WASHINGTON — The Minnesota congressional delegation left the House chamber Tuesday night divided but largely diplomatic about President Obama’s third State of the Union address.

The state’s Democrats were heartened by Obama’s calls for a new, fairer tax code and measures to protect American industries, predicting a productive 2012 session if Republicans are willing to work with them.

Minnesota conservatives, meanwhile, were split on the speech. Reps. Erik Paulsen and Chip Cravaack said in interviews that they’re willing to work with Democrats on some issues, even if there is still a wide chasm between what the president wants done and what can be accomplished by a divided Congress. In statements and on television, Reps. John Kline and Michele Bachmann cast pessimistic eyes on the ability of Congress and Obama to come together.

Obama’s address was structured so that he could both list his accomplishments as president and set forth his agenda going into an election year. He started by noting the end of the Iraq War and the killing of Osama bin Laden, and he listed some of the economic accomplishments he will try to base his re-election campaign on.

“In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs,” he said. “Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.”

The effect wasn’t lost on lawmakers.

“I think that the president was looking at this speech as a way to highlight some of his accomplishments,” Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison said. “He was able to do that, he was able to project a good vision. He was contrasting his vision with that of some of his opponents.”

That vision was a populist at times and progressive at others, based around:

•Retaining American manufacturing through a carrot-and-stick incentive program for companies;

•Reducing the cost of higher education by providing aid for students and punishing federally-funded schools that raise the cost of attendance;

•Using Iraq War savings to invest in American infrastructure projects;

•Investing in green energy;

•Spending more on efforts to help veterans transition into civilian life and the workforce;

•And raising taxes on high-income earners to create a “fairer” tax code.

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want,” he said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

Democrats were left smiling at what they see as a fair, positive agenda, and they postulated about how it could be achieved in Minnesota. 

“We have a lot of high-tech businesses that don’t have the trained workers that they need,” Sen. Al Franken said. “Our manufacturing sector is coming back. I think he spoke to … what we have to do: it’s education, it’s innovation, it’s infrastructure and it’s green energy.”

 “When you look at the economy right now, we have to make stuff again and invent things, export to the world,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said. “As the president said, nation building in our own nation.”

Ellison, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, welcomed Obama’s willingness to be saddled with the “class warrior” title, and Rep. Betty McCollum said his message is one that could transcend politics.

“I don’t think there’s anything liberal about America getting back to work,” she said. “I don’t think there’s anything liberal about really working to come together to make sure our technology has the same opportunity as Chinese technology or Japanese technology or German technology, and clean energy to compete. I just think that’s common sense.”

Finding common ground
Obama threw some curve balls, too, calling for more natural gas production and more off-shore oil drilling, prompting some hooting from the Republican side of the chamber. The party has attacked the president for blocking the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which they say could be a massive jobs engine.

“I like what he says, creating jobs,” Republican Cravaack said. “Why didn’t he go with trying to create a type of energy independence he was calling for by getting oil from a country that is just to the North of us? These are serious problems that we need to address now.”

Still, some Republicans came away hopeful they can find common ground with Obama. Paulsen, for one, said Obama’s emphasis on stimulating manufacturing could coincide with his chief priority, helping the medical device industry. Paulsen has introduced a popular bill that would repeal a forthcoming tax on medical devices.

“That will allow us to innovate and maintain the American entrepreneurship that he talked about in that speech,” he said. “I’m excited about working with him on that and I think we’re going to move some of those initiatives in the House in the near future, on a bipartisan basis.”

Obama gave one indirect shout-out to a Minnesota lawmaker in his speech, saying, “Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.” Rep. Tim Walz, a Democrat who introduced the STOCK Act, had sprung to his feet, cheering before Obama had even finished the line.

Walz said he had been lobbying for Obama’s to publicly endorse the measure for more than a year, but didn’t find out until 15 minutes before the State of the Union that it would be included in the address.

“Restoring trust in the institution through the STOCK Act is critical to me,” he said. “I think now it becomes pretty apparent that [leadership] can bring that thing to the floor. … It’s a very simple piece of legislation: ban this practice, restore the faith and then move on to the important things for the American public.”

Can it get done?
Though reserved in their reactions, Republicans are unlikely to have had an epiphanic change of heart listening to Obama on Tuesday night. For some, the State of the Union signified the start of Obama’s re-election bid, a chance to try out stump speech material before he even leaves Washington.

“I think you could say that we saw a fan dance tonight that the president was giving,” Bachmann said on Fox News. “Some of his language may have appeared like he was reaching out, but there was no reaching out, there was no new ground that was forged tonight. What we saw was a lot of the same-old, same-old.”

Kline, who chairs of the House Education Committee, which would need to approve Obama’s education platform for it to become law, warned that “the rhetoric of the past three years has not matched reality,” and that Obama would not be a willing partner with Congress.

“Tonight, the President had the opportunity to rally our country toward the shared goal of a brighter future,” he said in a statement. “Instead, he turned to the politics of envy, which creates deeper divisions among Americans.”

Lawmakers were in a generally congenial mood immediately following Obama’s speech, but that’s likely to have faded by the time they return to the Capitol on Wednesday. The question is: Can a Congress as bitterly divided as this one, heading into an election year no less, pass anything Obama pitched Tuesday night?

“The president challenged us to take action, to stop the obstructionism, to work together, that was the theme of the speech. But most importantly, he gave us clear guideposts: we can work together creating more jobs, creating more hope and opportunity for students,” McCollum said. “Now it’s up to us to take action.”

Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry

Eric Black: Nice change, but Obama’s speech didn’t fly me to the moon