IF you had to chose one of the above, which one would it be (and why) to face all the USA had faced in the past (2) presidental terms?
2006-09-27 00:49:45 · 17 answers · asked by distalbicept 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
If Pres. Reagan was still alive and had all his mental faculties, I'd vote for him again. He was strong on military and national defense and didn't take any crap from that liver spotted freak in Russia. I think he would have the troops pulled back, not out, and bomb the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
2006-09-27 17:44:19 · answer #1 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton
2015-08-21 17:35:11 · answer #2 · answered by Ronald 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reagen started the corporate government we "enjoy" today, so he is out. Bush is a croney and is just a front man, he is out. The only thing Clinton did wrong was get head and lie about. Any man would lie. My ex-wife cheated and lied about it. Of all the recent presidents Clinton has done the least long lasting damage to the country. Reagen not only cut W.I.C. and Head Start to the bone ( both programs were proven to be fiscally benificial) but he eliminated research into alternate energy sources. We would have been 25 years ahead by now.
2006-09-27 01:02:14 · answer #3 · answered by doggiebike 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ronald Regan
2006-09-27 00:56:42 · answer #4 · answered by kma 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ofcourse not Bush. Bush is a moron. Bush has destroyed the image of America. The united States was a respected country and people used to look up to it.
Now Bush has turned America into a plundering agent for its oil companies.
America is considered a terrorist worldwide.
Not Reagan as he was also a rich man's guy.
Ithink Bill Clinton was the best of the three.
2006-09-27 01:02:17 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Business 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton -- there is a lot of evidence that he was on the track of Bin Laden, and would have gotten him within that first 8 months. The Clinton team strongly warned the Bush transition team about terrorism, they even badgered them with warnings. But terrorism was not priority of Bush's. Clinton, at the least, would have heeded the August 2001 PDB that Bin Laden was planning on striking in the US, he would have put the airports and all law enforcement on high alert. Clinton would have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He had no particular bone to pick with Saddam, and would have continued the successful no fly zones there, economic embargo and arms inspections.
If you read the 9-11 Commission report, and Dick Clarke's book, you will see that Bush clearly dropped the ball on terrorism the first 8 months.
Reagan, my second choice, would have acted much the same as Clinton, except perhaps he would have negotiated more with Saddam and the Taliban. He was great at that, remember all his talks and agreements with the Russians? He also did not leave troops in harms way for nothing, remember the withdrawl from Lebanon?
2006-09-27 00:51:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Ronald Regan, then bill clinton if I had to. George W is a complete moron- nothing good has happened since he's been in office. Bill mighta messed around in the oval office, they all do- he's just the one who got caught. He was still a good prez
2006-09-27 00:57:31 · answer #7 · answered by Slutlana 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bill Clinton.
Because I am not excited about his sex life.
He was an excellent president.
If you look at history you will see a lot of presidents that had extra marital affairs.
I do not approve of adultery, but there are a lot of people guilty of that.
Look at these peoples records.
The common man has not ever prospered under the other two.
Most bigotted people and those who believed that some other poor sucker was going to be disenfranchised by the previous administration voted them in.
But, ha-ha they got us all.
2006-09-27 01:04:34 · answer #8 · answered by theodore r 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would actually like to see a combination of Reagan and Clinton, Reagan because he put lots of pride back in America and had a tough foreign policy. Clinton because he seemed to care about the little people in America and was good with other countries in working out compromises. It will never happen, but that is what I would like to see.
2006-09-27 01:00:15 · answer #9 · answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ronald Regan, I thought he did a good job the first time around.
2006-09-27 00:52:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋