2006-10-13 13:29:10 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes.
Instead of screwing up this country in various ways, he would have only screwed up Texas.
I could have lived with that.
2006-10-13 13:30:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
He may have better served as governor but there's nothing wrong in wanting to be President, especially when you know you have a pretty good chance of getting the position. People may agree or disagree on what he has handled his job but there will always be a 2 sided crowd. The President performs his task in the best interest of the people and country so people should just let him do what he was appointed to do.
2006-10-13 14:19:05 · answer #2 · answered by Holla 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't think of George HW Bush replaced into very nearly as unpopular as you advise. definite, he served in difficulty-free words one time period, yet by technique of evaluation Jimmy Carter replaced into extremely unpopular. also, the Bush kinfolk isn't and not in any respect has been unpopular in Texas, it is why Dumbya replaced into in a position to get elected governor. After that, transforming into a candidate for the White residing house replaced into only a stepping stone. As for paying for *elected* to the White residing house - he did not. He stole both elections in 2000 and 2004.
2016-12-04 19:33:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was wrong to abandon his job as part owner of the Texas Rangers where the only major decisions he had to make were how to cover up his star players steroid use.
Covering up his mistakes in Iraq are obviously much worse.
2006-10-13 13:34:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fact that he ever became the governor of Texas baffles me...never mind becoming the friggin Commander in Chief. Uggh... why couldn't he have gone hunting with the VP?
2006-10-13 13:33:14 · answer #5 · answered by Allybally 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
MEL_T I love your answer,and I believe the only ones who are glad he left are the inmates on deathrow in that state,the rest of us got it good now that hes been in office and when we look back upon the pages in history about this, we shall see that he was better than the last president,you know the bum
2006-10-13 13:36:26 · answer #6 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask regarding guardian Rummy & Dicky for that case.
What the poor president have to do with their actions.
Read between the lines. It's about dummy.
2006-10-13 13:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by faruqiss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it was great for him. It was only bad for America, and specifically Texas, who's had to deal with him for longer.
2006-10-13 13:31:06 · answer #8 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yup. He simply does not have the brains to run a country, im sure he's nice, im sure he means well...blah blah blah. He's just not the classic leader/public speaker.
He simply isnt smart enough
2006-10-13 13:32:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but he was wrong to leave his two jobs before becoming governor. Village idiot and town drunk, oh how the village misses him.
2006-10-13 13:31:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't know why aall you people are bad mouthihng bush, he's a good president, and he is going to end this war on terrorr.
2006-10-13 13:31:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋