Why Obama Is a Lame Duck

The thing to remember here, that Obama has always been lame. It's the socialist majorities in both houses that are the threat.

 

Despite Dubya's view, the Presidency is NOT a dictator's position. It is a chief executive office. Agendas must be enacted by Congress.

 

This is how Fox desperately wants it to be. They distort the truth to make it appear to be the case but it's not true. Another case of the biased media slamming "libs" and "Dems."

 

For about two weeks now I was going to start a thread on this very same subject. That designation is usually reserved for the last year or so in their term because public support has waned. However, in Obama's case he is walking and quacking within his first 6 months.

 

This is rich :laugh: The "biased" media...the same ones who poisoned America's mind with the Obama love fest has now turned against him? Hardly :laugh:

 

I don't think I would be ready to refer to Obama as a "lame duck president" just yet. Democrats have control over the House & Senate still. That means that 9 times out of 10, whatever legislation he passes will most likely pass. I would probably refer to Obama as a snake with plenty of venom left.

Bush on the other hand was a lame duck because, not only was his popularity so low, but toward the end, the Democrats took control of both the Senate & House. It was next to impossible for him to get anything passed.

 

Apples to apples, GWB wasn't a lame duck in any sense for the first 6 or 7 months of his presidency.

 

Since you bring up Bush, just what did he accomplish during the first 6-7 months of his presidency except to ignore the many indications that a terrorist attack using airplanes to strike tall buildings was a real possibility?

 

"They call the wind MARIAH."

Not what I'd call this blast of hot air, but this is a family board!!:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

The average IQ of this board just dropped considerably with the above quote!

 

Listen Mr. Democrat apologist, why does a President or Congress have "to do" something. There is no evidence for your charge. And why are you bashing President Bush? You are obviously of the same liberal mindset as he is.

You just keep watching the mainstream media to reenforce your belief in a difference between the two parties. That way, you do not have to think for yourself.

 

True. I was mostly referring toward the end of his second term. Mainly, the last two years. I was also pointing out that I wouldn't be ready to classify Obama as a lame duck just yet. In my view lame ducks just sit around & are unable to do things. He still has the ability to do a lot of damage.

 

A fact lost on Mr. Obama the candidate. Hiw many times did we hear "When I am elected president I will [fill in the blank]."? Come to think of it, how many times have we heard that same line from any potential candidate? Woodrow Wilson promised to keep America out of WWI, Hoover was going to end poverty and LBJ would launching a war against it.

Too many grandiose promises mugged by harsh reality.

 

I think each candidate forgets there is an opposition party determined to see them fail at all cost. However, LBJ did a great job on poverty. This is from Wiki.