Playing what if

One of the arguments that I hear a lot from people who think that Bush is a bad president and should not be elected this November is that he pushed for and signed the USA PATRIOT Act.

Here are the facts, and they are not in dispute: The House and Senate both overwhelmingly passed the legislation. John Kerry voted for it.

Now I'm going to play what-if and I'll start with a couple of assumptions:

Assumption 1: My interpretation that Kerry and the Democratic leadership view terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, rather than military, is correct.
Assumption 2: Al Gore ascribes to that view.
Assumption 3: If Kerry is elected in November, it will not be accompanied by a substantial change in the makeup of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Question 1: Given the facts and assumptions above, would the USA PATRIOT Act, or substantially similar legislation, have been passed if Al Gore had been President instead of Bush? I think the answer is likely yes because the act primarily addresses the abilities of law-enforcement agencies. If the Democrats view terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, it stands to reason that Gore would have pushed for legislation to enhance and increase the ability of law-enforcement agencies to deal with that issue. He may or may not have invaded Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure he would not have invaded Iraq, but I think the Patriot Act would still be on the books.

Question 2: Again, given the facts and assumptions above, would the Patriot Act be repealed or substantially modified if Kerry were elected President? I can't speak with as much confidence on this issue. I think there's a greater than 50 percent probability that the answer is no. I'm basing this on the facts that they passed it overwhelmingly, it's up to the Congress to make such changes, and, so far, they have not done so. However, I do accept the possibility that, if the President were to push for such changes, the Congress would comply.