that would be one hell of a revealing debate, between him and the hilderbeast! That is if the sponsor was allowed to let the arrows fly in the format of no holds barred, including political correctness, and the barrier of race leveling, as to cultural differences denied, and never mentioned, unless by the media designated victomhood. For example : crimes white on black, called hate-crimes, that carry more severe punishment, but black on white, put on back classified pages, and considered poetic justice by the cowardly news editors! To return to the question, Hillary should be asked tough character, and IQ revealing questions, and let the voters see and hear truth for a change.
2007-08-19 02:41:12 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Skaizun, you are in desperate need of a name change,along with attitude. Try a different mothwash, it may help. Summer's eve, comes to mind! Oh! yeah get a haircut!
2007-08-19 05:23:13 · update #1
Reviewing the page of answers, one has to conclude, that Karl would qualify as a threat to Hillary, and the rest of the power driven and power possessed bunch. They remind me of a dog pack, that are too feeble to attack on their own, and prefer to embolden one of the weaker minded grizzle eaters to attack the prey at the throat. Hillary is not considered highly intelligent by at least double as many, that are mistakenly led to believe she is. In my oppinion, had she dumped Billy Boy, her popularity would have soared, and would include women on both sides of the feminine movement, with the vast right wing in a stunned second thought mode about her.
2007-08-19 06:03:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That isn't likely to happen. Karl Rove is a repugnant personality who does his best work in the dark.
He is a man of unlimited ambition but very limited intellect. Additionally he does not have the mental equilibrium required of high public office.
In open debate, his political philosophy would be revealed as being so anti-American, so dramatically opposed to the rights enumerate in the the US Constitution and bill of rights, so contrary to the notion of equal protection under the law that he would never be elected and moreover, would damage the republican image even more than he has as Bush's puppet master.
2007-08-19 09:55:22 · answer #2 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was one of the most divisive human beings involved in the political scene in the last 8 years and is a man of very questionable ethics. His truth is more rooted in the twilight zone of horrors and a "Gotcha" attitude. Frankly, I think of him when wondering why the investigation of the anthrax attacks was dropped. And, if you think Hillary is not intelligent, you haven't really been paying much attention to her at all. I do agree with you on the hate crime thing.
2007-08-19 10:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rove would lose. His stragetic days has ended sadly but certainly for Bush and the Republicans.
Bush reminds me of the basketball ball coach pulling his star players out one by one at their last game. Now I am waiting on Cheney's exit.
2007-08-19 10:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by Dawnita R 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Red Rooster: Please . . . don't hold back on your rhetoric!
Say what's really on your mind, okay? ;)
Since Rove quit or was fired,
depending on your point-of-view,
I suppose that if he ever ran for office
he would be known as the "Roving candidate". ;)
Here, Rover; here, Rover!
Good boy!
Rollover!
Speak!
Lie! ;)
2007-08-19 10:35:17 · answer #5 · answered by skaizun 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, please! He'd probably be stoned to death.
2007-08-19 10:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋