As we know, the language one uses when framing an issue controls its perception. This is why great debaters win, whether they believe in their point or not, or whether their point is more logical or not. Case in point: the recent language used by Mr. Bush and Mr. Reid over the Bush War spending authorization bill.
Each time Bush uses the term "send me a bill I can sign," he is reinforcing the idea that he is at the top of a decision making tree, instead of simply a co-equal branch. As a result, the mischievous children in the Senate and House (read Democrats) are wasting time with a bill everyone knows daddy won't like. This of course elevates Bush and depresses the Congress in the public's perception of the Washington power structure. I have yet to hear the argument stating that because of co-equality, BOTH branches must be satisfied or no motion can occur. In this framing, it's not about a bill "The Decider" can sign, but about a bill which the Congress can accept. If Bush is perceived to be strong on one point, it's his "leadership." This is, of course, straight out of the Rove playbook of reversing strength with weakness, and turning failure into success (freedom is slavery anyone?). Language around this, and other bills should focus on "a bill which is acceptable to Congress," which is then easily linked to "a bill which is acceptable to the American People," as Bush's approval ratings are lower than Congress, especially on this issue (sorry to use the "AP" cliché). Reid used a little of this in his comments on Cheney's "9%" approval ratings.
Bush is not the employer with Congress acting as insubordinate employees; he is a duck growing lamer by the day who is surrounded by deceit which covers criminality disguised as incompetence. There's no doubt he is still a very dangerous individual, and of course this war must be tied around his neck like an anchor at each and every turn; however it is important to remember that the worst thing that can be done to this administration is to marginalize them.