... Written by David Leberknight a few months before the 2000 presidential election.

Do not make the mistake of voting for George W. Bush just because you might be a Republican! (George W. Bush is no Bob Dole.) Please read on. There are many excellent reasons why even Republicans should vote for Al Gore.

The Republicans are going to have a hard time with the moral high ground this election because they will be supporting a candidate who does not meet their standards of moral character. George W. Bush is charismatic, but he has serious flaws. Furthermore, Bush's record as governor of Texas shows that he has consistently put the interests of corporations and the rich ahead of the people of Texas. He would do the same as president.

Republicans who supported John McCain should take another look at Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman!

John McCain has often criticized Bush for failing to devote any money to Social Security or Medicare, for proposing a massive tax plan that primarily benefits the rich, and for failing to support the McCain-Feingold legislation that would reform the campaign finance system. John McCain recently said about Bush, "if he's a reformer, I'm an astronaut." John McCain is not an astronaut. By the way, Al Gore says that the McCain-Feingold legislation is the very first bill he would send to Congress as president.

To understand why GWB has so many people supporting him, remember:

1) Lower taxes next year for the most wealthy Americans (as if this was really the most important issue in the campaign); 2) Most people don't take the time to learn the truth, but instead believe whatever Big Media tells them to believe; Big Media rarely discusses issues in depth; 3) The rich have more power than the poor; the rich mostly all vote; there is widespread political apathy amongst the poor, and many do not bother to vote; 4) Al Gore admittedly has less charisma than Bush; 5) GWB's campaign has the all-time record for the most money at its disposal (think about who gave him this money and why); 6) Many people vote Republican just because they are Republicans, which is not, in itself, a good reason to vote for anybody.

The United States is currently enjoying an extremely good economy (for many, but not for all). This is our big chance to fix some of the nation's serious problems. For example, many of our nation's schools are falling apart, with overcrowded classrooms and underpaid teachers. There are large and growing areas of poverty and gun violence, and it is in exactly these areas that the schools are at their worst! Our health care system is wonderful for the wealthy, but is simply too expensive for everybody else. Medicare is in trouble. Our Social Security system to protect the elderly and disabled is projected to run out of money (despite the current surplus). Our national debt is astronomical. Globally, our environment is deteriorating. Fishermen are consistently returning with smaller and smaller catches. Our rain forests are shrinking at an alarming rate. The Earth's population is exploding, exacerbating all of these environmental problems. If we can't at least try to fix these problems now, when times are so amazingly good (for many, but not for all), when can we ever do so? If we do not act now, all of these problems are destined to get worse and worse.

So, what about lower taxes? Is our nation's *top priority* right now really to lower taxes? Or should we pay down the national debt, shore up Social Security, preserve our deteriorating environment, etc. while we have the extra cash on hand? If we do cut taxes, should we cut them for the Rich, or for the Poor? Who doesn't want a tax cut? But the desire to pay a little less in taxes would be a lame reason to vote for GWB! Do we really want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? John McCain recently said, "Governor Bush wants to give thirty-eight percent of his tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. My friends, I don't think Bill Gates needs a tax cut."

GWB has clearly taken the position that he would squander the current Social Security tax surplus (roughly estimated to be about $1.3 Trillion, over the next 10 years) by giving the rich huge tax breaks and passing the national debt on to the next generation. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, two-thirds of the tax breaks in Bush's recent tax proposal (starting with a decrease in the top marginal rate) are targeted to the richest 10 percent of Americans. The bottom 10 percent would get a reduction of about $43 a year! Should America change leadership when things are finally going well (for many, but not for all), and go back to Republican deficit spending and irresponsible tax cuts, primarily benefiting the rich? Note that Al Gore is proposing some responsible, targeted tax cuts, designed to help pay college tuition, child care, health insurance, to help save money for retirement, and to help care for an elderly or disabled relative; note that these tax cuts primarily benefit the poor and the working middle class.

Regarding Social Security, the budget surplus, and the national debt: Social Security is the single largest Federal program, providing monthly benefits to over 45 million retired and disabled workers, and their dependents. It accounts for 23% of all Federal spending. The Social Security budget is generally treated as separate from the rest of the budget. Nearly all of the projected tax surplus ($1.3 Trillion over 10 years), that Bush wants to give away to the very richest Americans, is Social Security surplus. The reason we have such a surplus today is that the general population is relatively young, so there are more people paying in that taking out. This is projected to change in the not-too-distant future, and that pool of money is expected to go bankrupt by 2037. Common sense dictates that the current Social Security surplus be saved for the projected Social Security deficit, and/or we can use that money to pay down the national debt; this is what Al Gore proposes to do.

The outstanding Gross Federal Debt as of August 20th, 2000 is $5,643,926,161,851. That's Five and a half Trillion dollars. Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about national debt: "I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." Note: interest payments alone on the national debt accounted for 15% of the total US government spending in 1989, and are estimated to drop to 11% of the budget in 2001. That means that government spending will drop by 11% if and when the national debt is ever paid off. This would not only reduce taxes, but it would give the US government more breathing room in case of a national emergency. It is quite ironic that with Bush's plan, the national tax rate would be higher in the long run than with Gore's plan. Don't you think?

Here's Bush's position: give away the $1.3 Trillion dollars of Social Security Trust Fund money to the very richest Americans (money currently targeted "off budget" to help people in need, such as our retired elders), privatize Social Security, and not bother at all with the national debt. Bush, of course, never mentions that the budget surplus is really off budget Social Security surplus; all Bush says, to roaring cheers, is that "it is not government's money; it is the people's money!" It is the people's retirement money.

What would it be like to have a privatized Social Security system? Good Question! Bush so far has provided few answers. But what is clear is this: it would not guarantee benefits for retired and disabled workers, and their dependents. With Bush's plan, for example, anyone who becomes disabled at a young age would have very little money saved in their personal, privatized retirement account; the benefits would be almost nonexistent. It is clear that Bush doesn't give a damn about Social Security. What he really cares about is getting elected president by promising a huge tax break (using Social Security's money). The national debt, retired and disabled workers, and their dependents, would be some future president's problem. Great leadership!?

For those who say: "But I think Bush's plan is a good thing because I should be able to invest my own retirement money in the stock market! Surely I can get better returns than the government, and thus have more money when I retire!" Note that Al Gore is proposing new tax free retirement (and education) savings accounts to let you do just that, without jeopardizing Social Security.

Another major policy difference between Al Gore and GWB relates to the Environment. Gore has been a leading voice for protecting our planet since The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, when, as a virtually unknown senator, he stood up against George HW Bush (dad) in protest. It is said that Al Gore's display of backbone and conviction is was what caught Bill Clinton's attention and got Al Gore the job as VP. George HW Bush was the only leader who did not sign the treaty. Shame! That was a landmark environmental conference that produced nothing with any teeth (for the long term good of the planet) thanks to George's pandering to large corporations that didn't want to spend money to be clean. GWB in Texas has shown that he is like-minded. Texas is the nation's top polluting state.

Bush said he favors giving oil firms drilling access to more federal lands, including the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. His running mate, Dick Cheney, while serving in Congress in the mid 1980s, co-sponsored legislation to allow oil drilling in the Arctic refuge. The Sierra Club, which endorsed Gore for president, said a Bush-Cheney presidency would be bad for the environment. The group pointed out that during his tenure in Congress, Cheney has a lifetime average voting record of 89% against pro-environmental legislation. They go on to say, "Bush-Cheney ... both support weakening the Clean Air Act, oppose protection of public lands and have consistently opposed efforts to protect the health and safety of our environment."

Dick Cheney also consistently voted against money for education; he voted against rights for women; he voted against common sense gun control (for example he was in a small minority in voting against a ban on plastic guns and so-called cop killer armor-piercing bullets); he voted against a resolution that would have recommended the release of South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela; Cheney was one of only eight members of Congress to oppose the Clean Water Act; he also opposed funding the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act; he was one of the few to vote against Head Start (a preschool program for poor children); he opposed funding student loans and adult education; he even voted against the school lunch program; he voted against health insurance for people who lost their jobs; Dick Cheney voted against abortions, even in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother; he voted in favor of funding most weapons systems.

There will be a scandal if GWB gets elected regarding the huge profits he made from two very shady business deals. He made $848,560 from alleged insider trading while on the board at Harken Energy Corporation (an oil company), and he made $15 million as part owner of the Texas Rangers in a deal with highly dubious ethics. Details follow.

GWB sold $848,560 worth of Harken Energy stock on June 22, 1990, just one week before the company posted spectacular losses and the stock plunged sharply. According to documents from a two year investigation by the SEC, Bush served on the board of directors of Harken Energy Corporation and his position on a special Harken committee gave him detailed knowledge of the company's deteriorating financial condition. Junior was required to register his sale as an insider trade by July 10, 1990, but didn't until March 1991, after the Gulf War was over. The SEC investigated but decided not to punish Bush. After all, his dad was President and all five SEC Commissioners were appointed by the President. Furthermore, the SEC's general counsel had actually represented W. in the Texas Rangers negotiation, as reported in Rolling Stone magazine's August 5, 1999 issue.

George W. Bush made $15 million from selling the Texas Rangers baseball team while governor of Texas. Few media outlets have scrutinized how Bush and his cronies bought the Texas Rangers, convinced Arlington to pay for and build a stadium, told the city how much to pay for the land it condemned, refused to pay their debts to the city, and later, cashed out when media giant Thomas Hicks bought the team for $250 million.

Like the Harken Energy deal, Bush's baseball dealings reveal a disturbing pattern: whenever George W. Bush invests his money, he gets the kind of returns that regular, working, people can only dream about. It is clear that Bush, the son of the President, the child of privilege, has become filthy rich through what can only be called crony capitalism, and there are strong allegations that he actually violated the law. There are other similar allegations concerning other sons of George Bush senior. For example, Jeb Bush (and a business partner) made more than $4 million as a result of the Savings and Loan debacle of 1988, paid for by US taxpayers. Please refer to http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm for more details on these, and other, documented allegations regarding Bush's lack of ethics and integrity.

George W Bush refuses to answer the question about his prior use of Cocaine. All other candidates have all said, if asked, that they never used cocaine. Why does GWB refuse to deny he's used cocaine? Simple, because GWB actually did (does?) cocaine. If Bush didn't use cocaine he'd say he didn't use cocaine. It will be most entertaining to see Republicans claim that Bush's cocaine use is a private matter and his personal choice.

Yes, character does count in a President of the United States of America! The worst that the Republicans have on Al Gore is that he accepted some campaign contributions from Buddhist monks. Isn't it ironic that GWB uses this against Al Gore, when GWB has broken all the records for money received in campaign contributions? Furthermore, note that Gore (unlike Bush) supports campaign finance reform.

What do Texans think about Bush's priorities? Despite GWB claiming to be "the education governor," average teachers salaries in Texas (if one includes benefits) are the lowest of all 50 states. Louis Malfaro of the Texas Federation of Teachers, says "Texas had a real chance to bring teachers' salaries to the national average, but George Bush ... was more interested in looking good for the presidential race and needed the money so he could boast about a tax cut." The Texas governor seriously mismanaged his state's finances with his irresponsible $1.7 Billion tax cut. Malfaro pointed out that in recent public opinion polls, Texans favor, by a 10-to-1 margin, the state surplus being spent on schools and teachers, not on so-called "tax relief"!

Bush often talks about all the great things he did for Texas schools. According to the N.Y. Times (Aug 07, 2000), "Bush can't really claim much credit for the improvements in the public schools in Texas, as they were the result of years of hard work and big spending that not only predated Mr. Bush, but were inspired and organized by none other than H. Ross Perot" (and further developed by Bush's Democratic predecessor, Ann Richards). The N.Y. Times article goes on to say, "both Bush and his party are opposed to federal assistance for the very programs that have meant so much in Texas - smaller class size and pre-kindergarten programs." GWB talks about standardized test score averages going up in Texas, but fails to mention the drop out rate also going up (a force for the scores going up); in other words, the huge numbers of drop-outs never bothered to take the standardized tests. Bush promotes maximizing local control of public schools (consistent with many other Republicans, including Dick Cheney, who want to abolish the Department of Education altogether). With local money going to local schools, the Rich get great schools and the poor get (for lack of a better word) shit. Thus, even if Bush were "the education governor," as he likes to call himself, his approach to schools as "the education president" would be to take away their federal funding. Look, the schools in poor neighborhoods desperately need help. Rich people don't desperately need VOUCHERS to save money on the PRIVATE school of their choice. Gore's education proposals, according to a recent RAND Institution report, would bring revolutionary improvements to PUBLIC education. The report found that the most important factors for improving student achievement are reduced class size, preschool, and teacher working conditions, all of which Gore supports and Bush ignores.

Texas is in the top three states in all of the following categories: highest number of children living in poverty; lowest teacher salaries; lowest spending for parks and recreation, the arts, public libraries, and environmental protection; lowest per capita funding for public health. Texas is 48th out of 50 as the worst state to raise children.

Let's face it, GWB does not stand for what is right for the people. GWB always talks about his record in Texas. That makes a great sound bite. But his real record shows he does whatever big business wants, at the expense of the people, to get more campaign contributions in his bid to become President. It is no wonder that he is afraid to debate Al Gore! The two have yet to debate, despite Gore's repeated challenge to have debates as frequently as once per week, every week.

Polls have shown most Republicans (from 68% to 80% - the percentages are higher for Democrats) believe abortion should be legal. Bush has said, "I will do everything in my power to restrict abortions." Furthermore, GWB chose Dick Cheney as his VP candidate, a man who is a hard-core pro-lifer. Abortion is a critical election year issue because the Supreme Court rulings on the matter have been close, and there is a good chance that one or more justices might retire in the next four years. If GWB gets elected, there is a strong chance that abortion will revert to being illegal. Of course, that would not stop the wealthy from getting safe, clean abortions. If you are a pro-life Republican, then don't have an abortion! There is much that those who oppose abortion can do without imposing their religion on others. They can work to make adoption easier, especially for older and troubled kids. Make it easier to adopt across racial lines. Provide financial help to women who have to abort for financial reasons. Another way to reduce abortions is to promote contraception.

Religious dogma says that one becomes a person at conception. Science has a very different point of view. First of all, the sperm and egg cells are alive before conception. Life began on this planet about 3 billion years ago and has continued to evolve in an unbroken chain since then. Now that cloning technology exists, almost any cell can be grown into a potential life. That undermines the argument that a cell is a person. The current legal definition is that one becomes a person upn being born alive. The Constitution is against any form of state-imposed religious beliefs. Furthermore, the Constitution promotes personal freedom, and abortion is an issue of personal freedom. Yes, something is wrong with abortion, but it would be unconstitutional (and in balance, morally wrong) to ban it. Remember, America was founded by people who were escaping religious oppression, in search of personal freedom.

Bush is opposed to killing unborn fetuses, but is all in favor of the death penalty. He actually had the intellectual capacity to claim: "As far as I'm concerned there has not been one innocent person executed since I've become governor." Since he took office, 134 inmates have been executed in Texas. Anyone who is ignorant enough to believe that our criminal justice system is perfect is, well, just plain naive.

President Bill Clinton came out in public recently to wonder aloud whether GWB has the knowledge and depth to be president. Bush supporters say "regardless of his intellectual capacity he will have a strong coterie of aides around him to provide advice." In other words, Bush supporters are admitting that GWB is lacking upstairs. GWB is simply not qualified to be president. Furthermore, GWB has virtually no foreign policy experience.

What about Guns?! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Stop. Read the Constitution again, carefully. Now think.

The Second Amendment is phrased in the context of a "well regulated" militia. In the current gun-control debate, Al Gore is not proposing anything that would infringe on this right; he is proposing common-sense laws designed to make a safer society. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from background checks or waiting periods to buy firearms. Now, compare owning a gun to driving a car: guns, being dangerous, require a certain level of responsibility; cars are also dangerous, and they require written tests, registrations, proof of insurance (which must be carried with you at all times), background checks, etc. Do extremists go running around protesting such onerous car laws? No! We all agree that they are common sense. Same with the proposed new gun laws - common sense. One thing that scares me about GWB is that he takes so much money from the National Rifle Association (NRA), a group opposed to all gun regulations. The Second Amendment is clearly supportive of "well regulated" guns! Right now, guns in this country are NOT "well regulated." GWB and Dick Cheney have opposed most attempts to regulate guns, falsely claiming (as the NRA would have them do) that such regulations would be unconstitutional. GWB is no defender of the Constitution!

Let us consider George W Bush's father, George Bush for a moment... Here's a man who got elected on the (broken) promise of "no new taxes" and then borrowed more money than any President ever. Why do we have such a huge national debt? Do you remember "voodoo economics"? The United States hit an all-time moral and spiritual low during the Reagan and Bush administrations. These men embarked on a policy of huge tax cuts for the rich and an orgy of government spending (but not to help the poor or the elderly or the schools). Ronald Reagan enacted the biggest tax increase in the history of America and it didn't even put a dent in his record deficit spending. The only president who ran the national debt up faster than Reagan was George Bush. Reagan and Bush expanded the government faster that any presidents in history, and accumulated more federal debt than all other presidents put together! With staggering Republican deficit spending, the gap between the rich and poor grew at the fastest rate in the history of the USA, and the economy was in decline. If you believe that this is good, then vote for George W. Bush.

Republicans like to criticize Democrats as being "big government liberals." Whatever. Republicans are "big government conservatives." So what? It is all meaningless rhetoric. At least the liberals are not conservative with their compassion.

Even though Congress prohibited Reagan and Bush Senior from getting involved in the war in Nicaragua, and denied funding, they decided to get involved anyway; they raised money to buy weapons for "the Contras" by secretly selling arms to Iran. Reagan and Bush did incredible harm to Nicaragua, illegally, and the country is only now beginning to recover. Although there were investigations, they were eventually terminated in 1992 when then-President George Bush Sr. pardoned all the Iran-Contra conspirators on Christmas day. I'm sorry, but I don't support that kind of behavior.

We're finally paying down the national debt created by Reagan and Bush borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility, and the economy is strong. Clinton and Gore made it happen. Gore now has 7 years of experience working with President Clinton and is ready to move up to the top spot. There's a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Al Gore says he is not satisfied, but he's not proposing any radical economic schemes, obscenely biased towards the richest Americans, like his opponent. Bush Jr. really, really wants to "fix" the economy - a lot!

For those who don't like Bill Clinton, remember, Al Gore is not Bill Clinton. Bush Jr. is so weak that when he talks about the next four years, he usually says "ClintonGore" not Gore-Lieberman. Despite the fact that Al Gore kept his mouth shut in public whenever he disagreed with his boss (as a good VP should), Al Gore is his own man. Republicans should be happy to know that Al Gore, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, said that he supports specific tax reform that Clinton vetoed: the so-called marriage penalty tax, and the so-called "death" estate tax (Gore's plan would raise the tax exemption on estates from $2.6 million to $5 million for each family).

Republicans like to criticize Democrats for giving the poor a "free ride." Let's look at that. First of all, Al Gore does not deny that many of the government's social programs, such as welfare, need reform. In fact, he is proposing numerous reforms as part of his campaign platform. Remember, Al Gore is the VP who "reinvented government" by recommending a laundry list of government reforms to congress; those that became law cut an estimated $136 Billion in government costs since 1993. Also, the number of people on welfare has dropped dramatically under president Clinton. Next, government spending on all means-tested entitlements (food stamps, unemployment, welfare, veterans pensions, etc.) account for a whopping 6% of the budget. Compare that to 11% for interest alone on the national debt, and quite a lot more for war and "national security." Yes, there are a few citizens who abuse their entitlement money, and they should work. Al Gore agrees; that's why he talks about his "welfare to work" proposals, along with a raise in the minimum wage (currently a mere $5.15 per hour). Finally, a "free ride" can be a very good thing; it is a social safety net, and it is an important difference between the USA and so-called "third world" countries.

Bush's welfare reform proposals would give federal money directly to churches! Have you ever hear of "separation of church and state"? Has Bush not even bothered to read the Constitution?

It is ironic that Republicans in congress won't pass Democratic legislation aimed at helping the poor, the elderly, the sick, the environment, etc., because it costs too much; yet it seems to be OK to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for dubious defense hardware. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS (Public Broadcasting System). Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year. The Republican controlled congress is trying to enact a major cutback in that funding, because it is too expensive. As for the *extremely* expensive, so-called "Star Wars" missile defense system, please refer to the August 1999 Scientific American article entitled, "Why National Missile Defense WON'T WORK." Now THAT is a program that is too expensive! Especially given that top scientists agree that it won't ever work! Besides, if millions of pounds of cocaine can get into the country every year, the dreaded rogue state could get a bomb into New York City if it really wants to. Scary? Yes! But "Star Wars" is not the answer.

We can't trust the future to just anyone. Al Gore has done a good job as vice president and has proven himself as a competent leader. In this high tech world it is good to have leaders like Al Gore who actually understands the issues. With Al Gore you can expect 8 years of continued general prosperity. Al Gore might be less charismatic, but he is honest, sincere, intelligent and hard working, and he will get up every day and do a good job as President.

Bush (also known as "The Shrub") on the other hand, talks a good talk, superficially, sometimes, but has demonstrated with his actions, as governor of Texas, that as President he would put the special interests of the wealthy elite ahead of the interests of the people. His "compassionate conservatism" is nothing but empty rhetoric. He talks about health care and about the environment, but Texas remains 50th (out of 50 states) in these areas, and Bush consistently passed on opportunities to do something about it. He talks about economics (and "the need for change"), but his proposals are risky and irresponsible at best, and downright shameful at worst.

How do you think Bush beat John McCain in the primaries? He did not win on the issues or strength of character. He won because he has a lot more money. Why does he have so much money? Because some very rich people and corporations support him. Why do they support him? Because he gives them huge tax breaks, weakens environmental laws that allow them to pollute, promotes other special interest legislation, provides them with public lands to exploit and profit from, etc. It's not so hard to understand.

Bush says things like, "we will tear down the wall between the rich and poor." Nobody disagrees that this is good rhetoric; but it is empty rhetoric! His proposals would build the wall even higher. There is a persistence of poverty despite general prosperity, especially in Texas.

By the way, have you heard about how Junior shamelessly sought and received unusually favorable treatment to get into the Texas Air Guard, to avoid having to go to Vietnam? And he was AWOL in 1972. Really. Check it out.

Vote for Al Gore! The race is too close to squander votes on Ralph Nader of the Green Party, because he can't possibly win (but everyone should listen to what Mr. Nader has to say). Make sure to vote! And make an effort to tell your Republican and Green friends that this is what you plan to do and why. Also encourage apathetic Democrats to vote. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Reality check: either Al Gore or George W Bush will be the next President of the United States of America.

Read my lips: No New Bushes!