Will A Democrat Take Over Of Congress Mean A Lamb Duck Presidency For Bush?

Answer 1

If the Democrats take over either house of Congress, they will indeed make it much harder for Bush to get much done in the last two years.

So I say yes.

I personally hope it does not happen, but I only get one vote.

I hope WHATEVER happens turns out to be the best for the country.

Answer 2

The main concern of the Bush administration is that if a Democratic majority occurs in Congress, he will not be able to get his laws passed as easily as he has been able to do over the past 6 years or so. As was referenced before, Clinton had a similar experience in 1994 when Congress became a Republican majority, but in that case Clinton had 6 years to go and was able to change the majority back to Democrat, where as Bush has only 2, so after this point, nothing will change.

I strongly doubt that much of anything would happen with a Democrat-run Congress and a Republican administration, but at this point the U.S. really needs to slow down on its decision-making until it can actually grasp the true meaning of moral values. I personally welcome some Democratic control as that is how this country was made to run, with one branch being able to check another, keeping a conservative, liberal, or ultra-religious agenda from being able to gain power, as the latter has over the past 6 years.

Bush so far has not been a LAME duck president because he has had plenty of laws go into effect with little effort on his part. However, just because his laws were approved does not make them right.

Answer 3

If we end up with a Democratic Congress it will mean that Bush will actually have to meet Congress in the middle of the road if he wants to do something. However, even if the Democrats get majority that doesn't exactly mean they would have enough to override a Presidential veto. So in essence it would slow him down but not stop him.

Answer 4

traditionally, one party rule has been 'not good'. some examples: 1977-80 one, President Carter had Dem Senate and abode. us of a became a mess. 1993-1995, President Clinton had Dem Senate and abode. not something became achieved. 2001-2005, President Bush had GOP Senate and abode. not good situations for us of a. maximum of Sixties, all Democrat. Welfare got here into being, Viet Nam warfare raged. exertions strikes continuously. Race riots in maximum cities. warfare protests / riots. drugs grew to change into typical. Already we've a Congress with an approval score less than President Bush. including a President from their own party received't cause them to more effective perfect legislators. the traditional result's lack of capacity in between the segments of authorities in between the subsequent 2 elections. And the rustic receives to stay with (for decades) the negative legislations surpassed without competition.

Answer 5

In most cases yes in others it could be a god send such as immigration bush and the Dem's see almost eye to eye. Social security reform maybe another area where Dem's and bush can work together. In that case it will depend if bush will dump privatization as a answer to the problem. On most everything else bush will have a rough ride ahead especially if the Dem's dig up the goods for impeachment.

Answer 6

bush is a LAME duck anyway as he cannot be reelected. all a democratic congress does is prove that the american people dont really understand politics.

Answer 7

Bush is already a lame duck. He can't run again.

Answer 8

No. The Democrats are not likely to take the Senate if current projections hold. And the House margin gets slimmer every day.

But even if they did, he would veto every piece of legislation that would raise taxes or in any other means harm his economy. Even is the Dems win both houses they will not have a veto proof majority.

Answer 9

Do you mean a Lame-Duck presidency, or a slam-dunk presidency? (giggles)

Answer 10

Dead duck if you ask me, he will not be able to get any more evil laws passed at all.