Picking a leader

Al Gore for president. Plus, congressional and ballot-initiative endorsements.

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 Congress

The Phoenix enthusiastically endorses US Senator Edward M. Kennedy for re-election. In his 38 years of service, Kennedy has been a champion of the poor, the working class, minority constituencies, gay men and lesbians -- in short, those who don't have a strong voice in government. He has been an ardent defender of a woman's right to choose an abortion. And his long-standing support for this state's strong university system has aided our ongoing economic boom. There is no question that Kennedy is the strongest candidate in the race. Still, the Phoenix would have liked to see Kennedy agree to debate his opponents. The public deserves to hear the issues aired in a forum beyond day-to-day news coverage and press releases.

In this Senate race, Libertarian candidate Carla Howell has run an impressive, well-funded, and thoughtful campaign. In doing so, Howell has articulated a dramatically different vision for the role of government in Massachusetts. If she gets three percent of the vote, then the Libertarian Party gets to keep its major-party status in Massachusetts. And that would be a good thing. It's not that all the Libertarian Party's ideas (such as abolishing the federal income tax or doing away with gun control) should be adopted; it's that the real sense of intellectual ferment in the Libertarian Party could eventually reinvigorate the two major parties in this state -- especially when compared to what the Republicans have contributed to this dialogue in the person of US Senate candidate Jack E. Robinson. Robinson, who has been sued over plagiarism charges, accused by credible sources of sexual harassment, and chewed out by a bankruptcy-court judge over a business he was hoping to acquire, is not a credible candidate by any standard.

In the races for US Congress, none of our 10 Democratic House members faces more than token opposition. In a state where politics has always been a favorite spectator sport, the lack of any close races comes as something of a shock. Although it's great for Democrats in the short term, ultimately a one-party system becomes stale and fails. This election season should be a wake-up call for state Republicans, and particularly for Governor Paul Cellucci, all of whom showed an astonishing lack of leadership in being unable to field any credible candidates for Congress.

---

Ballot initiatives Question 1. The Phoenix recommends a yes vote. If approved, this measure would amend the Massachusetts Constitution so that the redistricting process, which occurs after every census, would proceed faster. Specifically, Massachusetts's redistricting would occur in 2002, when US Census data will be available, instead of at its currently scheduled time in 2004. This measure has already been unanimously approved by the state legislature in two separate terms. Question 2. The Phoenix recommends a no vote. If approved, this measure would amend the Massachusetts Constitution so that incarcerated felons would be prohibited from voting in 11 specific elections: those for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state treasurer, state auditor, secretary of state, state representative, state senator, governor's councilor, US senator, and US representative. Currently, Massachusetts is one of only three states that let inmates vote. Even if this measure passes, prisoners will still be able to vote for any office outside the 11 specified in the Massachusetts Constitution, including president, vice-president, county sheriff, mayor, and city councilor. This means that if Question 2 passes, it will pose an administrative nightmare for municipal officials, who will have to prepare separate ballots for prisoners that don't include the 11 offices named above. This measure is rooted in a petty act by Governor Paul Cellucci, who in 1997 filed an executive order banning prisoners from forming political-action committees; he did this after Joseph Labriola, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, formed the Massachusetts Prisoners Association to lobby for better prison conditions. As a result of the executive order, Department of Correction officials searched prisoners' cells for political literature, which is now considered contraband. In other words, this ballot question isn't rooted in deeply held philosophical beliefs about who should be allowed the privilege of voting or what constitutes appropriate retribution for the commission of crimes. It is instead rooted in a pathetic attempt to look tough on crime. In the past decade, Massachusetts has moved from a prison policy aimed at rehabilitation to one aimed at retribution. Given that 97 percent of Massachusetts inmates will eventually return to society, shouldn't we encourage them to maintain connections to the outside world? If an inmate cares enough about public affairs to vote, he or she should be encouraged to do so. Taking part in the political system could be an important part of re-entry into society. Question 3. The Phoenix recommends a no vote. If approved, this measure would ban dog racing in Massachusetts. On the surface, Question 3 seems like an easy way to end animal abuse. But it isn't. The tracks in Revere and Raynham-Taunton are just two stops on the national greyhound-racing circuit. And by all accounts, dog abuse doesn't take place in Massachusetts, where the sport is heavily regulated. So approving Question 3 will not end the abuse of greyhounds that does, by many accounts, take place in other states. No one, anywhere, should countenance cruelty to animals, but there is something incredibly disturbing and distasteful about activists' using propaganda drawn from abuses at out-of-state tracks to pass a measure that will close the two dog tracks in Massachusetts and throw 1200 people out of work. Question 4. The Phoenix recommends a no vote. If approved, this measure would roll back, over three years, the state's income tax from 5.85 percent to five percent. Proponents of the ballot question say that the state must keep a pledge -- made in 1989, when the tax was increased -- that the hike would be temporary. Indeed, such a promise was made to voters -- although it wasn't written into law. Unfortunately, former governor William Weld and then-lieutenant governor Paul Cellucci, aided and abetted by the Democratic leadership on Beacon Hill, have already given the money back -- but not to us. In the mid 1990s, state leaders gave away about $1 billion in tax breaks to Raytheon and Fidelity and cuts in the estate and capital-gains taxes. Governor Cellucci, who has staked a good chunk of his gubernatorial legacy on this measure, says that government should keep its promises. Generally, we agree; but the problem is that our state government can't afford to give back another $1 billion -- which is what this tax cut would cost. Our state surplus is needed to fund everything from Big Dig overruns (currently about $1.4 billion) to strapped human-services programs. If Cellucci wants to keep the government's promise, he should take back the money he gave away in the form of corporate welfare and promised treats for the likes of the Red Sox, and then give it back to the working people of Massachusetts.

Ballot initiatives Question 5. The Phoenix recommends a no vote. This measure, if passed, would mandate universal health-care coverage in Massachusetts. Although that's an appealing prospect, it's important to remember that the proponents of Question 5 used this ballot question as a sledgehammer with which to extract a patients' bill of rights from the legislature -- a bill that imposes stricter controls on HMOs. Although the advocates promised to withdraw the question after the patients' bill of rights passed, it was too late, according to state law, to remove it from the ballot. So the referendum remains. Question 5 is a hugely complicated measure that, while admirable in its intent, would cost the state billions of dollars over the next few years and further complicate an already messy system. In addition, the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says the measure would drive insurance rates through the roof. There's no question that we need health-care reform in this country, but Question 5 isn't the way to achieve it. Government by complex, poorly understood referendums is always a bad idea, and there is no better example than this measure. Question 6. The Phoenix recommends a no vote. This measure, if passed, would provide a dollar-for-dollar rebate of highway tolls. (The Massachusetts Constitution does not allow for the outright abolition of tolls.) This is a terrible idea. Tolls are a user fee paid directly by people who choose to drive. As such, these fees are something we ought to support. They also help the environment by providing an incentive for people to take public transportation instead of driving. The idea behind this measure is that the Massachusetts Turnpike was paid for a long time ago, and thus should no longer be collecting tolls. But highway construction continues in this state, and the ability to levy tolls is crucial to help pay for Big Dig overruns. There is also little doubt that if this were to pass, the legislature would have to find the funds elsewhere -- for example, in a general gas-tax increase, which then would force even drivers who don't use toll roads to pay. Question 7. The Phoenix recommends a yes vote. This measure, if passed, would simply express support for a state law that was passed by the legislature in July. That law allows for the creation of a state tax deduction for charitable donations. Forty-two other states already have such deductions. One of the arguments against this provision is that it could dramatically affect the amount of money the state collects in taxes. That could happen if people were allowed a dollar-for-dollar deduction on the amount of tax owed. But this measure is modeled after the federal charitable deduction, which simply reduces the amount of income on which tax is owed. Massachusetts ranks last in the nation for charitable giving, according to a recent survey by the Urban Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics; clearly, Bay Staters could use some incentive to give. Question 8. The Phoenix recommends a yes vote. This measure, if passed, would make it harder for law-enforcement officials and prosecutors to seize property from accused drug offenders and use the proceeds to supplement their own budgets. It would also make it easier for judges to sentence drug offenders to treatment rather than jail -- something that would really help mitigate drug dealing and use. All the state's district attorneys, Governor Cellucci, and Attorney General Tom Reilly are opposed to the measure. They seem to think the state's war on drugs is working. It isn't. The state's prison population now hovers around 20,000. This is due, in large part, to prosecutorial overcharging of the accused and to mandatory-minimum sentencing requirements for drug offenders. The state should be making it easier, not harder, to get treatment for drug addiction. And it's time we outlawed the practice of allowing law-enforcement officials to seize for their own benefit the property of those who are only accused -- as opposed to those who have been found guilty.