I am by no means a Bush fan, but do you REALLY think Gore or Kerry would have done Better!!?

Question

I mean, Gore didn't appear capable of being a strong leader. He reminds me of my 4th Grade school teacher, or a male nurse or something (Just too sensitive). When Kerry was asked what he'd do about the war, he never had a clear answer.(Too indecisive). Plus, what could he really have done after Bush had already made such a big mess? I feel that both of the past 2 Democratic Candidates appeared weak....so did we really have a choice? What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Would Gore or Kerry have done better? Not just yes, but hell yes!
If Gore had been allowed to win in 2000 - remember, Bush was appointed by the Supreme court, he did not win the election - we'd be doing something about the environment; gas prices would be cheaper since he isn't in the pocket of Big Oil like the current bozo; and we wouldn't be in a never-ending war which has taken thousands of lives.
Like The Crawford Clown, I'm a Baby Boomer and I'm ashamed to be - he's giving us all a bad name!
Impeach Bush and remove him from office!!!

Answer 2

No, I don't think either one would have been better. Gore in 2000 would have tried to continue Clinton's ride of the economic boom, but it wouldn't have lasted and then it would have been business as usual (think Jimmy Carter...without the diplomatic savy). The economy was already in a down turn when President Bush took over. Gore might have pushed an environmental platform and made some headway, but the "surplus" that never existed would have been quickly eaten up by a growing recession. Assuming 9/11 had happened under Gore's tenure, we would have launched missles, filed protests, maybe even put some troops on the ground in Afghanistan for show, but we'd still be hearing about terror attacks throghout the world. So, after four years, Al would be waving good-bye and it'd still be one freaking degree hotter.

Kerry...I don't think a more boring man exists on this planet. If you thought President Bush was indecisive on Katrina (and I don't) just imagine if John Kerry had been president. "I voted to send FEMA in before I voted to keep them out, but then I thought I'd go and take some ice down there, but I thought water might be better then I realized that ice was water, or maybe water is ice. So, yes, Katrina was bad." Come on!

EDIT: One more thing: can you guys please, please, please (pretty) please, come up with a new line instead of "war for oil"? How about "war for camels"? President Bush has been in with Big Camel for years. The international camel trade is the greatest menace facing the world today. No war for camels! Spread the word! Revolution!

Answer 3

I very much believe Gore, and for the most part Kerry, would have done much better. Bush/Cheney are both big oil. This is exactly why we are in Iraq. Saddam was not liked by his Arab neighbors. That is where our oil men struck first. None of the neighbors was sad to see Saddam go. Once control is established Bush will have us in Iran. He is already talking about it. If freeing the poor Iraqi's was the true reason for the war, we would have freed other weaker nations first.

Answer 4

Yes, they would have done a better job than Bush. He is all about oil/making the U.S. into a 3rd world country. If Gore or Kerry was President, our soldiers would have never died b/c we would not be fighting other countries for no reason. Gas would be less than $2 and the unemployment rate would be less. New Orleans would also be fixed instead of Iraq.

Answer 5

I know that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. He probably would have done more to stop global warming. He won the popular vote which meant that at some level, most Americans were more comfortable with him rather than Bush.

I don't care how a leader comes across on television. I think too many Americans unfortunately use image rather than substance to decide how to vote. Maybe we should elect a smart person to be in charge, rather than someone who is incompetent but seems somehow "sincere" or "strong".

Answer 6

John Kerry could have. Most Americans won't vote out a sitting president during an on going war. That's probably the main reason Kerry lost. Kerry won the debates according to polls.

Answer 7

Gore would have done much better. Kerry is a good guy, but not the best candidate for president. besides, gore won the election in 2000. in his movie he says "Hi, I'm Al Gore, and I am the former next president of the United States"

Answer 8

Well, Gore is Ken (Barbies Plastic man) and his priority was/is about warming his ***...
Kerry? Look at that hunk of man and tell me he don't wear womans underwear...
Bush??? Initially I thought the lesser of the 3 evils, but now, I think he should be incarcerated in a detention camp; put in a cage with Osama Bid Laden who would rip him a new asshole; Impeached; made the new mascot for Mad Magazines Alfred E Neuman (what?? Me worry?). We need a savior not any of these three idiot bumpkins.

Answer 9

Well, aside from the fact that the Bushs have been influencing the American gvt for years and therefore making us automatically screwed; a pile of dog turds would be a more articulate leader for the free world than George W. Bush is.

Answer 10

hmmmm- that's a good one. I think that if Gore won we would have never gotten into the war because of his "sensitivity." But Kerry was a piece of work. So i dunno.

sorry

Answer 11

Yes, I do believe either one of them would have done much better than G.W. They did not appear weak to me. What do you want? An Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jessie Ventura? Believe me, the people in Minnesota who voted for Jessie deeply regretted it and Arnold is just a big bully, and that has nothing to do with real strength.