GUEST:

I truly appreciate what you say about the separation of powers. But, as I'm sure you know, you ARE being very simplistic about these things. In fact, either intentionally or not, you are lecturing us on how the government SHOULD work on paper, but you either don't know or choose to ignore how it ACTUALLY works IN PRACTICE.

For example, while only Congress has the authority to declare war, you know perfectly well that they did not do so in Korea or Vietnam. It is the executive branch that has the power to move troops around the world, and it turns out that when push comes to shove they can do it without Congress's approval. This can be seen as a flaw in the system of checks and balances that you and I both admire, but it is a real one.

What this means is that Bush could have attacked Iraq without Congress's approval--but it would have been much riskier politically. The reduced risk comes largely because, having gotten congress's approval, he has allies like you on the left AND others on the right saying that Kerry is equally responsible. If you want to point a finger at people who are complicit in the invasion of Iraq, then, you'll have to point one at yourself, because getting Congress's approval was done precisely in order to mobilize people like you to run interference for Bush in this election.

Also, while Congress does indeed approve the budgets and the tax code, those are generally prepared and lobbied for by the executive branch. Remember the government closures when Clinton and Congress could not agree? Why would that happen if Congress could simply pass whatever budget it wanted? It can't, because the president has the VETO, and he uses it to threaten and cajole congress. Don't like my plan to shift the tax burden onto wealthier people? Fine, what pet project of yours should I veto?

This is not, of course, how most of these conversations go. This is simply the subtext. The actual negotiations, more often than not, are civil. And get this: Kerry has better relationships with many legislators, even Republican legislators, than Bush does. The senate in particular is a club and he is a leading member. He knows its rules and unstated codes MUCH better than Bush. I think he'll have the opportunity to change a lot, including more progressive taxation.

Here are some other things I think he will do:

Prevent oil drilling in many wilderness areas including ANWR

Enter into serious international environmental talks

Change the disastrous Medicare prescription entitlement to allow importation from Canada and other measures good for us and less so for drug companies

Sit down with European leaders and get them to share the burden of security in Iraq.

Allow stem-cell research to continue.

Not waste time supporting things like Gay Marriage amendments.

Listen to diplomatic, military and scientific experts before he commits to policy ideas (which to me is one of the biggest issues).

As I said, enact more progressive taxation--meaning the wealthiest Americans are taxed more and the lower middle class less.

I also, by the way, expect healthy support for the arts and humanities, which many folk music enthusiasts should care about, although in truth Bush has not been so bad for folk arts.

Those are just a few things.

Finally, GUEST, let me say that I appreciate this thread. It IS important to articulate goals in advance.