Picking a leader

Al Gore for president
Plus, Lincoln Chafee for US Senate,
Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin for
US House of Representatives

Al Gore

THE SIGH VERSUS the smirk. The liar versus the idiot. Tweedledum versus Tweedledee. That's what campaign 2000 comes down to. At least it is if you believe the press, the daft utterances of the "undecided voters," or the rhetoric of the Green Party's opportunistic candidate.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There are huge differences between Vice-President Al Gore and Texas governor George W. Bush. For starters, one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, which means there is a Grand Canyon-size gulf between their positions on taxes, the military, foreign policy, abortion, affirmative action, civil rights for gay men and lesbians, gun control, and the environment -- and between the philosophies they would follow in making selections for the federal bench and the United States Supreme Court.

That is why the Phoenix urges you to vote for Vice-President Al Gore for president and Senator Joseph Lieberman for vice-president.

Our country is poised to go one of two ways after this election: forward or backward. There's no question that Bush would take us back. His reckless tax plan would immediately blow about a quarter of the projected (and let's not forget it's only projected) budget surplus on givebacks to the wealthiest one percent of all Americans. Bush can call his tax plan "tax relief" until he's blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that it is nothing more than a gold-leaf-plated bone for the Big Money interests who have financed his campaign.

Bush has surrounded himself -- even placed on his ticket -- leftovers from his father's administration:

Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, former undersecretary of state Robert Zoellick, and former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey. He has been so inarticulate while campaigning, and so unimpressive during the debates, that it's hard to see him as anything more than a flawed vessel through which these reactionary GOP forces will govern.

To suggest, as Ralph Nader has, that there is no difference between Gore and Bush is as reckless as Bush's bankrupt policies themselves. Tax reform or tax cuts? A foreign policy that engages the world, or one that isolates us from the global stage? Affirmative action or affirmative "access"? Gay rights or "special rights" -- the right-wing code phrase preferred by Bush? Environmental protection for Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or oil-drilling equipment? Protection of Roe v. Wade or further weakening of a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? These are important issues that will shape our country for generations.

And yet Nader continues to charge that there are no differences between the candidates. Even so, for reasons clearly rooted in political expediency, he attacks only Gore, not Bush. Unlike even Pat Buchanan -- who is focusing his campaign on states where Bush's lead is solid -- Nader is reportedly ratcheting up his campaign in states where Bush and Gore are neck and neck. In Florida, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, for example, support for Nader may draw enough votes from Gore to put Bush over the top. Nader as protector of the people and the environment? Nader as petulant spoiler is more like it.

Yes, Nader has every right to run. His third-party campaign, like Ross Perot's in 1992, is bringing valuable ideas to the national discussion. It's also drawing many more young people into the political process, which is critical. But what's ironic about Nader's campaign against Gore -- and make no mistake, Nader is running against Gore and not Bush -- is that, overall, he's not a particularly good alternative to Gore. Sure, he's for campaign-finance reform, but Gore says it will be his first priority. Granted, Gore, like his mentor President Bill Clinton, has been a bit slippery on occasion, but this would be a difficult pledge for him to wriggle out of. And Gore, unlike Nader, has a shot at winning and carrying out his promise. Nader is an environmentalist, but so is Gore -- he wrote Earth in the Balance and has been a staunch advocate of the need to deal with global warming. He even earned the not-intended-to-be-flattering moniker "Ozone Man" from W.'s father. Once in office Gore will far outdistance the efforts of Clinton, who was never much of a nature boy.

The real difference between Nader and Gore? Nader opposes free-trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, while Gore supports them. There's no question these agreements are flawed, but they're absolutely essential in today's global marketplace. And it is simply naive to deny that free trade has played a significant role in our current economic prosperity. It's also worth noting here that the major unions have all endorsed Gore. At least Gore has said he wants environmental and workers'-rights provisions written into these agreements. Think Bush will do that?

Another difference between Gore and Nader involves the issue of race. Gore understands the problem of racism in this country. He speaks about it passionately. And he wants to protect affirmative action. Nader says he supports affirmative action -- well, he hasn't actually said it, but he's posted his supportive position on his Web site. But Nader sees the problem of racial discrimination only in terms of economic discrimination -- i.e., poverty. As if wealthy black men weren't pulled over by cops practicing racial profiling. As if African-American executives weren't bumping up against the same glass ceilings as women. As if this country's racial divide sprang only from urban pockets of poverty and horrendous public schools -- and not, as it actually does, from several centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and lynchings, on top of urban poverty.

Yet another difference between Nader and Gore: gay rights. During Nader's first presidential run in 1996, he infamously dismissed the issue as "gonadal politics." Today, he's refused to say he supports the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry. During a May 7 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Nader dodged the question. After Russert asked -- for the third time -- what his position was, Nader finally answered in part: "I think homosexuals have the right of civil union."

Does Nader deserve your vote? Not in this election.

But Al Gore does. The vice-president is a good candidate who has run a deeply flawed campaign -- letting it become about George W. Bush and his, ahem, ideas, instead of Gore's own. But he shouldn't be punished for this. There's no question: the ticket of Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman is the best choice for this country for the next four years.

Al Gore supports a muscular foreign policy that will work to prevent genocidal conflict. He will allow our troops to be used for humanitarian peacekeeping missions. He will be reliable in his support of Israel.

Al Gore will continue the fiscal discipline and budgetary responsibility put in place under President Clinton. He has proposed a cautious but responsible tax program that will reward those in our society who were left out of the recent economic boom. Gore will push for a $10,000 tuition tax credit and opposes the notion of gambling with Social Security taxes in the stock market.

Al Gore will protect a woman's right to choose, and he will do so by selecting federal and Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade. Remember that the next president will appoint two, and quite possibly four, Supreme Court justices, as well as dozens of other federal judges. As Gore said during the first presidential debate: "The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision's going to be overturned. I support a woman's right to choose. My opponent does not. . . . I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade."

Al Gore will sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will prevent companies from firing employees solely on the basis of their sexual orientations.

Al Gore will block oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic Wildlife National Refuge.

Al Gore will safeguard the nation's policies of affirmation action.

Al Gore not only needs your vote -- he deserves it.

US Senate

John Chafee is undoubtedly a tough act to follow, but Rhode Islanders are fortunate to have two strong choices from which to select his first elected successor in the Senate. US Representative Robert Weygand is an intelligent and dedicated Democrat who has shown his willingness to be independent. And Lincoln Chafee, although less experienced than his opponent in working on federal issues, is a conscientious moderate who has proven a quick study since being appointed last year to serve the remainder of his late father's term.

With the Republicans holding a 54-46 advantage in the Senate, many election observers think the GOP is likely to retain the majority. As much as we'd like the Democrats to retake the House and Senate, the importance of having moderates to temper the reactionary tendencies of the Republican Party can't be overstated.

In many ways, Chafee and Weygand are similar. Both oppose the death penalty and school vouchers, for example. And neither appears inclined to offer leadership in challenging our nation's misguided war on drugs, which emphasizes incarceration and interdiction at the cost of treatment and demand reduction. But there are some important differences between the candidates, particularly on abortion rights. While he's correct to note that he's not a zealot on the issue, Weygand has repeatedly voted to restrict the reproductive rights of women. In contrast, Chafee is a strong supporter of choice.

Chafee also enjoys the good fortune of sharing his father's name. It's a huge political advantage, of course, to be so closely linked with a man who exemplified bipartisan cooperation and the spirit of public service. While a name isn't sufficient reason to support a candidate, we do expect this son to build on the legacy of the father. The Providence Phoenix endorses Lincoln Chafee for US Senate.

US House of Representatives

US Representative Patrick Kennedy, who came surprisingly close to losing his first campaign for the House six years ago, has since emerged as a congressional leader. In contrast, Stephen Cabral of Tiverton, the Republican candidate in the First Congressional District, is best described as a token opponent.

While each candidate had difficulty this year with bad judgment (Kennedy in losing his cool with a security agent at Los Angeles International Airport, Cabral with a Web site that envisioned Kennedy's political death, complete with headstone), Kennedy has a strong record when it comes to representing the people of Rhode Island. Indeed, his typical inclinations were reflected shortly after the LA episode when -- in the aftermath of the shooting death of police Officer Cornel Young Jr. -- Kennedy returned to Providence to deliver a pitch-perfect address on the inequities of race.

Critics may deride the amount of time he has spent fund-raising outside the state, but we fully support the efforts by Kennedy, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to restore a Democratic majority in Congress. The Providence Phoenix endorses Patrick Kennedy for Congress.

The defining event of James Langevin's life remains the accidental shooting that paralyzed him at age 16 and inspired his involvement in politics. During two terms as secretary of state, the Democrat has championed the cause of open government, and he's now poised to be elected to the US House of Representatives.

Although we disagree with some of Langevin's stances, particularly his opposition to abortion rights, we respect his commitment to public service. The Providence Phoenix endorses Jim Langevin for Congress.