Both were Republican Congresses what could have made the difference.
2007-12-21 06:14:36 · 4 answers · asked by whirling W dervish 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush was just getting started in 2000 after stealing the election. That took all of his attention. Once he was setting in the Chair he could concentrate of other things.
2007-12-21 06:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by From Yours Trully 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a sense, the difference was psychological. When Bush took office in 2001 the neocons who'd hijackedthe GOP wereconvinced they had secured a permanant hold on the national government (do't look at me, Karl Rowe said just that: "a permanant Republican(neocon) majority").
Consequently, theright-wing believed they were no longer accountable to the people and could do as they pelased without consequences. So the production ofpork barrelsbecame wholesale instead of retail.
You'll note that the Democrats (who, to be fair, arn't entirely innocent on this) have managed to cut this by 57% in a single year. And--in one more example of neoconservative hypocrisy, Bush is now making noises about "it isn't enough." I gues pork is only wasteful if its got the other guy's brand name on it! LOL
2007-12-21 14:28:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Safety in numbers
2007-12-21 14:18:48 · answer #3 · answered by bill 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They found an loophole and exploited it.
It's still going on this year.
2007-12-21 14:20:28 · answer #4 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋