Bush's recent approval ratings:
Economy-41%
Domestic-37%
Foreign Policy-38%
Iraq War-32%(who the hell are the 32%?,are they alive?)
2007-03-08 21:03:49 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Bush's approval rating hits the low marks in all the major categories of Governing.
Economy:41%
Domestic:a whopping 37%(37% are those who got the Tax decrease-big $$$donors to Bush)
Foreign Policy: 38%-HE's better away from home!
Iraq War:32%(Is there really 32% who honestly think we're doing good there? where are these people, not on this earth!)
2007-03-08 21:23:05 · update #1
The only way that he can be replaced is through the process of succession as prescribed by law. It can only be through impeachment. The other is through death or disability (but assasination is a crime and must be ruled out).
The sad thing is that even when the removal of the current president is successful, the next in line to replace him is the vice president. With Dick Cheney being that person, it is no good either.
2007-03-08 21:37:30 · answer #1 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law doesn't operate that way, & we're fortunate it doesn't.
Would this be a better country if we got a new President every time approval ratings went below 50%? JUst asking....I don't kmow for sure.
As for replacing Bush w someone intelligent.......what standard do we use?? Whether you & I like it or not, the President has a Masters degree, so we both know intelligence isn't really an issue.
Should we guage the intelligence of the people who gey polled for the approval ratings?? I bet most of them don't have a degree at all. Have you ever been polled for one of these things? I haven't , ever ,.....& I wonder where, who, & what kind of mix is used?
We would change Presidents every year or more often than that if it was up to public opinion.
2007-03-08 21:30:47 · answer #2 · answered by SantaBud 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If an honest intelligent and decent person came forward, they would not get past the selection process to become a candidate. The powers that be cannot afford to have a 'white hat' in the whitehouse.
2007-03-08 22:07:47 · answer #3 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.
2007-03-08 21:18:27 · answer #4 · answered by joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋