To be honest, I am surprised that Gore and Kerry did as well as they did.
BTW, which candidate conceded defeat then retracted it and brought the case to to court first, Bush or Gore? Seems to me one would have a pretty good case for saying that Gore went to the Florida Supreme Court to do illegal hand recounts in only democraticly controled districts in an attempt to steal the election.
.
2007-07-08 14:58:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
That is not really a correct question. Bush was appointed president over Gore. The majority of Americans wanted Gore to be the president in 2000. Now Kerry was a complete idiot who did not stand for anything, he flipped flopped all the way through his campaign. So no it is easy to see why Bush beat Kerry.
2007-07-08 14:42:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, Bush didn't technically beat Gore, the Supreme Court did. Kerry was just too unelectable, a flaming-lipped, flip-flopping, wishy-washy liberal from New England was just what Bush needed to concoct his perfect storm of "leadership, homophobia, war chief" v. " weak godless lying liberal" to re-take the White House against all odds.
2007-07-08 14:44:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by LaLyLoo 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am suprised that Bush beat Gore because i thought it was harder for someone to rig an election. Kerry sucked and it was a toss up between him and Bush because they both suck. It's time we elect leaders who care about making the country better instead of insider politics and scams.
2007-07-08 14:55:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Kerry disrespected the troops gore is a nutcase and well bush is a proven patriotic leader who has stayed the coarse and protected America from the terrorist i cannot say enough about him well i can say this i voted for President George Bush twice
2007-07-08 15:18:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
He cheated in 2000, by not doing a recount, now look at the damage done. Kerry was accused of flip flopping.
2007-07-08 15:00:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
given Al Gore and John Kerry, I think that Ronald Reagan's famous co-star in "Bedtime for Bonzo" might have won the elections.
{hint for you youngsters -- Bonzo was a chimp.}
:-)
2007-07-08 14:44:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Spock (rhp) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
traditionally presidents maximum efficient adjust to by ability of way of on greater or less 25% of their campaign ensures. often, they opt to do all of them, that's the reason they promise...and then they stumble on out that paying for concerns achieved in Washington is a lot like breeding elephants.... It takes situation with a awesome deal of roaring and screaming. It takes situation at a precise degree. It takes 2 years to get result. i'm particular lots of them propose sturdy, in spite of the undeniable fact that no president can purely walk in and do some element they choose, regardless of ways sturdy meaning. And Obama is not any diverse. I choose he can do between the needed concerns he ensures, in spite of the undeniable fact that once gazing at previous presidents, each and every Democrat and Republican, I purely fairly do no longer anticipate it.
2016-10-01 04:22:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
suprised about Gore, but not Kerry, what a joke he was.
2007-07-08 14:40:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by slik_dude 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes i saw live coverage on the daily show :) go bush!
2007-07-08 17:02:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by williebaznj 2
·
0⤊
1⤋