Please feel free to let loose on this one!!!LOL
2007-01-20 09:53:48 · 12 answers · asked by Mr Bellows 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Now that is a tough one. Up to this point, I have always considered Jimmy Carter to be the most incompetent president in modern history.
But if you throw him in with those two, he starts to look very good. I guess, all told, I would have to give Jimmy the nod in that company.
2007-01-20 11:59:20 · answer #1 · answered by acablue 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pat Buchanan would make a good president. If you read his column, many of his ideas which were considered "extreme" are actually mainstream now.
Pat Robertson, don't be ridiculous. He's a nut job.
2007-01-20 09:58:25 · answer #2 · answered by rip snort 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both of them are pretty right wing, but Buchanan makes more sense (and this is coming from a democrat). Read his book: Where the Right Went Wrong. Some of the stuff he says about his own party going astray is right on the mark.
2007-01-20 22:46:30 · answer #3 · answered by milwaukiedave 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pat Buchanan. Pat Robertson scares the sh!t out of me. Don't those who believe in the end times think that the anti-christ will come to power cloaked as a man of God? Don't they say that even Satan himself can quote scripture? Can you show me one person that has been healed by one of Pat Robertson's tele-prayers that won't go on to die of something else anyway?
What? Isn't Pat Sajak in the running?
2007-01-20 10:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by Goofy Foot 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i'm a Christian, and that i not in any respect concept he can be a strong president. he's out of contact with truth huge time. decrease back at the same time as he become operating, he honestly made the actuality that AIDS might want to no longer be transmitted by technique of heterosexuals! The stupidity of that actuality aside, very almost each and every time he opens his mouth, he comes up with some really ridiculous pronouncement, and in many cases has to eat his words.
2016-12-02 19:30:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pat Buchanan mainly because he would be better than the nut job Pat Robinson is.
2007-01-20 09:59:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither one. Both are too far right and wouldn't be fair to the middle and lower classes. They both mouth off too much and say very little although I must admit that from time to time Buchanan does make sense; however he isn't consistent. We need a president who is in the middle and can make good decisions for both left and right. Rah, rah for Giuliani!
2007-01-20 09:59:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Eeew, I'm conservative and those sound absolutely horrendous even to me. A lunatic or an anti-Semite. Hmmm...
No. Just can't pick.
(But I would vote for Pat Sajak.)
2007-01-20 10:12:47 · answer #8 · answered by ©2007 answers by missy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Don't even joke about a choice like that! I'd probably vote for Edwards or Hillary before I'd for either one!
2007-01-20 09:58:22 · answer #9 · answered by Answer Master Dude 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I second your 1st answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope you're joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not,you're going to be 1 unhappy person when a Democrat is elected soon (BUT NOT SOON ENOUGH)!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also agree with Draco (GREAT answer,& I think a lot of people would do the same).
2007-01-20 10:01:46 · answer #10 · answered by PROUDJEW 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋