The first thing to acknowledge is that in 2001 the US federal government was in something almost like a 50-50 partisan split. The 2000 Presidential election had been incredibly contentious (that is a whole other story), but even in Congress the Republicans held a very small majority (222 in their caucus, out of 435), and the Senate was divided 50-50 with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding votes. The Republicans would rather unusually lose control of the Senate in June when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP and became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats, giving the latter an extremely narrow control of that legislative body.

For all of the 2000 election controversy, Bush himself was broadly popular, enjoying what many incoming US presidents have experienced as a "honeymoon" period in opinion polls (this has essentially disappeared). His approval ratings in Gallup polls were in the mid to high 50s until September 11, when it jumped to 90% in a rally-around-the-flag effect (the cumulative weight of Iraq and the 2008 recession would sink this to 25% by the end of his second term). Even his disapproval ratings were rather low: in the mid 30s.

On February 27, 2001, Bush gave an address to a joint session of Congress. The transcript can be found here, and in many ways it is a good road map for many of the goals of his administration, even after 9/11. The vast majority of it was dedicated to his proposed budget, and for policies connected with that. A major theme he struck was for "compassionate conservatism" of the type he campaigned on in 2000:

"Year after year in Washington, budget debates seem to come down to an old, tired argument: on one side, those who want more government, regardless of the cost; on the other, those who want less government, regardless of the need. We should leave those arguments to the last century, and chart a different course.

Government has a role, and an important role. Yet, too much government crowds out initiative and hard work, private charity and the private economy. Our new governing vision says government should be active, but limited; engaged, but not overbearing. And my budget is based on that philosophy."

Essentially what he was arguing for was something of a middle path: the US federal government would be concerned about social outcomes, but would steer money and plans as much as possible to states, local government, and private charities, including notably faith-based charities (the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives had been established nine days after he entered the Oval Office).

Bush would thread the needle quite a bit in some of his proposed plans. His measures for school reform would " not... run public schools from Washington, D.C." but would use exams to promote accountability, as well as offering parents the choice to move their children to better public schools, private schools, or charter schools. This would eventually get pulled together into the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by Bush on January 8, 2002.

A much bigger part of his speech, however, was devoted to the federal budget. This pretty much offered something to everyone. Bush promised to pay off the federal debt in 10 years (spoiler: this did not happen), while also returning money to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. He also promised to double the Medicare budget and expand its coverage to include prescription drugs (which had originally been proposed by President Clinton in 1999 and was eventually signed into law in November 2003). He also promised to protect the Social Security surplus, while hinting at offering options for younger Americans to invest part of their savings privately instead - he would more fully back this plan in his second term, in February 2005, with pretty disastrous consequences for his administration.

Foremost from Bush's initiatives was a push for tax cuts, which Bush had campaigned on in 2000 (at the time, the US federal government was accruing a surplus thanks to strong tech-related economic growth, but by March 2001 the US was in a recession). The proposed tax cuts were for $1.6 trillion over 10 years, but the final bill settled for $1.35 trillion, reducing a number of income tax rates, reducing capital gains taxes, and eliminating estate taxes, among other things. The bill was passed in May and signed June 7, interestingly the day after the GOP lost Senate control.

What's notable in retrospect with the speech is what's not there. And specifically I mean pretty much any discussion of the outside world or military concerns. Bush does finally get to it in his speech, but almost at the very end, as almost a footnote, after all his discussion of the federal budget, Medicare, Social Security, school reform, tax cuts, patient rights, toxic waste cleanup, even a promise to have Attorney General John Ashcroft examine and stop racial profiling among police forces.

There is some discussion (and again, this would remain and become more prominent in Bush's terms) of a "distinctly American internationalism" where America would be a "champion of freedom", promoting free markets, free trade, and freedom from oppression". But in terms of a military policy, Bush argued for a "strategy first, then spending", to move past "Cold War relics" and confront "the threats of the 21st century -- threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction." While this sounds ominous (and would have some connecting threads to his "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union Speech the following year, it was still very abstract: no terrorist group was named, let alone Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, nor were any "rogue nations" (the term itself was a Clinton era phrase), and Bush's conclusions would seem a bit surprising to us on the other side of 9/11 - more missile defense, a smaller nuclear arsenal, and a fast track authority to negotiate trade deals. The Bush's strategic and international outlook was not that far from where Clinton's had been. The closest thing to an international crisis that Bush faced prior to September 11 was the collision of a Chinese fighter and a US Navy electronic surveillance plane in April, with the latter landing on Hainan Island and its crew being detained for 10 days.

In total - the Bush Administration from January 20, 2001 to September 10, 2001 was overall rather favorably viewed by the American public, but it wasn't necessarily seen as an administration taking strong stands. The biggest initiative in these months, and the one Bush put the most effort into effecting, was the tax cuts bill he signed into law in June. Many of the other initiatives that he worked on and spoke about in public were related to his "compassionate conservatism" framework - a patients' bill of rights, a push for more oil and gas exploration, stem cell research, Medicare expansion, and education reform (the famous images of Bush reading The Pet Goat at the Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida on September 11 were part of a campaign to promote the president's education reform plans). It was an administration very focused on domestic issues, and largely ones that involved how to spend the US federal surplus. International issues, even security concerns were much, much farther down the administration's to-do list, as they were for the American public. Gallup polls from 2001 before September 11 asked, as they still do, what are the most important problems facing America. Prior to 9/11 no single answer dominated, but "the economy", education, unemployment and " Ethics/moral/religious/family decline; dishonesty; lack of integrity" were the highest items chosen (I suspect that latter answer had a lot to do with Clinton-era scandals). National security barely registered any responses, and terrorism none at all.