2007-06-30 04:46:06 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
if it quacks like a duck?
2007-06-30 04:48:55 · answer #1 · answered by crazzy 4 · 0⤊ 5⤋
since this is politics we're talking here I'm going to have to say George Bush is not a lame duck, but only since he doesn't quack! Anyway, George Bush is worse than a lame duck, he's a downright !%&*$ with a huge #!% and he's just a #$^&#*! idiot. that's just my opinion. Sorry for all the things i sorta said. Well, you know everyone has thier opinions!
2007-06-30 12:10:36 · answer #2 · answered by Emma Stevenson 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
He actually was on his way to being considered a "lame duck" President in his FIRST term. He couldn't get his nominees elected t the Supreme Court, he couldn't get any kind of legislation passed, even WITH a Republican Congress and he had just won the most suspicious Presidential election in American History.
Not to mention the fact he spent four and a half of his first ten months in office on vacation, in Texas, instead of in Washington, taking care of business. It was already looking like Bush could not expect to ever win another election.
Then the attacks on Sept 11.
Now, a "lame buck" President is one who cannot be elected again, whether due to term limits or incompetence or whatever, and because of his or her "unelectability", he or she has much less "clout" to push through programs, which were delayed for what could be a hundred different reasons.
2007-06-30 12:21:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Better a lame duck than a lame brain,
2007-06-30 11:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, he is supposed to be. I wouldn't put it past him to try and declare martial law and become a dictator which would mean he would not be a lame duck.
2007-06-30 12:31:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Miserable abysmal failure Dictator Dumbya was NEVER elected. And now many Repukes are deserting him, deservedly so, like lug head Lugor, giving new meaning to "lame duck".
2007-06-30 12:33:17 · answer #6 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He has proven himself not be a lame duck, he is still pretty much in charge.
2007-06-30 12:15:54 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush is lame duck, and will always carry the blame for ever.
2007-06-30 11:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I think it's more like dead duck. His party is starting to defy his leadership. The immigration fiasco was the first step. My guess, October/November enough republicans will side with democrats to get us out of Iraq. That should put the final nail in his coffin.
2007-06-30 12:01:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes, especially since he has to work with a Democrat controlled Congress now. Unless they can make some compromises, nothing much is going to get done in the next year and a half.
2007-06-30 11:51:07 · answer #10 · answered by Dinah Steeler 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋
That's the term they use for it but looking at the big picture, it seems that Congress is much more lame the he is.
2007-06-30 11:50:45 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋