll Tancredo or anyone else in Congres over immigration.

I'll offer you a hint here: Bush's don't-call-it-amnesty plan and mention in the SOTU was not Tancredo's idea.

It is pre-emption. But I don't expect you'd recognize it or admit it unless Bush held a press conference and said "I'm going to pre-empt Tancredo and Congress on illegal aliens". Then maybe you'd suddenly not want to discuss the issue.

I'm not saying you're a bushbot. But at a certain point, giving BushCo the benefit of the doubt can turn into a slavish personality fixation. As always, I try to ask myself what I'd think if a Dim were trying to do the same exact thing as a GOP pol is proposing. It kind of clarifies things and keeps you on principle.

If more of you applied that standard instead of fixing upon party/personality loyalty, we'd make more progress as conservatives.

[gatorbait]

Posted by George W. Bush to gatorbait On News/Activism 01/24/2004 11:50:10 AM CST #1,892 of 1,892 I have yet to see ,read or hear anything indicating this Presdent is planning to steamroll Tancredo or anyone else in Congres over immigration. I'll offer you a hint here: Bush's don't-call-it-amnesty plan and mention in the SOTU was not Tancredo's idea. It is pre-emption. But I don't expect you'd recognize it or admit it unless Bush held a press conference and said "I'm going to pre-empt Tancredo and Congress on illegal aliens". Then maybe you'd suddenly not want to discuss the issue

You win,Tancredo for King. flamethrowers on the border.Kerry will do a better job. That's it.

[blackie]

GWB has intregity, accountabilty and he's a great leader!

He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents!

You don't have clue what a personal attack is ~ wake the f*** up!

[Godebert]

I'll repeat the questions for the third time. I know you won't answer them though.

1. Did George Bush place his hand on the Holy Bible and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

2. Did George Bush say he thought the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance legislation was un-Constitutional?

3. Did George Bush then sign that legislation into law abridging our 1st Amendment rights?

4. Did George Bush keep his word and uphold his sworn oath?

[blackie]

I got that you don't like GWB ~ he needs no defense and I will not play your childish games.

He'll be re-elected in a landslide.

Enjoy your misery!

[Godebert]

1. Did George Bush place his hand on the Holy Bible and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

2. Did George Bush say he thought the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance legislation was un-Constitutional?

3. Did George Bush then sign that legislation into law abridging our 1st Amendment rights?

4. Did George Bush keep his word and uphold his sworn oath?

[George W. Bush]

You win,Tancredo for King. flamethrowers on the border.Kerry will do a better job. That's it.

I see. Your ploy then to 'just support Bush and he'll let Tancredo deal with it' was complete drivel, just as I thought.

I like the confirmation though.

Obviously you're well aware that Bush is going to pursue the full amnesty package, no matter what anyone in Congress says.

[blackie]

I got that you don't like GWB ~ he needs no defense and I will not play your childish games.

He'll be re-elected in a landslide.

Enjoy your misery!

[Godebert]

So you think our God-given rights are some game for Bush to play politics with? Why does that not suprise me?

1. Did George Bush place his hand on the Holy Bible and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

2. Did George Bush say he thought the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance legislation was un-Constitutional?

3. Did George Bush then sign that legislation into law abridging our 1st Amendment rights?

4. Did George Bush keep his word and uphold his sworn oath?