I thought that's why we got out of England in the 1st place was to avoid having one family rule over the country.
2006-12-10 03:14:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Far Right loyalty VS. Far Left loyalty. All powered by lobbyist whom really set the agendas. John McCain stunned the Bush campaign in 00' Republican primary by winning New Hampshire. It was wonderful. The media ate it up and so did I. John McCain's platform was to reduce the pull the lobbyist had on our government. It was a huge shock to the Bush and Clinton dyconomy of power..
The Republican lobbyist brought out the big guns and money blanketing Ohio and South Carolina and Bush swept it.
If John McCain ran under the Republican ticket you can bet a fortune it wouldn't have been even close in a race against Al Gore or John Kerry. McCain is a moderate who would of solidified victory early on yet he wouldn't play I'll scratch your back favor game.
2006-12-10 03:30:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not to burst your bubble but the United States is not a Democracy, never has been and never will be. Article IV section 4 of the constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
A republican government and a democratic government are two entirely different forms of government and should not be confused with either the republican or democratic parties. The primary difference between the two is the power of government over the people. In a democracy the minority is rulled by the majority and the government is completely subservient to the will of the people. In a republic such as our the majority is ruled by the minority and the government is not completely subsevient to the will of the people, the people are "mostly" subservient the will of the government with a few recourses to that effect.
Our voice in government comes from the people we elect to govern us, while they must at least accept our oppinions and requests on the issues they are not bound by it by any legal means. Their decisions are binding on us whereas in a democracy our decisions are binding on them.
As for the Bushes and Clintons they are merely having a political power struggle for their politcal parties nothing more.
2006-12-10 12:35:25 · answer #2 · answered by ikeman32 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it appears Bush's have already created a British empire loyalist royalty in America. if you don't thinks so, just study how the British empire treated gandhi, see any similarities with whats going on now? see anything that could have caused many of the problems we are facing now?
Clinton?? well if Arkansas is any indication of what the Clintons are trying to do, they deserve the status!
2006-12-10 11:39:33 · answer #3 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton knows how to get things done, he has raised so much money for AIDS drugs and Tsunami relief, it is staggering, but he knows you can't do these things without playing the game. He battled the Republicans virtually by himself for 8 years, he was a Great President and is a Great American, who is restoring our image around the world.
2006-12-10 11:33:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They tried it with the Reagans. Didn't work. Never would work in the U.S.A. anyway. Too much corrption. Besides what's 'royalty' anyway? Take away the wealth, guilded coaches, the diamond tiaras, the horse shows, --- all that is left are regular people. Besides ALL of us are related to so-called 'royalty' in one way or another....
2006-12-10 11:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually the Bush family is distantly related to the British Royals...look it up if you don't believe....
2006-12-10 11:19:19 · answer #6 · answered by Faux News 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Alot of former Presidents are related to each other in one way or another. It is not just the Bushs and Clintons.
2006-12-10 11:17:39 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No. The same thing used to be said of the Kennedy & Rockefeller Families--but people were wrong then too.
2006-12-10 11:21:10 · answer #8 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the clintons and bushes have absolutely nothing in common other than holding the office of presidency.....
2006-12-10 11:19:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
His majesty George Bush. I like it.
2006-12-10 11:21:47 · answer #10 · answered by goodtimesgladly 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋