Why is President Bush having more trouble (so far) trying to partially privatize Social Security than he had cutting taxes in 2001?
...
It may be that the GOP's victories in last November's elections, the very victories that Bush says give him the "political capital" to push through partial privatization, are actually making the effort harder.  By killing off the Democrats most susceptible to his influence, Bush may have created a political dynamic that works for his opponents, and against him.
...
Of course, the Republicans who beat them are virtually automatic votes for whatever Bush wants. But, on a major "reform" like Social Security, one vote from across the aisle is worth more than one from your own side. (Especially in the Senate, where the filibuster rule means you need 60 votes to pass major legislation.) Partly, that's because when a Democrat supports Bush's agenda, it's newsworthy, and it builds momentum in the press. When Democratic senators like Montana's Max Baucus signaled their openness to Bush's tax cut in 2001, it created a sense of inevitability that demoralized opponents. Conversely, the absence of Senate Democrats willing to do the same so far on Social Security privatization has produced a spate of stories that should worry the White House ("DEMOCRATS ARE FINDING UNITY IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO PRIVATE RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS," Los Angeles Times; "CENTRISTS STEER CLEAR OF SOCIAL SECURITY PLANS," The Hill; "DEMOCRATS ARE UNITED IN PLANS TO BLOCK TOP BUSH INITIATIVES," The Washington Post). And those news stories have shaped discussion on the chat shows, where even some conservative commentators now express pessimism about Bush's chances.