Candidate Gore: More Broken Promises?
By Sara McPeak
February 1999

It's time for Republicans to capitalize on the fact that the Clinton/Gore administration has been lacking in the "results" department.

Where are the results, anyway? Despite Greenspan's good economy that this administration takes credit for, there's nothing much for Gore to tout in his 2000 campaign. Perhaps that's because Clinton/Gore issues have run the gamut from liberal to conservative in an aimless style of courting everyone and satisfying no one. Now, if the Republicans will simply set a definite path and follow it to completion, they will have accomplished what Gore's administration could not.

Strong conservative beliefs are in vogue both with the electorate and even the present administration. Republicans will find acceptance for less federal intervention, local management of schools, global security through strong foreign policies, lower taxes and economic individualism. The key to a Republican victory in the year 2000 is not a question of issues, it is a question of reliability.

In 1992, Clinton pledged universal health care; his pledge fell flat during his first term. What a stunning blow that was to so many Americans who placed faith in Clinton's promise that government intervention through socialized medicine could ensure health care for everyone.

Having failed in this attempt to utilize "big" government, in a stunningly conservative turnaround, Al Gore promised to reinvent the federal government, thereby curbing wasteful spending. This was yet another failure, according to the November 2, 1998 issue of Insight On the News: "A 1997 audit revealed that excessive rent payments by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that year were $900 million." And I am quoting just one of many examples of outrageous, improper and fraudulent waste in the departments of pell grants, the pentagon, food stamps and the social security administration during Gore's vice presidency.

It almost seems that if Clinton/Gore principles don't serve them politically, they're quickly dropped. Gore is now being actively courted by Wall Street Democrats who are trying to convince him to toss out his Earth in the Balance environmental concerns. Questions of his credibility are growing as it seems his once intense beliefs are no longer important when compared to his presidential bid.

Gore may, in fact, be following the same course as John E. Bryson, a former co-founder of one of the first environmental public interest law firms. Bryson, now head of Edison International, drifted from his environmental concerns in deference to the electrical industry's needs. According to the January 12, 1999 issue of The Wall Street Journal, "Despite Mr. Bryson's credentials, he and his utility these days are often decried as laggards on environmental issues. Critics say Edison is helping to pollute the Grand Canyon, killing marine life off the Southern California coast, and doing nearly everything in its power to block the development of alternative power sources."

As candidate Gore aligns himself with big business for his presidential run, will he begin to ignore the environmental accountability of industry?

It doesn't look as though Republicans will have much competition on the issues from the Gore campaign. His "practical idealism" theme is not issue-oriented. He can't hope to please his environmentalists and big business contributors at the same time, so he will remain mute on his agenda as long as he is gathering the necessary millions. When finally he must articulate an agenda, his "turncoat" philosophy may turn out to be another boon for the Republican cause.

For further evidence of Clinton/Gore broken promises, we need only to recognize the obvious double standard of their attempt to support increased campaign finance regulations. In fact, the Al Gore Y2K fund-raising machine is launched at full speed and with Janet Reno's blessing. Her refusal to name an independent prosecutor to look into fund raising irregularities in the last election by Al Gore casts doubt on our justice system that is clearly part of the same cloud that hangs over the executive branch. This double standard proves that this administration has no intention of correcting campaign finance corruption during their watch -- though they are not adverse to claiming it as part of their agenda.

The Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service in a Nov. 27, 1998 article says it soooo... succinctly: "When the White House is caught cheating, as in Gore's case, the Clinton administration spins away the scandal by calling for further regulation of campaign fundraising. They appear as the good guys, effectively brushing talk of their lawbreaking out of the public eye."

For six years we have observed the "rogue scholar" and the Veep wind themselves in and out of entanglements which have damaged their credibility and at times even seriously placed them in jeopardy of legal repercussions. They have been operating under the liberal banner expressing the necessity of government (this administration) to protect individuals from society. Ironically, this administration is a prime example of the conservative concern that government, as well as society, dictates our laws, mores and beliefs and subsequently the individual need to be protected from government as well as society.

It's time to replace the comeback kids with reliable adults. Impeachment of this president by the House of Representatives was immensely important in proving that reliability can exist in the political arena. Republicans must build on this theme of discipline, in contrast to the capricious style of the present administration.

This article copyright © 1998 by Sara McPeak, and may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of its author. All rights reserved.