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 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: DollyCali
consider that to just defeat GWB & take a (HORROR OF HORROR) chance that someone like Dean might get elected, is scary.

Consider that some of us don't like socialism, be it Republican socialism or Democrat socialism. Some of us have come to the conclusion that with divided govt, there will be less socialism passed into law and with the congress firmly in the hands of the Republicrats, that a Dem prez may actually be preferable to a Rep socialist one. Some of us believe that if socialism from the Republicrats is not repudiated, then we will truly have a 1 party system. Bush had an opportunity to throw a big piece of red meat to the right wing last night. He didn't and now there is no reason for the right wing to vote for him. I did not vote for him last time and I won't this time. He is really no different then his daddy.

701 posted on 01/22/2004 10:34:58 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
OK, maybe not a Dem president, but either the House or Senate. Right now there's no real check or balance for the executive. He can spend all he wants.
702 posted on 01/22/2004 10:35:13 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I want my judges. And I ain't gonna shut up about it. Bush still has time to do it, right now. If he wants my vote, give me the damned judges.

Diaper full?

703 posted on 01/22/2004 10:35:15 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: skip2myloo
To me, GWB is the worst candidate, except for all the others who are running.

*standing ovation*
704 posted on 01/22/2004 10:35:25 AM PST by BJClinton (Vote Democrat, it's easier than thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I want my judges. And I ain't gonna shut up about it. Bush still has time to do it, right now. If he wants my vote, give me the damned judges.

I am glad to hear that President Bush might still get your vote, but it should not even be in question. You should vent your anger at the obstructionist dims. (ie Shumer et al!)

705 posted on 01/22/2004 10:35:27 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The foolishness is breathtaking.
706 posted on 01/22/2004 10:36:54 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (I love my Green Bay Packers! GO PATRIOTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Then, if the Bush Amnesty loses more votes than it gains, it strengthens Al Qaeda.

Sailing the dangerous waters of applied logic again?

LOL.
707 posted on 01/22/2004 10:37:00 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
Hyperbole like that is usually found at the DU or the ABC newsroom.

You mean hypebole like; if you don't vote for us those bad ole Dems wil destroy everything in the country? If you don't vote for Bush you are supporting the Al Qeada? If you don't vote for Bush, there will be no more country, much less a Republican Party? If you don't vote for Bush, taxes will go up 1 trilion dollars. If you don't vote for Bush there will be no more military.

That kind of hyperbole? All of those things have been said on this thread.

708 posted on 01/22/2004 10:37:01 AM PST by Protagoras (When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: zook
...turn in your FR card and go home.

Bull. This a forum to discuss, among other things, ideas. Just because Dubya is the lesser of 2 evils doesn't mean a FReeper should quit the forum for not voting for him.
709 posted on 01/22/2004 10:37:12 AM PST by BJClinton (Vote Democrat, it's easier than thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Wait4Truth
A little paranoid aren't we?
710 posted on 01/22/2004 10:37:19 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Actually, Brit Hume reported it in The Grapevine.

Is he an apologist, too?

711 posted on 01/22/2004 10:38:51 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: zook
Criticize Bush if you like, but if you claim you aren't going to vote for him, then turn in your FR card and go home.

Precisely. This needs to be pounded home on every naysaying thread that pops its head up on FR. Frankly, considering the pragmatic conservatism of Jim Rob and the folks who oversee this site, I wouldn't be surprised if they start banning some of the more obstreperous Bush-bashers, or at least start pulling posts. I mean, how many times a day does a post need to go up criticizing Bush's immigration proposal, for example. It's the same old arguments, the same old posters, the same old stridency, the same old negativity, the same old venom. Why is it allowed? Nothing new has been said by the Bashers in weeks. At some point (and I think we've passed the point), all of the objections to Bush have been said, and it simply becomes counterproductive to allow them to continue to spew on this site.

On the other hand, a post like this one highlights Bush's conservative values for all to see. In the face of this information, for the bashers to continue to argue that "Bush isn't conservative," rather than the more reasonable position that "he isn't as conservative as I'd like him to be," is frankly, idiotic, or worse. I question their motives.

712 posted on 01/22/2004 10:39:08 AM PST by My2Cents ("Failure is not an option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
This wife of a Biker... supports President Bush 150%, so do our other bikers. You don't want him than you will get what you vote against.
713 posted on 01/22/2004 10:40:07 AM PST by JFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"Very shrill, notwithstanding the "explanation". In fact, goofy, IMO."

Please define 'shrill' and what was 'goofy'?
714 posted on 01/22/2004 10:40:41 AM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: bayng
Thank you.

You know, this isn't rocket science. A year from now, we're either going to have a Democrat in the White House, or we're going to have President Bush. It's as simple as that.

Anyone given this choice who would turn this nation and its security over to a Democrat is dangerous, and someone I consider my political enemy.
715 posted on 01/22/2004 10:41:49 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (I love my Green Bay Packers! GO PATRIOTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: soozla
I have already made clear that if shillary were to run I would be forced to vote for W.
716 posted on 01/22/2004 10:42:27 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Constitution party here I come. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
Voting third party at a time of war, both at home and abroad, when the only real choices are a moderately conservative (or conservatively moderate) incumbent, and the incarnation of evil in our society, is lunacy. Where in the so-called "real conservative's" set of values is the principle of cutting off their face to spite their nose? Being a loser isn't one of the values I cherish.
717 posted on 01/22/2004 10:42:27 AM PST by My2Cents ("Failure is not an option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Well someone taking the freepname of 'Dick Cheney' or 'Ronald Reagan' and then spouting off Marxist slogans would tweak a few noses, but it would also be intellectually dishonest, basically a fraud. Your using Bush's name when you trash his supporters and the man's position only differs by matter of degree. A man of honor would not do that. Thus I hope that you will now consider and ultimately change your freepname to something more in line with your words, actions, and beliefs.
718 posted on 01/22/2004 10:42:49 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat (www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
That kind of hyperbole? All of those things have been said on this thread.

You had better hope that President Bush gets re-elected, so you can still have him to bash. Apparently you have forgotten the ideology and agenda of those he must defeat.!

719 posted on 01/22/2004 10:43:07 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: skip2myloo; Wolfstar; ohioWfan
He wrote it - it's known as the McCain-Feingold law.

Sorry, I should have included an "irony" tag for the less intelligent among us.

Again, I will repeat, "So what if John McCain supported the Bush Campaign Finance law?"

I don't like McCain, but as every day goes by, I keep thinking, we may just as well have elected him instead of Bush.

720 posted on 01/22/2004 10:43:39 AM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 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