First of all, the only presidents in the past to have a Congress which was the same party as the president were Jimmy Carter and Now George W. Bush. Personally, I believe for the sake of checks and balances, Congress should ALWAYS be the opposing party.
Secondly, shouldn't a law have been made a long time ago to prevent the president and his cabinet (who will always be biased) to campaign during the midterm elections?
Lastly, to show his pro-life and anti same-sex marriage views and not talking about any of his other policies in the churches...shouldn't that be considered misleading and unfair to gain support from very religious people like that?
Bush has been supporting republicans who are doing this.
What do you think about all this?
2006-10-19 10:25:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let him do as he pleases and show up where ever he wants .Lose lips sink ships as they use to say .The republican party was torpedoed and hit hard by Its own people and Bush with every word out of his mouth is insuring a victory for democrats .
2006-10-19 10:30:51 · answer #1 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Don't know much about the American system of government do you.....
The President has always had the luxury of campaigning for his chosen party, why stop now simply because you don't like George Bush.
To say that Congress must always have a majority opposite the white house would mean that you would have to limit, based on party affiliation, who could or could not run for specific offices. This is why there is a lifetime appointment for Supreme Court Justices. In theory they are not party affiliated and even if they are the panel usually remains split roughly 4 to 5 one way or the other. This provides the neutral check and balance regardless of the political affiliation of the White House or Congress.
You last question doesn't make sense and really can't be answered.
Bush supports Republicans, just like Reagan did. Just like Clinton supported Democrats....
I think that it is hilarious to hear liberals complain about "fairness"... Since when has politics been fair?
2006-10-19 17:33:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most people who have the money and the will to campaign for a canidate are more than likely going to be biased towards their chosen canidate. If they weren't completely convinced that the person they were spending their money and time on was the best, or at least fit their personal agenda, then why would they waste their time?
Checks and balances doesn't dictate which political party is holding what office, and certainly doesn't strive for them to be represented equally or fairly by both. Checks and balances is to ensure that no branch of the government (Executive, Congressional, Judicial) has more power than the other. Who is sitting in office is a reflection of the beliefs of voters.
So, I don't really agree with anything that you have stated. Not at all based on Bush's politics or my own. But based on common sense.
2006-10-19 17:33:53 · answer #3 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most presidents campaign for their people in mid-terms. This is standard politics and perfectly "fair".
You need to do more research. Before Carter, FDR had 4 terms with both the House and Senate democrat controlled. JFK, and LBJ also had democrat controlled Congresses. It is much more common for them to be the same than different. I don't think Congress should always be the opposing party. Were that enforced, quite often it would thwart the will of the voters.
2006-10-19 17:35:14 · answer #4 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's necessarily fair, but I do think that most other presidents would do the same. He can't be stopped from campaigning for/supporting his own Party -and really, I think it's something to be expected. In the end, it has little impact anyway because people who are for a certain Party won't likely be swayed by his words. At this point, it seems most are either with him or against him. There aren't a lot of fence-sitters out there.
2006-10-19 17:35:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the party of Congress matters, because they have to get along with the President regardless. To me, when they campaign shouldn't matter. I think a lot of the opinions and views come from what Bush wants people to hear, not what he actually thinks.
2006-10-19 17:32:27 · answer #6 · answered by RamontheGreat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no law that says the president cannot campaign for anyone. There are a lot of republicans pulling for Joe Lieberman in CT and many republican groups are supporting him financially.
So I don't see any problem with what he is doing.
2006-10-19 17:32:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dems have done the same thing before....It is not just Bush....People in office will always want people of their party to win....no matter what party you are talking about.....it happens for local government to federal....the more people of your party that are in office, the easier it is to work the parties agenda. Dem, Rep....don't matter.....they all do it.
2006-10-19 17:29:14 · answer #8 · answered by yetti 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if I were a republican candidate I would put as much distance between myself and that moron as possible, as he is nothing but a liability...that being said, full speed ahead bush and co...dont let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out.
p.s. good news for the rest of us though- the more time bush spends outside the white house the less damage he does.
2006-10-19 17:29:12 · answer #9 · answered by dr schmitty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a nuisance,, who wants their president campaigning while their country is at war
2006-10-19 17:29:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋