James Buchanan who was unmarried, the only bachelor to be president. His niece Harriet Lane fulfilled the role of hostess (first lady)
I seriously doubt we will ever have another bachelor as president ... Our goverment prefers role models to uphold "family structure"
Personally, I dont care who is "calling his name" or what he does with his cigars. My concerns are why we spent millions to investigate an unfaithful president v/s our true needs in this nation!
2007-04-07 06:43:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ellie 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think any of the current candidates are single, although though some are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage, like Guiliani and McCain. Reagan had been divorced. Andrew Jackson was a widower, as was Thomas Jefferson (although he had relations with one of his slaves). There hasn't been a bachelor president for a very long time, and its probably not possible now. I know that either Pierce or Buchanan (from the 1850's) was a bachelor president. And I think perhaps Calvin Coolidge (1920's), but I'm not sure on that.
Society is biased against single people. It tells us that unmarried people must have a dysfunction (ie: no one can stand them, they are a misfit, inept socially, abusive, work-a-holic, it goes on and on). So, I would argue that an unmarried presidential candidate would not go far. He would not look "normal."
Unless he was young - and I'm talking as young as possible to run - 35 to 40. It might be ok for a man that age to still be single, but it would still be a little iffy.
2007-04-07 13:50:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by redguard572001 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
If he gains in popularity and his wife continues to become ill, John Edwards could well be the first single president of this century. As in the movie, American President, I think life would imitate art and Edwards would get a great deal of support for being both a well-polished, professional politician and a loving father to his three children. Let's hope, however, that Mrs. Edwards current treatment program restores her to full health.
There are many important jobs in this country that might be better accomplished by a person without the responsibilities of family ties. However, I think we'd miss the compassion that comes from a person with a well-rounded life who understands the hurdles faced by his and her countrymen.
2007-04-07 13:53:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Beach Saint 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It would be ridiculous to withhold a vote for a candidate if he or she did not have spouse if the candidate was otherwise qualified for the job.
Candidates should be voted for based upon their positions on the issues affecting American citizens. All citizens. Whether one agrees or disagrees with a candidate is up to the voter. We can only hope that their vote is based on the issues instead of media manipulation or hysteria.
2007-04-07 13:36:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by crusty old fart 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The oval office run by the elect president. Not with their spouse. I don't are if the candidate has spouse or not.. It all about is he/she is the RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB. We need to have very strong leader to lead us, not a weak one. There are so many candidate running for the oval office, and some are weak we should not for them. We should not get sell of what they showing to the media. VOTE FOR THE STRONGEST ONE, even if he/she in hot married.
2007-04-07 20:05:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sun Valley 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There has been a few presidents without wives. Sometimes the mother fills in, a daughter if he is a widow. I think it would be difficult today to elect a single person, so I get the point of your question.
2007-04-07 13:54:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jackie Oh! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democrats will be upset with your question. Hillary does have a wife...her name is Billy Boy.
Showing they are a family person who is caring - the morals that the Clinton's demonstrate I don't want my children or grand children to have.
Therefore, I guess it will affect my vote - if Hillary wins nomination for democrat party.
There was a president that wasn't married. That would be better than having someone like Clinton. Cheating on wife, lying, etc yet claiming to be religious and living by the commandments.
2007-04-07 14:02:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Gunny Bill 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Not if the presidential candidate can show that he supports family-focus policies domestically. I would cast my vote through the voting online system at http://www.voteprimous.com
At least I don't have to wait in line to vote, I can vote quickly.
2007-04-07 18:40:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why would it, or should it, make a difference? I'm voting for someone based on what they can do, or more aptly what they can do to get the government the hell out of my way; I could care less who the guy's banging.
2007-04-07 13:38:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Popes don't, and some recent Popes have been highly respected and effective world leaders with no land mass and no standing army.
2007-04-07 15:18:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by senior citizen 5
·
0⤊
0⤋