So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[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]

[Protagoras]

I thought you were referring to the desire for national security as shrill and goofy.

You thought wrong. What would lead you to think that after that shrill and goofy statement was singled out is anyone's guess.

[My2Cents]

(I hope the sheer volume of comments on this thread gets the attention of the FR Overlords. Personally, I think they should carefully read the full thread, and come to the conclusion that the open-ended and unreasonable bashing of this President needs to be reigned in. JimRob has made it clear that he supports Bush, even though some of Bush's policies have made that support difficult at times. I support FR because it is run by principled AND pragmatic people. To continue to allow the kind of fanatical disruption we've been seeing on FR makes no sense if the goal is to get Bush re-elected.)

[ravingnutter]

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.

Hmmm...from the DHS website:

CAPPS II will authenticate the identity of passengers by checking the passenger name record - including full name, home address, telephone number and date of birth - against commercial databases. In addition, a risk assessment will be done by checking passenger names against government databases.

No SS # required.

Bank and medical records will not be used, nor will information regarding an individual's creditworthiness.

Bank/Credit records will not be used.

CAPPS II Fact Sheet

Have you bought a money order for $3K or more, if so - it was reported to the Feds.

The limit is $10,000 not $3,000:

A financial institution and any “nonfinancial trade or business” must file a report concerning a transaction (or series of related transactions) in excess of $10,000 or more in currency.

Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing This intrusiveness has nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

Oh really now...you didn't type this with a straight face did you?

[Sabertooth]

I wrote that it goes back AT LEAST to the Eisenhower administration before I'd had a chance to research its origins. The first form of guest-worker program began in the early 1940's. See my post #51.

That's not the problem with your Eisenhower reference. It's the implication that deporting 1.4 million Illegals in the 1950s is somehow a precedent for rewarding as many as 8 to 12 million of them with legalization under President Bush.

I know that you have a principled opposition to the president's proposal; in fact, that illegal immigration appears to be an overriding issue for you, judging by your posts during the recall. I respect your point of view and your posts, because they are usually well stated and rarely nasty. Unless I missed a post where you said otherwise, I also respect the fact that you still intend to vote for President Bush despite your vigorous opposition on this issue.

I intend to vote for President Bush, barring the actual enactment of his Illegal Alien "not an Amnesty" Amnesty. I think it won't be enacted, but I want to make certain that it's defeated so soundly as to make Amnesty a third rail for politicians in the future.where the fabric of American civilization is threatened: the War on Terror, the Constitutional Marriage Amendment, the dissolution of our borders and sovereignty. free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The President is strong on the WoT, getting stronger on CMA, weak on sovereignty, weak on free speech as a result of CFR, and an unkown on the Second Amendment.

I take every one of your posts seriously and never assume disingenuousness on your part. I would thank you to display similar respect for my point of view. Everything I post reflects what I believe to be true.

I typically find your posts to be thoughtful, even when I disagree with them. Unfortunately, you were well wide of the mark with regard to the issue of Amnesty in the SOTU.

Legalization of Illegals is Amnesty for those Illegals. That's the truth.

The President is splitting hairs on Amnesty, and your highlighting of his hairsplitting while omitting what little substance of his proposal he brought to the SOTU is a serious overreach. Hence, my comment.

You started with a premise of using the SOTU to demonstrate conservatism on the part of President Bush. Many of your points were well taken, but you'd have been better off to omit his Amnesty remark altogether, rather than try and pass it off as something it wasn't, even if you've convinced yourself that wasn't what you were doing.

Lipstick doesn't make a pretty pig, just ugly cosmetology.

Claiming Eisenhower, who deported 1.4 million Illegals who were not made eligible for legalization as guest workers, as a precedent for the Bush "guest worker" Amnesty for 8 to 12 million Illegals, is disingenous.

[bray]

I don't know why the farmers in your area don't use machines. You could be right about them.

Oregon and Washington is the apple capital of the US. I think these farmers know what they're doing. They need cheap labor that can climb ladders and hand pick fruit. This need is repeated throughout the agriculture industry.

And yet many still do not wish to go the legal route to do it. We should just reward them.

What reward? A three year guest worker program? They can then APPLY for the legal way. You are kinda speaking both sides of the argument with that last statement. Fact is, farmers out in the west need millions of cheap laborers and Mexico is the source. The smart political way for W to handle this would have continued to ignore the issue.

Pray for W and The Truth

[Southack]

"But Bush has not been a fiscal conservative, which IS the most important quality of a true conservative."

Then you didn't understand my point.

Dean is fiscally conservative, yet Dean would never sign an abortion ban (Dean was a Planned Parenthood doctor, in fact). In contrast, Bush has already signed an abortion ban into law, a very conservative thing to do.

In other words, being frugal isn't the same thing as being conservative. That's why your litmus test fails. Your test says to vote for the most frugal spender.

That would get you pro-abortion Dean, a far cry from a true Conservative.

On the other hand, my abortion ban test would tell you to vote for Bush. That would get you someone who has already banned one form of abortion, killed the Kyoto Global Warming nonsense, withdrawn from the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty restraints (so that we can defend our nation), cut taxes, cut regulations, and put conservative judges onto the federal roster.

Ergo, my litmus test is better than your litmus test (cue sounds of children screeching "nanny nanny boo boo" in the background).

And the reason for mentioning that one test is better than another is to help us avoid looking at the wrong things and/or the wrong candidates. Thus, this is important.

[EllaMinnow]

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.

Thank you so much for posting what I've been thinking. They are as ridiculous in their Boo-Hoo "President Bush isn't pure enough for me" garbage as the DUmbest Deaniac to stumble into a meet-up.

I see plenty of "Anybody but Bush" in my neighborhood, I'm just sick of seeing it here.

[Redleg Duke]

Well, when you and your ilk elect the RAT candidate, I don't want to hear anything out of you complaining about the wave of socialism sweeping out of the White House.

[Wolfstar]

And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm. (This is just a beginning.)

[Howlin]

My point is that Bush is more dangerous than a democrat.

Basically that's all anybody needs to read when trying to decide if you're worth replying to.

I pass.

[Howlin]

It depends on what the meaning of "pain" is.

[My2Cents]

That is by far the most pathetic attack I have seen to date.

Hey, I'm glad it struck home! As for most pathetic attacks, I suggest you go back and read some of your own comments.

[Bikers4Bush]

I'll get in line for my turn at you trying to kick my a$$.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A year from now, we're either going to have a Democrat in the White House, or we're going to have President Bush.

The real world does have a way of jumping up and biting one in the voting booth. The old term was Realpolitik. One can only strive for the best result possible, not the best possible result. (Of course, fringe elements may well be willing to accept losing an election to ensure that they maintain their purity of essence. The Left and Right both suffer from this mania.)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I see plenty of "Anybody but Bush" in my neighborhood, I'm just sick of seeing it here.

As am I. They're no better than Democrats.

[swarthyguy]

My two cents on the why of this amnesty.

Bring illegal dollars into the system for FICA payroll deductions for Social Security.

Second, unsaid, but a future privatisation of PEMEX, Mejico's state run oil monopoly.

[zook]

"This is "Free Republic" remember?"

Yep. It refers to keeping our republic free, not to freely allowing all kinds of harmful tripe to be posted. And anyone who thinks we'll be a freer republic if Bush is defeated is posting harmful tripe.

[Protagoras]

You will not be more likely to get that voting for a dem or a third party so what will you do?

Same as any sane person, refuse to vote for anyone who stands for those things.

I noticed you conceded those things by ignoring them.

BTW, YOU say I woun't be more likely, that isn't correct just because you said it.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

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.

And what you really meant was:

"Anyone given this choice who would turn this nation and its security over to a Democrat to anyone other than GWB is dangerous, and someone I consider my political enemy."

So with that kind of logic, I'll expect to see your opus posted here shortly, as FR is a conservative forum, and GWB is not a conservative. Anyone who is not a conservative, or does not support a conservative is someone I consider my political enemy. Last time I checked, CentristRepublic.com was an available domain name, maybe you should start your own site so your "enemies" won't bully you anymore.

[Nanodik]

I pass.

I do the same when I am out of trump cards.