Both Parties Praise Bush for Vow to Win War : Reaction: Democratic lawmakers fault the President on domestic issues and some aspects of foreign policy in his address.

President Bush received strong bipartisan applause Tuesday night for his pledge to win the war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but Democrats faulted him on domestic issues and some foreign policy aspects of his third State of the Union message.

Lawmakers from both parties rose as one to cheer and clap when the President saluted U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, but it was mainly Republicans who applauded such controversial proposals as a reduction in capital gains taxes and the turnover of $20 billion in federal programs to the states.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) made the formal Democratic response and expressed support for the war. But he faulted Bush for “overlooking” repression in the Soviet Union and China. He also challenged the President to address the “crisis here at home,” citing economic growth as an essential first priority.

“If we can make the best smart bomb, can’t we make the best VCR? If we can build a high-speed Patriot missile, can’t we build a high-speed train? I believe we can,” he said.

But opposition to Bush’s gulf policy--expressed by some Democrats before the war began--seems to have nearly evaporated.

“I think we are closing ranks behind the policy,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said.

A few middle-ranking Democrats, however, said Bush failed to take advantage of the opportunity to prepare the country for difficult days ahead, when a ground war may dramatically increase U.S. casualties.

As expected, Republicans were ecstatic over what they saw as Bush’s inspiring message on the war and the overwhelmingly favorable reception that he got from Democrats and members of his own party for the first wartime State of the Union address in nearly 20 years.

“I really thought he did a great job tonight,” Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said. “The President is a calm and very thoughtful leader.”

Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.) welcomed Democrats’ backing for the U.S. forces in the gulf but said: “I just don’t think you can support the players and oppose the coach.”

In a long roar of approval, Congress let Hussein and the world know that it is not divided about supporting the war effort.

As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach) said: “The thunderous applause, the fact that both Republicans and Democrats jumped to their feet in affirming that we will prevail in the Persian Gulf, should send a shiver down Saddam Hussein’s spine.”

Bush was interrupted at least 50 times by applause, and nearly everyone in the chamber joined in three standing ovations to back Bush’s pledge of support to U.S. troops, to allied prisoners of war in Iraq’s hands and to show confidence in a military victory.

“The response from Congress makes it clear to the world that our men and women in uniform, and the President, have our nation solidly behind them,” said Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leader in opposing Bush’s request for war-making authority.

Several Democrats, however, were unhappy with Bush’s remarks on the gulf conflict. Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) complained: “He was provoking our patriotism. He hasn’t really prepared the public and the country for what could be a long, drawn-out conflict . . . . We may be headed for a ground war in which a lot of lives could be lost.”

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) spoke for most Democrats in Congress when he said: “Once the action has begun, mine is not to second-guess on the day-to-day conduct of the war but to help bring it to a successful conclusion.”

On the domestic parts of his speech, however, the President was cheered on predominantly by Republicans.

His plan to seek a reduction in capital gains taxes, for example, was denounced as unwise by Gephardt and ridiculed by Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) as a giveaway to wealthy taxpayers when the budget deficit stands at a record $300 billion or more.

As for the President’s vague plan to turn over to the states a sum of $20 billion to let them run programs now administered by the federal government, Panetta brushed it off as “warmed-over revenue sharing” already tried and abandoned.