Professors’ reactions to Tuesday’s State of the Union address were sharply divided among party lines.

One main concern was whether President Bush should have devoted a large portion of the speech to the Iraq war.

“It was clear from the speech that Bush has staked his presidency on the war in Iraq; he’s staked his legacy on it,” said Matt Streb, assistant professor of political science.

Others said focusing on foreign policy and the war worked toward the president’s benefit.

“By focusing a large part of the speech on foreign policy and the actions he as president is taking, he played to his strengths,” said Daniel Kempton, associate professor and political science department chair.

Bush’s comments on domestic issues such as health care and social security were a way to avoid more controversial issues, Kempton said.

“On domestic policy, the president focused most of his initiatives on areas that are largely non-controversial,” Kempton said. “He laid out a set of goals that will allow him to move from his more controversial goals to areas in which bipartisanship is more likely.”

Though Republicans seemed excited with Bush’s ideas and opinions, Democrats who remained seated did approve of many of his ideas, including making recent tax cuts permanent.

“As with the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts have played an important role in stimulating economic growth,” Kempton said.

Streb did not feel Bush targeted democrats as much as he could or should have in the State of the Union address.

“Because the president’s approval ratings are so low ­— in the low 40s — I was surprised that he didn’t reach out to the Democrats more,” Streb said. “He extended some symbolic olive branches, but, besides the energy proposal and the reauthorization of the Ryan White Act, there was very little in the way of substantial proposals that would appeal to Democrats.”