Al Gore
By Holv03
@Holv03 (528)
United States
September 15, 2008 4:44am CST
I know that a lot of people here know that Al Gore could off been our president a few years ago. He ran for president in 2000 and lost a very close race. Do you think the United States would be in a better position nowaday if Al Gore was our president since 2000? Or would it be about the same or worst? Have you ever thought about how the USA would be if he was our current president and was elected in 2000.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@cbreeze (1205)
• United States
15 Sep 08
I don't think about it that often anymore. I stopped thinking about it when he didn't run again in 2004. But, yes I do think we would have been better off than we are today. I'm not very fond of Bush and his peformance as president. But I am even more disturbed by Cheney as the VP. I think his attitude toward the American public was very arrogant. When questioned about things by the press, he would literally respond, that he doesn't have to explain himself. Bush while not at all an eloquent speaker, would at least give some pretense that he cared about public perception. I think Al Gore really did have a passion for our country and its people. I think he would have been a better citizen of the international community than the Bush administration was. I think he would have done more to address foreign issues and resolve problems without going to war. I don't think we would be in Iraq today if Al Gore had been president.
@cbreeze (1205)
• United States
15 Sep 08
Okay Xfactor, I just read it on Wikapedia. But can you help me with the part that states
"The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Maybe I'm being impatient in reading it, but I don't see the clarification as to that section. Are you familiar with it?
@evanslf (484)
•
15 Sep 08
In terms of the economy, might not have been much difference - economies go up and down irrespective of what politicians do. We are now in a bad patch, would have been the same under Al Gore.
However, I suspect that there would have been clear differences in relation to fiscal policy, ie there wouldn't have been those unfunded tax cuts targetted principally at the rich, so I suspect our fiscal position in terms of budget deficit would have been far better.
One never knows what a politician would have done in power had he been elected. If one takes Al Gore at his word, then he would not have invaded Iraq so that would have saved us all a pretty packet. Then again, had he been in office, the temptation to act like the 'tough leader' and wear the 'military uniform' might have been too great (how often in history have we seen leaders act as the 'tough guy', it is so easy and garners votes...)
On the environment, no doubt Al Gore would have done more than George Bush, though that wouldn't exactly have been difficult! But then again, politicians out of power talk a lot but in power often deliver disappointing results. He certainly would have done more than Bush in this area, though maybe not as much more as people would think.
All in all though, it is difficult to see how Al Gore would have been worse than George Bush, he might have been a little better or much better, but we will never know.
