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.

So it is our own egos that we are thinking about when we oppose increasing the size of governement, amnesty for illegals, protecting the Constitution, etc.

How about you, too, describe for us that country your anti-Bush vote is going to bring about?

How EXACTLY is putting the Democrats back in power going to further your goals?

...Campaign Finance Reform - no... don't like the bill. But... still going to vote for the President...

...2nd Amendment - oh heaven help us if you can't have your precious guns and semi-automatic rifles, etc. If the automatic assault weapons ban is upheld (I don't expect it to be) then I will still vote for the President....

Your sarcastic dismissal of the most important parts of the Constitution says all one needs to know about you.

You can be all happied up about yourself, since I will take your word that you are an enemy of the Constitution. Since you, enemy of the Constitution, are adamantly in support of Bush, that's a further strike against him.

Actually, there wasn't any sarcasm in my post... there is a weariness though...

I'll take a comfort that you will do your best to spare the country Clinton Redux.

I have never suggested that you were a complete idiot. I don't think you are an idiot at all. I think you are a principled, informed voter, who I disagree with.

Like I said, I don't agree with the President on everything... but I do on the war on terror. I see a democrat win as a retreat from the war on terror, which will embolden the terrorists and 9/11 will only be the beginning.

I will work like mad to prevent that from happening.

Most of the die hard Bush supporters here on FR want to have it two ways.

1 - "You (Constitution, Libertarian, Tancredo write in) folks are a tiny fleabite on the country's rear end. Who cares what you think?"

2 - "You (Constitution, Libertarian, Tancredo write in) folks are PUTTING AMERICA IN DANGER because you won't vote for W. Are you NUTS??"

They can't both be true.

It's pretty clear that Bush and Rove have accepted (1), deciding they have a much better chance of winning in 2004 by triangulating the center-left vote and letting us diehard limited government types pound sand.

Hey, that's their call. They just should not be surprised when they get what they planned on.

No Child Left Behind - Federal mandate that intrudes upon local government. This one hasn't been covered as much as other Conservative issues in this thread or others (illegal immigration, PATRIOT, etc. about the topic of whether he is a Conservative anymore).

This one bugs me a lot because it sounds like a liberal principle - "we are going to try and create these standards and force them upon local governments, regardless of their circumstances, and we are doing it for the children and if you don't like it, you'll lose federal money".

Give me a break, that "federal money" is OUR money, it's not the federal government's to hold on to and dole out as they see fit.

More power and control of things such as this need to be brought back down to the county level. I can't honestly see President Bush doing that, because he has become a moderate, or "Conservative Lite" as some call him. He's still better than any democrat, but that doesn't say much.

The fine will be some BS minisule amount and the reward is that they will be allowed to remain here and pursue citizenship at all, which they do not deserve.

As was stated on another post yesterday. Someone contacted their senators office and they were told that Bush intends to use an executive order to implement the amnesty program.

So much for our elected officials in congress.

"Your thinking will get us another Clinton, maybe that is what you want."

Well, we already have a President who, in terms of government spending, is worse than Clinton.

At the rate he's alienating GOP voters, we will have another Clinton in 2008 - the Hildebeast.

But I'm sure that, in your opinion, that'll be all my fault. Sheesh. I just want the President I voted for to cut domestic spending and stop making more people reliant on Big Gov't. Please tell me what's so "Democrat"ic about that?

If you haven't seen the bloated egos on this forum, you haven't been reading very carefully.

The bottom line is your demands that he do what YOU want on every issue, IF they result in your staying home in November, or throwing your vote away, you are risking.....deliberately.....giving this country back to the dems who don't give a RIP about this country.

Conversely, your bottom line is your demand that everyone vote for President Bush, no matter what.
No one owes any politician or party their vote. The votes need to be earned, and it's up to each individual voter to decide the price.
Some issues are intrinsically divisive, and cost votes. When politicians do things that cost themselves enough votes that they aren't reelected, the responsibility for the lost votes and elections is theirs.
That's political reality, and won't change, no matter how you fight it.
So, if President Bush were to squander enough votes that a Democrat is elected, it would be him, not the voters he failed, who is responsible.

"And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?"

This was defeated not because the founders were against public education, but because they wanted to leave the matter to the states.

You answered your own question, I guess those people weren't mindless after all.

What we are hoping to do is force the repubs to the right.

By getting a Dem in the White House??

I heard this BS back in 92 and all we got was srewed up the you know what

But hey I guess you know mind having nukes pointed at us by North Korea?

And how exactly does the Patriot Act castrate your 4th Amendment rights?

It eliminates that frivolous Probable Cause thing.

Silly me - I thought you might support the Constitution but I guess not.

I'm all for it, so much so that I will speak out when GW, Asscroft, and their cronies use it to wipe their ass!

WEll, you're trying, but the one-issue conservatives won't be happy with his overall record, since he "didn't do what I wanted."

I have difficulties with the illegal immigration issue, and I also know about the spending issues. (Well, The Economy did tank when he took over, and we did suffer a terrorist attack) but I would rather spend the funds now while there is still time, than endure and survive another attack.

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.

Disengenuous. If Bill Clinton was doing the things that offend you so much, YOU WOULD AT LEAST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE -- vote GOP.

Once you "break the party," as so many of you want to do, what are your options then, since nobody with extreme views will EVER be elected.

You can do it, too: tell me exactly how this country will be a better place when you hand the little power we have back to the Dems?

Lets repeat it again...Life is about compromise...And my fellow conservatives are forgetting this....Never will we get everything we want from one President. Impossible.

GWB in an election year may be covering all his bases....I live in California and for 20 years I have been warning my fellow voters about the illegal immigration thing...AND NOW I STAND RIGHT....!

Was I taken aback by GWB and his policy...Yes! But on second look I see a man putting his arms around an issue that everyone else was afraid to do...AND LOOK WHERE THAT GOT US....DITTO IRAQ!

By bringing this issue to the forefront...GWB has invoked us all to speak and we will be heard..ALL OF THIS SO FAR IS JUST AN OUTLINE!

Congress and the Senate will debate..And do you not all know by doing so GWB has pushed the Dims into a corner..... They will push for more and alienate themselves even further.....Somehow I believe the compromise will be a better solution to the problem than the ignoring that we do now......

How do you know how many you need if you ignore the problem? He has suggested a way to count and track these illegals which is a start. I guess he should have ignored it and kept all of us "Conservatives" happy with our heads buried in the hay. Is it perfect? No. Is there a perfect way? No. There are millions of other menial jobs that go unreported and unwanted.

Pray for W and The Truth

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.