Examples of Anti-War Canidates include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Anti-War Presidential Canidates such as George McGovern and John Kerry have never won the election.
2007-02-24 02:51:45 · 12 answers · asked by thundershark 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
We can't allow Cowards to be elected...We elected Bill Clinton, a known draft dodger and commie sympathiser and War protester....look what we got........a big nothing. He sold us down the river, gave into the enemy, then stole furniture from the Whitehouse when he left...
Our country would suffer a major set back with any of the above allowed to be in office.....Those people scare the hell out of me...they would cave into the enemy and give away the country
2007-02-24 02:59:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obama? Why, what has he completed? according to danger a number of the lame, mindless clowns can let us know what his maximum outstanding legislations replace into? Hillary? What a joke that the spouse of a former President a technique or the different thinks she may be the main effective individual interior the international. If she wins, we are able to rename the u . s . the U.S.: United Socialist States of usa. Edwards? The Ambulance Chaser, he sued the Hospitals and coverage companies to the ingredient that we can not handle to pay for coverage, he will take a place that he will pull us from Iraq, even with the ramifications - just to get elected. he's a typical bullshitter. If this is my determination on the Libber ingredient, permit's in basic terms ruin the U. S. up and provide ti returned to the Indians. that's my answer.
2016-10-16 09:34:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very difficult, or has been historically, for an anti-war candidate to win the presidency. John Kerry actuallu came pretty darn close. There was no landslide, mandate of the people election in '04. The current candidates are not actually anti-war. They are against escalation of the current war. That is a bit different from being anti-war. The objective-du-juor seems to be redeployment, not ending war. The Democrats are more anti-Bush than anti-war, despite the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher to name a few.
2007-02-24 03:03:42 · answer #3 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's very possible if not probable.
America hasn't just lost the will to engage in an offensive war, they've lost the will to fight a defensive one as well.
I'm fairly certain that a 500 man Mexican army could easily move in and occupy most of the southwest without a word from the local population.
The Muslims could probably eat up the remaining portions of the country, as Americans (liberal Democrats) are too frightened and unwilling to defend it.
The Liberal Democrat position is, "All the terrorists need is a good hug".
2007-02-24 03:00:42 · answer #4 · answered by Thozz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, the repubs used to be the party who absolutly were againest any kind of war. Now, they are the so called War Party. How did that happen???? your man Bush. And I can tell you that the party who wins this time will not start with an R. When FDR declared war againest Japan, the low life cowards in the repub party were thinking of empeachment. When Truman ended the WW2 with the big bomb, the cowards in the repub party were so upset that they openly protested in front of the White House. Now your Bush is doing the same thing and you wanna make a big deal of who is anti war. Grow up.
2007-02-24 02:59:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidents don't elect themselves. (but they might cheat to get elected) Maybe the fiasco in the Middle East will persuade the American people that war is not the solution to all problems,
(in spite of what we see in the movies) and an 'anti-war' candidate might be elected.
By the way, 'anti-war' is a misnomer; if a war is inevitable, then we all have to go and fight, but getting involved in another country's civil war is plain stupidity.
Go Hillary!
2007-02-24 03:05:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The short answer is - if just against this war - YES
If against all wars in the future - NO
2007-02-24 02:58:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
one can only hope...I'll be voting for one of them in the upcoming election...it's time for a different way of doing things in government...as in someone that talks instead of shoots...war has never gotten us anywhere(disregarding certain revolutions of course.)...in general though war does nothing except make enemies.
2007-02-24 02:57:50 · answer #8 · answered by Paulien 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well Hillary is only anti war, when it fits the crowd she is in front of.
obama will fade
2007-02-24 02:57:31 · answer #9 · answered by chumpchange 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on how much influence the liberal media's propaganda machine has on the public.
2007-02-24 02:56:31 · answer #10 · answered by lumpy r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋