The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 64.0°F | Mostly Cloudy


Gore for President

By Mike Hall, Dana Levine, and Ryan Ochylski

We proudly endorse the ticket of Al Gore for president and Joe Lieberman for vice president. The next president will face critical choices over the next four years, ranging from funding for education to modernizing the military to appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Of the candidates for president, only Gore is capable of making the best decisions for the country.

Gore has the best positions on the critical issues of the day. On education, Gore wisely opposes school vouchers while increasing funding for our nation’s failing public schools. He supports the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill to establish a “patient’s bill of rights.” On foreign policy, he has pledged to ensure that the United States continues to play a role throughout the world in upholding our democratic ideals. Gore also supports open markets and the end of trade restrictions harmful to American business. Additionally, Gore will save Social Security in the best way, by dedicating the surplus to its funding instead of turning it loose to privatization. A Gore administration will also protect civil rights, with his support of homosexual rights and his fervent opposition to racial profiling.

Furthermore, Gore alone has the ability to lead our government in support of these critical issues. Over the last eight years, he has proven his ability to lead the country in the right direction. He teamed with President Clinton to preside over one of the longest periods of prosperity in our nation’s history. He has also worked effectively with members of both major parties to pass measures vital to the success of the nation. Furthermore, his knowledge of the intricacies of government ensures that he can competently decide between different policy options.

The same cannot be said of his main competition, George W. Bush. We are frightened at the prospect of a Bush/Cheney administration. Not since William Howard Taft have the Republicans offered a more apathetic candidate than Bush. He is a drifter, moving from failed job experience to failed job experience, all supplied courtesy of his family name. He leads by delegation, leaving his subordinates with as much supervision as Warren G. Harding gave his before the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

Bush’s stance on the issues is even more foreboding. His support of school vouchers gives up on public schools, deprives them of funding and their poorer students of the chance to learn. He also risks the future of Social Security by subjecting it to the whims of private investment. Additionally, a Bush administration would return the nation back to the Stone Age on civil rights. He opposes gay-discrimination laws and supports the increasing encroachment of religion into everyday life.

While we oppose Bush, we cannot endorse his polar opposite, Ralph Nader, over Gore. Certainly, Nader deserves praise for his efforts to improve consumer safety and to increase civic activism. As a presidential candidate, however, Nader leaves much to be desired. He would be a partial president at best, paying too much attention to his pet issues of workers’ rights and business reform. He also myopically supports the gutting of our nation’s military, promising to reduce it to half of its current size. Additionally, Nader opposes standardized tests for students, which eliminates the only viable metric in measuring a school’s success. We admire Nader’s zeal, but cannot support his brand of idealism in the White House.

Furthermore, this election is not about a vote for the “lesser of two evils.” While we agree that a viable third party is in the best interests of democracy, the Green Party places idealism over common sense. It is wrong to vote for Nader simply to support his fledgling party. We stand for Gore not because he is the “lesser of two evils,” but because he is the best man for the job. We vote for Gore because we agree with his policies above any other.