Would you even want either of them to run again?
2007-08-10 15:32:50 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I agree with the law limiting a President to two terms. But if that were to be lifted and I had to choose, it would be Clinton.
The man was definitely not the most moral person in the world, but he did lead the country effectively. I don't feel that way about Bush.
2007-08-11 09:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please! Enough already! Can't we have something different this time? I'm now teaching college students who have never been alive when there wasn't either a President Bush or a President Clinton. You'd think, in a big country like this, we could have some variety, if only to remind us that things don't need to be like this forever.
I'm thinking President Paul would be a nice alternative. But, as long as it's not another Bush or another Clinton, I'll probably survive.
2007-08-10 15:40:30 · answer #2 · answered by skip742 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
provide up being so ****** up, human beings. Being suggested starts by asking questions. besides, like many others have mentioned, Bush, the father replaced into president and then it replaced into his son. the version in names is George Walker Bush for the father and George Herbert Walker Bush for the son. The twenty 2nd modification which limits a president's words replaced into put in place after Franklin Delano Roosevelt (to no longer be perplexed with Theodore Roosevelt which replaced into his distant cousin and uncle of Franklin's spouse) served 4 words.
2016-10-14 22:31:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF the only choice were between Clinton and Bush, it would absolutely, positively have to be Clinton.
Bush has committed treason, tarnished America's reputation, and defied our Constitution.
At least Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
Clinton is intelligent, articulate, witty, and a free-thinker.
Bush is sophomoric,moronic, inarticulate, and can't tie his shoes without being told how by his handlers.
-RKO- 08/10/07
2007-08-10 16:14:57 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton, definately Clinton. He did so much for foriegn affairs and our economy. Bush has only demolished both and created havoc among our soveriegnty and untity as a nation.
2007-08-10 16:08:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No and uh...no. Reagan was the last President that I would have wanted for a third term....1976-1988...before that....Eisenhower.
2007-08-10 15:40:04 · answer #6 · answered by Mark 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
During a debate between Bush and Kerry my father sat watching it and he called in to my aunt, "So Paula, who are you for? Kerry or Bush?"
"Neither of them."
"Oh, come on. Pick someone."
"Okay. I want Bill Clinton back."
I'd have to go with her on this one.
2007-08-10 15:42:26 · answer #7 · answered by eamc55 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be very very happy to have Clinton back in the Oval office again, with or without Monica.
2007-08-10 17:48:39 · answer #8 · answered by lochmessy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. But forced to make a choice . . . are you SERIOUS?!!!!! No patriotic American would pick the lying, treasonous, anti-American, anti-people, anti-God Bush?
Clinton all the way!
2007-08-10 16:03:35 · answer #9 · answered by worldinspector 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither, but if I absolutely had to choose: Clinton.
And I'm a conservative.
This administration needs to go.
2007-08-10 15:37:12 · answer #10 · answered by hannibal61577 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋