Is trying to win the election more important than doing whatever is best for the country?

Question

The President is using his best options. Our other leaders should be working alongside with him, not criticize every step. It is critical point in history that we all have to work together and put the blame aside. The American people needs to show a little patience because there is a lot at stake.

Answer 1

Doing what is best for the country is way more important because even if you dont win the election you can still do small things outside of the government (like community service at soup kitchens, cleaning the beach, donating money and all kinds of things) These are things that aren't available just to the president but to the public...so winning isn't important...if you win you can do unbeleivable things that you couldn't do as president but if you don't win you can still do what's best for the country...even if they are just minor steps that you are taking...like kerry he didnt win the election so he can't do great and mighty things for the country but he can still go and donate to all kinds of organizations and help all kinds of people... So all in all winning isn't important it's what you do that matters

Answer 2

Looking at the US from the outside, I'd say that politicians all try to win the election. George Bush has been criticised not only for the way he's handles the country, but in the "suspicious" way in which he won the last election. He's less than popular in most countries around the world. I'm only going on the international press here, of course. I have personally only seen him on TV, and he comes across as a man who can't complete a sentence without referring to the cue card, and can't even pronounce "nuclear". Not good PR, so maybe he'll lose this next one.

Answer 3

Saying the president is using his best options in the war we didn't need to be in is like the guy who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. The president CREATED the giant mess we're in, and yes, now we don't have very good options. I haven't heard him admit to any mistakes, however, and to me that's one sign of a strong leader.

Working together is just how things used to be. I hate to tell you this, but it was Richard Milhous Nixon and his Watergate gang and dirty tricks, then Ronald Reagan with Lee Atwater and finally the Bushes with Karl Rove that polarized our entire political system. So it would be nice to work together, but the far right has made that impossible for the last six years.

Answer 4

Sometimes, being able to be the boss is best for the Party and the Country. Can you just imagine what a mess we'd have were our Government run by a Committee???

It, however, may not be popular. Herein,lies the rub.

It's the old saw, "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't."

America has far too many Sunday Morning Quarterbacks who pontificate and spew forth venom and haven't a bloody clue.

Stick with our peoples' wishes. They may not fly in our respective hometowns, but they are representative of our Nation.

Answer 5

If a person, no matter how "powerful" her/she is knows even a little bit of the truth which might/will/ or won't/can't bring about g' or poor change, but has refuse'd/pledge'd advancements for the best interest & security of his/her country, so forth, they are partially responsible & aren't fit for such (a) role(s). A president/chairman/chancellor, so forth we aught have is someone almost exactly like President David Palmer on "24." When the time (may) come(s), I will vote for the person. It is better for the interest of our people & humanity, not only for a country, ultimately create'n nationalism/xenophobia. This occur'd during WWI & WWII, which is why so many people lost their lives & wars came quickly one after another, scandals, so forth. We have lost a lot of our traditional value(s), in part from liberal(s), individualist(s), & secret agendas, corruption, so forth. A big concern of mine is abortion & death penalty. If someone is for abortion, I will never support the person in office. As for death penalty too, it is G-D's/Allah's/Dios es/Gott un/O-Kami-san mo decision about who live(s) & who don't. It isn't a person's right killing a person nor an innocent child. It's jus' as much an unborn "fetus" to live as it is the woman. If she chooses to have sex, it's her responsiblity. D*** you d*** liberal, individualist low-selfesteem women & pro-choice ignorant people. How'd you like it if your mother kill'd you, since you're her daughter & you're from her body?! The heart begins beat'n at 4-5wks, exactly about the amount of time it req.'s a pregnancy show'n signs or not. Stop'n a heart beat is kill'n, no matter if it's yet born or not. Exactly, so shut up!

Answer 6

You're right. These power grabbers need to get back to work. We're not impressed with these early bids for President. But they're doing it because the President doesn't listen to anyone. That's why there's so much at stake. We're at the point of no return and he can't afford anymore blunders. Tell Your President to use the best minds he can find, not only the ones who agree with him.

Answer 7

To answer your question, no. I think doing whats best for our country is way better than the selfish way of being elected. I think George Bush knew he wasn't the best for our country but he just wanted to be president again.

Answer 8

Depends on who you are and what you are trying to do. If you're trying to win an election, then winning an election is more important. On the other hand if you're trying to advance the fair of your country, then you must do what is best for your nation.

Answer 9

Doing what's best for the country is the best of course, unfortunately, some politicians had rather win the election.

Answer 10

doing whatever that is best for hte country
in fact for the world too
it's so stupid that money is such a huge issue
the world leaders should like work something out that u can produce unlimited money as long as it goes to helping with pollution and destroying what keeps us alive
stpuid humans