Bush delivers State of the Union address to a wary audience

By Jesse D. Hamilton
Senior Staff Writer
January 24, 2007

Tuesday evening, as President Bush stepped to the podium to deliver the annual State of the Union address, he faced an audience of Americans of whom only 22 percent want him to set the nation’s policy. The president, who has been under harsh criticism in almost every facet of his agenda, held a 36 percent approval rating, barely half of Bill Clinton in his sixth year in office.

Standing in front of the first woman Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Bush addressed a Democratic majority for the first time during his presidency. He called for bipartisanship between the executive and legislative branches.

Bush started outlining his yearly agenda by stressing the need for a balanced budget, while stating it was possible to do so “without raising taxes.” Many oppose the president’s previous tax cuts, saying that they benefit the upper class far more than the lower class.

Next, the president proposed health care reform by giving tax deductions for individuals spending less than $7,500 and families spending less than $15,000 on health care insurance. Those spending more would be subject to higher taxation.

The president’s next plan was to find new and clean energy sources, such as ethanol and nuclear alternatives. The plan is geared to be more environmentally friendly and to cut domestic gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, thus lessening the nation’s reliance on foreign oil.

It should come as no surprise that Bush linked this plan to terrorism and the Saddam regime in Iraq; his administration has historically used fear of domestic attacks to push forward his agenda. The majority of this year’s State of the Union address was once again flooded with images of terror.

The last major topic the president attempted to tackle was that of the current situation in Iraq. He supported his current and controversial strategy troop surge in Iraq, stating that, “Our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options...In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success.” He then stated that “nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East.” The president failed to address the fact that his recent decisions in Iraq went against the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group or that over 30 U.S. servicemen have been killed in Iraq over the last three days.

Overall, the president did not receive as much vocal support from the chamber as he has in previous years, in my view. Full standing ovation was rarely given, and the most fervent applause came for the president’s urge to support the U.S. troops overseas. Many members sat motionless as the president spoke of less popular aspects of his agenda.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. rebutted the president’s address. Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Republican who served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, has intimate ties to the president’s strategy in Iraq. His son’s Marine unit, currently serving in Iraq, has been extended an additional two months as part of Bush’s controversial surge.

Shortly after the president’s address concluded, Webb told reporters he hopes that the president is serious about his proposals concerning alternate fuel sources. He then expressed displeasure with the president’s foreign policy, calling the war in Iraq “unnecessary,” and saying that the “president took us into this war recklessly.” Webb concluded by “calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas...If he does not, we will be showing him the way.”

It is ironic that Webb delivered the initial Democratic response given his past military history and his current stance on the war in Iraq. Webb received the Navy Cross, the Navy’s second highest award for valor under fire, whereas Bush never fought overseas defense of this nation, serving in the Air National Guard as his peers fought valiantly in Vietnam. This brings to mind the Latin phrase “Dulce bellum inexpertis,” or “War is lovely for those who know nothing of it.”

Irony aside, the Democratic response to the president bodes no good for the Bush agenda. Without a Republican majority, the president has less opportunity to drive this nation further into debt with tax cuts and deepen its involvement in the war in Iraq. Judging from the Democratic rebuttal, Congress will not stand by idly and support the president in his agenda, which has proved ineffective over the last six years.

Bush has a hard road ahead of him over the next two years, and rightfully so. He has alienated not only the vast majority of the nation, but some of those in his own party. With potential 2008 Republican presidential candidates separating themselves from Bush and his policies and a newly elected Democratic majority, it is evident that the nation will soon be taking a turn in the right direction; a turn that has been six years in the making.

hamiltonj3@lasalle.edu