So why in the world would someone support the same type of individual for president and not someone who made it on their own merits?
2007-07-27 01:50:04 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I have no idea.
2007-07-27 01:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
AND, look at this - 8 years with George Herbert Walker Bush as Vice President, followed by 4 years of him as President, followed by 8 years of Bill Clinton, followed by 8 years of George W Bush... That's 28 years of the same 2 families in control of the Executive Branch. Almost 3 decades.
That is just too long. Time for someone new who is not a Bush or a Clinton to have a chance.
2007-07-27 08:57:53 · answer #2 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Clintons are members of Bilderberg http://www.rense.com/general76/part.htm This Current BushNaziFascist Regime is 3rd generation, going back to when Granddaddy PRESCOTT Bush was Along side of Adolph Hitler in berlin, Germany, 1934, GIVING Fianancial Aid to help make the THIRD REICH successful, along with U.S. National & MILITARY SECRETS. at this time Hitler was Bellowing out Speeches speaking of His Vision of a New World Order.. Bushe Sr. Spoke The Same words(Ideology) from the Podium On the Senate Floor, of NWOrder, the date ? GLAD You asked.!! On Sept. 11, 1991... YOU DO THE MATH.. IF YOU are a BushBacker You are a Fugggin NaziFASCIST... YOU MUST LEAVE MY/OUR America No Later Than ...... IMMEDIATELY !!!!! http://video.google.com/videohosted?docid=6952102263921897950
2007-07-27 09:22:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush served as Governor of Texas for five years by beating out the highly regarded Ann Richards before vying for the Presidency.
Hillary ditched her home-state to run as Senator of New York after leaving the White House. She was elected on the coat-tails of her husband without having any experience in politics at all.
2007-07-27 09:20:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think that we should take all of the politicians that are on the hill right now and put them on a deserted island (much like the one on "Lost"), let them fend for themselves, and then hold mass elections and instate a bill saying that if you didn't vote you have no right to complain. That is my idea.
Who is with me?
Now, on to your question. I think that if Hillary wins this election it will be solely based on a popularity contest (we could call her prom queen). I think that Bush was elected in this way to a degree; I think that people didn't vote for Bush so much as they voted against Kerry or Gore, reason being, Kerry is a lying snake (about his military service in Vietnam(I wouldn't doubt that no more than 3 veterans voted for him)). I'm not really sure about Gore he seemed like a good guy, although I think that his stance on global warming is a crock, that and the fact that I am against abortion(except in certain circumstances), gun control, bigger government, his tax stance, etc.... Oh yeah, now I remember why I didn't vote for him.
2007-07-27 09:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by Richard Cranium 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You really think of BJ Clinton as an aristocrat?
Anyway I don't think the fact that a person comes from a family of wealth and power it should be held against them but I agree that it shouldn't give them an advantage either. Voters are the ones responsible or maybe I should say non-voters. We have the power right in our hands to take the country back and we don't use it.
2007-07-27 08:56:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps she was the power behind the throne? That maybe she was his closest advisor and they still kept the approval rating at 64%?
She worked her way thru law school. She worked in legal aid offices. I hardly think the image of preppy boy Bush equates with her. He was at Yale to party. She was at Yale to learn.....note GPAs of the two. I think she would make a great president.
GO HILLARY!!
2007-07-27 08:59:17 · answer #7 · answered by kolacat17 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hilliary is hardly an aristocrat. She could do with a bit more of Bill's charm. Bush failed to inherit the intelligence of his father, while Hillary was always a step ahead of Bill
2007-07-27 08:55:37 · answer #8 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i think Bill clinton was a great president, and she would gain alot of insight through him. Two heads are better than one. In Bush's case. he was just finishing his dads war. He was looking for an excuse. now look where we are .
2007-07-27 08:55:16 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Great question. It's a shame that her followers are incapable of seeing that. They're anticipating wonderful 'changes'. Ain't gonna happen. :)
2007-07-27 08:53:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
republicans love the elites
2007-07-27 08:53:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋