Al Gore should consider running for president. He was the precidential candidate for the Democract, and alsmot won. Why not in 2008? can he lower the deficit? WHat would he do with Iran?
2007-02-05 21:30:17 · 15 answers · asked by dk 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
He's a bum. Barak Obama is a much more charasmatic democrat. He just didn't have the experience credentials back then (still barely does but oh well). If he had now what he did at the last election he would have beaten Bush.
Most Democrats don't care about the deficit. Most will cause it to go up. Others like it as a focus point to worry people over. He'd probably have Iran invaded ala Clinton did for Somalia. It would be half-assed and result in nothing but more tension.
2007-02-05 21:35:42 · answer #1 · answered by Lupin IV 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well actually Gore got more votes than Bush did. I don't know, I think his time has come and gone, just like Kerry's!
Bush got 50,456,002 votes or 47.87%.
Gore got 50,999,897 votes or .48.38%
He could lower the increase in the deficit by balancing the budget which Clinton came close to doing. Bush has never submitted even close to a balanced budget and he is usually in front of Congress asking for another 100 Billion about weekly!
Personally, except for extenuating circumstances the Federal Government should be like the States! They have to submit a balanced budget! So should the US Government!
Why aren't these Republicans offended and going crazy over all the money Bush is putting us in a hole. They would be if it were a Democrat since we are the party of the big spenders, that is if you don't include the Republicans who have run the deficit up so much that we soon will have the choice of paying the interest or paying the military!
2007-02-05 21:41:18 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh - there is only a lot lack of information the following it isn't ordinary to attraction to close the position to commence. a million. There ought to nevertheless be international warming - yet there would not be the U. S. deliberately undermining international tries to unravel it. 2. Al Gore already has a business business enterprise promoting carbon credit. He buys carbon credit for his personal jet commute and electrical energy utilization. 3. Al Gore hasn't ever claimed to have invented something. 4. Canada's proper income tax element is 29% federal tax and 17.80 4% for the proper provincial fee. hence the optimal marginal fee may be merely 40 six.80 4% 5. Canada's finished (authorities plus deepest) accepted value for wellness care is merely over 1/2 what it truly is contained in the U. S. and they nevertheless get a much better wellness equipment than we do.
2016-11-02 11:23:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answers are very interesting here, first we live in a republic of 50 states and the electoral process states that each state has the right to assign its winner of its popular vote to a candidate for federal government election of President. So if those of you feel Gore got more popular votes, why are you not trying to change the laws in your state that affect how the electoral votes go to a presidential candidate.
I would not vote for Al Gore.
2007-02-05 23:28:24 · answer #4 · answered by paulewog12000 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore couldn't get the Democratic nomination in 1988. Michael Dukakis won the Dem. nomination, but lost the Pres. election. Dukakis did however win one thing in 88, that Al Gore Lost in 2000...
Al Gore Lost his own HOME state (Tennessee). If Gore would've won the popular vote in his HOME state, then the 11 electoral votes from his HOME state would've won him the Presidency. Forget Florida... any candidate that loses their home state, in my opinion, shouldn't be President.
That's "why Not" in 2008.
2007-02-06 02:09:03 · answer #5 · answered by askthetoughquestions 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I believe Gore to be an honorable man, I do not believe that he could win the nomination, to much water under the bridge for him. He kind of let the democrats and Americans down when he did not kick and scream about the election that was taken from him by the supreme court. Just look at how it turned out with the worst president that was ever appointed to the office.
2007-02-05 21:47:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I really like Al Gore but I don't think he would give all the issues his full concentration because he is so focused on global warming and the environment.
2007-02-05 23:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by J♥R♥R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore has said flatly that he will not run in 2008. He's commited to the one issue of global warming. Tony Blair in Britain has also confided in Gore in formulating policy to combat global warming in that country. Gore has finally found an issue that he's adament about, that excites him, & he has a commitment to the issue. If others disagree with his findings, at least what he has done is brought the issue forward for debate. I applaud him for that.
I voted for him in 2000. But I take him at his word.
2007-02-05 21:38:19 · answer #8 · answered by gone 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because Al is a born loser, although his tactics to scare us about global whining is making him millions. He is still in denial about losing fair and square to our President and Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, the best President in the history of America.
2007-02-05 21:58:14 · answer #9 · answered by americanmalearlington 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your suggestion gave me a good laugh. We need more comedy like that.
One of the answers complained that Gore and the Demos were too conservative for him; that was hysterical!!!
Keep 'em coming, folks!
2007-02-05 21:47:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋