Philadelphia Inquirer, a conservative news organization BACKS GORE...........Sunday, October 29, 2000
Editorial
Al Gore for president
It's no lie. He wins any fair comparison on experience, insight
and issues.
Americans should elect Al Gore as their next president.
The vice president is the better choice because his vast experience and earnest
intelligence outstrip what Gov. George W. Bush has to offer.
Yes, Al Gore has pursued this office awkwardly at times. Never will he match Bill
Clinton for charm or guile. For discipline and moral compass, though, he far
surpasses the president he so ably served.
Along with the president, Al Gore deserves fair credit for the deficit-closing
policies that trimmed interest rates, freed up capital and helped unleash the tide of
productivity that buoys the U.S. economy.
He shares with Mr. Clinton a sophisticated grasp of the many forces - from global
trade to digital technology to genetic science to the imperatives of human rights -
that will propel this nation into this new century.
His Republican opponent has run a shrewd, upbeat campaign, with flashes of
eloquence and wit. He has elevated his party's outlook on education and diversity
in ways that ought to endure past Nov. 7.
But there is no way around it. George W. Bush's resume remains remarkably thin
for a man at the threshold of the Oval Office. His likable manner should not lead
voters to gloss over the shaky grasp of policy and the petulance about criticism -
indeed, the general lack of depth - that he has shown in the campaign.
With trust in the vice president's basic desire to do right, with admiration for his
command of issues and with confidence that he will govern more impressively than
he campaigns, The Inquirer endorses AL GORE for president.
Much has been prattled this fall about how insipid is this presidential choice, how
indifferent this electorate. To be sure, the sordid money-grubbing and incessant
posturing of modern presidential politics are dispiriting.
But these are two serious men, Al Gore and George W. Bush. They have talked
this year about issues that truly matter to the bulk of Americans - what one
generation owes the next, how to help children learn, how to make health care
affordable, how to promote American ideals in a dangerous world, how to uphold
values in the face of pell-mell technology and careless pop culture.
Their search for swing voters at times clouds their differences. But the two really
have offered distinct choices that update the ancient arguments between Democrat
and Republican. Gov. Bush's charm and social concern soften but don't erase his
party's schizophrenic distrust of government and blind faith in markets. Mr. Gore
works to blend his longtime centrist focus on results and responsibility with the
populist tradition of fighting for the less powerful.
Of course, that's not what the talk is along the soccer sidelines on these crisp fall
weekends. There you hear Americans, trained into cheap cynicism by too much
scandal, mouthing the pundit's cliche: No really compelling issues.
Decades from now, people will look back at the shrug with which so many
Americans responded to this pivotal moment of prosperity and possibility and slap
their foreheads: How could they not have seen the stakes?
They'll look back at the nasty frame that's been incessantly forced upon this
choice - Gore, liar; Bush, dumb - and see it for what it was: a big, dumb lie.
Gov. Bush, while leery of intellectualism, is not dumb. No one who has seen the
discipline and ingenuity with which he has worked his shattered party back into
the sunlight could claim that. His rep as an amiable dunce, however, has helped
him get away with telling quite a few whoppers on the campaign trail.
Meanwhile, the so-called liar, Mr. Gore, does indeed have an irksome penchant
for exaggeration.
But the real tissue of lies has been the one inflicted upon him by his partisan
detractors. Desperate to lay a "character" indictment on Mr. Gore that neither his
private life nor public acts could justify, they have recklessly distorted his words.
One example among many: Al Gore never claimed to have "discovered" Love
Canal; the students who heard what he actually said have produced the tape.
Did Mr. Gore sully his good name by adding to the fund-raising sins of the 1996
campaign? No question. But he has offered the most practical penance: a vow to
push the McCain-Feingold reform. Gov. Bush, by contrast, having driven John
McCain ruthlessly from the field, has shown no inclination to follow the senator's
inspirational lead in cleaning up the money mess that so many Americans see as a
fatal breach of faith.
That is but one issue where Mr. Gore has staked out higher ground. A quick tour
of other key issues:
The surplus: No, it may not happen. No, Congress won't just enact either guy's
plan. But their priority lists say a lot. Al Gore's stress on paying down the debt is
classic fiscal prudence that would enable flexible government in coming decades.
His complicated tax breaks are less laudable. Gov. Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut
would be reckless and perhaps inflationary; it undercuts every fine promise he
makes on education or health care. He falsely describes the way his plan loads up
tax relief for the wealthy as some kind of mathematical necessity. No, it is a moral
and political choice.
Social Security: Gov. Bush would deserve more credit for addressing its taboo
problem of generational equity, if he hadn't refused coyly to offer key specifics of
his plan for partial privatization.
Health care: Each man is too incremental in helping the uninsured. But Gov. Bush's
abysmal record on this issue in Texas explodes his credibility.
Gun control: Gov. Bush has done little to suggest he would not be a lapdog for the
NRA. Mr. Gore's record is sound.
Environment: Mr. Gore has a 20-year record of commitment mixed with
pragmatic solutions. Gov. Bush didn't even enforce well his father's Clean Air Act.
Supreme Court: Gov. Bush minces no words: His nominees would tip the court
toward ideological activists like Justices Scalia and Thomas. These two cloak their
push to overturn 50 years of progress on racial and social justice in the false
raiment of "strict construction." The potential damage here is vast.
Gov. Bush speaks to great effect about ending a sour season of partisanship. He
doesn't mention that it was some Republicans' visceral hatred of Bill Clinton that
mired Washington in partisan strife from 1992 on.
A key question is how a President Bush would work, not with Democrats, but
with those Hill Republicans. Can he restrain the ideological triumphalism of the
DeLays and Lotts? Their eager support of Gov. Bush suggests they see someone
who won't much get in their way.
Al Gore is a veteran of both houses and of eight years in a White House that
ended deficits by dealing cleverly with an antagonistic Congress. Give him the
clear edge in experience here.
Any choice for president hinges in part on a gut assessment of what cannot be
known: How an individual will cope with the stresses of the world's toughest job,
how he will react to perilous crises or momentous trends yet to unfold.
In Bosnia and elsewhere, Al Gore has shown backbone and wisdom amid the
white heat of foreign crisis. Gov. Bush can only reassure us that he'll keep Dick
Cheney and Colin Powell near at hand.
Al Gore's zeal for thinking creatively about the future is well known. The Bush
approach is to reduce the job to a few basic goals and maxims.
If you think the world America leads in the early 21st century will be a simple,
predictable place, Gov. Bush's blithe style may seem fine to you. But if you
recognize that running the world's greatest democracy and economy will take
great foresight, flexibility and knowledge, then Al Gore is your choice. |
