If you want to be a politician then the requirement is to be dishonest and a liar. Not one of them are worth our vote.
2007-10-04 09:57:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by flint 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I asked almost the same question. The answer would be that it is impossible for them to make and keep any promises because the house and the senate have lost the art of a good compromise. There are to many special interest groups picketing for small things that really don't effect the larger population for our children, healthcare, safety or really important issues to take precedence in the government.
2007-10-04 16:17:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To me, the real question isn't whether we want to elect any of them, but instead why should we bother holding any elections for President if the Sup. Ct. won't allow the votes to be thoroughly and completely counted in order to determine who won. And there ARE such things as dishonest Sup. Ct. Justices! You know that, don't you?
"None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere." -- from Bush v. Gore.
2007-10-04 16:16:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that depends on how you define "honest".But you make a good point, and none of them inspire me. I am researching Dr Ron Paul. Besides him I feel like the rest are status quo, and the only difference is the sales pitch. I mean even Hillary said a month ago she would withdraw the troops the day she is sworn in. ANd then in an interview with tim russert of NBC she stated she will keep them there until 2103 . . . . stay the course.
2007-10-04 16:12:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by commonsense 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
That is my answer every election year. I do not vote cause bother of them remind me of my evil cousins, I don't want to be around them, much less run my nation.
Frankly we should change the system that the first one to get elected to office has the right to be shot at. If he lives, he gets kicked out of office, if he dies, he gets to stay in.
I am tired or choosing the lesser of two evils. I say we should have the option of removing one and scaring the other one straight and not to be so evil.
2007-10-04 22:38:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by PeguinBackPacker 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In a word.... No.... not in this election so far.
I think John Glenn (D) was honest. I think Gerald Ford (R) was honest. I think Jimmy Carter (D) was honest. I think Zell Miller (R)& (D) was honest, to name a few. I think that we have a few sprinkled in todays congress, but they are the exception to the rule, that makes the rule valid. We need to end corruption in Politics and that is by voting them out after two terms, then the PAC's won't have no where near the power they currently hold.
2007-10-04 16:15:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Politicians are just like citizens . . . some honest, some not. Let us not discount the fact that our system of gov't has created the most wealthy, generous, & free system in the world. I don't think this country was built on the ideas and efforts of a bunch of dishonest thugs. We are but a tiny dot in the history of this great land.
2007-10-04 16:12:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by KRR 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I maintain this question has been asked in the US for 230 years. I maintain we elect these people so we can keep an eye on them.
Look at the bright side, we outlawed duels in Congress after that one Aaron Burr thing.
2007-10-04 16:14:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
An honest politician could never become elected. Sad but true.
Mannheim.
2007-10-04 16:10:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Modern USA Democracy =
"Selection, not election"
2007-10-04 16:10:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by outcrop 5
·
0⤊
1⤋