Presidential endorsements

Bill Bradley for the Democrats; John McCain for Republicans and independents

Our political system is corrupt at its core. Just as in the Gilded Age of 100 years ago, special-interest money has warped the legislative process so thoroughly that there is little hope of the public's voice being heard. Lobbyists virtually wrote the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which swept away long-established bans on media monopolies. Insurance-company money killed health-care reform. For years, campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association have held meaningful gun control at bay.

In the 2000 presidential race, the Phoenix endorses two men who have made campaign-finance reform the central theme of their candidacies. Republicans and independents should vote for John McCain, whose insurgency could actually carry him all the way to the White House. Democrats should support Bill Bradley, who, despite his fading fortunes, nevertheless has stood as a principled advocate of reform.

These are not easy endorsements for a progressive newspaper to make. The Democratic establishment's candidate, Al Gore, not only is a virtual clone of Bradley on the issues, but is also better prepared to be president. In addition, Gore is a far more energetic presence -- not to mention a superior debater, which would serve him in good stead against the Republican candidate this fall. McCain is less conservative than the Republicans' anointed one, George W. Bush, on taxes and a few other issues, but he is still a doctrinaire conservative on matters ranging from "don't ask, don't tell" to environmental protection. Nevertheless, the handshake agreement Bradley and McCain reached in New Hampshire last year, in which they pledged to get millions of dollars in special-interest money out of politics, stands as the most hopeful symbol to date that we can do better.

Solely on the basis of his sunny personality and his record of courage and heroism, McCain is an immensely attractive candidate. Charismatic, funny, and admirably comfortable with himself and with others, he is seemingly the opposite of the preprogrammed politicians with whom the public has grown so weary. Unfortunately, his career in the Senate has been that of a garden-variety conservative, and he's made no secret of his beliefs on the campaign trail. He is anti-choice, he opposes affirmative-action quotas, he has a lousy record on gun control, he supports Internet censorship, and he's seeking an unnecessary military build-up -- stands that should be anathema to progressives. But the plot is a bit more complicated than that. Not only has McCain proposed far-reaching campaign-finance reform, but he's declared war on the special interests in his own party -- including, most significantly, the religious right -- in a way that raises hopes of a more inclusive, mainstream Republican Party in the years to come. In that vein, McCain's denunciation of the loathsome Pat Robertson this week was especially welcome -- although it was somewhat soured by his willingness to consort with an equally loathsome religious-right figure, Gary Bauer, who has called the Vermont Supreme Court's pro-gay-marriage decision "worse than terrorism." (Then again, McCain himself has called gay marriage "crazy," which is unfortunate, though not substantively different from the stands taken by the other three contenders.)

McCain does not exactly come to the issue of campaign-finance reform with clean hands: he was caught up in the Keating Five savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s, and he's never been averse to doing business with the lobbyists who come before the Senate Commerce Committee, which he chairs. But he freely admits to playing by the rules of the game as they are now, and insists he's determined to change the rules once he's in a position to do so. His harrowing experience as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, where he was kept for five and a half years after refusing to give his captors a propaganda victory by accepting an early release, may not be directly applicable to what kind of president he would make. But it does suggest that, once he's decided to stake his reputation to an idea, he will neither sell out nor give in.

Bush, on the other hand, is a pawn of the very special interests against whom McCain and Bradley are fighting. Not only did Bush manage to raise a record $65 million, but he became the first major candidate to reject spending limits (and, thus, public financing), mocking the few limits that currently exist. Bush's late-to-the-scene, wholly inadequate campaign-finance-reform proposal was as credible as the "reformer with results" slogan he unveiled in South Carolina to counter McCain's genuine reformist agenda. The truth is that Bush is as bought and paid for as any presidential candidate to come along since smoking was outlawed in those old smoke-filled rooms. His nomination would signal not just a continuation of the status quo, but a distressing confirmation that there really is no place at the table for average Americans. Party on, W.

The Bradley insurgency, unfortunately, appears to have come to a premature end. Bradley came within four points of beating the vice-president in New Hampshire, which should have positioned him for a strong challenge. But the fact that he had blown an earlier lead, combined with the public's (and the media's) fascination with McCain, appears to have left Bradley far behind. This is not entirely a cause for anguish. Both Bradley and Gore hold progressive views on a broad range of issues: choice, gay rights, race, health care (though Bradley has the more ambitious plan), the environment (where Gore is a nationally respected leader), and an expanded federal role in public education, to name a few. But though both men claim they're for campaign-finance reform, Gore is utterly unconvincing.

Gore is a classic Washington insider who counts lobbyists among his closest friends. When he was caught calling contributors from his office at the White House -- a possible violation of laws against fundraising on federal property -- he responded with an embarrassing news conference in which he repeatedly asserted there was "no controlling legal authority" prohibiting that activity. There are still many who question what Gore knew and when he knew it regarding that now-infamous fundraiser at a Buddhist temple. More broadly, Gore is an integral part of an administration that, in 1996, was involved in the most corrupt fundraising operation since Richard Nixon. Gore has spoken out against none of this, merely mouthing his support for campaign-finance reform as if that were good enough. It isn't.

Bradley has raised -- too late and too quietly -- the specter that Gore's (and Bill Clinton's) transgressions will be used against the Democrats in a general-election campaign. Bradley is absolutely correct. The truth is, the major difference between Bill Bradley and Al Gore is that Bradley has an impeccable reputation for integrity and honesty.

Eleven states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine, will go to the polls this Tuesday -- "Super Tuesday," as it has been called. By the time they are finished, some 70 percent of the delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions will have been selected. Much is at stake. Vote.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.