I thought a leader was supposed to take responsibility.
2007-09-21 03:33:43 · 11 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Never heard that. We do need to defend the President against all the liberal slander that is constantly presented on the media and especially here on YA. It actually gets a bit boring.
I have problems with Bush on immigration. And I admit that the Iraq thing could have gone better. Kinda hard to 'Plan' a war though.
2007-09-21 03:56:46 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In their minds he is only responsible for the good things. Since there have been few, if any, good things they may have a point he is responsible for nothing.
Bush wants to run the Presidency as though a CEO at a large corporation. Anyone who has dealt with such corporations knows that the CEO is accountalbe for everything that goes on in the corporation whether directly responisble or not. Bush isn't willing to take accountability for what is going on in his "corporation". Maybe that is why all the other business ventures he has tried have failed. The difference this time is there is no Bin Laden money to bail him out and nothing daddy can do to fix things for him. He is simply incompetent.
2007-09-21 10:45:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1 - Bush is responsible for the administration. He won't be accountable for it at the end of his term and nobody else had been, but that's a different matter.
2 - A leader is not supposed to be responsible for anything. He lead and it's your choice to follow. It's your responsibility. But I thought we were talking about the president...
3 - By conservatives I understand you're talking about politicians. Who cares what they say? They're politicians!
2007-09-21 12:18:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This has been a trend in presidents, and its not just Bush. In the words of Lewis Black, whom I'd consider a liberal:
"I don't know what drugs you need to take to make you so delusional to be a Bush supporter. Matter of fact, I don't know why you'd be such a strong Clinton supporter. Whenever something goes wrong they're like 'I don't know what happened'. Why can't my government just lie to me? I'm used to that"
I paraphrased, that's not an exact word for word quote.
2007-09-21 10:49:17 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They raise a great hue and cry over personal responsibility, but when when it comes down to showing their hand, they always shirk their duty to prove it. Just look at bush bailing out the companies on Wall Street that stand to lose money over the bad mortgages that they've issued. So much for the invisible hand of the private market. Pretty much anything that they claim turns out to be baloney sooner or later.
2007-09-21 10:42:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure he's responsible for some things. But, you can't say he's responsible for everything, either. 3 branches of government... the other 2 have some responsibility, too. Much blame for the state of things can be laid at the feet of Congress - of all parties.
2007-09-21 10:42:43 · answer #6 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Becaue Bush causes hurricaines and Global Warming
2007-09-21 10:43:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He's responsible for the war and for the insane spending spree both on the war and domestically.
There.
2007-09-21 10:41:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They actually think bush isn't a massive failure, that's why they continue supporting him.
2007-09-21 10:40:08 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
We just think you libs have a VERY unhealthy obsession with him and are pushing back.
We think you are really quite ill; seriously.
2007-09-21 10:41:05 · answer #10 · answered by Private Deek 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋