Home
Weather
Sports
Opinion
Obituaries
Special Sections
Forums
Archive
Search
Front Page
Subscription
Services
@ugusta Help
City Guide
Classifieds
Employment
Coupons
Autos
Real Estate
Yellow Pages
Maps
Directions
Applause
Dining
Movies
Travel
Television
Lottery
Horoscopes
Net Music
Quick Cooking
Remote
Your Health
Fitness Files
JobSmart
Food & Recipes
Newspapers
in Education
Xtreme
Citizen Activist
Augusta Golf
Augusta
Magazine
Business
Chronicle
F.A.Q.
Advertise
Chronicle Staff
Chronicle Jobs
Internet Service
The Chronicle welcomes you online! Please feel free to respond to these editorials or letters to the editor by sending your
letters to the editor.
We condense letters; most, as published, won't exceed 300 words. A letter must include the writer's name and city, which will be published, and an address and telephone number for verification, which will not be published. Writers may be limited to one letter every 30 days. Open letters, letters to third parties and poetry are not considered. Letters from people living outside the Chronicle's circulation area usually are not considered.
|
Presidential endorsement: Bush-Cheney ticket
Web posted
Sunday, November 5, 2000
Have a thought? Go to the @ugusta Forums.
To be sure, there are some broad agreements on the benefits of free, fair trade and the need to maintain a strong economic and global presence in the world, but for the most part the gap between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush in political ideology and policies - be they foreign or domestic - are huge. And in every instance, the Bush position is better for America than Gore's.
With two to four high court justices expected to retire soon, the next president could shape the Supreme Court's judicial philosophy for years to come; the same with scores of lower federal judge appointments.
If Bush becomes president, trends toward euthanasia, late term abortions and racial quotas will be curbed, if not stopped. Conversely, a Gore judiciary would almost certainly accelerate such ugly practices - plus rulings favoring a more intrusive government.
A Bush presidency would use government to give Americans more personal freedom and responsibility, as opposed to Gore's Old Left philosophy of expanding Washington's power and reach in the name of some abstract notions of social good.
Differences are clearly seen in the two candidates' approach to multibillion dollar budget surpluses. Bush would return a portion to wage-earners in the form of across-the-board tax cuts. Gore would use smaller and more complicated ``targeted tax cuts'' to reward what he defines as desirable social behavior.
In foreign policy, the Clinton-Gore administration has been a disaster - just look at the Middle East debacle. Defense policy is no better - expanding our commitments abroad while letting the military decay from within. Morale in the military is astonishingly low. This is one reason why Bush's choice for vice-president is so much better than Gore's.
Dick Cheney has had executive experience in several GOP administrations. As Defense secretary under George W's father, Cheney was a key architect of the Gulf war victory. A Bush-Cheney administration will beef up the military, put missile defense on the fast track, and scale back overseas commitments to what is in the nation's national security interests.
Bush is a proven leader, having been a successful two-term governor of Texas. Beyond that, there is the matter of character and honesty. Many voters believe these are more important qualities than ideology or politics. If so, then again Bush is the choice.
Gore's overbearing, condescending, know-it-all conduct is the kind of style of leadership this country needs.
The character issue, absent during the Clinton years, is making a comeback this election cycle - and Gore is being bit by it. Many Democrats, even though they opposed President Clinton's impeachment, criticized his blatant lies to the public and the courts about the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Gore never did; to the contrary, the vice president lavished praise on his boss, claiming Clinton was one of the greatest presidents ever. Now during the campaign, word ``leaks'' that Gore was furious with Clinton, and it ruptured their relationship. Trying to simultaneously appease Clinton's loyalists and critics is a classic example of a politician seeking to have it both ways. It's duplicitous and dishonest.
And that cuts to the character issue, i.e., Gore's penchant for telling lies. We won't rehash all the examples, such as ``inventing the Internet.'' Moreover, we'll grant that politicians sometimes exaggerate and misstate facts - but not with Gore's frequency. And there's no reason for it, except to puff up his own sense of self-importance.
A president who'll lie for self-aggrandizement is untrustworthy. Americans who are searching for true leadership don't need another four years with a president they can't believe or trust.
This is why we strongly urge our readers to vote for BUSH-CHENEY.
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Americans, including third party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, couldn't be more wrong when they echo George Wallace's 1968 mantra that ``there's not a dime's worth of difference'' between the major parties' presidential tickets.
|
