We had an election without a Bush or Clinton running? Isn't it about time we elect someone who is not part of the establishment?
2007-02-19 16:01:44 · 19 answers · asked by Roll_Tide! 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's pretty amazing isn't it!
It's been thirty years since the last presidential election without a bush or a clinton involved.
2007-02-19 16:16:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
.You are soooo right!
But...it costs so much to run a campaign that I don't know how we could get just some good, intelligent people to run. Ross Perot used his own money, and Ralph Nader got some backing. But how does judge, or Constitutional scholar, an economist, or someone like that even stand a chance?
People keep asking me who I'm going to vote for, and I keep replying that the person hasn't even declared his/her candidacy yet. I'm looking for that uncorrupted, incorruptible human being. I fear, though, that even someone of that ilk COULD run, that they would never be elected because, in the end, most voters will go with the "establishment" guy (or gal), because they don't want to "waste" their vote.
Is there any way to change this??
2007-02-20 00:14:40 · answer #2 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it about time we elect someone who is not part of the establishment?>>
Well, Yes and No. I would like someone to run who knows how gov't works, but someone who has not been in gov't long enough to be corrupted.
2007-02-20 00:07:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once you're in Washington, D.C. you're part of the establishment. It's virtually impossible, by virtue of the cost of campaigning, for an ordinary American to get elected.
2007-02-20 00:07:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes ... we shot a ton of lobster back in 1776 to enshure that the same old ruler would not be in charge all the time, we need to stop the rise of the Bush/Clintion Olagarcihes.
2007-02-20 00:14:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everyone look up Bill Richardson from New Mexico governor.
The guys efforts speak for themselves.
Its not about the baggage of hilary,its not about the youth of Obama, its about doing whats best for the people.
But he wont win. It just shows the best candidate isnt always the elected candidate.
No one can argue -- that hes not the most qualified
2007-02-20 00:08:11 · answer #6 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The country will be better off by selecting new people in the government for a change to a better society.
2007-02-20 00:06:34 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush I agree with but Hillary might not be so bad.
2007-02-20 01:19:28 · answer #8 · answered by babygirl143_dk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. Our country would be better off if we could get politicians who are genuinely interested in the good of the country and not just their own power and greed.
2007-02-20 00:06:40 · answer #9 · answered by En79 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
no bush is running this time...so yeah...get rid of the hilldemon off the ballot in 08...good idea
2007-02-20 00:04:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋