Who's resisting?

Over at Salon this morning, there's a piece looking at the Bush administration's Social Security efforts, and speculating that they might change course and pull the rug out from under Democrats:

Of course, a number of Democrats could try to block any version of the plan, arguing that any Social Security legislation passed by Bush, even a relatively good bill, would hurt Democrats. But if Bush endorsed centrist ideas on Social Security, the Democratic unity would shatter, Ornstein says. And Ornstein believes the White House is nimble enough to refocus its efforts to cash in on a fruitful plan -- after all, that's what the Bush White House does when it meets resistance. Bush was against the 9/11 Commission before he was for it. The president criticized the McCain-Feingold bill before he signed it. And remember Bush's sudden decision, in the spring before the 2002 midterm election, to co-opt Democrats' plan to create the Department of Homeland Security? And we remember how well that election went for the Democrats.

Note that in each of these examples the Bush administration was resisting active efforts on the part of someone else to push an agenda through. In this case, we have the reverse situation. I'm not following the process in minute detail, but as far as I know there are no firm proposals or legislation on the table, and no sign that Democrats are going to produce one. Without that, there's nothing for Bush to co-opt. I suspect that everyone realizes this, which is why we're not seeing anything. As long as that continues, Dubya will be left out on his own. While I have no doubt the Bush administration can claim someone else's ideas as their own, I have yet to see evidence that they can come up with any good ideas without help from the other side of the aisle.