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.

You said "her" so I assumed you were talking about Protagoras. I was replying from the "my comments" page, so it was easy to get confused. As far as Bikers4Bush goes, yes what he was stating was hearsay...BUT...Howlin called the Senators in question and was told that it was disinformation (and even offered to give B4B the numbers to call to verify it for himself), it should have ended there. Bikers4Bush would not back down from his assertion even in the face of facts presented to him, that is why he got flamed. We need to preserve the integrity of this forum and those that go around spreading disinformation such as B4B do not help an already volatile situation.

"The double entendre is claiming you are for true conservatives but declaring your opposition to the only conservative President we have had in the WH since Ronald Reagan "

Just because he is Republican, doesn't automatically make him a conservative. Aren't conservatives supposed to support smaller government and less socialism? How has Bush worked to achieve those goals? What exactly makes him the most conservative President since Reagan? Certainly not his spending habits.

Actually, I live in a state (Virginia) that has had a pretty stiff testing system for years -- tougher than what Bush wants. Teacher resistance has already been overcome and the system is in place. But now Bush wants us to jump through some other hoops and he wants us to dig up the tax money to do it. Well what if we want to spend that money on something else, like replacing crumbling buildings? In my view, the federal government has absolutely no business or right to tell local school systems what to do. I thought that was the conservative view?

Interesting, what might some of those hoops be? I don't claim to be a total expert on the bill, so there may be things I am unaware of.

Actually the federal government does have the right and in my opinion the necessity to establish national standards of measurement including in education. The courts have indicated that constitutionally it falls under the commerce clause. There are national standards for weights, measures, time, and a whole host of other things. That's why a pound of bread in New York weighs the same as a pound of bread in Colorado. Setting a national standard for the minimum requirements for a High School diploma creates level of equivalency between the states. How the state meets the standard being up to the state would be the conservative way. Having the standard to measure against is also conservative.

M.A.Pie: The average American is toiling just to make it through the day, much less pay attention to politics in D.C. I try to educate those around me, like a warning bell. Get them involved is all I know to do and hope they influence their circle of family and friends.

Well, it's a little difficult to say that our ancestors were less busy than we are, given the circumstances of their lives. They still made time to maintain the republic. We don't much excuse if we let it slip away. If people would rather watch reality TV shows instead of giving a crap about their rights as citizens, they don't get much sympathy from me.

I always recommend joining the Liberty Committee. We don't win every time. But it has been a remarkably effective grassroots activist organization.

I would say that Liberty Committee has an influence comparable to that of Gun Owners Of America or the ACLU.

Actually, I have no problem with a national standard for accreditation of public schools. But, where are all these billions of dollars going that have nothing to do with accreditation?? How do school lunches and school vouchers fit into an accreditation scheme??How about Titles I, IX and XIX - what do they have to do with accreditation??

Since I have been discussing this on several threads, I cannot recall specifically whether I made this point in our discussion or not, but from my observations of GWB in Texas, it is typical for GWB to let the other side get what they think they want while he gets what he really wants. Any fiscal conservative, including myself, would readily point to the education bill and say it spends too much money. However, that was the hook that reeled in the other side. The most important part of that bill, the one that liberals will learn to hate as it slowly wrenches the education issue from their grasp is testing. Testing creates accountability. Liberalism dies a slow death in the face of accountability because it cannot produce measurable result.

When the education bill was signed, I listened for days as Conservatives berated GWB for signing it. I just hoisted my glass in a toast to GWB because as far as education goes, liberals had just opened the screen door and let in the dog that was going to consume them.

The Titles Roman Numeral are not conservative in nature and are hardly GWB's doing. The latest bill may have massaged them, but they have been around gnawing at education for years now.

Vouchers are conservative in nature because they provide personal choice. They needed to be addressed at the national level because many states us Federal dollars as the hook to prevent implementation of voucher programs. GWB is a firm believer in parental choice. Getting it implemented is not going to be a straight line path.

Bush's spending increased from Clinton's. IOW, he was essentially saying that Clinton didn't spend enought. Really, what more needs to be said?

Don't look to me to defend the big-government spending of this Congress, aided and abetted by the president. Far from it.

I was only pointing out it's more accurate to assess it as percentages of growth/decline in relation to the GDP.

Just a stats comment. The list was a good contribution to the subject at hand.

What I was getting at was that the numbers might actually be even worse than your list revealed. Not that I need a worst-case picture, it's bad enough already. But we should always look for the fairest and strongest set of figures to make our case.

So, what's the bottom line?

I wish I had one. It's probably true that each party has about a 38% base of the public that will vote for it. But just who those voters are will vary from candidate to candidate. McGovern, Carter, and Mondale or Dukakis, Clinton, and Humphrey or Ford and Reagan all had somewhat different personal bases, so if you're looking for a bedrock of actual voters who'll go for the party regardless of candidate the figure may be different.

The country tends to split along those 1/3 Democrat 1/3 Republican 1/3 Independent or 38 38 24 lines, and you do have to crack that 24% to win. Clinton had to triangulate to get those votes in the center. Reagan didn't have to do that -- at least not in any obvious or explicit way.

Triangulation may be a product of an era where the two parties split that center swing vote right down the middle. It's a tricky move to win those necessary extra swing votes without alienating other voters. But politicians have always tried to position themselves as moderates to win the middle. Eisenhower did just that. Johnson was able to make major changes in the country by claiming to be the one person who could control the forces of change (It didn't work for him, but did for FDR).

Does Bush have to triangulate to win? Is he doing it already? I don't know, but he's certainly going after those swing voters.

The interesting question is whether a Democrat like Edwards or Clark could bring a different personal base to the campaign and change the electoral landscape. I really doubt it. They have to do too much to win over party liberals to be able to sway Southern moderates or conservatives in the general election. But one day, a Democrat may be able to do just that, as Carter did in 1976.

On paper, Lieberman and Gephardt may have looked like the strongest candidates: the ones who could win centrists and disaffected ordinary working class voters, but nothing worked for them. So maybe no Democrat is going to be able to make an end run and snag an important voting bloc this year.

"This kind of gross ignorance will not be rewarded. Do your homework. I'm not your crutch."

Oh my. Now I know what I'm dealing with. Someone who knows really nothing about the Constitution. Have you made it out of the 8th grade yet? Ok, here goes. There is no line in the document barring military action sans declaration of war. There is nothing requiring a declaration of war. The only regulation is that Congress holds the power to pass one.

If you'd like more information on the US Constitution, visit your local library. Or better still, keep watching Justice League on Cartoon Network.

"There were literally thousands of posts here at FR calling for nuking Afghanistan, all the Arab lands, turning them into parking lots, turning them into a sea of glass, etc. "

Thousands of posts? I was reading FR at the time and I believe you are, at best, mistaken. And as far as Al Qaida reading FR, that's not the point. For each pusstifer, wusstifer, chunky monkey, and buggly ugly muttering mouthfuls of rubbish about Bush here on FR, there are thousands more doing so on the street and in the media. The portrait leads Al Qaida to doubt our resolve. The more they doubt, the more they will kill.

I'll continue to blast all these aid and comfort givers out of the water, lest anyone reading, hearing, or seeing, doubt our nation's willingness to defend itself.

By campaigning for it in 2000. By pledging to sign it if Boxer and the Dims could pass it.

I think he said ,"IF it crosses my desk,I'll sign it. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the AWB,and,frankly,it was a very subtle way of dodging overwhelming bad press and kept the militia idiots off the front page as well. Secondly,we had some idiots on this forum bragging about knocking out a couple of Senators, notably Slade Gorton of Washington,who was pro 2a.We got Maria Cantwell instead. Yep, voting third party or staying home sure was a positive thing to do, huh? Meanwhile,Delay held the line as he was expected to do,and that worked well. I'd be willing to bet that AWB won't be crossing his desk,either . However, if enough whiners decide to stand on "principle",maybe it will cross the next Democrat's desk. He, the principled can wallow in their righteousness though, so that will be the upside. It'll really teach us all a lesson.

Outside of that,a lovely day, wasn't it?

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.