2006-06-16 07:59:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Lincoln,
he was from an age of true MEN w/ both ethics and morals being in office.
He was better educated, both socially, as well as academically...and he had WORK ETHIC!! He failed a LOT before being finally voted into office.
Clinton, I have no problems with. While ethically he could have been better (marriage/affair problems and such)....he was a great president both economically and in terms of foreign relations.
Bush, has caused nothing but dissention and discord since his inauguration.....
2006-06-16 09:47:57 · answer #1 · answered by Manji 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would prefer our President of the United States to be someone like Abe Lincoln or even Clinton. Strong men with a clear view of what America should stand for. They stood for equality amongst men and they remodel to build a stronger future. Bush is only destroying what these men fought so hard to build.
2006-06-16 15:10:58 · answer #2 · answered by Nickezisa S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only Bush I like has an 's' in it and I like to drink it. Bush has single handedly diluted every environmental law and regulation that we as a country have installed since 1970. Thats why I do not respect that man. Well that and he uses his position to financially benefit himself and his friends. For instance, take a look at the Tamiflu thing...bird flu give me a break. That has been arounf for a while. Now Cheney and Bush are using the pandemic to benefit their stocks in Tamiflu.
Lincoln had some emotional problems, but one has to completey respect what he did for this country...
And Clinton...I respect him too, because he kept the environment in mind. The whole Monica thing who cares, I blame Hillary for that. There is nothign wrong with wanting a hummer and if your wife won'd do it then one needs to pull a Clinton .
So, like Lincoln with a platform based on the environment.
2006-06-16 15:11:52 · answer #3 · answered by chase 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personal life asided, I would say Clinton. He was more willing to compromise (maybe because he had to) with the different parties.
Bush is too arrogant and too comfortable.
Lincoln was so long ago nobody really knows what he was like. I believe that historical distortion can paint a nicer picture than what really existed.
2006-06-16 15:08:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush; for I didn't know Lincoln but he was unable to avoid the only civil war our nation had. Very sad.
Bush is not a poll taker; he does what he believes is right. BJ Clinton couldn't speak until a poll told him what to say and how to say it. I don't care about popularity; I do care about our nations security against those who would cause it (and have caused it) great harm.
2006-06-16 15:05:25 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to say Lincoln and/or Clinton because unlike Bush they didn't have terrorist blowing up buildings so close to the home of where they lay their heads!
2006-06-16 15:04:10 · answer #6 · answered by doverton26 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ASKED 15 times and answered 15 times!!
Bush would be a FAR LAST! He's corrupt and can't speak English
2006-06-16 15:05:09 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too easy--Lincoln. A humble man with common roots and ethical outlooks who could be compassionate yet true to his ideals.
2006-06-16 15:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by Yogi Bruce 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
clinton .or maybe a little of them all would be nice
2006-06-16 15:06:44 · answer #9 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln--he didn't screw anybody!!
2006-06-16 15:02:20 · answer #10 · answered by ▲▼▲▼ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋