Regional delegation divided on speech

Northwest Republicans gave George Bush high marks for reaching out to the other party with statements on energy and health care and the war in Iraq. But the region’s ranking Democrat called the 2007 State of the Union address “tepid at best.”

“It just seemed like he didn’t try to (reach out) at all,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a member of the Democratic leadership, said Tuesday night. “Same song, same dance.”

Republicans, many of whom were unaccustomed to sitting through a State of the Union address in the minority, thought Bush did recognize the reality of last fall’s elections and try to find common ground with the Democrats. That’s what the public expects, said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.

“He was very bold and direct in recognizing the challenges we face,” Crapo said.

“It was him stepping up as the leader and reaching out and saying ‘Let’s do our best to work together,’ ” Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., said.

Watching his first State of the Union address from the chamber, newly elected Rep. Bill Sali, R-Idaho, called it “a pretty good speech” and found the experience much different from watching it on television.

“You miss the beauty of the Capitol Building and the energy that’s in the air,” Sali said.

But Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., thought it was not one of Bush’s more enthusiastic speeches: “He seemed to be very subdued.”

Bush called for the nation to cut energy consumption to avoid buying so much foreign oil, something he and several of his predecessors have mentioned in other speeches. Democrats were skeptical that this was anything different and are waiting for the details.

But Craig believes Bush will push for alternative energy programs that are important to the region, such as biodiesel, and will support higher fuel efficiency standards for autos.

“You wouldn’t expect that sort of detail in the State of the Union,” Craig said.

One thing missing from previous years was any suggestion that the nation should tap the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for more oil and gas. That is a recognition of the political shift from the last election, several members of Congress said. “If it didn’t happen in ‘06, I can’t imagine it happening in ‘07,” McMorris said.

Bush split the speech between domestic issues and foreign policy, with about half of the latter focusing on the war in Iraq. It may not have been the war they voted for or the war they expected, but it is the war they are in, he said.

“He knows and we know the level of violence is unacceptable,” said Craig.

To reflect the public’s concern, Bush is making clear to the Iraqis that U.S. troops won’t stay forever and he’s involving Congress more, Craig said.

“I’m not going to second-guess the commander in chief. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt in the immediate future,” Craig said.

McMorris applauded Bush for acknowledging the war hasn’t gone as hoped and mentioning changes in strategy.

“There needs to be more communication, not just with Congress, but with the American people,” McMorris said.

But to Murray, Iraq was the spot where Bush fell down on any attempt at a new bipartisanship. “Both Republicans and Democrats have spoken out against this escalation,” she said. He didn’t seem to acknowledge their concerns.

While many Democrats were subdued when he talked about the war, Bush got one of the biggest hands of the night, from both parties, when he called on Congress to support “the troops in the field and those on their way.”

Democrats won’t be “put in a box” of being accused of not supporting the troops because they don’t support the president’s policy, Murray said.

“Everybody has said they support the troops. The question is accountability,” Cantwell added.