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.

His proposal allows them to pay some BS penalty and then remain here working while they will be permitted to pursue citizenship.

That not the same as having a green card. They will still be required to enter into the lottery to win a green card just like every other immigrant. By the way, FYI, Mexicans are not allowed to enter for a green card.

"This is 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."

IMO, yes it does.

"Free Republic" got its name, I'm pretty sure, from the idea that we should fight to preserve our freedom. If you want Bush to lose, it follows that you'd rather have a Democrat president, and thus have our country become far less free.

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.

I'll alert the owner; he's on record as supporting the reelection of George W. Bush.

"Do you like he refuses to act in the best interest of this country?"

On a number of issues, yes I do.

"Do you think he doesn't care about this country?"

I'm not sure if it's him or those whispering in his ear but it's clear that someone doesn't care.

"Do you think he doesn't care about the american people?"

I think he cares more about illegal aliens than legal citizens.

I find it strange that you would choose THIS time to give up after 20+ years, when we are under great threat of attack, and we have a President who is successfully waging a war on terror, standing firmly for America and democracy abroad, and restoring the military.

Why NOW, when we can literally be DESTROYED if we get a Dem in the White House??

Does that really make SENSE to you??

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.

Even on these issues, it's a mixed bag. Bush signed onto the junk science conclustion that global warming is a reality so this creates a disconnect with his Kyoto stance; Abortion wasn't banned - p.b. abortion ban was killed the next day by the federal courts (and will be finally killed in USSC) and Mr. Bush doesn't appear to have any stomach for taking on the courts. Why doesn't he and the jellyfish in Congress sponsor a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Most of the country opposes abortion. Nothing to lose anyway! He seems to be afraid of offending liberals. His spokesman went along with that ABOMINATION of a decision that removed teh 10 commandment monument from the Alabama Courthouse, and as the other poster pointed out, Bush praised the pro-quota decision in Michigan.

Who is willing to FIGHT the courts? Who? Apparently not Mr. Bush. He did come out against the Mass. State court ruling on gay marriage, but I haven't seen him champion an amendment to save marriage. He spoke of it like a last resort in his speech - last resort? I'd say the TIME IS NOW to nip it in the bud. Does Mr. Bush think his threat of an amendment will scare the gay radicals and activist judges away from fully implementing gay marriage in America? You tell me - what is he thinking?

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

Unbelievable. What sort of twisted logic enables that kind of thinking. Among the bashers there's kind of a "moral equivalency" perspective which sees absolutely no distinction between Bush and the Democrats. What causes that kind of warped perspective? I said in an earlier comment on this thread that I think it stems not from legitimate ideology, but from a severe personality disorder. The inability to see gradations of moral difference, particular when the differences are striking, between Bush and the Democrats says more about the person who is blind to contrasts than it does the character of the President. Many of these people are morally bankrupt, I believe. Their only guide is apparently their own twisted view of the world -- they want what they want, and to he!! with everyone else. These debates reveal something disturbing -- We're not arguing with people who have a healthy and normal moral foundation.

"Actually her right to vote was specifically granted to her by the 19th Amendment, in 1920."

The key word is "granted". Blood was spilled to establish this country, blood was spilled to maintain this countries freedom. Without that blood, the document that contains the 19th would no longer exist. Those that spilled that blood and those that are willing to give their blood to maintain that document are the people who "earn" the rights. The rest of society is just beneficiaries of that gift from them.

It is still a right to all citizens of age. That right is a gift and should be appreciated as such!

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.

Are you wearing your jackboots and brown shirt? I think Hitler said something similar. I think you need to read the 1st amendment.

Being from TN, I can tell you that guns weren't even in the top 5 of issues in either case.

Well, you have your opinion. I know that the top strategists of both parties, having discounted the South's Republican realignment, concluded that the gun nut turnout in those two states carried the day.

Your mileage may vary. I'll go with the self-proclaimed party experts on this one. As far as evidence, I do notice that the Dims seem to believe it, just as they believed it after losing the House in '94, because they won't touch gun control with a ten-foot pole since 2000.

Ironically, the primary national advocate of gun control since 2000 has been Bush speechifying that he wants to renew the AWB. As a countermeasure, I write to Tom DeLay regularly to beg him to save me from Bush's gungrabbing impulses!

Okay, I'll admit that the AWB thing is a little bit of a dog-and-pony show for the goofy soccer moms... Still, Bush shouldn't dangle red meat in front of the Brady Bunch.

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.