Why is a lame-duck" administration like the Bush administration able to remain in office for so long?

Question

In Great Britain and Canada, a discredited administration can be defeated in parliament and a new election forced. In the US, as I understand it, the president either hangs on until the term is up or he is successfully impeached by Congress. The Democrats appear unwilling to do this, but the prospect of a discredited administration remaining in charge for such a long time seems somewhat absurd to me.

Answer 1

He still has a lot of retards supporting him. That is why.

Answer 2

The primary reason is that we are not a parliamentary system like Great Britain and Canada. They are designed to force a new election when confidence in the leader is low.

Our legislative and executive branches are completely separate for checks and balances. Impeachment is an extremely serious process, which we never completed and only had any real experience with twice in our history. Impeaching Bill Clinton was a stupid partisan move that trivialized the process.

Being unpopular is not grounds for impeachment, neither is being stupid or a poor leader or having the poor judgment to engage in sex acts in the office with a staff member only a little older than your daughter. "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to crimes against the Constitution.

We really don't want to go down that road every time someone can produce evidence that a President lied about anything. We probably could have impeached them all on some small technicality.

Treason, complete disregard for the Constitution, stealing from the Treasury are impeachable crimes. Going through with impeachment proceeding is not something you do just because you don't like an administration.

Now I think recently it might be possible to move against Bush for impeachment on the grounds of complete disregard for the Constitution, but its a big step and not to be taken lightly.

Also, while the House began impeachment procedures against Bill Clinton, the Senate never "convicted" on the bill of impeachment which is why he remained in office. The US has never removed a President that way.

Answer 3

A lame-duck administration is not the same thing as a discredited administration. Lame-duck refers to a situation where the president is a member of one party and the congress is control by the opposing party, therefore making it very difficult for the president to get bills passed that fit with his agenda.

Furthermore, you cannot be impeached for being unpopular (indeed, some of the most unpopular presidents at the time of their tenure in office were extraordinarily unpopular, but history has judged than much more kindly); a crime has to have been committed and there has to be proof of said crime.

Answer 4

Bush is horrible, no doubt. At the same time, though, many a great president would have had their administration cut short if it were only based on their current popularity rating. Presidents should generally be given a chance to finish their 4 years and not subject to the whims of the public (other than ethical violations worthy of impeachment).

Answer 5

There has to be a law broken to impeach a president. Not just because you don't like what he's done. He's not a lame duck. Technically a lame duck is one whose election for the next presidency has taken place and he just has the remaining 2 months to serve out before the inauguration.

Answer 6

It's because our Founding Fathers designed a system that would enable politicians to do what they believed to be right, and not simply operate by opinion polls. Bush's approval might be at 35%, but Congress' approval is less than 20%. America will correct this at the next election. You can't simply turn over leadership at every whim. Otherwise, you would have an unstable government.

And, the last I noticed, the US economy is the stongest it's been in decades (much better than Canada or GB), and we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. So, maybe Bush is doing a few things right.

Answer 7

Your question is silly but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:
The administration is not "lame duck" because the 2008 election has not happened yet.
Thank God we don't live in Canada or Great Britain...did you forget that we are talking about the United States?!
Congress has no grounds to impeach and every slightly intelligent person and even some actual fruits and vegetables might actually know this!
The Democrats ARE unwilling to do this because it's a frivolous claim!
There is no hard evidence by any administration or reputable group to charge him with anything.
I think your question is absurd but it's nice to hand someone their a** back to them now and them :)

Answer 8

In the US, the president serves for a set term--and (other than his resigning) there is no mechanism such as a "vote of confidence." But we do have our ways--formal and informal--for managing. :)

But impeachment isn't something we use for an unpopular elected official. An "impeachment" isn't like a vote of (no) confidence--it is a criminal indictment for breaking the law--and a successful impeachment is the equivalent of being convicted in a court of law.

Answer 9

Because we live in a country where the president remains for 4 years unless he gets impeached, and you can't impeach a president for being 'lame-duck'

Answer 10

Not enough people are calling Congress to start impeachment of Dictator Dumbya AND Chain Gang Cheney. The legal grounds (at least 15 counts) exist. And ABSURD is the word for this Constitutional failure. The latest outrage follows...

Answer 11

He's not really a lame duck, Congress has a very small Democratic majority. It's not enough needed for the 2/3rds vote to override him.