or is hillary such a lightning rod that the current field of republican candidates will have a chance to save our nation by default?
2007-05-26 01:03:12 · 4 answers · asked by federalistcapers 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Haven't we had enough of actors playing politicians?
Can you tell the difference between reality and a TV screen?
Can they?
Why does a Republican need to come in to save our country, unless our country is faltering because a Republican has been leading it for the past six years. If that's true, why would we want to give them another four years?
So, am I to assume from all the thumbs down that you would rather vote for someone who plays one on TV rather than examine his policies? And will no one tell me why we need to be saved after such a Republican past?
2007-05-26 01:55:14 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
No, he's a strong and confident person, but I think that Rudy is beating the dems in the battleground states and retaining the red states (he even converts some blue states like New Jersey and Connecticut). McCain defeats the dems in some of the battlegrounds, but stands a smaller chance of winning. A lot of the polls show Fred Thompson losing pretty bad against the dems. Anyway to answer your other question, Hillary probably could get bested by any of these guys though. She's such a hypocrite, that even Duncan Hunter could trounce her.
2007-05-26 09:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by Dan 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No one currently seeking the office is fit for it, but some are more obviously unfit than others. Thompson's probably not as bad as most.
Why are there no longer men on par with Jefferson and Lincoln?
And it's "candidacy".
2007-05-26 08:17:21 · answer #3 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I totally agree with you. Fred is our only hope, Hilary will destroy us.
2007-05-26 13:18:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋