Now that Bush has a majority in the senate and the house of representatives, and creating a 'office of Homeland security' is this president creating new agencies to secure his position? His people seem to at least ready to give one civil liberty away for some protection.
This is excatly what my namesake did, create extrenal threats, both real and imagined, create or have some disaster and this gives them the oppurtunity to create their order or impose thier will among people.
Bush was handed power, by the party and the people. It's very easy for him to now control the country and still say that you are free.
What about the economy? How is it faring, badly, and when things are bad, they expect tough action from an expected tough leader to help get thorugh the hard times ahead.

Not as long as we have our god given right to keep and bear arms. oh I almost forgot that firearms owners are some of his staunchest supporters. hmmmmm

Off-topic.

To answer your question: no more than the prime minister of Canada.

No, his majorities in the Senate and the House are nowhere near enough. You'd need a 3/5 in both (preferably more) and a very friendly Supreme Court (not the shaky 5-4 he currently has) to theoretically have anything close to "Dictatorial Powers". Even then, he'd have to face the voters every two years.

However, he does have incredible power right now when it comes to what legislation will get to the congressional floor and, more importantly, what judges get seated. That is the scary part for me, seeing as I strongly disagree with his civic adgenda.

Clinton had a much wider majority. Look what he did with it. Nada. In fact that sums up Clinton's Presidency, so maybe that is a bad example. The Democrats had all three branches for 40 of the last 70 years, since FDR was elected. why was this not a question then?

What Bush has is raised expectations and some political resources. Up to this point he has been largely discounted as a bumbler. Now it is put up or shut up. That does not mean that Congress or the people will tolerate vast and sweeping changes, like, say, The New Deal, just that he will be able to make some initiatives without begging for them.

J

Bush does seem to be moving toward a more... imperialistic form of leadership now that he's facing less resistance. And as for the 4/5 Supreme Court, that may be changing very soon. Have you checked out the people he's nominated? They make Thomas and Scalia look mild-mannered and moderate by comparison.
Maybe I'm biased since I'm soooo very liberal, but since election day the tone of the government has seemed so ominous. He has an agenda. He's talking more about Iraq and North Korea. I'd feel more confidant entrusting him to handle this international nuclear crisis if... well... if he could at least pronounce the word nuclear. Maybe that's why we think he's a bumbler.

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Clinton had a much wider majority. Look what he did with it. Nada. In fact that sums up Clinton's Presidency, so maybe that is a bad example.


Clinton did as much as he could, but his style of presidency was different than most. He was more of a middle of the road person, and he tried to please both republicans and democrats. If you ask me, he did a lot for social programs and security of those social programs. He also lowered the unemployment rate to a record low. Along with that he managed to balance the budget to get 2 years of surpluses under his second term. And he didn't have too much of a larger majority, just a bit. Two years into his first term republicans retook congress anyhow.

Originally posted by AnarchyBoy
They make Thomas and Scalia look mild-mannered and moderate by comparison.

You lost me. Thomas and Scalia are mild mannered, and Scalia is a moderate, so what is your point?

Maybe I'm biased since I'm soooo very liberal, but since election day the tone of the government has seemed so ominous. He has an agenda.

That is a good point. The fact that his agenda was a major part of his campaign appearances over the last several weeks does militate against it getting MORE ominous. Whatever the feelings about it, Bush has been very up front about what he wants.

He's talking more about Iraq and North Korea. I'd feel more confidant entrusting him to handle this international nuclear crisis if... well... if he could at least pronounce the word nuclear. Maybe that's why we think he's a bumbler.

Personally I feel more confidant since I saw him handle the 9/11 crisis. To quote a liberal ficticious President, Andrew Shepherd:
[W]e've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. The American President

J

PS If Bill clinton had had Andrew Shephard's devotion to anything at all other than himself, I would have voted for him. At that I give him half credit for the job he and Hilary did raising Chelsea.

Current events are not history.