[Koblenz]

The LP bitches and moans that George Bush hasn't done anything, and then it proceeds to run LP candidates for Senate in various states, ensuring that Democrats get elected, who fight George Bush at every turn. Of course Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate. And yes, there are a few RINOs that don't make it easy either.

If Harry Browne were President, but Congress was the same as it is now, would things be any different?

[NMC EXP]

Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate.

Consider this hypothetical: your party has a lock on the house, a veto/filibuster proof majority in the senate, and the WH. In this situation, where will you place the blame when government continues to grow and your liberty shrinks?

"There is none more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free!" -- Johann W. von Goethe

Regards

J.R.

[Commie Basher]

Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate.

Slick accomplished much with a hostile Senate AND House.

[Rule of Law]

Of course Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate.

Ronald Reagan did a great deal more with a hostile House. But then Ronnie ran on a "cut government" platform and W ran on a "grow government" platform.

[DennisR]

Yes, and you can thank the LP for defeating Senator Gorton in my state (Washington) and putting MARIA CANT-VOTE-WELL into the Senate, thus giving us TWO LIBERAL DEMOCRATs in the SENATE.