like the one that made Arnold governor of California
2006-08-28 10:42:30 · 34 answers · asked by anonacoup 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I can see there are a lot of people who have answered this question who cannot see the forest for the trees. GW didn't get into office fair and square in the first place, in all probability. Anyone who can't see what his whole administration is really about is not paying attention, does not value truth, or does not want to see the truth because it is so unpleasant. Also, maybe some people are naive about the powers that really run this country, believing the elitists who want to keep the rest of us in the dark. Well, he's in there, and we just have to bear it for 2 more years, God help us. Wake up, America.
2006-08-28 11:21:40 · answer #1 · answered by catarina 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By the time everyone went through the process of being electable George Bush would be out of office. Please realize it takes years to get ready fo the next election!
In 08 When the new president is sworn in it will only be a few months months before the parties start looking at the next election and start the ball rolling. Elections for the current president, and looking for electable candidates for the party that lost.
Further, California has a history of recall and reelection, and they pay for it in lost time, taxes, and general public unhappiness. Imagine recalling 2 or more presidents in a 4 year period! It would be horrendous, nothing would get done! Lets not star precedents.
My answerer: No.
2006-08-28 10:52:41 · answer #2 · answered by aiji.tenchijin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would, and not allow any of his supporter to run state or district elections. Make it a REAL election this time. 1 out of 3 isn't bad?
2006-08-28 10:51:32 · answer #3 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not even close. the right of the battles in both Iraq and Afghanistan were even as maximum folk of enemy warring parties died. through some estimates, as many as 500,000 Iraqi infantrymen and civilians died and yet another 100,000 Afghans less than Bush. less than Obama this is been extra smaller conflicts and IED's , drones which have executed the killing.
2016-12-05 20:09:41 · answer #4 · answered by augustyn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ONLY if the only people who are allowed to re-vote are the ones who voted in the last election. I don't want to hear ANYONE whining about what a tool "W" is if they didn't vote TO BEGIN WITH!!!
2006-08-28 11:00:37 · answer #5 · answered by heargodlaugh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! There is so much controversy surrounding the Bush administration.
2006-08-28 10:50:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Just because popular opinion may be against someone, and just because it may be obvious to me (and federal courts) that he's broken the law, that's not the way the system should work.
Even criminals require due process, a fair trial, and the ability to assert a defense. The Constitution provides the procedures for such a trial in the case of the president. It's called impeachment.
If Bush is tried and found innocent, or his actions legally justified, then so be it. And if Bush is found guilty, so be it.
But a popular referendum is just trial by public opinion, and that's not the way our legal system is supposed to work.
2006-08-28 10:47:00 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Yes. It would be an opportunity to put someone in there that would do better in Iraq, Afghanistan, and oh yeah, how about the United States!
2006-08-28 11:24:03 · answer #8 · answered by hvnmorefun 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the hell for, no one asked for a recall for Carter or Clinton. If the Democrats ever come up with a viable candidate you will eventually have a president, relax.
2006-08-28 10:49:51 · answer #9 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes except we'd get Chaney
2006-08-28 10:53:09 · answer #10 · answered by irongrama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋