Here. Can we at least agree that second term Presidents can’t be lame ducks until after the mid-term election?
Silly.
by John Cole| 5 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
Here. Can we at least agree that second term Presidents can’t be lame ducks until after the mid-term election?
Silly.
Comments are closed.
over it
If it quacks like a duck…..
Actually, I don’t know enough about what a ‘lame duck’ President is to argue either way.
I just thought I’d be funny. :)
The Disenfranchised Voter
I doubt that he is a lame duck president already but one can dream right? I wish he was. Heh.
It is interesting how one of the most important questions last night has been completely ignored by the MSM; however it comes as no surprise.
Bush’s response to the question of sending detanies to other countries to be tortured was utterly disgraceful. In his answer he condoned torture in a round about way. He didn’t directly say it, but he clearly implied it.
Bob Munck
By the accepted definition of “lame duck,” every second-term president is one from the moment he wins the second election. Of course, with Bush you have to say ‘… from the moment he “wins” the (second) election.’
Captain Video
Bush would have been a lame duck early on in his first term if Osama Bin Laden had not come to his rescue by blowing up the World Trade Center, which caused the country to rally around the President, an effect that Bush ruthlessly exploited to push his right wing agenda.
Slartibartfast
Oh, please.