English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

Man that's a hard one. We really need a combination of both of them. We need a president who has real diplomatic skill and then we need him to be able to be no nonsense and lay down the hammer if needed.
We have neither of that now and nothing like it on the horizon.

Wisdom don't you ever, ever, ever compare that idiot in the white house today to Reagen. Reagen was smarter than Bush with his alzeihmers in the advanced stages.

2007-04-27 07:01:54 · answer #1 · answered by bettercockster1 4 · 1 5

Ronald Reagan. He brought so many people over from the other side of the aisle, we have too many people screaming, at dems or cons to get anything done. Ronald Regan has a real mandate both elections, he won in 1980 with 90% of the electoral and 9% over Carter, and in 1984 with 97% of the electoral, and 18% over Mondale. People loved him from both parties. Bush did something Clinton never did, he atleast got 50% of the vote in 2004. Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote.

2007-04-27 07:05:36 · answer #2 · answered by Angelus2007 4 · 4 5

Clinton - moderate, pro-business, someone who was willing or even eager to find that middle ground, someone who is held in great esteem worldwide, and, most importantly, someone who is whip smart, surrounds himself with very competent people, and is knowledgable enough to make judgements on the advice he receives.

Finally, Clinton ran record surpluses while in office. Reagan ran massive debts, unseen before and jacked up government spending, despite his rhetoric.

Clinton was, first and foremost, a very competent administrator, and not as much an idealogue. That is definitely what we need to run a government.

2007-04-27 07:04:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 5 3

someone along the lines of General Dwight D. Eisenhower!

2007-04-27 07:39:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

We need a leader that is led by american's and not special interests, corporations and foriegn countries. Ron Paul 2008

2007-04-27 07:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by jeb black 5 · 1 2

A combination of the two....

Somebody who is tough on foreign policy but can be a diplomat
Somebody who can balance the budget
Charismatic, able to lead/communicate
Somebody who can work with congress regardless of majority party.
Somebody who is pro-business-- I think both were.

2007-04-27 07:02:00 · answer #6 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 7 2

Lincoln

2007-04-27 07:08:28 · answer #7 · answered by Firesidechat 2 · 1 4

Another Eisenhower (Similar to Clinton) is what we really need.

2007-04-27 07:04:48 · answer #8 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 0 3

9-11 never would have happened if Ronnie had been president.
our enemies in the middle-east were terrified of him !
they called him "the great Satan"
we were safe with Regan.

bush is a wussy and thus invited attack on the homeland.

2007-04-27 07:13:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

I think Ronald Reagan. We definitely need someone charismatic, which both were, but we also need someone who's tough enough to stand up to our enemies, which Clinton wasn't.

2007-04-27 07:03:02 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 4 6

fedest.com, questions and answers