On Larry King last night, Mr. Al Gore did not expanded on this statement and left us without explanation what it means.
I hope someone will explain to me, what that means?
2007-05-23 01:48:34 · 11 answers · asked by Mr. Beef Stroganoff 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He meant that the candidates have good intentions but that they have to subvert their better inclinations in order to get elected. However, I disagree with him. I believe most candidates are mediocre to bad people. The system is still bad. It ensures that only the blandest, weakest willed candidates get elected, because you have to be able to fit in with everyone, get along with everyone, agree with everyone. If you are willing to take a stand on your beliefs and morals and speak out when you see wrong-doing, you can forget about getting elected. Work on the system, and better candidates will surface. Two parties doesn't work. A parliamentary system, or a contingency vote vote system (you place a vote for the candidate you think is best, even if he has little chance of winning. If he loses, your vote is transferred to a candidate you select as a second choice.), or a no-party system would allow a much more realistic and measurable system of representation, and also and very importantly, encourage people to Read, Think, and Vote.
2007-05-23 02:01:07 · answer #1 · answered by dig4words 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My interpretation would be that the bad system is the current administration. Every one of the Democratic candidates are good and they want to do the right thing. However as long as G.W. is in office there is no honor in the White House. Thats the way I see it.
2007-05-23 01:58:15 · answer #2 · answered by sherry J 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Gore was referring to the 2000 election where he was chosen as president by the American voters but lost anyway.
2007-05-23 01:58:32 · answer #3 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this could make experience if the two of those 2 adult men have even a reasonable possibility of thrashing her for the nomination. yet they dont. it in all possibility the two her or obama will win it and then those adult men will could desire to ask themselves in the event that they could desire to be her vice chairman. Hillary, no count number in case you like her or no longer she a lots larger profile than the two of those 2 adult men. gore couldnt win decrease back in the day and he cant win now. edwards is a respectable challenger yet in all possibility cant suited the celeb ability of hillary of obama. so your question is moot.
2016-11-26 19:18:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore is a bad person stuck in the junk science of man made global warming.
2007-05-23 01:59:24 · answer #5 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
My interpretation is that they are bad people manipulating a broken system.
2007-05-23 01:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore is the 2nd smartest man in America.
The smartest is me.
He meant that campaigning for the presidency sucks.
2007-05-23 01:51:35 · answer #7 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It means that under political pressure people who ordinarily a good decent, moral, ethical people cave in and make bad decisions.
2007-05-23 01:52:30 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfithius 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Simply put, if you can't raise a gazillion dollars to run, you'll never win the race regardless of how good your platform is.
2007-05-23 01:53:30 · answer #9 · answered by mister_jl2003 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think he was slamming the Constitutional system. But I doubt he realized it. Probably just a nod to his Liberal, anti- (fill in the blank) friends.
2007-05-23 01:59:14 · answer #10 · answered by Shrink 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋