please give a detailed answer with examples to support why or why not, you believe that if he had been elected in 1996, Bob Dole would have made a great/poor president. would his policies have been better than Clinton's?
2007-07-29 06:28:56 · 8 answers · asked by rk88 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It was a tossup between him and Clinton. I am a Democrat and actually thought about voting for him...but then I was one of those that voted for the little big eared guy in '92. Dole has a long record of service to America always seemed to be a patriotic and caring American
2007-07-29 06:36:49 · answer #1 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't give a detailed answer; however, my gut feeling is that he would have been a fine president. Clinton was a little left of center. Dole would have been a little right of center. But both are smart, well-intentioned decent men. Dole probably wouldn't have done things too differently from Clinton.
Actually, when I talk about the horrible things that have happened to the Republican party in recent years, Dole and Bush I are the typical examples that I give of recent Republican leaders who were/would have been fine Presidents. In the past, leaders of both parties were educated, intelligent, well-intentioned centrists, and not too different from each other. They were separated by mild philiosphical differences just left of center or just right of center. Reagan was the first pretty big departure from this leadership model, but after Bush I and Clinton, he seemed to be something of an abberation.
But make no mistake, the Republican party has been captured by a cadre of far right wing lunatics who have driven this country off a cliff. Thankfully, the Democratic party is still run by centrists. It has not caved in to the temptation to let the fringe lunatics run the pary in an effort to counter the Republica's fringe lunacy.
Think about how fast this happened. The Republicans ran Bush I in 1988 and 1992 and Dole in 1996. That was only 11 years ago...
2007-07-29 06:48:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bob Dole grew to become right into a Senator whilst he ran for President, so he rather did the two. They have been approximately 20 or 30 years aside however, he grew to become into between the Senators for Kansas and desperate to run for President against invoice Clinton in 1996.
2016-12-11 04:23:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have been interesting to see the course of events that would have occurred if he was elected in 1996 and again in 2000. Would he have decided to take out Bin Laden when the CIA and their counterparts had numerous chances in the late 1990's? I think so without hesitation. We know now that Clinton decided against taking him out. Could Dole have averted 9-11? God only knows.
2007-07-29 06:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by aCeRBic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably. He was honest, and all good presidents are honest. Carter is a pathological liar. Reagan, Lincoln, Washington. were honest. Jackson was honest, but rash.
Grant was honest but in-effectual because he was not good in the social setting. Many presidents have been honest but ineffectual because they had not built up a base of life experience to base decisions upon. A good president, like a good general begins thinking seriously about the world and it's problems at an early age, like Six.
2007-07-29 06:37:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A good President but perhaps not great. Its hard to say.
Dole was a deal maker. I think sometimes he gave up to much for the sake of a deal.
Reagan was a great President because he stood on principal.
As does the current officer holder.
2007-07-29 06:31:54 · answer #6 · answered by catherinetramell3 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He would have been a heck of a lot better than Clinton, that's for sure
2007-07-29 06:32:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's not a coward like Clinton.
And, he has never shot any babies like Kerry blames our troops for doing
2007-07-29 06:34:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋