Are "Lame Duck" Politicians Regarded As Impotent Or More Dangerous?

[arwalden]

Are they more powerful and more reckless, since they have no worries about being accountable to the electorate... seeing as they aren't running for office again? Or does their limited remaining tenure mean that the opposition merely needs to stall, delay and wait him out without fear of reprisals in any subsequent terms?

[MnFats]

With Bush, all bets are off....he'll go nuts.

think of the letter from Bob Jones III.
think of bush wanting to 'secure his place in history.'
think of Rove.
Think Nixon.
It's just my impression but I think the last 18 months of a Bush second term will be a f***ing nightmare.

[MnFats]

1. With Bush, all bets are off....he'll go nuts.

think of the letter from Bob Jones III.
think of bush wanting to 'secure his place in history.'
think of Rove.
Think Nixon.
It's just my impression but I think the last 18 months of a Bush second term will be a f***ing nightmare.

[unblock]

2. it depends on how willing the other politicians are

if the other politicians (in this case, congress) are of an opposing congress, or at least somewhat sane, then the lame duck politicians are fairly impotent as they cannot force other politicians to do anything.

however, if the other politicians are willing (as is the case currently), then the lame duck politicians can be VERY dangerous, as they face no consequence to their actions, plus, they can take the heat for things the other politicians secretly desire but can't themselves take the heat for.

the latter is what i fully expect to happen.