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.

They will freeze one's bank accounts for a couple weeks over transfers of one's money they consider overly large.

And has this happen to you? Or to anyone you know?

I find it quite revealing that the only answer these Bushbots have to our VALID principled gripes is: "Go ahead throw your vote to a democrat." It shows the abject weakness of their position - they are unable to defend Bush on the issues. It's a RED HERRING.

Just keep demanding that they address the issues - that's what I do.

"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."

Bush is President, not King Almighty. He can't just overturn federal courts at will.

And you've missed my point. I gave you a test to find Presidential candidates who would act conservatively on issues such as abortion and taxes and building our missile defenses. Clearly my litmus test correctly identifies President Bush as someone who will sign legislation to ban abortion.

That courts will attack such legislation is beyond the scope of any one President.

However, it will help for President Bush to be the one appointing the next 5 Supreme Court Justices over the next 5 years, for that very reason...

The Dem congress did for Reagan and we weren't in a "hot" war.

LOL. Um, the Dems boosted spending on every feel-good social program they could with Reagan. And Reagan had to go along with it if he wanted to get his military increases and tax-cuts through.

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.

All hail...the thought police!

Harmful tripe? If we live in a time when people here believe that our "security" is more important than our freedom, our Constitution, and our country...then I suppose liberalism has won over all of us.

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

You led me to think that because you applied shrill and goofy even after I presented my concerns about national security relative to who is elected POTUS.

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.

You're confusing the "diversity lottery" by which foreigners from selected countries may apply for extra green cards (50,000, IIRC) over and above those normally granted, with the green cards given through the normal application process.
Think about it: if all green cards were given by lottery, and Mexicans were ineligible, then no Mexicans would get green cards. That's clearly not the case.

Actually, Brit Hume reported it in The Grapevine. Is he an apologist, too?

I like Hume, my favorite journalist in fact. I'm hoping he goes after Kerry's Vietnam record with a blunt machete tonight. But publishing leaks planted by any administration is still just circulating rumors.

I asked for facts. Like statements from the White House or the nominees themselves.

I would like to see how Hume mentioned it. He's normally very careful about this kind of thing. I just didn't happen to catch that Grapevine and can't find it on my Tivo. I very much doubt that Hume presented it as a fact. The Grapevine is, by its nature, sometimes about spinning. Hence, the name 'grapevine'.

Rove's spin machine can turn out anything it wants. Bush-spin is not intrinsically superior to Klinton-spin, is it?

At the end of the day, I still want more Scalias and excuses don't cut it.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not the owner of a private opinion forum must allow you to post tripe.

And the owner values free speech, a value you obviously don't hold.

Not once have I ever laid to waste the collective thoughts of all the bushbots by implying mental illness.

You however have managed to take the debate to an alltime low.

Conrats on your dubious honor.

Never mind the other four or five issues which, if asked by an honest pollster, might show a different result. .

Okey-dokey...

Pollster John Zogby: “Democrats and Republicans continue to act as mirror images of each other. Nearly four in five (78%) Republicans say the country is headed in the right direction, while 70% of Democrats and 54% of independents say it’s the wrong direction. It’s the same thing with the President’s re-elect numbers … 83% of the Republicans say he deserves re-election, while 73% of Democrats and 55% of independents say it’s time for someone new. The concept of an equally divided nation continues.”

Zogby

And don't EVEN call Zogby a Bush apologist, he's on the other end of the spectrum.

There have been numerous well-stated defenses of Bush and his policies throughout these pages. There have been many well-state criticisms. But this isn't about that. It's about standing up to people on this forum who want to trash the man.

"Finally, as far as abortion: I would rather vote for a pro-choice true fiscal conservative that will cut spending and big government programs than a anti-abortion big-spender."

In other words, you'd prefer to kill children rather than take their future money.

Hillary will love what you do for her...

Exactly. Besides, where does that number come from?

FoxNews, AP, Zogby, ABCNBCCBS, pick your source. It is approval from his base - meaning Republicans. His highest was 98% (Nov 01) and lowest 86% (Jan 04 - before the SOTUS).

I have seen his approval ratings drop 10% in 30 days

Those are general or overall, men, women, Rep, Dem, Ind all combined, and they have a greater variance. A high at 88%, a low at 50% and last I saw, 60-62% depending on the poll.

A Super-majority of Americans want the borders CONTROLLED - and NOW.

A super majority? Where's the figures? The polls I've seen, immigration isn't anywhere near the top. It's an important issue but not a killer one nationally.

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.