I cannot believe you put the words "GOP" and "Better" together in one sentence.
It's an oxymoron.
2007-04-06 09:44:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Magma H 6
·
9⤊
3⤋
The question assumes that the GW Bush administration has been a stable occasion of a GOP administration. i'm surprised that federal spending on entitlement classes ballooned with a Republican interior the White domicile. and not committing adequate troops interior the conflict to get the activity accomplished feels like a reprise of what the Democratic Administrations did in Korea and Vietnam. i seem forward to 4 years below a real GOP administration which would be extra fiscally to blame, and supply our troops with all they'd desire to win any conflict we are in touch in,
2016-12-15 18:06:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by hannigan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, the last 6 years were a bit of a waste domestically. Objectively, the last several years have been dominiated by the effeccts of post y2k recession + 9/11 and othe crisis.
Bush's legacy will be that of war-- nothing else.
Another 4 years of GOP admin will bring us largely more of the same. Iraq will dominiate the landscape for a few years.
2007-04-06 09:46:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
I believe it depends on who the Republican Candidate is. Since there are some Republican Candidates who are not fond of the Bush administration, I think that some would change the ways the country is run. I believe that the best candidate to continue George W. Bush legacy for four more years is his brother John Ellis "Jeb" Bush because he is related to the greatest American President in American History and George W. Bush can help Jeb out when he needs assistance.
2007-04-07 14:37:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only thing I can give to the GOP is that it's the only way we stand a chance of having originalist SJC appointed to the bench. I don't trust them on it but I trust Dems to do the opposite. Your only chance for a tax decrease is through a Republican.
Republicans are closer to correct on border security(though plenty guilty of failing as well -see Mcain Kennedy act.), Republicans are more likely to continue to giggle at the United nations, wchich they so very richly deserve. Democrats act subservient to it. No good.
Just so we're clear here-I don't actually think the GOP is much more capable of "makin America better." Neither party is equiped to do so, and history backs that claim up. The GOP is possibly screwed in 2008, unless dems keep the course they're on. The GOP is walking away from it's own prinicples, and that's tragic. The Democrat agenda is socialistic to the point of scariness.
Both parties are worthless and the time is ripe for a 3rd party upset in 2008. Not that I expect one, mind you. But this is probably the best time for it.
Now to answer your original question. Nothing.
Parties don't make America better. Americans do.
2007-04-06 09:55:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Depends on what you deem better and for whom. If having the military-industrial complex make record profits, or having shady companies like Haliburton geeting rich off of no-bid contracts and then not deliver the goods. Perhaps, better might mean the federal deficit getting larger, maybe you mean having countries like Russia and China commencing a new arms race because of our present "cowboy" style of foreign policy, well we are right on target. The good times will keep rolling if you mean those or any number of negative scenarios we find our selves presently embroiled.
2007-04-06 09:50:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Frank R 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
ABSOLUTELY LESS THAN NOTHING. It would be a continuation of the national disaster that is the Dumbya Coup. And it WILL happen UNLESS something happens to stop a crooked 2008 shamlection. At a minimum Rep. Holt's bill MUST pass for ballot paper trails.
2007-04-06 09:48:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It doesn't matter what party we elect. It's the individual you must look at. Depending on the GOP candidate it could improve the situation. I personally like Senator Brownback for the GOP side and Barack Obama for the Democrats. There are decent possibilities out there. Let's not vote on star status but past voting records.
2007-04-06 09:49:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by CaTcHmEiFuCaN 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
wrong........they have.......they've allowed big business to screw us AND pay the bill. they've allowed illegals to take 2 out of every 3 new construction jobs in the US last year, they've ignored our allies and isolated us to the point where our "coalition" in iraq allows the brits to go home while we send more of our own troops, they allowed halliburton to rape us, then move to duabai, they allowed massive spending and colossal debt, all funneled into the pockets of their big biz pals.......
you see, they have been very successful, not much left to do since the US is in decay
2007-04-06 09:49:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
nothing would be accomplished...........although, they may put up another "Mission Accomplished" banner when they do "win" the election.
Lets face it, both parties are not the answer. we need to find a 3rd party candidate
2007-04-06 09:45:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Nooka 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Absolutely nothing. They are incompetent when it comes to governing.
2007-04-06 09:47:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by ♥ Cassie ♥ 5
·
2⤊
0⤋