Candidate Gore: More Broken Promises?
By Sara McPeak
It's time for Republicans to capitalize on the fact that the
Clinton/Gore administration has been lacking in the "results"
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
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
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
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.