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.

Their fiscal conservativism even put the government into surplus.

The government was never in an actual surplus. Clinton did a bond trading scheme (screwing his successor with much higher interest rates), charged the newly financed debt as income, double entered borrowing from social security into the general fund as income, and more.

I wondered how Bush was going to handle it and after three years, it looks like 'silently.'

That's the number one litmus test for true conservatives: banning abortion.

There's no one litmus test for "true conservatives." If someone with a strong pro-life position also happens to be anti-RKBA, pro-tax/spend, and pro-open borders (and many such people exist), that someone is not even close to being a conservative.

Frankly, and this is a general comment, If we want to change the "complexion" of our federal government - I think we would better serve our conservative agenda by focusing on the congressional seats.

We would be far more effective at our local levels working to fill them with Tom Tancredos, Ron Pauls and Tom DeLays than raging on with each other over just one (albeit an important one) position.

We can achieve far more effective results, and longer lasting results if we can influence legislation supportive of the conservative cause for freedom and liberty.

We do this by working local campaigns and at the ballot box.

Its one thing to express disapproval(which is fine) and quite another to declare that they won't vote for Bush in such a critical and close election over their pet issue, when the stakes are so high. There are times to negotiate, and then there are times where it becomes de facto blackmail.

It is like a soldier, when they are about to enter a front line battle, telling his unit that he will refuse to provide cover for them unless he gets an immediate pay raise.

"They migrate from Mexico in the winter to USA in the summer. Nice putdown!"

Oh sorry, wrong answer. They move to the northern states in the summer and move to southern & western states in the winter.

"Apples, oranges, peaches, cherries and nearly every agriculture crop. Most fruits and vegetables need hand picking or damaged crop losses will put farmers out of business."

Funny, I used to live down the road from a couple of apple farms and they used machines. We also had other agricultural farms around: corn, machine; soybeans, machine; hay, machine; wheat, machine.

Also: cotton, machine; peanuts, machine; nuts, machine. Do I need to go on? See you must still be living in the stone age for you to think that "nearly every agriculture crop" uses something other than machine. Machines have changed since they were first brought out, they are better at protecting the produce from damage.

"As for making unemployed pick, you going to have farmers pay their benefits, workmans comp and unemployment."

Is that provided to migrant workers now? Is that provided to people that go to the day work offices?

"Once again, how do you have agriculture w/o cheap Mexican labor??? Still waiting."

Once again, read the above responses. We had agriculture before the migrant Mexican workers, we will have it without. You would realize that if you would just take off your blinders.

Thanks for playing though.

I believe what was said was ... Having a Dem in the WH would teach republicans a lesson

A poster the other night said, and I quote, "I'll either not vote in November, or I may for the Democrat." They used to shave the heads of women in France after WW-2 who had that kind of attitude.

It is YOU who repeatedly call into question anyone's morals if they don't agree with you.

Can't you just tell the truth? I stated MY Moral position - feeling froggy? And you can't stand it. You can't argue the issues - you can only launch personal attacks. Tell you what pal, anytime you think you are ready to defend Bush's actions, point by point, let me know. I have repeatedly listed Bush's liberal statements and policies and I have yet to find any Bush loyalist who can adequately defend him on these points - all you can do is launch attacks - a liberal democratic tactic. All you can do is attack my character, my conservativatism, and my motives, but such attacks are RED HERRINGS. It has become evident that you are incapable of defending Mr. Bush on the issues.

You are not up to a REAL DEBATE. So, why don't you just get lost - I think I'm done posting to you. You are wasting my time. Your further posts will be ignored. As Ace Ventura once said, "Buh Bye then."

I said the foundation choose Kennedy for fighting for his beliefs..public service is how he did it.Bush was the presenter.I said he had class.I didn't say I liked it,Kennedy,the timing of the award,the award.

You don't like the father or the son ,which is your right,your opinion is just as important as mine.I hope yours makes you as feel as justified,right and good as mine does.I treasure my right to express it.

You guys who threaten not to vote for Bush because he hasn't done enough for YOU need to start to think about the COUNTRY above your own egos!

I don't think you understand. We're not asking for welfare handouts for ourselves--we're asking for Bush to do what is best for the country, instead of creating new welfare entitlements, spitting on the constitution with campaign finance reform, and letting spending spiral out of control worse than Clinton ever did.

By selling out, he's giving the Democrats credibility they don't deserve, and he's putting conservatism off the map of public discourse.

quite another to declare that they won't vote for Bush in such a critical and close election

Where are you getting this from? None of these Dems have any credibility with mainstream Americans when it comes to security. It's not going to be close.

Terrific post, thank you :-)

The Constitution was written in a manner to force citizens jockeying for power to band together as coalitions. This would force the coalitions to be inherently moderate in philosophy. This makes for a very stable and enduring political system. Once we understand it and appreciate it as such, we can work within those parameters to influence change and reverse liberalism's considerable damage

Now pray we can continue to repair America slowly before fellow "conservatives" hand the country back over to the rabid lefties.

If Bush stood up and promised you Bushbots a Soviet America, you'd quickly swoon and post some drippy photo thread.

Why don't you change your freepname? It is intellectually dishonest to use it when you castigate his supporters and apparently do not represent or agree with many of his positions.

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.