The Governorship of Texas is a token political position with limited powers. How did anyone in their right mind think this experience made Bush a good candidate for President?
2007-02-03 17:57:30 · 13 answers · asked by itsdabigbadwolf 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sources; http://www.gatt.org/bushtexgov.html
2007-02-03 18:05:56 · update #1
It is a fact that the Governor of Texas has the least amount of political power than any other state Governor. It is the way Texas set up its political system. Check the facts. http://www.gatt.org/bushtexgov.html
2007-02-03 18:10:47 · update #2
There's no doubt George Bush was and still is totally unqualified to be president. Even his own aids speak of his intellectual incuriosity. He even had to be coached about world geography to learn where various hot spots in the world were located. Does that sound like the type of man we want running a nation of 300 million people? Does that sound like the type of man we want in a position of power which could bring about the destruction of the whole world? I don't think so! As for George Bush living by principles? Tell that to the passel of Methodist ministers who are seeking to derail SMU's association with Bush by hosting his library on their campus. They apparently disagree. And you know what? They are members of the same religious body to which Dubya belongs. So, what may we conjecture about Mr. Bush and his principles? Perhaps that they are the wrong ones? Definitely!!
2007-02-03 19:03:26 · answer #1 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question overlooks one important aspect of the office of president.
It evolves.
Many changes have taken place since the days of J.F.K.
Where our president was in the people's eye, we no longer have access to that person as we should.
What Bush is...is far removed from the people, dealing with laisons who in turn deal with influential people...so it's a chain thing that never gets the average people involved.
Your vote became quite watered down and insignificant.
Certainly candidates will pop up from time to time in your own hometown...but when the voting is over, you hardly get to see them anymore.
Bush is so predictable now as a lame duck with low ratings.
He says one thing today, then watches it's review, then says something entirely different tomorrow.
...and if you think I'm wrong, just get to watch some clips on a news broadcast of all the things he said over time...and see how inconsistent he is.
I tell you, he's a marvel of confusion.
2007-02-03 18:08:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a fact . You are right. Yet the man lives by principles and I back my president. If America was united Iraq would have been cured by now and th Iranian extremist regime would be crumbling unable to poor a river of money to terrorist organizations. Hezbollah would be done due to lack of funding. Palestinians would be on the verge of statehood.
But who wants that anyway when the left was so desperate for power and now they have it and with no other plan other than defeat.
The millions in the coming slaughter thank you I'm sure.
2007-02-03 18:19:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a Texas native I say he wasn't even qualified to be governor let alone president! If only people would have looked at his record here in Texas, I believe that many people would not have voted for him. I believe he made it to the whitehouse by riding on his daddy's coat tails.
2007-02-03 18:16:37 · answer #4 · answered by Peace Lovin Hippy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush was qualified.
1) Governor of TX has a lot more responsibility than VP.
2) ALL positions have limited power. It's called checks & balances.
3) 4 of the last 5 Presidents have been governors.
4) Carter & Clinton had been governors of states whose combined populations & land areas are far less than that of TX. If Bush's experience was inadeqyate, Carter & Clinton shouldn't have been allowed to run for dog catcher.
2007-02-03 18:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I accept as true with countless the responders below. he's not accountable of any conflict crimes. the in common words those who declare this are the mendacity media who're totally less than sway of the 'have not' liberals. G W (it really continues to be President Bush to you, in spite of that the click have for decades have disregarded his identify, making a disrespectful epithet of calling him Bush) went over there after due interest and with chillingly convincing data that there develop right into a sturdy probability there have been WMD over there, that Saddam Hussein had gassed his personal human beings, raped and tortured them, invaded yet another usa and develop into engaged on generating Nuclear guns. They did locate caches of gas and illicit guns the Iraqi claimed no longer to own. by way of the United international locations of which Mr Obama is so enamored, Saddam had countless time to secret those guns another position; and that i extremely doubt the fortunate recipient may care to promote his possession. I keep in recommendations listening to, even as the UN develop into posturing and writing extra little 'recommend notes' to Hussein, there have been countless large boats positioned out, that could want to nicely have contained many or all of those guns; yet, after the preliminary comments about the very truth, our dazzling information media dropped that one like a warm potato. Suspicious to me.
2016-11-25 00:07:09 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he was unqualified... he got by on daddy's say so and a lot of money and the corruption of big business.
If we never knew before, we most certainly know now.... he was way out of his league... and speaking of leagues.. he wasn't even qualified to own a baseball team either... he has pretty much failed at everything he has ever done... too bad we are the ones now paying for his incompetence.
2007-02-03 18:01:51 · answer #7 · answered by Debra H 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
bush is alot of talk ...he makes promises that never amout to anything..other than getting him into the white house that is....his father did a reasonable job and after clinton i think the US wanted a more conservative leader...not to mention that al gore was a little to close to clinton for comfort and we wanted something completly new...looking back on it its easy to see he was the wrong choice but we elected him again and theres no going back..whats happened has happened and we can only hope we dont make this kind of foolish mistake again
2007-02-03 18:05:46 · answer #8 · answered by sally s 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What about Clinton who had sent more troop into combat that any other president in history but had burned that American flag in England as he was draft dodging. Wow he was qualified..
2007-02-03 18:07:10 · answer #9 · answered by jetratkat 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unqualified? Ya think?
2007-02-03 18:02:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋