Posted on 02/01/2006 9:51:00 PM PST by Coastal
WASHINGTON -- While jumping up on cue to cheer during the speech and delivering rave reviews afterward in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, conservative members of Congress were deeply disappointed by George W. Bush Tuesday night. It was not merely that the president abandoned past domestic goals. He appeared to be moving toward bigger government.
The consensus on the Right was that President Bush's fifth State of the Union Address was his worst. Republican congressmen agreed privately that he was most effective at the beginning with his familiar message of why U.S. forces cannot abandon Iraq. The problem for these lawmakers was the rest of the 51-minute presentation, which was filled with unpleasant surprises.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalledger.com ...
I can't see how any conservative in favor of limited government or secure borders could have been anything but disgusted by that speech last night. He proposed expanding the federal government's role in education, sounded like Gore speaking of increasing money for government research in alternative energy while not saying a thing about ANWR, stated that the federal government should be responsible for paying for health care for the poor and the elderly, and proposed another commission to study the impact of baby boomers on social security. Bill Clinton was more fiscally responsible.
The ones here are our tired and worn unappeasables. Their negativity is totally predictable.
They're Keysters for the most part...lol.
I stayed up too late last night to see what else Howlin was gonna dig up on the Cindy Sheehan episode.....
I was wiped out all day!
Getting old really limits the late night hour fun!
Well, it's good to know who you think is a good president.
President Bush gave us Roberts and Alito.
President Bush got through the anti Partial Birth Abortion Bill. And yes, I know that it has now been overturned, but it's far more than Reagan got done.
And this is just for starters. :-)
>>>>>For you to call him a failure just shows your pettiness.
I said, on some issues Bush has been a success. On other issues Bush has been a failure. An imperfect record for sure. One more time. Bush has shown good leadership in the WOT, cutting taxes, court nominees and right to life issues. On domestic federal spending, limited government and immigration reform, Bush has been a failure. That's the way I see it.
I can't help it if the truth upsets you.
Heck, I'm 3 hours earlier than you are; how the heck do you think I felt today?
You should have stopped at "That's the way I see it."
Guess you missed him asking for the line item veto.
Congress SPENDS, not the president. Nice try.
We were ALL tired today, but some of us (like me) had to fake it and go on errands and be pleasant all day!
For a real speech, here's the Alan Keyes these Bushbots love to hate:
Republican Candidate Event in New Hampshire
~~~
Alan Keyes
~~~
February 19, 1995
The following text was taken from a Focus on the Family broadcast that was aired February 22, 1995. The show received an overwhelming response--so much, that for the first time in the show's 17 year history, they repeated the broadcast the following day.
On February 19, 1995, the Republican candidates met in New Hampshire. They were asked specifically how they felt about abortion and other moral issues. The following is a transcript of short segments of their answers. (Robert Dole was not in attendance)
Lynn Martin: I'm a pro-choice Republican. I find that it's interesting that the people who I supported never asked about that as an issue. I do not mean it is not important to people. I was raised and went to Parochial schools. I think I have a great understanding of why that is a moral issue. The question for me on that issue is, "Should I make the decision for someone else?" So I don't think Republicans ought to run away with the issue or from the issue, but I don't think we have to be personally divisive or attack the morality and intelligence of others in areas where they may differ--whether it's economics, whether it's social issues, whether it's domestic issues, whether it's international issues.
Senator Phil Gramm: First of all, let me say that I am pro-life. I can't reach any other conclusion and be honest with my conscience, but I understand that we have people in the Republican Party who take both views on the issue. And we've got to have a party that can bring together people who want to change America, no matter how they stand on this issue--and there's no better role model for doing this than Ronald Reagan.
Senator Arlan Spector: I believe we should strive for party unity by making the abortion issue an irrelevancy. There's nothing in the "Contract with America" about abortion. I believe that the Republican Party ought to have a platform which is neutral. I'm very much personally opposed to abortion, but I do not believe it can be controlled by the government. I'm not looking for a pro-choice plank, but I don't think it's acceptable to have an anti-choice plank.
When a leader of one Republican group said about ten days ago that someone who is pro-choice is not qualified to be the Republican nominee for President, I was very offended for myself and for about half of the Republican Party. I don't think it is appropriate to put about half of the Republicans as second class citizens. So what I say we do with the divisive abortion issue is, let's leave it alone. Let's unite behind core Republican values, smaller government, less spending, less taxes, strong crime control, strong national defense, civil rights.
Pat Buchanan: You cannot call "right to life" an irrelevancy. We're talking about the right to life of an unborn child. Forty-percent of American people believe that taking that life amounts to a bloody killing of an innocent human being. It is a moral issue of enormous moment, and a great party is got to take a stand on it. The stand we ought to take is the stand taken by Ronald Reagan. He was pro-life all the way. He had a pro-life platform. He ran on a pro-life ticket. And when he put those together, he said, "Listen. This is what I believe, and what I'm going to stand for. However, we've got to put together a 60-percent coalition, so if you don't agree there on this issue, okay, do you agree with us on small government, strong defense? You're welcome to come in." That's the position I would take.
Representative Bob Dornan: It is a baby, not a choice. If you leave it alone and don't stop its heart and flatline its brainwaves, if you don't kill it, you can call it potential all you want, it is a human being. And we cannot avoid discussing this, in depth, in this race. Roe v. Wade has given us 22 years of abortion on demand for any and all reasons, or no reason at all, through all 9 months. I'm in this race to make sure that we do discuss this issue.
Lamar Alexander: Abortion is very important, and here's my view: it's wrong. The states may restrict it, as I did, when I was Governor. The Federal Government should stay entirely out of it, because I believe it's wrong and that states may restrict it. I would characterize those views as pro-life. But I think we need to move on to other issues.
Senator Richard Lugar: Well, each one of us will try to determine which issues we believe is most important. I believe most important is the defense of our country, national security of our country. It seems to me we've got to begin to strongly face alliances, we have to bring about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons during these next few years, or we shall have a world of terrorists, of blackmail, of life very different of which we have become accustomed.
Former UN Representative Alan Keyes had previously heard pro-abortion statements throughout the day of the gathering of the Republican candidates for President. He stepped up to the microphone and gave the following speech:
Alan Keyes: Thank you very much.
I am certainly loathe to correct anything that is said by a governor with such a distinguished record as Governor Merrill, but I am actually from the great State of Maryland--mistake in the program--where my ancestors have lived for the last 200 years, sometimes as free men and women, and sometimes as slaves. And I guess it's from that background and that history that I shall speak to you this evening, and it's really that background and that history that, in part, drive me to stand before you.
And I realized, as I was listening to the speakers who came before me, that I come at an important juncture in this program. Because I think that the great alternatives have been laid before you tonight. And we as Republicans are going to have to decide again, as we had to decide in the past, whether we shall only speak of justice and speak of principle, or whether we shall stand and fight for them! Whether we shall quote from the words of the Declaration of Independence with real conviction, or whether we shall take that document and throw it on the ash heap of history as we adopt the message of those who say that we can stand silent in the face of injustice!
When it comes to deciding whether we shall stand by the great principle that declares that all human beings are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to life, there is no choice for silence!
There is no choice for silence!!
And I can tell you right now that those who are recommending that we pull the pro-life plank out of the Republican Party platform are recommending, as some people decided in the Whig Party in the years before the Civil War, that they would be silent on the great issue of principle that faced this nation--we shall be silent.
And you see what happened to the Whigs.
The Republican Party grew up as a party aimed at dealing with that moral irresponsibility, standing on the principle that Lincoln articulated, that you cannot have the right to do what is wrong.
And I'll tell you, we have heard a lot of people tonight. They talk about the money, and they talk about the budget. But you and I both know, if we're willing to look ourselves in the eye, what the truth is. Why is it that we spend so much money on welfare and illegitimacy? Why is it that we spend so much money on crime and violence in our streets? Why is it even that we spend so much money dealing with the problems of irresponsible behavior that contributes to the decline of the health of this nation? I think you all know in your hearts what the real answer is.
We don't have money problems. We have moral problems. And it's time we stood up and faced that truth!
And I don't know how we're going to face that truth, if, as was suggested here today, we can look our daughters in the eye and tell them that it is somehow consistent with freedom for them to trample on the human rights of their unborn offspring. We're going to have to find the courage one of these days to tell people that freedom is not an easy discipline. Freedom is not a choice for those who are lazy in their heart and in their respect for their own moral capacities.
Freedom requires that, at the end of the day, you accept the constraint that is required, the respect for the laws of nature and nature's God that say unequivocally that your daughters do not have the right to do what is wrong, that our sons do not have the right to do what is wrong. They do not have the right to steal bread from the mouths of the innocent; they do not have the right to steal life from the womb of the unborn.
And I'll tell you, some people may say that if we stand up and we speak out and we fight for that principle, we'll be dividing the Republican Party. But I don't think so. This Party was born on a clear commitment to principle. This party was born of those who had the courage to stand before the American people and, in the face of the threat of a greater division than we'll ever face, insist that we had to respect the principles that make us great, the principles that make us strong, the principles that make us free. And I'll tell you, we're going to have to do it again.
Look at what's happening in the streets of our cities. Look at what's happening to our families today. Do you think that the decline of marriage and the moral dissolution of the family is a money problem? Or do you think it's a problem that comes from putting the self first, from deciding that there are no obligations that have to be respected, and at the end of the day freedom is just another kind of empty licentiousness?
We know better, and our Founders knew better, and it's time that we get back to the truth.
They did not tell us that freedom would be an easy road. They offered us a true vision of the future of America. It was not a vision of licentious freedom and stupid self-indulgence. It was a vision of freedom based upon the fear of God and the respect for law.
And why is it that out of the mouths of all our statesmen we hear all these great emotional words, but they won't speak the simple truths that our Founders--from Washington through Jefferson, to Lincoln and every President--spoke, until we got to our own cowardly times?
We are not going to remain a free people if we insist on being a corrupt and licentious people.
We are not going to remain a free people if we arrogate to ourselves the right to destroy the rights of others. And that's exactly what we are doing when we embrace the so-called "pro-choice," the truly pro-abortion agenda.
My friends, I think it's empty to praise the courage of the men and women who have died in the service of this country's freedom and its principles, and yet decide that we shall lack the courage to stand up for those principles, many or few, or even alone if we must. Because that is, in fact, the courage that built America.
This nation was not, as some would have us believe, a dream of material progress and prosperity, and great cities and mountains of money. It was not.
I'm glad that we have achieved that prosperity, even though it came at much expense to some of my forebears. But I'll tell you something--those who toiled in the depths of slavery, they had an understanding of the real dream of American freedom.
It's the dream of moral dignity that comes from respecting our true moral capacity.
It's the dream of self-government that comes from respecting the fact that, in the end, freedom is not just a choice, it is not just an opportunity. It can be a burden and a sacrifice and an obligation. And, above all, it is the obligation to respect the truth of our moral identity.
That moral identity can unite us across every line of race and color and creed, so long as we have the courage to stand for it.
And I think you know by now, looking at the Clinton Administration, that if we as Republicans abandon that line of principle, it will surely be abandoned in America.
But I can also tell you this in warning, that if you abandon that line of principle, there are Americans who will fight--few or many, alone if we must--to make sure that it prevails.
And at every point in our history, when we had the choice between right and wrong, in the end this country chose what was right--and we can be grateful for it. And I think we shall do it again, because we know that the real heroes in America are those who, in their families and in their daily lives, respect the truth that we must meet the obligations and sacrifices of freedom before we claim its privileges and benefits.
And that that means, as well, that come what may, even if it means that we must sacrifice in our personal lives, we have to stand where our Founders stood, on the belief that you cannot have the right to do what is wrong, but that if we build self-government on a true adherence to the principles of justice, then we shall hold up a beacon of right and hope for all of humankind to understand the true destiny of mankind.
Thank you.
So does Alan Colmes.
Y'know, there are ALWAYS going to be folks who are dissatisfied, and for all kinds of reasons. That's just life. You can please some of the people some of the time......
ROTFLMAO!
Name one elected office your Alan has held?
Just ONE!
Though talented in other things, no amount of trying to explain how to CCP and link, ever makes any sense at all to me, so don't even try. I truly appreciate your, as yet unspoken, proffer of assistance, but don't bother. Others have attempted to get me up to speed and failed utterly. When it comes to most things to do with a computer, I admit to being not only hopeless, but a Luddite. :-(
If the IRCA of 1986 was enforced and employers were punished for violating the law, that one time amnesty deal would have been just that. Instead, by not enforcing the IRCA of 1986 we've had 20 years of liberal immigration policy, from Bush41, to Clinton, to Bush43.
Most thinking conservatives agree with you.
Recognized you right away.
Absolutely correct.
He writes for Human Events and when he deals with elections he always leans towards the Democrat winning.
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.