ST.LOUIS DISPATCH..........Posted: Sunday, October 22, 2000 | 9:10 a.m.
E-mail this Story to a friend
Al Gore for president
ELECTION 2000
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE should elect Al Gore because he is far better prepared to
be president than Gov. George W. Bush and because he believes that government
can be a positive force in people's lives.
Mr. Gore has prepared for this daunting job for three decades. He served as one of the
most influential members of Congress, taking the lead on arms control, the
environment and -- yes -- the development of the military computer system that was a
precursor of the Internet. Then, as one of history's most active vice presidents, he led
the effort to cut the size of government.
Mr. Bush, his likable opponent, doesn't have what it takes. His resume is thin and his
command of issues is thinner. This is a man who governs the biggest state in the
lower 48 from 9-5, with two hours out for lunch. Working stiffs should have it so good.
Ralph Nader is an attractive alternative. There is some truth in his analysis of how
corporate America corrupts the political process. But his opposition to free trade runs
against the tide of history. A vote for Mr. Nader is, effectively, a vote for Mr. Bush.
Mr. Gore believes in an activist government that helps teach the poorly educated, treat
the poorly cared for and level the playing field between the haves and have-nots.
Regrettably, Mr. Gore sometimes sounds as though he is passing out candy. He
should better explain the uniting vision behind the many programs.
Mr. Bush's compassionate conservatism is a welcome departure from the hard-right
slant of the GOP. Mr. Bush is to the GOP what Bill Clinton was to the Democrats -- a
moderating influence who makes the party presentable in public.
If Mr. Gore loses, it will probably be because of a smarmy streak and lingering doubts
about his ethics. Mr. Gore isn't nearly as likable as Mr. Bush.
Moreover, the GOP and their propagandists have done a spectacular job making out
Mr. Gore as a liar. During the debates, much was made of Mr. Gore exaggerating how
long a girl had to stand without a desk in a Sarasota, Fla. school. The local
newspaper reported that the girl was one of 12 children in a science classroom
without a desk and that the school district had a serious overcrowding problem. Yet,
somehow, Mr. Gore is the "serial exaggerator."
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush said in the debates that Texas spent $4.7 billion on the
uninsured, when the amount was $1.2 billion. He said he engineered passage of a
patients' bill of rights in Texas, when he body-slammed it. He smirked in the second
debate when talking about executions, and then denied he had.
What's important is what the men would do as president. It matters that Mr. Bush
doesn't support the Norwood-Dingell version of the Patients' Bill of Rights because it
has the broadest coverage and strongest right to sue.
Mr. Gore is for middle class tax cuts rather than the $1.3 trillion cut that Mr. Bush
admits would benefit the rich. Mr. Gore would create a Medicare entitlement for
prescription drugs, while Mr. Bush would rely on private firms that could leave their
members high and dry by getting out of the business. Mr. Gore would use the national
surplus to bolster Social Security; Mr. Bush would divert some of that money through
partial privatization.
Mr. Gore opposes school vouchers; Mr. Bush supports them. Mr. Gore would address
global warming and bar oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska,
while Mr. Bush doesn't know if global warming is real and is ready to drill. Mr. Gore
favored the use of the military to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, while Mr. Bush
had reservations. Mr. Gore would spend more on the military than Mr. Bush, but Mr.
Bush claims, falsely, that the military isn't prepared.
A crucial issue is the Supreme Court, where changes in the makeup of the court can
alter our fundamental charter of government. If Mr. Bush clones Clarence Thomas and
Antonin Scalia, the court will read the right to abortion out of the Constitution, knock
holes in the wall between church and state and continue to cut back Congress' power
to promote equality. We cannot let that happen. |
