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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: looscnnn
The only other candidates who can WIN will be Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards.

As I've said before, if you vote for a Constitution or Libertarian candidate, do so honestly, realizing that you are in essence casting your vote for the Dem.

IF you feel you need to do that, so be it. But do it with your eyes open as to what it really means.

201 posted on 01/22/2004 8:18:15 AM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
"Exactly right. If Bill Clinton had done the things you named and many others you didn't, the people here praising Bush would have been absolutely HOWLING with indignation. In my world we call that hypocrisy."


Total agreement.
202 posted on 01/22/2004 8:18:18 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Given the length of time it will take to change the mindset of terrorist countries, Bush won't be around to see the end of it, if it ever does actually end.

Ah. He may as well give up now. < /sarcasm>

203 posted on 01/22/2004 8:18:51 AM PST by new cruelty (Better the devil you know than the devil you don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Sorry, I must have missed that part of the speech. Where in the SOTU did he mention the PBA ban? I must have been so agitated about his defense of the $400 billion pharmaceutical industry subsidy (aka "prescription drugs for seniors") that I missed it.
204 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:21 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush; PhiKapMom
You aren't being bullied. So, spare us your histrionics.

Go and vote your conscience. Do you need a ride to the polling place?

205 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:23 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
...yes, and the president said it might take decades on his speech to the Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001.

Meanwhile, I thought the posting of Stratfor's latest analysis, on this site, last night, was particularly insightful. I don't know how to link, but it's worth looking at.

It's likely the problem will go on for many years, but D-Day may come up next year...if Dubya is still in the White House...otherwise, the White House, in Dem hands, will be running up the White Flag...esp. if John F-ing VVAW Kerry is in there...
206 posted on 01/22/2004 8:19:58 AM PST by Keith (IT'S ALL ABOUT THE JUDGES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

Nowhere - and it would be better for education if the Dept. of Education was dismantled.

Most of these lawsuits take place in state courts.

Many do take place in state courts but most of the ones that are most damaging to small business are Federal and it is the Federal regulations and requirements that screw up a business' overhead. (Been there, done that - once you go over 15 employees, the Fed regulations are destructive.)

The Constitution does not mention paying you doctor bills

Nope, it doesn't. The key part I picked up on was "can choose and afford private health care coverage." As opposed to Hillary Care and hopefully in support of small businesses, or even individuals, being able to buy insurance as a group so they can actually afford it.

Not only is this not mentioned in the Constitution, but for the first 150 years of our Republic there were no laws against drug possession.

I don't know - drug trade could easily come under the auspices of regulating commerce. And point of correction, the earliest anti-drug laws I'm aware of at a Federal level were in the mid-1870's. Opium was regulated at the state level first and then made illegal for personal consumption at the Federal level. Earlier than that, a drug standards act was passed ostensibly to monitor what substances were being shipped in but also to block them.

This seems clearly contrary to clear statements in the Constitution. An amendment would probably be required.

I'm not so sure. I've had problems buying the full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize gay marriage if one state does.

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Now, full faith and credit means that states have to recognize other states court judgements. If Vermont has a law that says gays can legally be married, other states do not have to recognize that marriage if it violate 'public policy' of said state or existing legislation ( "[The Full Faith and Credit clause does not] compel a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate," under Pacific Employers v. Industrial Accident Comm., 306 U.S. 493, 501) and Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 held that one state does not have to recognize laws that reflect "policy of hostility to the public Acts" to that state. It will be interesting to watch the fallout, supporters of marriage as a union between a man and a woman have a shot at winning.

If not, the little "and the effect thereof." clause should give Congress the basis it needs to pass the marriage stature, like the controversial Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bubba.

Ultimately, a marriage amendment is a bad idea. Dangerous to amend the Constitution to regulate moral ideas. That firmly belongs in the private sector.

207 posted on 01/22/2004 8:20:05 AM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


208 posted on 01/22/2004 8:20:14 AM PST by putupon (No Blood for Lettuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
First, we are against illegals. You can still have Mexican migrant workers, they just need to come into the country legally. Also, what about putting people on unemployment to work for the time being? Ever hear of machinery, they can help reduce the dependance on migrant workers.

You just repeated GW's worker program since he is trying to bring them in the country "legally." Machinery will not pick many of the crops and is far too expensive to run. You going to go off unemployment to work in the fields, what planet??? How do you really have agriculture w/o migrant Mexicans?? Nice try, thanks for playing.

Pray for W and The Truth

209 posted on 01/22/2004 8:20:16 AM PST by bray (The Wicked Witch of NY and Her (9-5) Flying Monkeys are In Flames!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Where were you when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban — the most significant reversal of abortion-on-demand since Roe v. Wade? Asleep?

Stopping not one abortion, keep trying though. Blackbird.

210 posted on 01/22/2004 8:20:57 AM PST by BlackbirdSST (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Bush acts like a conservative most of the time.

That is 100% correct. But it should also be pointed out that President Bush will never, NEVER espouse, endorse, propose, 100% of the 'conservative' doctrine- whatever that is. He will never satisfy anyone's (especially the infighting among conservatives as to who is 'really' conservative) beliefs, platforms, etc. 100%- no politician ever will. And if anyone believes that any candidate will support 100% of their *individual* agenda, you need to wake up to reality, because it will never happen.

211 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:07 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Where were you when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban — the most significant reversal of abortion-on-demand since Roe v. Wade? Asleep?

I think you're gullible on this. The so-called PBA ban is a how-to manual for late-term abortion. It certainly did not ban all late-term abortions as some uninformed people believe. It merely regulated how they were to be performed. The 'PBA ban' actually cemented the legal status of late-term abortions into federal law while prohibiting the scissors-in-the-skull method.

I think the meaningless PBA will be widely recognized as meaningless by serious pro-lifers before the election. It is not a great point in the GOP's favor after the number of years and the amount of money they have extracted from pro-lifers over the years.

We need the judges. Recess-appoint Estrada and the others now. That's how we can see if Bush is serious about abortion.
212 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:19 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Then don't vote for him... see how simple that is.

But, if the President doesn't change and come to your side... I think I'm going to respect him even more.

213 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:55 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I did a thread on FR awhile back on the 5 political groups

Democrats, Bushies, Republicans, Socialists and Clintonistas. I will pull out excerpts that apply to this thread.

You can only get to the Presidency through the Republican and Democrat parties and no other way. The other 3 parties the Socialists, Clintonistas and Bushies have infiltrated these two established parties to get elected. They have obviously been successful in doing this.

The good news for the gutless inept Republicans is the Clinton haters, the pro Bushies and ex-democrats (like myself) have been united against the Socialists and Clintonistas because of their anti- Americanism and shenanigans. The Republicans are presently in charge of the House, Senate and Governorships - no thanks to the political acumen of the Republicans. The Bushies have the Presidency.

The Bushies didn’t repeat Ross Perots very expensive mistake. They used the Republican Party ladder to get to the top. Actually fooling Republicans isn’t very difficult.

The Bushies push their agenda, which leaves the Republicans confused. For example: Some Republicans are totally bewildered by Bush’s not securing our border with Mexico, and allowing thousands of illegals to cross every day. And the President making stupid statements like “Islam is a religion of peace” or ‘’we worship the same God.’’ A major example is the Bushies incredible socialistic Medicare spending bill just passed, that robs the young to pay for the olds medical bills. Well if you think the Bushies are Republicans you are bound to be confused.

,p. The Bushies defend this country and kill our enemies. They don't kow tow to the UN. That’s good.

So in this presidential election cycle of 2004, it’s the Bushies vs. the Socialists with the Democrats,Republicans and Clintonistas looking on.

If the Bushies are out of the picture I am afraid in 2008 it will be the politically inept Republicans vs. the Clintonistas. And we know how that works out.

Meanwhile, if only we can get the Bushies to secure our border with Mexico, stop outspending the Socialists on domestic programs, and stop making asinine religious statements; - - Tom

214 posted on 01/22/2004 8:21:55 AM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe; BlackbirdSST; Bikers4Bush
And we're called nuts because we're tired of the BS spewing from DC, from both political parties. It's past time ALL of these bums were thrown out (I also wouldn't object to them being tared and feathered, either).

It's a shame, I had high hopes for GW when I voted for him in 2000. I absolutely wouldn't call him a miserable failure, but he's definitely been a big disappointment.

215 posted on 01/22/2004 8:22:25 AM PST by Pern ("It's good to know who hates you, and it's good to be hated by the right people." - Johnny Cash, RIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
I'd rather the American people decide the issue of gay marriage (as President Bush stated) than to leave that decision to a bunch of renegade, activist judges who impose their will over the people's.
216 posted on 01/22/2004 8:22:50 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"please quit being a hypocrite "

Actually, the Bush supporters who refuse to hold Bush to the same standards we held Clinton do are the complete hypocrites.



"Have you bothered to take a look at how much additional funding has been necessary since 9/11 or how much funding has been necessary to fund our military from all the cuts they took during the Clinton years?"


Irrelevant. In only 3 years, Bush has DOMESTICALLY outspent Clinton's 8 years. This does NOT include the (necessary) military funding that you mention. All Bush has to do is veto ANY spending bill for the first time in his Administration. He just needs to do something to show that he cares about the fiscal future of our children, who are going to be saddled with the massive debts caused by his insidious domestic spending programs. Bush has done more to make more people reliant on government handouts than Clinton did and for that reason, I'm looking to cast my vote elsewhere.

Why should I cast a vote for a "Republican" when I'm only getting a fiscal Democrat in return?
217 posted on 01/22/2004 8:22:56 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I think you might want to divide your assessment based on fiscal, foreign policy, and social....

On social policy, very conservative
On fiscal policy, with the exception of tax cuts, very not conservative...

On foreign policy, where national interests are involved, very hawkish... Where nukes are involved, very uninvolved... Where terror is concerned, a little too proud to ask for help and very isolationists... But effective... Hope the price (and it is coming) is not too high...
218 posted on 01/22/2004 8:24:00 AM PST by dwd1 (M. h. D. (Master of Hate and Discontent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
What are you going to reform, when you join the reform party. How can you reform something, when you cannot get elected. Just go over to the dims, that is where you can really accomplish something........NOT
219 posted on 01/22/2004 8:24:06 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
You are still looking forward to coming back on Free Republic and rubbing our noses in it on Nov.3rd,I assume.
220 posted on 01/22/2004 8:24:26 AM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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