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.

It has been suggested that use of the terms bushbot or bushbasher be suspended.It tends to inflame rather than inform.

Actually, I lean toward the terms 'Bushbot' and 'bashbot'.

There are groups of both here at FR. To one, Bush can do no wrong. To the other, he can do no right.

To the dwindling 'middle', where I am, it's still about policy and principle.

For instance, in 2000, I abandoned Buchanan and voted Bush so he could have one more vote in the popular vote count (my state being solid Red already). And I worked the fax lines and compiled fax lists here at FR for the Battle for Floriduh. But I'm not seeing a good reason to turn out in '04.

Bushbots or bashbots don't matter actually. Both are already committed. I think Bush has to give a solid reason to people of conservative principle to actually turn out and vote for him and for the downstream GOP candidates.

Of course, you can reassure yourself that this is an unappeasable fringe. But this very attitude nearly cost Bush the 2000 election. Well, that and Rove's idiocy in campaigning in California and that stupid minority outreach.

I know it offends some of you that the rest of us apply the same standards to a Republican president that we did to a Dim president. In truth, we still let Bush get away with plenty that would have had FReepers inciting armed rebellion if Clinton had even hinted at them. What's droll here is that the biggest Clinton-haters have morphed into the biggest Bushbots. Hard to perceive that any principles are involved.

one litmus list more worthy.

No one litmus test is worthy. That's the point.

Look at the overall job. Right now we as a nation are in the midst of trying times. Mr. Bush has done great things to ensure the safety of this country, to provide for it's future, to aid the world by showing how terrorism can be ended as a perpetual threat, bringing dignity, honor, and professionalism back to the Presidency, tax cuts, a conservative, business like approach to the economy (although he stumbled on the steel tariffs), and the list goes on.

I disagree strongly with his smooching Kennedy on the education boondoggle, although testing was snuck in to the dismay of the NEA, I disagree with the farmers welfare, and I was stunned when he signed the campaign censorship bill. A dumb political move but no one thought the Supremes had lost it to the point of accepting that thing on the "appearance of corruption." Scalia's response was brilliant.

But those knocks against him do not make me want to abandon him and the Republicans because they don't perfectly match my expectations or aren't exactly as conservative as I would like them to be.

Overall, he has done well in a difficult time for a difficult job. And having a DemoRat win at this point is too dangerous.

The most obvious is CAPPS II, the program that demands your name, SSAN, address when you buy an airline ticket - so they can check about 14 databases, including your credit rating. Have you bought a money order for $3K or more, if so - it was reported to the Feds. This intrusiveness has nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

As someone else said, a journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step. I don't want to see the 4th Amendment eroded any further.

You've read that poem about 1st they came for the Jews... and I wasn't a Jew. then they came for me... but no one was left to object.

How far must it go until YOU feel threathened ??

Yep and people like Moveon.org are sending out emails telling people to call.

Yes. And don't think some of those same people are not HERE on FR spewing their hate. Have you noticed how many new screen names there are around here? We must not be duped by these tactics.

To: RiflemanSharpe The party is NOT broken, much to your dismay, I am sure. 91 perecent of registered Republcans support this president and his policies. Now, will YOU answer my question: describe this world you invision your vote will bring about. 299 posted on 01/22/2004 10:45:16 AM CST by Howlin

You are an honest debater? LOL, that's rich!

You posted this, it's a fairy tale. You cite an article by a Bush apologist who cites only two issues, both slam dunks for conservatives and Republicans. Never mind the other four or five issues which, if asked by an honest pollster, might show a different result. You fell for it because it told you what YOU WANTED TO HEAR. It's pathetic.

Now if you will discontinue your childish namecalling attacks we can continue, if not, put your nonsense where the sun don't shine.

People like you get shrill when confronted with inconsistency.

I've been off trying to find the thread I saw that statement on and I can't find it .I recall that Pickering gave up his judgeship and if he is not approved at the end of next congressional session,he's lost his job.Taking a recess appointment is a gutsy thing as the appointment is subject to congressional approval still.I had no wishful thinking going on but should have been ready to give a source.I apologize for not being able to back it up.

Um, Wolf? You make your own counterpoint: And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

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

That's pretty much it. Education was to be a purview of cities and states not the Federal government.

Now if you will discontinue your childish namecalling attacks we can continue, if not, put your nonsense where the sun don't shine.

Good grief. Try to get over yourself.

Only a person who wanted to find something to shoulder up his own weak position would read that article that way.

But you carry right along, pushing this country to hell, lead by the Democrats.

So you think Gerorge Bush is not a conservative"

Yes, that's what I think. A moderate with some conservative tendencies, but not a conservative at heart.

Nevermind what he says, look at what he has advocated and actually done in the last 3 years. I give him high marks for many things, such as eliminating aid for international abortionists, for standing for the sanctity of marriage and life, for cutting taxes, and for his decisive actions in defense of the nation. But his propensity to promote and grossly overspend on domestic programs that used to be backed solely by liberal Democrats, his lack of will to enforce immigration law, and his authoritarian tendencies regarding civil liberties are anything but conservative IMHO. Then to cap it all off, his proposal to grant amnesty to millions of illegals is beyond my tolerance level.

Nevertheless, I will vote for him because he is vastly preferable to any of his possible ultra-liberal opponents, not because I think he's conservative. If there was a reasonable possibility that a truly conservative 3rd party candidate could win 270 electoral votes I would vote for that candidate. But of course there isn't the slightest such possibility (and never will be again) so I will vote for Bush to help prevent the awful prospect of a liberal Democrat president becoming a reality.

Well, first he needs to get the Dem nomination, that won't happen. So stop being paranoid.

LOL! he is not in the race to win the nom. He is in the race for a place at the table. I am not paranoid, I have seen what liberal policy's do to business, let alone to the over all strength of our economy and country.

We can't AFFORD to have a Dem in the Oval Office IF WE CARE ABOUT MORALITY!

Quite obviously a Dem will get elected ONLY IF the people vote for a Dem, and if a Dem is elected, America will get exactly what it deserves. In a republic like ours, the people ALWAYS get the leaders they deserve because the leaders are a DIRECT REFLECTION of the values of the people.

I care so much about morality that I am putting it ahead of party. I vote moral principle and ONLY moral principle. I have no loyalty to any party - party designation doesn't mean a freaking thing if the party doesn't hold to TRUE moral principles that I hold dear. And the FACT is that the GOP is almost as liberal as the donkey party.

(You were afraid to go toe to toe and see who's more moral, weren't ya?)

Grow up. What would be the standard for such an assinine excercise in prideful arrogance? My standard is the philosophy of the founding fathers, the Constitution and the bible. I really don't care what you think of my morality. How laughable!

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.