I mean, here's a guy who created a multi-billion dollar corporation (EDS, Inc.) from scratch. Bush on the other hand only has experience with running small oil companies into bankruptcy. If Perot were president, we would not be in Iraq right now and our deficit would probably be a surplus. Your thoughts?
2006-12-06 03:00:46 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
See the problem is our government doesn't know if it wants to be for the people of for the big business and if we would just decide which one then maybe we could have a successful president if we wanted to be just a business then yes Perot would have been a good choice the problem is all people are money hungry and cut corners to get things done the easiest way and there's no getting around that your in a mess in Iraq and to be honest i don't think any one can or could get a Handel on things over there
2006-12-06 03:06:37 · answer #1 · answered by Lab Runner 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Terry, among those who would make a better President than G.W. Bush I'd certainly list Perot, along with about 200,000,000 other Americans.
I'd even go so far as to say that Donald Duck would.
2006-12-06 03:16:49 · answer #2 · answered by JIMBO 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't THAT drive the liberals nuts, a self-made multi-billionaire businessman in the White House.
As to your statement that we wouldn't be in Iraq now, just try to remember that we have been there continuously since the NIXON administration. Saddam and his sons never ceased to be a threat until he was captured and they were killed in a firefight by American troops during the G.W. Bush administration.
2006-12-06 03:14:44 · answer #3 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is not a political genius, however, neither is Bush. Perot could easily surround himself with those to fill his cabinet. It unlikely that Bush is making these decisions himself. He probably just nods his head as the information whizzes over his head(like many other things). Perot could not do any worse.
2006-12-06 03:09:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, you're ideal approximately that, yet whilst he could have stored his pants on, George Bush Jr. does no longer have been conceived. for this reason he replaced into circuitously accountable, and a bad president, an somewhat undesirable president.
2016-10-17 21:38:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Realistically, it would be hard to find anyone else that could have done as poor of a job as Bush, yet fool half of America at the same time.
In other words, Yes he would be better, even though he may not have the same support as W.
2006-12-06 03:07:12 · answer #6 · answered by Scott C 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My dog, with only two legs and one ear, and an obedience school drop out, would have been a better president than W.
2006-12-06 03:07:55 · answer #7 · answered by commonsense 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, a box of rocks would have made a better President.
2006-12-06 03:04:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Are you kidding? An ARMADILLO would have made a better President than Bushie Boy.
2006-12-06 03:13:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mickey Mouse could have done a better job.
2006-12-06 03:04:13 · answer #10 · answered by T S 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋