2007-11-09 08:19:22 · 27 answers · asked by Fred Head 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Hillary, because she thinks it takes a village to raise a child. I wouldn't want someone who abdicates child care responsibility.
2007-11-09 08:23:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ok - this is my favorite question in a while!
On the Democratic side, it would be Hillary - she wouldn't change his diapers, not admit that it was wrong to leave him in a dirty daiper, and then insist on coming back to babysit again, because she's such a great diaper-changer.
On the Republican side, it would be Huckabee. He wouldn't change the diapers either - he would probably say that if God had meant for his diapers to be changed, God would have manifested a clean diaper on my son's behind!
As for the rest:
McCain would claim that what we really need to do is just put as many diapers as possible on the boy.
Romney would probably be okay, because when a guy has 14 wives, someone is bound to change that diaper (ok, that was unfair - but funny!)
Guiliani would ignore the diapers while working on closing down the strip club on the other side of town.
Edwards would pay $400 to have each diaper professionally removed.
Obama wouldn't change the diaper because he didn't want to "go negative" on the dirty one.
..and Ron Paul would claim that he didn't feel it was right to change the diapers because it's not in the constitution.
2007-11-09 09:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anthony J 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
GIULIANI!! - How his can NOT be the first name that springs to anyone's lips in response to this question is beyond me! Gee - I can't imagine why -
3 marriages; Used to be roomies with a gay couple; Dresses in drag; Takes leisure trips abroad with an accused pedophile Priest; And, most damning of all - HIS OWN KIDS can't stand him. His daughter had joined Barack Obama's supporters on Facebook at one time!
I don't know about you; But there's just TOO MUCH TRACK RECORD for me to trust my kids with such an individual - And I would say that if the same scenarios were the case with a Republican, Democrat, or Other!
2007-11-09 08:39:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Guilliani (apologies if the name is spelled incorrectly). Because that gentleman is far too liberal for my taste, and could possibly teach my kids things I'd rather they not know about until they are older. On the other hand, I would choose Hillary Clinton (ducking from the rotten apple freefall) because I like her attitude that it takes a Village. In other words, many people are important to a child in its formative years. (This conservative old writer does have her moments of throwing caution to the winds!)
2007-11-09 08:27:35 · answer #4 · answered by gldjns 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All of them. Why would they baby sit my child in the first place. It's our responsibility to babysit our kids, not some candidate's.
2007-11-09 08:22:21 · answer #5 · answered by HeySweetieDear 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whats wrong with your own mum and granny. No President elect or candidate could babysit any child. They have enough problems looking after themselves and a country.
2007-11-09 08:25:15 · answer #6 · answered by aotea s 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's a toss up between Rudy "little Mussolini" Giuliani & "camrade Clinton. Either way one of em would have a kid goose stepping in no time to the fascism/commie beat.
2007-11-09 08:26:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary for sure. She would raise his taxes and give him a driver's license (he's only 17 months old)
2007-11-09 11:52:47 · answer #8 · answered by John C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republican. They positioned on those non secular, kinfolk Values, Anti-gay mask to fool all human beings and then they do precisely the different - like lie, cheat, poke interior the ***, and abuse babies - only like those conservative, hypocrite, gay clergymen.
2016-11-10 23:12:42 · answer #9 · answered by gurucharan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary or Obama. . . it's a toss up I think. I'd be more likely to let Fred Thompson.
2007-11-09 08:23:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋