Apologies if this has been posted: NY Times endorses McCain and Gore
_____________
March 5, 2000
(NY Times Sunday editorial)
Primary Endorsements: John McCain and Al Gore
On Tuesday, New Yorkers, Californians and voters in nine other states have the unusual opportunity of participating in presidential primary elections that could be decisive in their parties' nominating contests.
By the end of the day, it could be clear whether Gov. George W. Bush faces a prolonged battle from Senator John McCain on the Republican side and whether Vice President Al Gore has put an end to former Senator Bill Bradley's campaign for the Democratic nomination.
This page does not always endorse in the presidential primaries. We last did so in 1992. We believe dual pre-nomination endorsements are in order this year because of the competitiveness of the contests and because of the importance of the choices before our readers. These endorsements are also, in some sense, a tribute to the vigor and seriousness that the four candidates have brought to this campaign season. So with a bow of respect to all four for reviving public interest in the election process, we endorse Mr. McCain as the preferable candidate for the Republicans and Mr. Gore as our choice for the Democratic nomination.
The Leadership Test
In their very different ways, each of these two men communicates a greater capacity for overarching presidential leadership than his opponent. Mr. McCain's potential proceeds from deeper knowledge about government and a commitment to reform as a guiding idea rather than a hastily adopted slogan. Mr. Gore, for his part, knows more about domestic and foreign issues than any candidate in either party, and his aura of confidence and readiness for command have intensified while Mr. Bradley's appetite for the job seems to have mysteriously diminished during the campaign.
We have clear disagreements with Mr. McCain on issues like abortion and gun control, as well as profound reservations about Mr. Gore's record on the Clinton-Gore campaign's fund-raising abuses in 1996. But real campaigns seldom present perfect choices. Therefore a nomination endorsement has to take into consideration the broad agenda of challenges that will face the next president and to reflect a reasoned judgment -- and sometimes even a leap of faith -- as to a candidate's ability to rise above ideology and past mistakes. The list of tests confronting the next president is a daunting one. It includes preserving peace and prosperity, improving education, health care and the environment, and healing the religious and racial divisions in American society. In their respective races, Mr. McCain and Mr. Gore are unequivocally the best choices to lead in these areas.
The Republican Race
Clearly, this point in the political calendar finds the Republicans with the more competitive race. While trailing in the important California contest, Mr. McCain is strong in New York and has the potential to prolong a healthy battle for the soul of the G.O.P. The party's leaders first looked to Mr. Bush as a modernizer who would end the damaging "culture wars" that led to President George Bush's defeat in 1992. The governor was presented initially as an inclusive moderate with a short but impressive record in Texas. He improved his state's schools and challenged the G.O.P. status quo by opposing Congressional attempts to balance the budget by punishing the poor.
But in fighting off his opponent, Mr. Bush has embraced a punitive hard-right agenda. After first challenging his party's Congressional leaders, he has made himself an instrument of their opposition to campaign finance reform. His ill-advised tax-cut proposal, miscues on foreign policy, opposition to gun control and vows to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices have further dimmed his appeal.
If he does win the nomination, perhaps he could reclaim his original political persona as a more spacious kind of Republican who would be a uniter, not a divider. But the smarter course for Republicans would be to choose Mr. McCain, who would not have to be repackaged and repositioned when it comes to outreach and reform. He has a proven ability to get votes from the vital center of the American spectrum. He began with a vow to destroy the "iron triangle" of donations, lobbyists and legislation. He broke further with the Republican leadership to oppose Mr. Bush's outsized tax-cut scheme as too weighted toward the wealthy. Bravely, and perhaps foolishly, he became the first important Republican figure to challenge leaders of the religious right for intimidating the party with religious-based litmus tests.
This has led Beltway Republicans to launch a nonsensical effort to depict Mr. McCain as a false conservative. The charge is wrong on the facts. Mr. McCain has opposed gun control and abortion. In the foreign policy area, he has been one of the Clinton administration's toughest critics. Although we do not agree with many of these positions, we think Republican voters should judge him on his real record, not the falsified version being pushed by Mr. Bush's right-wing enforcers.
As a zestful insurgent battling to open his party, Mr. McCain has brought gusts of fresh air, excitement and common sense to American politics. Despite our differences with him on abortion and other important policies, we respect his politics of principle and his opposition to Congressional influence-peddling, and we recommend him to voters in the Republican primaries.
The Democrats
The reality of the Democrats' battle is that Mr. Bradley is on the ropes. Only weeks ago, he seemed the likely beneficiary of primary voters' conflicted attitudes toward President Clinton. The leader who presided over the longest economic boom in American history and accomplished many progressive goals had also brought dishonor to the Oval Office. Mr. Gore could not be blamed for the singular lunacy of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But he was tarnished by fund-raising fiascoes invoked by the very words "Buddhist temple" and "no controlling legal authority."
At first, Mr. Bradley seemed ready to capitalize on a general public impulse to turn the page. But after a promising start, he stumbled badly in regard to policy and performance. His ambitious health care proposal, the initial centerpiece of his campaign, was attractive, especially because of its goal of universal coverage. Yet he never effectively answered Mr. Gore's charge that he had underestimated the cost of his proposals and jeopardized Medicaid and Medicare. Even more striking, Mr. Gore's swarming debate style did not bring out the warrior in Mr. Bradley. Instead, the challenges made him seem petulant and remote.
Perhaps it was simply that the thoughtfulness and independence that marked Mr. Bradley's Senate service did not translate to the stump. Certainly his eloquence on race and his demands for higher ethical standards elevated the campaign. But the voters picked up on Mr. Bradley's lack of energy and on a certain emotional austerity in his connection with them. If overeagerness to please is a defect in Mr. Gore, Mr. Bradley possesses an even more disturbing inability to convey a real hunger for the opportunity to serve.
Al Gore's Potential
There is plenty to criticize in the style and substance of Mr. Gore's record. The Republicans are already planning to run videos of the Buddhist temple event, where Mr. Gore still insists he was shocked to find that money was being raised. In this campaign, he has exaggerated flaws in Mr. Bradley's record and been evasive about the evolution in his own position on abortion, guns and tobacco.
But Mr. Gore brings tremendous gifts to his quest for the White House. Most impressive to us, he communicates a passion to lead, a determination to leave a positive mark on history and a burning desire to step out of his mentor's shadow and prove that he possesses the self-control and presidential high-mindedness so lacking in Mr. Clinton. The Al Gore of today has a deep commitment to social justice, abortion rights and gun control. To make up for his fund-raising lapse in 1996, he promises that if elected he will make campaign finance reform one of the top half-dozen legislative priorities for his first year.
On foreign policy, the vice president is clearly the best-prepared candidate in this race. He is also his party's strongest leader on environmental protection and scientific progress. On issues ranging from preserving the Everglades to pushing for a global treaty on carbon dioxide emissions, he is the primary architect of Mr. Clinton's environmental legacy.
Widely ridiculed for asserting that he invented the Internet, Mr. Gore can actually take credit for seeing the digital world before most other political leaders. He promises to bring a grasp of science and technological advances to the White House at a time when a host of tough problems on everything from Internet privacy to genetic engineering will confront the nation.
Finally, Mr. Gore's experience as a successful partner in making the right decisions on budget and fiscal issues, and in fighting a reactionary Congress to protect and even expand domestic programs, holds great promise for the future. Like Mr. Clinton, the vice president can be a maddening compromiser. But he has a strong internal compass and is more prepared for presidential responsibility than Mr. Clinton was in 1992 and than Mr. Bradley is today.
Our endorsements of Mr. McCain and Mr. Gore apply only to the nomination competitions of their parties. As always, we will wait until late in the general election campaign to make a final endorsement for the presidency. The fall campaign, of course, will provide another set of tests for the final two contestants. But every citizen should hope that the last months of this political year will be marked by the earnest effort that Al Gore, Bill Bradley, John McCain and George W. Bush brought to the primary season.
___
Ibexx |
