Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (54207)	10/29/2000 6:43:04 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 769670

Editorial: The choice for president Gore is better prepared, has a clearer vision and is right on the issues. By DesMoines Register Editorial Board 10/29/2000 If the choice for president came down to a question of likability, Texas Gov. George W. Bush would be the easy pick. He'd be the one with whom it would be more enjoyable to spend an afternoon at the ball game. He might also be the one whose congeniality would allow him to reach across party lines, an element of leadership that is perhaps his most appealing feature. But being likable is not the most important quality in a president. Far more important are a clear sense of direction about the future, a thorough preparation for the job and being on the right side of the issues. On those counts, Vice President Al Gore is head and shoulders above his rival. Gore is the son of a U.S. senator. He has served both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate as well as eight years as vice president. He has prepped himself intently - some would say too intently - for the presidency. He is conversant with every issue from urban sprawl to global warming. Bush is the son of a president and grandson of a senator. He has served one and a half terms as governor of Texas, a state with a constitutionally weak governorship. Gore's experience and his breadth of knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs are superior to Bush's. Knowledge alone is not enough. It needs to be applied to set an agenda for the nation, and Gore has done that. The core of his thinking is that the nation must find ways to extend the benefits of the remarkable prosperity to those Americans it hasn't yet reached. His package of proposals on education, savings incentives, targeted tax cuts and medical care are geared toward that end. Whatever the merits of Gore's specific proposals, the general goal is what the nation should be striving for. Great disparities of wealth, as have occurred in recent years, are not wholesome in a democracy that wishes to endure. Bush's vision for America, issue by issue, is weaker than Gore's. On energy and the environment, Bush's simplistic answer is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Gore looks farther ahead, emphasizing the need to develop alternative energy sources and pointing out that cleaning up the environment can strengthen, rather than weaken, the economy. On the federal budget, both candidates would dissipate the projected surpluses too freely - Bush through tax cuts, Gore through spending. Still, Gore's plan is slightly better because it would pay down more of the national debt than would Bush's plan. Debt reduction should be the top fiscal priority. On prescription-drug coverage for seniors, Gore's proposal for a single plan under Medicare would provide the buying clout to help hold down the rising costs of drugs more than Bush's plan for relying on multiple HMOs. On agriculture, Gore's interest in using conservation payments as a way to supplement farm income would get the nation more for its dollars than simply giving away emergency aid when prices dip. To their credit, both candidates have a good grasp of farm issues and an interest in rural economic development. On Social Security, Bush's proposal for letting people partially opt out of Social Security would hasten the day the trust fund is depleted. Better to leave Social Security intact and encourage additional retirement savings as a supplement to the system, rather than as a replacement for it. On education, Bush would rely chiefly on federal mandates to force testing and might divert resources from public schools with vouchers for private schools. Gore would put more money into shoring up public schools. On civil rights, Gore supports continuation of affirmative action to help include those who have been historically shut out of the American dream. It's hard to tell where Bush stands. On abortion rights, Gore would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would be likely to uphold the right of women to make the decision for themselves. Bush opposes abortion rights and would be more likely to appoint justices who would put the decision in the hands of the government. These are not small differences. Voters have a definite choice. Both are good men. Both are better than the caricatures painted by their detractors. Neither is likely to rank among the greatest presidents, but either would probably be a president of whom Americans could be proud. In our view, looking at experience, vision and the issues, the choice is Gore. Send a letter to the editor More Forum Extra