Tim Hames in the London Times has this advice regarding GWB’s inaugural address:
George Washington offered the shortest inaugural address to his fellow countrymen. In his first, he had stunned them by announcing that he would not accept a salary (only John F. Kennedy in recent decades has been similarly inexpensive). In his second, however, with a similar spirit of economy, he produced a mere 135 words. Yet, if inclined, George W. Bush could comfortably beat that record in Washington on Thursday. He might legitimately stand up and state in five blunt words: “I own this town now” and then sit down again.
He explains:
for Mr Bush to dominate the American (and hence, global) scene for almost two years more is an extraordinary achievement. Most second-term presidencies are pale imitations of the first four years in power. They have, historically, been undercut by three factors: agenda exhaustion, personnel depletion and congressional erosion.
. . . .
None of these constraints applies to this President. He still has plenty of proposals for domestic policy left in him. These range from making permanent tax cuts that were passed in his opening term and the partial privatisation of American pensions to his ambition to curtail the outrageous costs of the US legal system. His new Cabinet members are not noticeably weaker than his previous colleagues. His party runs each branch of Congress and, thanks to the November election results, with greater majorities. For the first time since 1937 a re-elected president who has been in Washington for four years starts again with congressional enhancement, not erosion.
The piece’s title? Back for four years, more powerful than ever. Who’s calling Bush an idiot now?
Read the whole thing. 
Amazing. I love Dubya. He’s a great man. I have a feeling he’s going to do [more] great things in his second term.
We can only hope all this proves to be true. But the obstacles in Bush’s way are enormous. For one thing, no one on the Hill is afraid of him. For another, Senate Republicans have too many RINOs and egotists. Then, there is the utter rigidity and arrogance of the congressional (and most other) Democrats. I could go on and on, but you get the point ...
Yes, celebrate the inauguration by all means. Hope for a great Inaugural Address. And hope for a productive 2005. But understand how tough it is to accomplish anything in this environment.
Another low blow to Democrats!!! Foul!!! Heh. Seriously, though, I think that it is good that it is hard to accomplish things legislatively in our country. I’m glad that one party does not have complete control (yet . . . but if things keep up the way they’re going . . .). And that goes for Democrats too. I think it would be devastating to lose such diversity in Congress (politically . . . obviously mot ethnically or religiously). But I think that President Bush really wants to make our country better. I hope he can do it. I really do.
One-party government? Oh, please, spare me ... The Democrats wrote the laws for
sixty years. For the first time since 1953, we have a Republican president along with a Republican Congress. The Democrats had this from 1961 through 1968, 1977 through 1980, and in 1993-94.
In all cases, they had much larger majorities than the GOP has now in Congress. The Republicans counted for little. The Democrats screwed up this country almost unforgivably. Leave the driving to us.
Didn’t I just say that ANY one party control was bad? Thank you for blaming my party for screwing up the country. Such words make America much stronger.
What makes America "much stronger" is not reflexive "bipartisanship" a la George W. Bush and the mediacracy. What makes, or rather would make, us "much stronger" is the truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Sometimes it looks unfair. Sorry, not my problem.