The Bush White House often gets things right — eventually, and sometimes after exhausting all other alternatives. President Bush is calling for more troops in Baghdad, at least a year after it became clear that we needed them. He abandoned his stay-the-course rhetoric and fired Don Rumsfeld, too late to affect the elections. In the State of the Union address, Bush called for bipartisanship, criticized the abuse of earmarked spending, and outlined a creative plan to reform health care. Where was this Bush a year ago?

The president made a solid case for victory in Iraq, and for the necessity of an increase in troop strength in effecting it. He did not acknowledge what an editorialist should but a president probably cannot: that the surge might not work. The opposition’s refusal to stand and applaud the mere call for victory was a more accurate guide to its position than its stated words. So was the silence of respondent Jim Webb, the Democratic senator from Virginia, on the subject of victory. The Democrats believe that we have lost the war and should get out, but think it impolitic to say so. Hawks have derided their lack of political courage, but can take heart from what it says about public opinion.

Bush’s health plan is genuinely innovative. He recognizes that the tax favoritism for employer-provided health care has distorted the market, so he wants to restructure the tax break in a more rational way. Under his plan, individuals who buy their own insurance would get the same favorable tax treatment as those who get insurance through their workplace. The size of the tax break would be flat: If they bought a cheaper policy, they would be able to pocket the difference. Democrats have said that his plan is a non-starter on their Hill, but it will be an effective counter to their own proposals. It is an initiative that reduces the number of people without insurance, does not raise taxes overall, and indeed cuts taxes for many people. The Democrats will not be able to come up with a similarly attractive package.

The speech went downhill from there. The president’s energy policies would subsidize some companies over others, with the effect of raising gas prices. If we want higher gas prices, it would be better just to raise gas taxes. At least that option would redirect some money from the Saudi royal family to the U.S. Treasury. The passage on “comprehensive immigration reform” was the usual shuffle. He continues to reject “amnesty,” but continues to define it to mean “any policy one inch to the left of where I happen to be now.”

And where were the social issues? It is widely accepted that opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage are two of the few issues that have been helping the Republican party lately; why abandon them now?

Webb’s response to Bush was contemptuous (“we. . . hope that this administration is serious about improving education and health care for all Americans”) and backward-looking (the president “recklessly” went to war, failing to heed the advice of Webb and others). We suspect that Webb is magnifying the mandate for his brand of populism: People may fear outsourcing and think CEOs are paid too much, but we doubt they resent the strength of the stock market. For that matter, we doubt that they are quite as eager to see the Democrats kick the president when he is down as their core supporters are.

But the truth is that the president is down, way down, and the State of the Union address is not going to do anything to change that.