endorsements

(Editor’s note: the following are endorsements for races Portlanders will be voting on.) U.S. Senate: Mark Lawrence. Voters are graced with two remarkably strong candidates: Republican incumbent Olympia Snowe and Democrat Mark Lawrence, who’s stepping down as President of the state Senate. In the more than 20 years Snowe has served in Washington, first in the House and then in the Senate, she’s built an impressive legacy. As one of only six Republicans in the Senate who can be considered moderates she’s been a voice of reason within the confines of a party that has become increasingly reactionary. While Snowe and Lawrence hold views we endorse on a range of issues like choice, campaign-finance reform, and the environment, we think Lawrence has a vision closer to ours on issues like the death penalty, taxes, gay rights, and some aspects of foreign policy. Snowe’s independence is admirable, but Lawrence’s more liberal vision is what Maine and the nation need. U.S. House District 1: Tom Allen. In a three-way race, Democratic incumbent Tom Allen, by dint of his experience in Portland municipal politics and his tenure in Washington, is the clear-cut choice. On abortion, he supports a woman’s right to choose. He favors civil rights for gays and lesbians. He is opposed to the dubious and divisive notion that we need a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. But most important of all his nuts and bolts command of issues like taxation, health, and education. Allen’s reelection will ensure that the people of southern Maine will have imaginative and engaged representation in Washington. State Senate District 27: Loren Bailey. This was not an easy decision. Incumbent Joel Abromson has shown himself to be a moderate Republican who is willing to work in a bi-partisan manner. But his challenger’s positions on issues such as gun control and corporate accountability more closely reflect our own. These are two good candidates. State Senate District 28: Anne M. Rand. Through her seven terms in the Legislature, Rand has consistently been a progressive voice on issues of healthcare, sexual harassment, and domestic violence, and most recently on implementing Maine’s medical marijuana law. Her values on abortion rights, corporate accountability, and gun control mirror our own. She deserves to be re-elected. State House District 31: Michael V. Saxl. If Saxl returns to the Legislature for a fourth term he is all but guaranteed to fill Steven Rowe’s position as speaker of the House (Rowe was term limited). With Portland losing other leadership positions due to term limits, Saxl would be an important voice in Augusta for Portlanders. Beyond that, he is an effective and articulate politician, working to implement important legislation on education, protection against domestic violence, and gun control. He also has an interesting plan for providing greater access to post-secondary school, which he will pursue in the next session. State House District 32: none. Incumbent John McDonough is too lax on issues of gun control, corporate accountability, and healthcare for us to feel confident in endorsing him for a second term. His challenger, Steven Punsky, has good intentions but lacks a grasp of the issues. State House District 35: Joseph C. Brannigan. Joseph Brannigan would bring valuable experience to this seat being vacated by Steven Rowe, who was term limited. He has already served four terms in the state House and four terms in the state Senate. He is currently the executive director of the Shalom House, which serves people living with mental illness. State House District 36: Boyd Marley. Democrat Boyd Marley is best equipped to fill the seat being vacated by the term-limited Eliza Townsend. Although he has no political experience, he shows a grasp of important issues — from healthcare to corporate accountability — that will help shorten the learning curve he will face as a freshman legislator. He is a teacher and promises to put emphasis on education issues. State House District 37: Glenn Cummings. Glenn Cummings has a firm grasp on important issues: he emphasizes preventative care in addressing the poor health of some Mainers; he understands education needs from school renovation to improving academic performance; and ties this all back to economic prosperity. He would be the best candidate to fill this seat vacated by the term-limited Michael Brennan. (Editor’s note: we’ve provided endorsements for the following two races, but no additional information on page 14) Cumberland County Register of Probate: Herb Adams. The register of probate has two primary responsibilities: organizing and preserving probate documents, and providing personal service to Cumberland County residents, some of whom deal with the register of probate when a family member has died and their will must be filed. With his experience in public service, his voracious appreciation for history and historical documents, and his knowledge of the details of the job of register of probate, Adams is the best candidate for the job. Adams served four terms in the Legislature and is currently serving his second term on the Portland School Committee. Through these positions he’s shown himself to be a conscientious constituent advocate. His work at the Maine Historical Society and his knowledge of Portland history show the sort of appreciation for the past that would translate to an uncompromising commitment to preserving the documents that move through the register of probate’s office. Finally, his grasp of the office’s budget, the work that the office has done in the past, the responsibilities of the job, and the work that is still to be done (primarily ensuring that adequate space is provided for the growing amount of documents that must be stored), will ensure a seamless transition. Adams’s opponent is Oleg Svetlichny. Portland School Committee, At-Large Seat: Walston C. “Bud” Gallie. Four candidates are vying for the seat held by S. Erik Richard until last September, when he moved to Massachusetts. Depending on whether Portland’s charter amendment seeking to move municipal elections to November passes, whoever wins this seat will serve until either May or November. Either way, a number of important decisions will be made during that tenure: a new superintendent must be found; consideration will be given to a $77 million proposal to renovate14 city schools; consideration must be given to whether closing neighborhood schools is needed; and solutions must be developed for addressing budget shortfalls. The four candidates — Walston C. “Bud” Gallie, Kim Matthews, Edward J. “Ted” Luebbert Jr., and Benjamin Meiklejohn — are all honest and have the best intentions. But based on his knowledge of the issues and the seriousness with which he approaches the budgetary problems that will be faced, we’re endorsing Gallie. As president of the Portland Taxpayers Association he has attended nearly as many school committee meetings as some committee members. He helped research and author a critique of Portland’s economic status, with solutions for avoiding an impending budgetary dilemma. He says Portland’s schools are still facing a budgetary “train wreck” and he hopes to work with city and state officials to solve the problem. He has high standards for hiring a new superintendent, and, although politically unpopular, would consider closing some neighborhood schools if finances demanded it. Among a group of worthy candidates, Gallie rises to the top.

President: Al Gore. The sigh versus the smirk. The liar versus the idiot. Tweedledum versus Tweedledee. That’s what campaign 2000 comes down to. At least it is if you believe the press, the daft utterances of the “undecided voters,” or the rhetoric of the Green Party’s opportunistic candidate.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There are huge differences between Vice-President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush. For starters, one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, which means there is a Grand Canyon–size gulf between their positions on taxes, the military, foreign policy, abortion, affirmative action, civil rights for gay men and lesbians, gun control, and the environment — and between the philosophies they would follow in making selections for the federal bench and the United States Supreme Court.

That is why the Phoenix urges you to vote for Vice-President Al Gore for president and Senator Joseph Lieberman for vice-president.

Our country is poised to go one of two ways after this election: forward or backward. There’s no question that Bush would take us back. His reckless tax plan would immediately blow about a quarter of the projected (and let’s not forget it’s only projected) budget surplus on givebacks to the wealthiest one percent of all Americans. Bush can call his tax plan “tax relief” until he’s blue in the face, but it won’t change the fact that it is nothing more than a gold-leaf-plated bone for the Big Money interests who have financed his campaign.

Bush has surrounded himself — even placed on his ticket — leftovers from his father’s administration: Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, former undersecretary of state Robert Zoellick, and former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey. He has been so inarticulate while campaigning, and so unimpressive during the debates, that it’s hard to see him as anything more than a flawed vessel through which these reactionary GOP forces will govern.

To suggest, as Ralph Nader has, that there is no difference between Gore and Bush is as reckless as Bush’s bankrupt policies themselves. Tax reform or tax cuts? A foreign policy that engages the world, or one that isolates us from the global stage? Affirmative action or affirmative “access”? Gay rights or “special rights” — the right-wing code phrase preferred by Bush? Environmental protection for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or oil-drilling equipment? Protection of Roe v. Wade or further weakening of a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? These are important issues that will shape our country for generations.

And yet Nader continues to charge that there are no differences between the candidates. Even so, for reasons clearly rooted in political expediency, he attacks only Gore, not Bush. Unlike even Pat Buchanan — who is focusing his campaign on states where Bush’s lead is solid — Nader is reportedly ratcheting up his campaign in states where Bush and Gore are neck and neck. In Florida, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, for example, support for Nader may draw enough votes from Gore to put Bush over the top. Nader as protector of the people and the environment? Nader as petulant spoiler is more like it.

Yes, Nader has every right to run. His third-party campaign, like Ross Perot’s in 1992, is bringing valuable ideas to the national discussion. It’s also drawing many more young people into the political process, which is critical. But what’s ironic about Nader’s campaign against Gore — and make no mistake, Nader is running against Gore and not Bush — is that, overall, he’s not a particularly good alternative to Gore. Sure, he’s for campaign-finance reform, but Gore says it will be his first priority. Granted, Gore, like his mentor President Bill Clinton, has been a bit slippery on occasion, but this would be a difficult pledge for him to wriggle out of. And Gore, unlike Nader, has a shot at winning and carrying out his promise. Nader is an environmentalist, but so is Gore — he wrote Earth in the Balance and has been a staunch advocate of the need to deal with global warming. He even earned the not-intended-to-be-flattering moniker “Ozone Man” from W.’s father. Once in office Gore will far outdistance the efforts of Clinton, who was never much of a nature boy.

The real difference between Nader and Gore? Nader opposes free-trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, while Gore supports them. There’s no question these agreements are flawed, but they’re absolutely essential in today’s global marketplace. And it is simply naive to deny that free trade has played a significant role in our current economic prosperity. It’s also worth noting here that the major unions have all endorsed Gore. At least Gore has said he wants environmental and workers’-rights provisions written into these agreements. Think Bush will do that?

Another difference between Gore and Nader involves the issue of race. Gore understands the problem of racism in this country. He speaks about it passionately. And he wants to protect affirmative action. Nader says he supports affirmative action — well, he hasn’t actually said it, but he’s posted his supportive position on his Web site. But Nader sees the problem of racial discrimination only in terms of economic discrimination — i.e., poverty. As if wealthy black men weren’t pulled over by cops practicing racial profiling. As if African-American executives weren’t bumping up against the same glass ceilings as women. As if this country’s racial divide sprang only from urban pockets of poverty and horrendous public schools — and not, as it actually does, from several centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and lynchings, on top of urban poverty.

Yet another difference between Nader and Gore: gay rights. During Nader’s first presidential run in 1996, he infamously dismissed the issue as “gonadal politics.” Today, he’s refused to say he supports the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry. During a May 7 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Nader dodged the question. After Russert asked — for the third time — what his position was, Nader finally answered in part: “I think homosexuals have the right of civil union.”

Does Nader deserve your vote? Not in this election.

But Al Gore does. The vice-president is a good candidate who has run a deeply flawed campaign — letting it become about George W. Bush and his, ahem, ideas, instead of Gore’s own. But he shouldn’t be punished for this. There’s no question: the ticket of Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman is the best choice for this country for the next four years.

Al Gore supports a muscular foreign policy that will work to prevent genocidal conflict. He will allow our troops to be used for humanitarian peacekeeping missions. He will be reliable in his support of Israel.

Al Gore will continue the fiscal discipline and budgetary responsibility put in place under President Clinton. He has proposed a cautious but responsible tax program that will reward those in our society who were left out of the recent economic boom. Gore will push for a $10,000 tuition tax credit and opposes the notion of gambling with Social Security taxes in the stock market.

Al Gore will protect a woman’s right to choose, and he will do so by selecting federal and Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade. Remember that the next president will appoint two, and quite possibly four, Supreme Court justices, as well as dozens of other federal judges. As Gore said during the first presidential debate: “The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision’s going to be overturned. I support a woman’s right to choose. My opponent does not. . . . I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.”

Al Gore will sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will prevent companies from firing employees solely on the basis of their sexual orientations.

Al Gore will block oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife National Refuge.

Al Gore will safeguard the nation’s policies of affirmative action.

Al Gore not only needs your vote — he deserves it.