Posted on 01/20/2007 1:25:09 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) WASHINGTON -- President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday gives him a second chance to defend his new Iraq strategy to a nation soured on the war and a Congress poised to vote against the plan.
It will be the president's last major opportunity to shape America's legislative agenda before the fast-moving 2008 presidential campaign begins to drown out his message.
Bush is expected to strike a conciliatory tone on some domestic issues where he believes he can work with the first Democratic Congress in 12 years. On Iraq, he is expected to stand firm.
The nationally televised speech typically offers great political theater. This year, however, it comes just 13 days after the president's prime-time announcement of his decision to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq.
Since then, Capitol Hill -- the forum for the State of the Union address -- has grown more hostile.
Democratic support is building around a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's plan for more troops. Some Republicans already critical of the White House's Iraq policy have embraced the idea and others are looking for ways to sign on.
Despite the political tensions, House Democrats invited Bush to speak at their annual retreat in Williamsburg, Va., on Feb. 3 and the president accepted.
"The elephant in the room is Iraq," said Ken Khachigian, a former speechwriter for Presidents Reagan and Nixon who thinks Bush should use forceful, blunt -- even combative -- rhetoric to rebut Democrats and others who criticize his war strategy.
"If I were counseling him, I'd say 'Look, you've got to face them down. You've come up with a plan. They're not giving it a chance to work," Khachigian said.
"I'd say, `If you really believe that this is the seminal battle of the early part of the 21st century, then you've got to make it clear that your position is right and theirs is wrong,"' he said.
White House officials said the State of the Union will not be a repeat of the Iraq speech on Jan. 10. They said Bush will speak broadly about the pressing challenges facing the United States at home and abroad.
"President Bush will discuss his determination to defeat the terrorists who are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
"If the extremists prevail in Iraq, the American people will be less safe and our enemies will be emboldened and more lethal," Perino said.
Bush probably will try to link the war to the threat to America since the Sept. 11 attacks, said Bruce Riedel, a former official at the National Security Council and analyst at the liberal Brookings Institution.
"Who can be against terrorism?" Riedel asked. "Fear is a commodity that the administration has sold before, and right now they're not having much success with the public or the Congress with the arguments they've trotted out on the (troop) surge."
The costs of the war and the deficit are expected to preclude Bush from announcing expensive new programs.
On the domestic side, the president will propose a tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families regardless of whether they buy their own health insurance or receive medical coverage at work.
If passed by Congress, the proposal would be the first time that workers could get a tax break if they bought their own insurance. But it also would be the first time that some employer-provided health care benefits could be taxed. The first $15,000 in health benefits for a family would continue to be tax exempt for the employee, but any amount in excess of $15,000 would be subject to tax.
Health care benefits provided by companies are currently exempt from personal income and payroll taxes, no matter the amount.
He also plans to highlight immigration and urge Congress to renew the No Child Left Behind education law, preserve tax cuts, balance the budget within five years and work to make the costs of the war more transparent in the federal budget.
As in his previous State of the Union addresses, Bush probably will lament the U.S. reliance on foreign sources of energy and express support for alternative fuels. Auto industry officials expect the president to ask Congress once more for the power to change fuel economy standards for passenger cars.
The White House said Bush also will lay out his policy on global warming, but will not propose a mandate to cut greenhouse gases.
The president, who has begun rehearsing drafts of the speech, worked on his address over the weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat.
He was joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley and chief of staff Joshua Bolten.
After the speech on Tuesday evening, Bush is scheduled to travel on Wednesday to Wilmington, Del., where he will talk about energy policy. On Thursday, he will discuss his health care ideas in Lee's Summit, Mo.
I have made a lot of enemies by stating the facts on this forum.
Exactly my experience. I lost a lot of friends and family defending this president before the last election and he won't even defend this country's borders.
Few possessed of fervent faith based on passionate wishing are willing to see or admit that we have elected a president who is so overwhelmed with his failed policies, foreign, military and domestic, that their wish is father to their continuing conclusion.
I wonder exactly how they will define these "health benefits". No matter how narrowly or broadly, I don't like the sound of this.
With the way that premiums are growing, even if it doesn't affect a high percentage of people now, it will in the near future.
Clinton had 8 years and did nothing good for our nation. He sold us out to China and anyone that would pay him enough. Now we face having hillary.
Not to point out the obvious, but the other choice was Jon Carry. What to do about that? You can't possibly think he would have done better. I suppose you could make the argument that he would have been more opposed by the CongressCreeps.
I could have been more profuse with my rhetorical question, but the above will suffice.
Now that we've heard Bush's Iraq plan and his speech for it (both OK, in my view), why in God's name would any conservative want to hear him anymore on the other issues? He seems to have nothing to say. I think I'll clean out my sock drawer.
Yeah, I'm suggesting that. Do you think Jon Cary would have been a better choice? If you say yes, I don't believe you anyway, middie.
Making my believeability an issue is interesting but non sequitur. This is a forum for the offering of opinions and observations which, by definition, revolve around differences in perceptions. Thus, if I reply by saying that I don't believe you, does it advance the process of rational thought or mandate that one or the other perception is real and all to the contrary are false?
I don't like many things W has done, but the only other choice was Kerry. He has a long history of undermining the troops and has a far-left voting record. W does not. A clear choice in my opinion. Cheers.
If we had done some work before the primary, instead of letting the beltway and media pick Bush, we may have had a decent alternative to Bush. And the same people are trying to install a Rudy McCain this time, so we have just as little choice in '08.
A McCain-Guliani ticket in '08 would be just fine with me--Fiscal conservatives while staying the hell out of my bedroom and my grandaughters' bodies and the movies I choose to watch or books I elect to read --even though I read only military history, geopolitics and strategic studies.
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.