George Bush Is A Lame Duck President

7:03 pm EST March 2nd, 2006 | Politics | 16 Comments

Frankly, it’s time to start focusing on who’s going to next assume the mantle of leadership for the Republican party, because George Bush is effectively done. He only has 8 months of his presidency left and his approval ratings continue to drop. The job now is to simultaneously encapsulate the Bush presidency (Lucked into the office by legal decree, presided over the worst terrorist attack in American history, started a war that caused the death of 2,500 Americans to no avail, re-elected on a narrow margin thanks to a sleazy campaign and a woefully ill-prepared opposition, consistently unpopular to the point of absurdity), and to focus fire on his would-be replacement (McCain, Allen, etc.).

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

16 Responses to “George Bush Is A Lame Duck President”

  1. Oliver Willis says:
    March 2, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    The congressional elections are in November, after that the jockeying for 2008 begins in full speed. There’s no vice presidential candidate, so its going to become a question (on the right) of who takes up Bush’s mantle (Warner, Allen, Romney, Tancredo, more to come…), but also who isn’t his “boy” and gets saddled with his bad numbers. At the same time, there will be a wide open field among Democrats (Hillary, Biden, Warner, Kerry, Edwards, Clark – maybe even Gore). Half of Washington – on both sides – are going to be running for President.

  2. Dkelsmith says:
    March 2, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    Only eight months left??

  3. Fuming Mucker says:
    March 2, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Dkelsmith… what’s your impression of Scott Ritter? He’s got a conversation with 710KIRO’s Dave Ross here.

  4. sam says:
    March 2, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    “The congressional elections are in November, after that the jockeying for 2008 begins in full speed. There s no vice presidential candidate, so its going to become a question (on the right) of who takes up Bush s mantle (Warner, Allen, Romney, Tancredo, more to come& ), but also who isn t his  boy and gets saddled with his bad numbers. At the same time, there will be a wide open field among Democrats (Hillary, Biden, Warner, Kerry, Edwards, Clark – maybe even Gore). Half of Washington – on both sides – are going to be running for President.”

    You really need to get a life son.

  5. Frank_D says:
    March 2, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    You’re really wishing him out as quickly as possible, eh, Oliver?

    Eight months, eh?

    There’s desperation (not to mention totally erroneous political analysis) in your post.

    It’s not even difficult for me to predict: Republicans hold majorities after 2006.

    2008 campaigns begin in spring 2007, not DEC 2006, and Republicans win in 2008. Your only challenge is to come with the excuse for this loss.

    Lucked into the office by legal decree – used in 2000

    re-elected on a narrow margin (?) thanks to a sleazy campaign and a woefully ill-prepared opposition – used in 2004

    2008 – Intelligent Design? Oreos? Failure of Brit Hume to resign?

  6. Oliver Willis says:
    March 2, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    I’ve predicted that the GOP is going to maintain their majorities after the fall elections. Hell, as clueless as the Dems have been the GOP will probably gain seats. That doesn’t change the fact that the minute the ’06 election is over, the jockeying for ’08 begins. Presidents Clinton and Reagan weren’t able to get a whole heck of a lot shoved off in their last two years – and they both had vice presidents running in the ensuing election and they were popular presidents. Bush is unpopular. His vice president isn’t running for dogcatcher much less commander-in-chief. The electoral field is going to be huge (and who knows if a third party candidacy will rear its head?). Bush’s one shot to make a huge mark came either in the Iraq war or after he was re-elected. He screwed up the war, and social security privatization is done.

  7. Bushwacked says:
    March 3, 2006 at 5:03 am

    “2008 campaigns begin in spring 2007, not DEC 2006, and Republicans win in 2008. Your only challenge is to come with the excuse for this loss.”

    Sounds more like “whistling past the graveyard”.

  8. Marty says:
    March 3, 2006 at 6:03 am

    You obviously have no clue as to where the term lame duck came from or what it means.

  9. SaveFarris says:
    March 3, 2006 at 8:03 am

    How does a lame duck gin up 89 votes for the Patriot Act?

  10. John S. says:
    March 3, 2006 at 8:03 am

    How does a lame duck gin up 89 votes for the Patriot Act?

    He doesn’t.

    But for a Senator incapable of articulating their position to the general public, fear of the grim spectre that is being branded as ‘soft on terror’ is more than sufficient motivation.

    Ironically, fear is not only used to drive the votes of the public – it is also an effective way to drive the votes of our elected officials.

  11. SaveFarris says:
    March 3, 2006 at 10:03 am

    So your contention is that Democratic senators are less articulate than Chimpy McHitlerburton?

  12. duros62 says:
    March 3, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    I have kitchen appliances more articluate.

  13. John S. says:
    March 3, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    SaveFarris-

    My first contention is that you learn how to read.

    My second contention is that of the nearly 90 Senators that voted for the PATRIOT Act, a fair number of them are incapable of explaining to their constituents that not voting for the PATRIOT Act doesn’t make them soft on terror (as surely the Republicans will trumpet), and therefore they voted for it so as to not be perceived as thus. And quite frankly, that mentality may exist in either a Republican or a Democrat, so great now is the cry of ‘soft on terror’ to scare the masses into feeling a certain way about their elected officials.

  14. SaveFarris says:
    March 3, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    John S., your second contention is wrong. A fair number, indeed I would say a majority, of senators are evil neocons who want to strip the civil liberties away from Americans in the name of keeping them “safe”. (or so the liberal playbook goes.) Only the squishiest of Republicans (Chafee, Snowe) wouldn’t unashamedly be proud of their vote.

    I was asking about the 35 or so Democrats who voted for the PATRIOT Act despite spending the last 4 years howling about it. Your contention is that they are A) not articulate enough to discuss their principled opposition to their constiuents or B) their constituents are too dumb to understand it. Either way, you’re basing your argument on the lack of intelligence in either A) Democratic Senators or B) Democratic voters.

    Admitting you have a problem is always the first step. Congratulations: only 11 left.

  15. John S. says:
    March 3, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Ah, so you’re one of THOSE.

    Carry on.

  16. Impor says:
    March 3, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    Please apologize for smearing our friends the ducks, a duck could be somebody’s mother! Drop the duck, he’s just lame.