I t seems to me that running for high office in America is far more personal than it is here in the UK.By that,I mean it appears to be more about the individual than it is about the party as a whole.
If that is the case,how did a draft-dodging,drug taking alcoholic with a criminal record get to become President?Especially when you factor in that his wife killed someone through dangerous driving who,by pure coincidence, just happened to be the guy who had recently dumped her.
Whatever happened to American morals?
2006-10-21 16:34:39 · 22 answers · asked by rosbif 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
You have more orderly campaigns in the UK because of your election laws. Here it's more of a free for all. The campaigns can last for months and months, sometimes well over a year in the case of the presidential campaign, and after a while it just focuses on personal traits rather than issues.
Also, there's a different mindset toward politicians over here. Political leaders are also supposed to be more or less moral examples. (I know, I know...) It's an illusion, but one that most people buy into. So attacks on character can often make a difference in a campaign.
As for elections being about individuals and not parties is right. Individuals lead the country, not parties. In parliamentary systems like you have, parties are much more important. To vote for the prime minister, you have to vote for his party, even if you don't like your local MP. Here we always vote for the individual. It's simply not in our system to vote for a party. We're just not set up for it.
And how did a "draft-dodging, alcoholic, etc." guy get to be president? Nobody really wants to touch Vietnam with a ten-foot pole, and since he at least served in the Guard (more or less!), that's enough for most people -- knowing how people got through Vietnam is like watching sausage being made, nobody wants to see.
The alcoholism and drug-taking -- well, Bush was "born again," and saw the error of his ways. Don't forget that he came right after 8 years of Clinton, who even before Monica Lewinsky wasn't seen as the most moral guy. We were prosperous and at peace and there were few concrete problems to focus on, so Bush's message of "restoring honor and dignity to the White House" resonated with a lot of people. So did "I'm a uniter and not a divider," and "compassionate conservatism."
Bush was an aw-shucks, church-going good ol' boy, and that was attractive. Was it right to vote for that? Were his promises the least bit true to begin with? No and no. But democracy ain't perfect. Sometimes you just vote with your gut and end up with a dud.
Thank god for term limits!
2006-10-21 16:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You've got it all wrong. If you were watching close enough, you would realize that American politics has nothing at all to do with the character of a person, and everything to do with his party. In a two party system, the only factor affecting who gets elected is what percentage of your constituents are in your party. In tight races, it may come down to character issues or who looks cuter or who killed more commies, but candidates don't have the luxury of choosing the reason why people vote for them.
2006-10-21 16:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't know to be honest. I think people bought into him being born agian. However that doesn't make him a Saint or in Truth. I didn't vote for him either time. I doubt that any man who says one thing and seems to do a lot of swearing off camera is as born agian as he claims to be. Next election it doesn't look like our chances of finding anything better is very good.
2006-10-22 03:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by Triple 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL, you haven't studied our last president have you?
Right now we have the Vietnam Era people as our electorate and that was a very tumultuous time. At least GW served in some capacity, a lot at the time cannot say the same. We have a bunch of the dope smoker crowd to go through right now, after they die off we will start getting a better crop of politicians to put up.
If you think that poorly of our elected, think of what the competition had to be like.
2006-10-21 16:40:07 · answer #4 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I noticed many people saying that Bush served. If you know so much, there are veitnam veterans out in Washington DC that are willing give 50,000 dollars to anyone that can prove that Bush served. Go and show them the proof, they've been out there doing it for years. Lets send those protestors back home so they don't have to waste anymore of there lives.
2006-10-21 16:42:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your quite the one to talk. I always knew America should not have bailed Europe out of trouble during World War Two. Maybe Nazi rule in the U.K. would have taught you all to show a little respect to a superpower like America. God take the Queen. Tally ho chap!
2006-10-21 16:40:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think of we are finding at a around of historic firsts. they're on a roll now and there's a well-known female/first husband spouse presidency waiting in the wings for 2012. i for my section do no longer see Hilary waiting till 2016. stable luck to you
2016-12-08 18:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by chaplean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unlike, say, Churchill, a man of renowned sobriety and high moral standards.
2006-10-21 16:42:22 · answer #8 · answered by ductapian 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our morals? Arn't you from Europe, the only continent where religious service attendance is declining? I'm sure everyone elected into office over there is a saint.
2006-10-21 16:46:06 · answer #9 · answered by kamkurtz 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Interesting comment, from a land we have had to save from its own cowardice and impotence twice in the last hundred years. A people who have never had free speech, who have given up their right to bear arms even in self-defense, and become slackjawed wage slaves to a nanny state.
In short, bugger off, you loser, we kicked your tails outta here two hundred years ago for a darn good reason!
2006-10-21 16:38:19 · answer #10 · answered by Jim P 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋