Would James Baker have made a much better president than GWB?

Answer 1

Alfred E. Newman would have been better, and far more honest too.

Answer 2

Probably not.

We are never given the person who would really be best for the job as a choice on the ballot. We are given choices of the least objectionable to the opposing parties, since those are the ones easiest to present as electable.

So we end up having to choose between 2 (the others have no chance and are not worth considering) less than really acceptable candidates.

In essence our current 2-party political system ensures we will elect a politician, rather than someone who actually can do a good job. Only the rare accidents such as Ronald Reagan where someone willing to REALLY put the nations best interest before the party rhetoric do we get a good person in office.

Note:
Bush hasn't done as badly as the media likes to make out... compare the economy now to that under Carter. We have low unemployment, low interest rates and high home ownership now... under Carter we had massive employment, massive interest rates, outrageous inflation and high unemployment.

The media is heavilly biased toward liberals... Even the Iraq situation is better than they like to portray. There are areas in Iraq that are safer and more civilized than ever before in the recorded history of man.

Answer 3

James Baker is a political hack that has continually failed upward. He has engineered some of the worst foreign policy outside of the Carter Administration's idiotic belief that if they abandoned the Shah and turned Iran over to the Shi'ites, that they would see the US as an ally. If you want to go on a political witch hunt, please burn Baker at the proverbial stake first.

Answer 4

Baker is smarter but just as beholden to big oil. Baker is in the Saudi pocket. How about neither?

Answer 5

No. I don't like the way he has interfered in Israel.

Answer 6

a pick from any phone book would have been better

Answer 7

Yes.