2007-04-11 05:58:20 · 15 answers · asked by twilabrwn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Barack Obama. He has a trustworthy sense about him that for some reason I can't find in Hilary. :|
2007-04-11 06:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by Kai 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No one from the two major parties.
There is a stalemate of power in the US, and while we should support the Republic for which it stands, we can not let this inaction continue.
Problem is the amount of money to run is so high that only someone from the two majors can pull it off.
My hope is that after the primaries, someone drops their party and starts a third party with the goal of cleaning up the system and breaking the stalemate.
2007-04-11 13:25:08 · answer #2 · answered by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Madison Augustine Primus should be the next U.S. president because he has the respect of developed nations. For longer than a term of a U.S. Senator, Madison Augustine Primus has been intensely involved with diplomatic work at the United Nations. The world trusts the alliances of Madison Augustine Primus, http://www.voteprimous.com
2007-04-11 13:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It really doesn't matter. Because the president really doesn't matter. Suppose our current president was not able to get the support of both parties for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? He's just be the man up there carrying on about something that didn't happen.
2007-04-11 13:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by eldude 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Barack Obama. He's more focused on domestic issues - which have certainly piled up these past 6 1/2 years - and is not content to just leave our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely with no discernable purpose. It's the only name, at this point at least, that makes me feel any kind of hope for our country's future.
2007-04-11 13:18:39 · answer #5 · answered by Political Orphan 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Ron Paul. He's the only declared candidate who really appears to want to decrease the power and size of the government. All the others are just arguing about what to spend your money on and what to force us to do, not on whether they should force us to do and pay for anything in the first place.
I'd cast a write-in vote for Kermit the Frog before voting for any of the front runners.
2007-04-11 13:13:18 · answer #6 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Interesting how many people vote for "real change", when your vote is "really" for a chief executive, capable of managing all the departments of government.
You want an activist? They belong in local government and congress.
2007-04-11 13:21:48 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm voting for real change. Someone who supports free enterprise, and upholding the constitution, but doesn't like getting entangled in foreign wars without cause.
Rep. Ron Paul for President
2007-04-11 13:01:22 · answer #8 · answered by skip742 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Fred Thompson would be a decent president and I'd say he has a shot. I'd vote against Hillary no matter who she's running against and I think a lot of people also would.
2007-04-11 13:08:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Barack Obama. Intelligent and compassionate. Competent and conscious of the many "groups" that make up the American people.
2007-04-11 13:27:24 · answer #10 · answered by luv books 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fred Thompson. He is a true leader with good plans .
2007-04-11 19:17:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋