I am wondering why they even bothered, as Gore was a far better candidate.
2006-08-09 20:49:16 · 32 answers · asked by einsteins_mom 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Sorry, that was supposed to be 2000. This is what happens when you cut off the coffee, the brain doesn't function so well in the morning.
2006-08-10 00:21:05 · update #1
Yes it was sad that he was voted for again in 2004, and won yet again, though I have to admit in 2004 the competition was not that great. Ah well, as my mom always said, you get what you pay for, and in this case I think those that didn't want it, still are stuck with the fall out.
2006-08-10 00:34:01 · update #2
Those who vote decide NOTHING.
Those who count the votes decide EVERYTHING.
JOSEPH STALIN
2006-08-09 21:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by Simple green is people! 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
2004 you mean? They didn't. The electon was stolen, which any party in power can do when the vote is close.
And the vote was only close because Bush and Cheney lied. And stole. Once you see that Americans actually think that Saddam had something to do with terrorism and 9/11, when everybody outside the USA knows it's a myth -- you see how the election was stolen.
The irony is that Americans voted (and vote) against interest: they voted on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, lies about terrorism -- and were fooled over issues concerning estate taxes (virtually no middle class person's or small businessperson's or famly farmer's estate is subject to estate tax -- and in voting for Bush:
-- entrenched right-wing republicanism on the Supreme Court and in the lower federal courts (remember: the Supreme Court APPPOINTED Bush on his first tour -- he didn't win an election
-- further assured the concentration of wealth in the richest 1/10 of 1% of the US population.
And what did Rousseau say about democracy (speaking of the English)?
2006-08-10 00:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, no one voted for Bush in 2002 because there wasn't an election in 2002. The election was held in 2000, and nothing could have prevented Bush from becoming president. Everyone in politics knows this as fact.
2006-08-09 20:55:27 · answer #3 · answered by heffinator 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that it was a combination of two things:
1. The war in Iraq and the scare tactics that the US government used to lead people to believe that there were terrorists behind every bush. Nothing like a war and fear to get people to believe that the current regime is the best one to carry on.
2. A very dirty political campaign, rife with big-time oil money backing it, designed scare people into believing that any other candidate would create higher taxes, moral corruption and insecurity in the country.
2006-08-09 21:45:15 · answer #4 · answered by mjmelich 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In 2000, it was George W. Bush or Albert Gore.
In 2004, it was George W. Bush or John Kerry.
I wish Bush had left office in 2002...
2006-08-09 21:20:17 · answer #5 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You mean in 2000?
I guess they had enough of Democrats and wanted a change. Bush also promised tax cuts, which is quite impressive everywhere in the world, while the Democrats wanted further money for a more social health care system.
2006-08-09 20:54:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
was it 2002 i thought i voted for him in 2000 and 2004...
2006-08-09 21:45:11 · answer #7 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because most of the American people cannot think for them selves, they are like sheep, and don't forget in America you are Guilty before you are found Innocent. So they are all Guilty of being led down the path of LIES that not only Bush told the people but most of there so called Statesmen.All the back slapping and hype they go through before any type of election is enough to make many people sick.
2006-08-09 21:08:09 · answer #8 · answered by Search 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Liberals will never understand so stop trying.
We love it that hypocrites like Megs have the real narrowminded attitudes and that's why they'll never get Congress or the white house back. Not at least for a long time. Hilary sees this but the Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores can not.
2006-08-09 21:01:52 · answer #9 · answered by Munster 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
why do you think bush isnt as good as a candidate as gore? is that what the media told you? dont listen to the media. its biased. make your own opinions that are supported by facts and then you can go around bush bashing. he's actually not that bad of a president. hes just made out to be stupid because of his accent and the way he talks. also i think gore was running in 2000.
2006-08-09 20:56:11 · answer #10 · answered by BEEFSHIELD 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Obviously, a lot of people felt Gore was not the better candidate. He'll never be able to live down his Internet claims, even it that was blown all out of proportion. His environmentalism verges on demagoguery at times IMHO.
2006-08-09 20:56:56 · answer #11 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋