[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Good article, thanks for posting.

On the other side, I have a problem with:
1) Amnesty for illegal immigrants and overall negligence of border security, even going so far as to punish those who attempt to enforce border security or criticize his failure to do so. Kissing up to Vicente Fox.
2) Signing McCain's unconstitutional "Campaign Finance Reform" legislation.
3) Going along with rampant Republican pork barrel spending.
4) Pushing socialist nonsense like Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" legislation, resulting in a massive increase in government.
5) Pushing socialist nonsense like the "Prescription Drug" legislation, resulting in a MASSIVE increase in government.
6) Prosecuting soldiers for doing their job. Prosecuting border control agents for doing their job. Calling the Minutemen "vigilantes".
7) Building a superhighway between Mexico and Kansas City with no discussion or explanation.
8) Nominating his secretary to fill a SCOTUS vacancy.
9) Not disclosing to the citizenry the actual fate of Saddam's WM, and not disclosing the complicity of France, Germany, and Russia in supporting Saddam's covert military and WMD programs.

[K-oneTexas]

I agree with you. There are issues on which I agree with the President as well as issues I disagree with him on. However the agreement with him is on many more issues that with the Democrats and Kerry.

Issues that need attention are many and not necessarily limited to tax reform, border security, immigration reform, social security reform, medicare reform, a viable energy policy, health care (incl. prescription drugs) reform; just to mention a few. Mine are not there to exclude others, nor are they in any particular order. This is not an exhaustive list.

The next President will have a full plate to begin with and have to start running. If we elect a Democrat President and they retain control of the Congress none of these items will be fixed. Rather they will receive patches, not the kind conservatives want to see and they will result in a high cost. A high cost reflected in tax increases to the past high levels. Also, a Dem will insure a USSC swing further left.

If we elect a Republican President and the delicate balance in the House and Senate do not tip to Republicans or at least stay somewhere near a neutral position, there may be a chance to enact reform. Much of that depends on the Republican elected. He (I say he as no ladies are running) must be a conservative. And he must more conservative than just a moderate conservative or centrist. However, he can't be too far right as an 'extreme' conservative (in the voters eyes) will likely not garner sufficient votes nationwide to win.

Small incremental steps back to the right may be good (and our only hope) since I can't see any giant swing away from where we are.

[nicollo]

On the other side, I have a problem with:

One thing to consider, always, is what horrors an opposition-party president would have sponsored, and how much worse the existing legislation might have been.

I'm not a believer in "co-option" (also known as "triangulation"), or adopting part of an opposition agenda in order to defeat it. Still, there is something to be said for it: sometimes by moderating the worst of a national impulse we can defeat that impulse's worst impact. We also cannot ignore the immediate impact of co-option in its smothering effect: once enacted, a co-option law tends to shut down the agitation.

I'd put "No Child," Campaign Finance, and Medicaid Rx bills into the co-option categories. Since their enactment there's been precious little agitation by the opposition for more. The Rx giveaway even shut down the largest, most powerful lobby in DC, AARP.

But that's politics. I know the response this will illicit: where's the principle? Like I said, I'm not a fan of co-option, although I will admit its limited value.