Keeping the Republic Blog

State of the Union 2007 -- 1/24/07

Last night was President Bush’s State of the Union address and that seems to be the focus of all the papers today.  President Bush’s  2007 State of the Union Address, 1/23/07 

The general consensus seems to be that he didn’t say much new, made some domestic policy proposals, but saved his real energy for rallying Congress to get behind him on the escalation in Iraq, though he intends to go ahead (and in fact has gone ahead) with or without them.  You can read some analysis here (Dan Balz, “The State of the President: Beleaguered,  Washington Post, 1/24/07), and here (Kate Zernike, A Shift in Power, Starting with ‘Madam Speaker,’” The New York Times, 1/23/07.) 

Freshman Senator Jim Webb from Virginia gave the Democrats' response with some economic overtones, but mostly focused on a war he thinks is wrong.  As Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and a former Marine himself whose son is serving in Iraq right now, Webb’s credentials make it hard for the Republicans to paint him as soft on terror or as lacking support for the armed forces. (Michael D. Shear, “Va’s Webb Offers a Blunt Challenge to Bush,” Washington Post, 1/24/07) 

Bush gave this speech with approval ratings matching his lowest (for a sum of recent polls, see this), and facing a Democratic Congress for the first time.  But on the issue that is causing almost all his trouble, he and his administration are unrepentant.  See, for example, not only his speech, but this Wolf Blizter interview with the Vice-President from this afternoon.   

In the last post I asked what is at stake in the issue of the war.  With more and more Republicans starting to side with the Democrats (John Holushna, Senate Panel Opposes Troop Increase in Iraq, 12-9,” Washington Post, 1/24/07)   the war is taking up all the air left in Bush’s presidency, and setting the agenda for the 2008 presidential race.

That race is starting to shape up, with two new Democrats (Clinton and Richardson) in this weekend, and John Kerry out as of this afternoon, and another Republican (Sam Brownback) joining in as well.  More on all that soon.

Welcome Back -- 1/10/07

Welcome back to a new semester of news. 

With a new House of Representatives and a new Senate, both headed by Democrats, President Bush has his work cut out for him tonight as he offers a new plan for Iraq – one he calls a strategy for victory and his opponents call an escalation of a war he can’t win.  Watch his speech this evening, but read some analysis beforehand.  This piece in the New York Times gives some sense of what the congressional response is likely to be (Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse, "Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes against Iraq," 1/9/07); this one from the Washington Post highlights some of the internal politics behind Bush’s plan (Michael Abramowitz, et al., "With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away from His Generals," 1/10/07).

What is at stake for Bush in this speech?  Why is he still trying to win a war with a strategy that over sixty percent of Americans oppose?   What is at stake for the new Democratic majorities in Congress? Is Iraq an issue they want to deal with right now?  Why or why not?