Elections - September 2007

I mean from each Party.

I would like to know, in your view, who are the best of each party. And why?

2007-09-25 21:25:36 · 6 answers · asked by Yow Joo 6

Who do you think would be a better candidate? why?
Who would you elect?

I am not from US so if you explain me a little, it would be nice!
I am interested in american elections, but I am not familiar with all the issues.

2007-09-25 21:22:50 · 4 answers · asked by Yow Joo 6

Is he sneaky, tricky and a fibber? He is starting to weave his magic spell over the uneducated. They like Blind Sheep will follow him. Are You one ? He gives promises on a vote . Most Poly's do, But not like this Guy has done. He has taken fibbing to an art form. Will you vote for him.

2007-09-25 21:19:29 · 7 answers · asked by Dick E knee 3

Could this have happened?

2007-09-25 20:52:57 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 20:46:12 · 19 answers · asked by ben t 3

2007-09-25 20:32:10 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Wow, imagine that, Billary spoke on civil rights at the Arkansas High School that brought the Federal Gov. down on Arkansas because of integration.....Wow! I would think that was great if he'd done it at anytime prior to when his coehort -- I mean "betrothed", was running for the office he once held???? hmmmmm, do ya think they're going for the Black vote or the Arkansan vote or the overall US vote??? Kinda funny-The Clintons made a point to run to NY on the peoples money (oh yeah with whitehouse furniture to boot) and have steered clear of the state they not only abandoned, but tried to bankrupt and make fiscally insolvent...whew, I was surprized he would even step foot back in AR territory, Guess thats why he addressed kids, they were either not yet born or too young to know what pains he caused their state.... Seems to me that they could have picked a better person to address civil rights issues than him... Guess it was good political manuevering though.... What do you think

2007-09-25 19:49:17 · 9 answers · asked by Born in the USA 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished

2007-09-25 19:14:16 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 19:10:44 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 19:07:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

I want to know what has made the electorate decide that they will chose to vote for another political party at the next federal election.
Is it to do with lies, workchoices, environment?
If you are still intending to be a liberal voter, your answer is not relevant here thankyou.

2007-09-25 19:04:43 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hillary is going to win the Democratic nomination as her only serious opponent Bill Richardson doesn't get enough media coverage.

Anti-Hillary forces on both sides need to recognize that she will probably be our next president and align to stop her. Otherwise, we can look forward to 8 more years of Bush-Clinton.

2007-09-25 16:18:46 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

I was just wondering what people thought of this.

The Clintons and their people have more power within the Democratic Party than anyone else right now. That's probably because Bill Clinton was the most successful Democratic politician since FDR. Ever since Hillary Clinton started taking the steps toward running for President seven or eight years ago her being nominated has been treated as an inevitability. Especially now that the field is pretty open for her.

To get far in the party you've needed to get close to the Clintons. It seems like no one in the party would go up against them and are instead for now anyway lining up with Hillary or at least getting out of her way. Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, a very promising moderate guy who has always been close to the Clintons who almost ran for President this year, stepped aside this week and endorsed Hillary Clinton. It seems like peopled think that anyone in the party who lines up against the Clintons is going to get screwed over.

I think this election will be big as far as their future in the party goes. If she loses, then she's pretty much out of the way, and all of these other candidates and the party can step out of her shadow. Does that mean they lose their power in the party? And would it give a new group of people the opportunity to step in? Kind of like they did in 1992. But if she wins then how much more power will they have? Will pretty much everybody have to get friendly with the Clintons? Keep in mind Barack Obama and his people seem to be the only ones right now mounting a serious challenge to the Clinton/New Democrat dominant influence in the party, will people like him be shut out? What do you think?

2007-09-25 15:45:58 · 8 answers · asked by secretservice 5

I realize that the vast majority of 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates don't believe in Evolution. Who know's whether that is really the case, as some of them change what they believe depending on whether their would-be office requires the votes of a mostly-liberal NYC or the rather conservative republican voters of the U.S. Anyhow, what alarms me is should one of them win, what would happen to Science in America? Would it dissolve, leaving those who desire a higher education to move to practically any other country? On another note, a man named Thomas Jefferson once said: "A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution."

2007-09-25 15:15:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 14:30:27 · 20 answers · asked by Hot Coco Puff 7

My class is doing elections and I want to be president, are there any good quotes like: "The question isn't why should you vote for me. The question is why shouldn't you."
Thanks!

2007-09-25 13:13:09 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 12:34:22 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am kind of wondering about all of the Democrats/Liberals that support Ron Paul. I know you can only vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries but do you have to preregister for either?

2007-09-25 11:51:01 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I don't agree with some of the previous posters about partisian politics. I think this issue of anti-American liberalism needs to be addressed head on. Anti-American liberalism needs to be shamed and exposed for what it truly is..a failed politico/religious ideology that is endangering America's future. The democrat controlled congress only has an 11% approval rating and I think that winning the war in iraq will be a major turning point for America.

One can very reasonably compare the democrats to the Tory party in the revolutionary war. The Tories got themselves elected into major positions in congress and the senate and at every turn would promote horrible legislation that would weaken America in an effort to end America and return rule to our enemies( the british). They sided with our enemies every time and would try to weaken us from within at every chance they got. Sound familiar?
Eventually the tory ideology was defeated and they were removed from office.

The political party that is PREVENTING real positive change in America is the democrats. Nowhere is this more evident than in America's quest for Energy Independence.

The best thing that Bush has ever done in office is his Energy Independence policy. He actually has enacted an energy independence policy that really works. With his federal minimum biofuel standards and tax incentives for EVERY type of alternative energy, private industries are racing to provide the production facilities for the already proven technologies to substitute for oil. Being an insider in this business and talking with everyone involved in it I know there is ONE thing that is preventing the big institutional money from coming in to build the facilities necessary to provide energy independence.

The one thing preventing America from becoming energy independent is all of the alternative energy producers and institutional money are afraid that a democrat will be elected president and kill the industry before it begins. The institutional money is waiting on the sidelines to see what happens in this next election and it is a shame.

The reason the democrats are actionably opposed to energy independence is a mixture of extreme anti George Bushism(who champions the cause) and a insane hysteria about the environment.

The democrats are opposed to biomass to oil technologies, coal to oil technologies, increased domestic drilling, oil sands mining, nuclear power,cellulosic ethanol and butanol and biodiesel. They are even opposed to wind power often, because of the occasional bird that is killed. This is insanity!
The democrats idea of alternative energy is getting rid of coal fed electric plants when electricity is not the problem it is ISLAMIC AND THIRD WORLD FOREIGN OIL!

The republicans strong stance on national defense will actually enable American energy independence wheras the democrats will never accomplish this national priority.

Here is a good example, when bill clinton ran for president in 92' he campaigned on the energy independence ticket. When he was elected, America imported roughly 40% of its oil. By the end of his disgraced presidency America imported almost 60% of it's oil from foreign sources! Not only did he not lower oil imports he cut deals with terrorist nations and DRASTICALLY INCREASED our suicidal insane addiction to foreign oil!

The only way to create real,positive change in America is to elect the Republicans! With the strong national security platform WE WILL create real energy independence!
Only the republicans understand that energy independence is our biggest weapon against islamic terrorism!
Not only will we become energy independent we will export energy and render the middle eastern,russian and venezuelan oil worthless!

The only way to defeat islamic terrorism is through U.S. Energy Independence!

It's time for Americans to wake up and stop killing ourselves!!

2007-09-25 11:11:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

i guess he is still not considered top tier, lol. over 47,000!!! up from 20,000 just two months ago!!! hillary and rudy and their corporate support can only dream of this kind of support. this is way more than money could ever buy. dr. paul also leads in military campaign contributions with 49.5% of total contributions from current or retired military personnel. if you are supporting a media darling, you should be sking yourself, "why?"

2007-09-25 11:01:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who else running for president democrat or republican is a member?

2007-09-25 10:48:09 · 10 answers · asked by Stainless Steel Rat 7

A. Republicans
B. Democrats
C. ACLU

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3648184&page=2

2007-09-25 10:47:14 · 5 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6

Here's my favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c76yeqQY2ms

2007-09-25 10:34:06 · 3 answers · asked by auntb93 7

2007-09-25 10:22:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I figure you can tell a lot by their supporters. There seems to be a revolution going on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0

2007-09-25 10:22:06 · 11 answers · asked by auntb93 7

She cant remeber sh!t. And she doesn't ask where her donation money comes from, and she just doesn't check it out. I mean every time they ask her a question about her campaign finances she always forgets or didn't check into it. If she really is that forgetful why would you vote for her? If she really doesn't check her sources how could you trust that she would make the right decision if elected on information she has not verified? Those actions are very dangerous. If what she says is true or she is just a liar. But how can you honestly vote for her?

2007-09-25 10:14:11 · 13 answers · asked by Moraco Mole 2

opinions?

2007-09-25 09:18:38 · 29 answers · asked by mitlehmukle 3

Just Curious... Thank you in advance for your time and honesty.

2007-09-25 09:18:36 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know congress has to approve the budget. I'm just saying I know the president prepares the federal budget for submission to congress. What five programs would you cut to reduce gov't spending now?

2007-09-25 09:13:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-25 08:41:15 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous