2007-09-20 10:08:48 · 18 answers · asked by Big Paesano 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely not. Some people have said Nixon, but Nixon was a moderate and often worked with the Democrats on compromise legislation.
Back in 2005, a professor said this: "Bush is the most partisan president in modern American history," ...."As a result, voters in both parties are focusing on him, rather than on the specifics of the policies." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601687.html
That's what happened!
2007-09-20 10:22:55 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've been around since the 1950's and I think all president's are partisan. However, I think Bush tops them all. The Congress is more partisan though. They are constantly bickering over bills introduced by the other party, instead of looking as to what's in the counties best interest. I think there shouldn't be any party's - we should all come together for the common good which is the people.
2007-09-28 05:30:16 · answer #2 · answered by Ana C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do recall a more partisan president, but it was the president of the local 4-H Club.
2007-09-26 13:20:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not. Reagan and Clinton were well known for working with a Congress controlled by the other side.
Bush, not much of a compromiser by nature, got used to getting his own way with the Repub congress during the first six years of his administration.
2007-09-20 10:14:52 · answer #4 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not in my lifetime---I do not HATE president Bush, however, I do not agree with his management of the strife in Iraq and Afghanistan and his omission to solve domestic problems.
2007-09-27 10:30:01 · answer #5 · answered by Joan J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not in my lifetime, no. I wouldn't say he's partisan so much as divisive. Democrats mostly took his side on his immigration proposals.
2007-09-20 10:19:30 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Uh, yeah, the one before him. The only reason he worked with the republican congress was because they had the strength of their positions to force his hands. I bet you still think that balancing the budget and creating a surplus was a Clinton initiative.
The absolute last thing that Clinton wanted was the success of any Republican initiative. Unfortunately for him, he was facing Newt and got ***** slapped. After Newt left, not much more got done because of partisan politics and Monica taking up residence under the President's desk.
No, Monica, NAFTA and popping the tech bubble which led the nation rapidly into a recession are Clinton's only legacy.
2007-09-20 10:16:16 · answer #7 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
ACTUALLY, THE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS CONGRESS ARE TERRIBLY PARTISANED. BOTH SIDES ARE AWFUL, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME. CONGRESS' APPROVAL RATING IS AT ITS LOWEST IN HISTORY, MUCH LOWER EVEN THAN BUSH'S (WHICH ALSO SUCKS). STOP WITH THE ONE SIDED HATRED. WE NEED TO DEMAND HONESTY FROM BOTH SIDES (MEAN WHAT YOU SAY AND SAY WHAT YOU MEAN), STOP THE OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING, STOP ALL EARMARKS, EXPECT CONGRESS AND ALL CITIZENS TO SHOW A LITTLE FRICKIN' PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR LIFE AND THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THEIR FAMILY.
2007-09-26 15:17:42 · answer #8 · answered by Ted M 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush teamed up with Ted Kennedy for No Child Left Behind.
He got 29 USA Democrat Senators to vote with him on War with Iraq.
2007-09-20 10:13:20 · answer #9 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 7⤊ 3⤋
From the very beginning, George Bush reached out to the defeated Democrats. He invited the leaders to the White House. He let Ted Kennedy write the education bill.
The Democrats tried to bite off his welcoming hand. They have been stabbing him in the back since 2000.
2007-09-20 10:14:08 · answer #10 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋