In my last sentence, I don’t really mean “supporting.” Try “signing into law as desired” instead.
Ya know, I’m still waiting for the tax cut Bill Clinton promised me. Should I quit holding my breath now?
The only bills that pass will be those that appeal to the moderate Republicans. If they don’t support them, the Senate will not be tied and Cheny doesn’t get to vote. Same for judicial appointments. Dubya’s most conservative issues are out the window: huge tax cuts, school vouchers, any abortion legislation, “strict constructionists”; ain’t gonna happen. He might get some movement on non-controversial issues like prescription coverage for seniors.
If Dubya doesn’t make a lot of concessions to the Democrats, he will get nothing done. He is a a lame duck already. Next!!
I’m waiting also. Unfortunately, since Bubba promised a middle class tax cut in 1992, I moved into, up through, and out of the middle class…
Fair enough, dive. I’m sorry; your post reminded me of the Reagan apologist bushwa I’ve been hearing for the past twelve years, and I jumped a little hard on you.
That being said…Bush can certainly submit legislation to Congress. In that way, the onus lies with him, first and foremost, to fulfill his campaign pledges. (And hey, I’ll be the first one to tell you that Clinton caved on his more liberal (read as, “less centrist”) promises upon taking office.)
Also, pending the results of the 2002 midterms, I will take you to task if you blame Congressional Democrats specifically for whatever policies Bush fails to deliver. There’s a world of difference between “Bush couldn’t get it done because of Congress” and “Bush couldn’t get it done because of those damn Democrats on Capitol Hill.” 
This is not to say that there won’t be instances in which Democratic congressman will be responsible for blocking Republican legislation (to the extent that they’re able, anyway). I’d look to Bush’s lack of a mandate–electorally speaking, more people voted to the left of Bush than voted for Bush or to Bush’s right–before anything else, when assessing his prospects for pushing through a conservative agenda.
Pax? 
Oh yeah, that’s cool. I’ll be the first in line to start throwing rocks (metaphorically speaking, of course) if we don’t get a reduction in the marginal rates passed before '02. Who I would aim at remains undetermined at this point, of course; but I think it would be easy enough to see who holds the legislation up.
Actually, I hold Republicans to a higher standard on stuff like this. Watch how nasty I’ll get the first time one of them says something like “Well, once we really looked at the situation, we feel that right now is not a good time for tax cuts…” If Bush tries to weasel on this, I’ll start the Pit thread.
Conservative columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, Charley Reese, already regrets Bush’s election! This is after writing many columns praising Bush’s leadership skills (snicker), his military service (chortle) and conservative politics. It’s also after many columns condemning Gore that pretty much said that anyone who votes for Gore was a criminal of the worst sort.
But NOW, Reese said, in today’s column:
And what was Bush’s crime? Saying that isolationism was America’s main problem. Charley believes that isolationism is the solution to many of our problems.
Charley forgot that old adage, “Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.”
(If you don’t know who Reese is, just read the archived columns on his page and my Pit thread devoted to him.)
I would call Charley Reese more of a libertarian than a conservative, personally (otherwise, why would he not be rooting GW on?)
Wish he’d have used the word non-interventionist instead of isolationist (which is a smear word with negative connotations). I certainly believe in free trade (not the WTO pseudo-free trade, but REAL free trade) as well as keeping in tough with each other. As for the points about having military in 100 countries and American policy having a tendency to piss off terrorists, I think he’s pretty spot on there. The American military’s job is to defend America, not be the policeman of the world. Certainly aggression on the part of the US is not keeping in the principles of liberty, is it?
Well, at least the nice thing is that now that GW is pushing the button (for some reason, that reminds me of Slug’s drawing for Cecil’s column about the protocol for a nuclear launch, but I can’t seem to find it 
), the left will be opposed to it and back to their rightful place decrying American aggression!!!
yikes. Of course I meant elimination of the death tax.