2007-01-16 03:40:08 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Getting their arguments poked full of holes is a good thing---don't discourage them. It's about time they squirmed in their skin because of their insane loyalty to the Simian Boy King.
Once the Dems apply the Constitution to erase his "self-proclaimed" wartime presidential rights--it'll all be over. Bad boy Bad boy--whatcha gonna do........
2007-01-16 03:46:35 · answer #1 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, the definition of lame-duck is an official who is still in office but has lost the election for that office.
It does not really apply to presidents at the end of their term. If this was his first term and a new president was to be sworn in in a few days from now then he would be a lame duck. President Bush still has 2 years left in office. By your definition, he would be lame duck during the entire 2nd term. Also by your implication, all presidents will end up lame-duck unless they are assassinated or die in office or something. Not really something to rant about.
2007-01-16 11:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course he is a lame duck President... he can't run again. But he has the power of the veto to keep the Democrats from forcing their agenda onto his administration.
2007-01-16 11:51:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure he is, but so is congress, as the President can veto any bill that is passed.
And the Democrats in charge of congress can't do anything about it because they lack a 2/3rd majority to override a veto.
Just like some of the people have said about my questions, yours is one sided.
Really, what's your point?
2007-01-16 11:45:05 · answer #4 · answered by The Cult of Personality 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When the Dems can bring a Veto Proof percentage from Both Houses......................... 51% does not get you Duck, Lame Or Otherwise!
2007-01-16 11:48:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Never. Much like they blame Clinton for everything they will hail Bush as a brilliant commander in chief. Laughable, isn't it?
2007-01-16 11:46:08 · answer #6 · answered by wisdomforfools 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By definition, he's "lame duck". What's your point?
2007-01-16 11:48:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is there to concede? Of course he is. That does not mean he is powerless.
2007-01-16 11:44:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When the Democrats admit they are wrong about everything else.
2007-01-16 11:45:26 · answer #9 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋