SF chronicle.......... Our choice: Al Gore
EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER
Oct. 08, 2000
In the race for president, there are two
strong candidates, but one of them
stands out as the leader America needs
now
IF WE were to design the perfect leader for the
United States, he - or she - would be a strong
advocate of a woman's right to choose, of gun
control, of closing the gap between the poor and the
rich, of protecting the environment, of education
reform, of human rights, of protecting national
security and of keeping the economy strong.
He or she would also be a person of integrity, a
leader who could pilot America's voyage toward a
stronger, more humane future.
Two major candidates applied for the job of
president. Al Gore, the vice president, and George
W. Bush, governor of Texas, bring impressive
talents and resumes to the long-lasting national
employment interview.
Gov. Bush intrigues us, as he does many
Americans. He possesses a force of personality that
makes people feel comfortable, included and
confident. We believe he would prove to be a
pragmatic leader rather than an ideological stooge.
But we also recognize that, in many ways, he does
not see the world as we do.
He is anti-abortion rights, no matter how much he
tries to mask or neutralize that fact. He does not
believe in strong gun control. He has not been an
enthusiastic environmentalist. His tax plan favors the
wealthy, and his economic prowess has yet to be
tested. He has strong education credentials but his
support for school vouchers is mistaken.
Gore, along with his running mate Joseph
Lieberman, provides a more glove-like fit for our
views (although we'd like to educate him on why
capital punishment is a crime against society). He is
unstintingly pro-choice. He backs the sternest gun
control measures, including the licensing of
handguns. If Gore isn't an "environmental president,"
no one will be. His plan for tax cuts returns more
money to the people who really need it. He would
not drain public End of Column 1education for risky
reform schemes.
He would fight for the rights of gays and other
groups historically left out of the power structure.
And his record on the economy is best summed up
by the answer to the question: Are you better off
than you were eight years ago?
Yet Gore is not perfect. His stiff, sometimes
patronizing manner is off-putting. He waffles. He
seems too rehearsed and his predilection for
exaggeration is mildly worrisome. But, as we should
have learned by now, we're not electing an
entertainer-in-chief. Substance matters immensely
more.
The Democratic foreign policy has suffered from
being episodic and perhaps resorting too quickly to
force when solid, sustained diplomacy might have
produced longer lasting, and less bloody, results. As
president, Gore should sign the international treaty
banning land mines.
In domestic affairs, the White House has tended
toward hit-skip intervention, discovering a crisis and
then quickly abandoning it. As he raises campaign
funds, we hope Gore finds his misplaced
"controlling legal authority."
It's crazy to think that either Gore or Bush would be
a runaway success while his opponent would prove
a dismal failure. But Gore will protect Roe v. Wade,
while there's good reason to think Bush will not.
Gore will not open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil exploration; Bush says he will. Gore is
more likely to lead the country toward economic
justice. He is against Bush's monstrously large tax
cuts, which even Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan
says we don't need. Big rebates could throw the
economy out of whack by accelerating inflation.
George W. Bush has a bright future as a national
political figure, but Al Gore is the best candidate to
lead the United States over the next four years. The
issues favor him by a wide margin. Give him your
vote.
End of Column 2 |
