I'm a registered Democrat who is opened to voting Republican (if there is a worthy candidate). To be totally honest, I'd take Mitt Romney over Bush any day of the week. What do you think?
2007-05-21 18:06:15 · 10 answers · asked by Mr. Main Event 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Romney, no doubt.
I think Mitt Romney is the closest candidate to Reagan.
He didn't raise taxes as governor of MA, he balanced the budget, and he cut lots of wasteful spending--with a democratic controlled congress.
He has run several successful businesses and the SLC Winter Olympics in 2002.
He's not a Washington insider.
Although he has changed his opinion (which everyone is entitled to) he is currently pro-life.
I think Romney will be strong during the war on terror.
Some people are scared of his religions beliefs--but we are not voting for a chief theologian, we're voting for the chief executive.
2007-05-24 10:56:43 · answer #1 · answered by David G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. For Bush to serve again would be ILLEGAL, and more than likely he would be impeached the first day. The American public wouldn't stand for it. %70 of Americans already despise him.
Mitt Romney is another Bush.
Vote 4 Ron Paul.
To the Hillary lover.
Yea, lets just throw the country away to the North American Union, establish a one world government, and kickstart the book of Revelations while we are at it.
2007-05-21 19:47:29 · answer #2 · answered by Jon S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Romney because I'd rather have a fiscal conservative, then a guy who got us into a near $9 trillion debt. This is coming from a liberal who believes Bush is too liberal with fiscal policy.
2007-05-21 19:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mitt Romney is being considered by many voters as their choice for the US President even when he is Mormon because of his excellent views on critical issues.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Romney will likely win.
2007-05-21 22:37:52 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush, so he can completely obliterate all foreign allies - oh wait, we only have England left right, he'll finish that off before his term is out....Keep Mitt & his 7 wives at home busy procreating the multitude of future dentists of America....
2007-05-21 18:15:29 · answer #5 · answered by eluvsdmode 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is not any longer something in the form that asserts that someone has to swear on the Bible to take the oath of place of work: Article II, area a million of the form: "in the previous he enter on the Execution of his place of work, he shall take right here Oath or confirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or confirm) that i will faithfully execute the place of work of President of united statesa., and could to the terrific of my ability, shelter, shelter and shelter the form of united statesa.." there is not any longer something in there approximately putting his (or her) hand on the Bible - that's a prepare that has grown up over the years, yet which isn't required as area of the oath taking. often, incoming Presidents additionally will contain the words "so help me God," on the top of their oath, yet those words are no longer required, the two.
2016-11-26 00:09:13 · answer #6 · answered by byrne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush. He has a proven record of knowing how to run the country and keep it protected.
2007-05-21 18:10:03 · answer #7 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush, most definitely!
Romney?!?! ur kidding right? he's too stiff and he looks like another Al Gore, wanting too much fame.
2007-05-21 18:23:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather leave the country than have another republican be prez!
2007-05-21 18:15:15 · answer #9 · answered by zmhucla 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Neither. Hillary will win. Go Hillary.
2007-05-21 18:14:27 · answer #10 · answered by Monte B 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋