Op-Ed

Tuesday night's debate gave us the real Al Gore and the real George W. Bush. Gore won -- he may even have killed -- but he's still annoying. One can only conclude that that smarmy, pietistic streak of his is absolutely authentic; that's exactly who he really is.

He's sharp as a razor, knows his onions (does anyone else outside of Congress know what "Dingell-Norwood" is?) and will probably be a good president. Bush not only amply demonstrated his vast ignorance but also was so profoundly misleading on his supposed role in the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights that I have to conclude he knowingly lied.

It's possible to not know or be confused about a lot of things, but Bush cannot possibly believe what he said: "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." He was there, I was there, and that's flat untrue. He reviewed the details of the bill accurately, so it was clear that he had recently prepped on the subject.

The ever-thrilling topic of military spending is our text du jour. We seem to have two categories of comment about our candidates on the issues. The first is that there's not a dime's worth of difference between them, and the second is that they are separated by great yawning gulfs of difference and that the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. Well, on the military, there are differences, but not enough.

George W. Bush wants to spend more on the military, and Al Gore wants to spend even more than that. The problem is that's not the problem. The problem is that we spend money on the military stupidly, and this in turn affects everything else, because this election is about choices and priorities.

More for the military means less for education, child care, health care and all the rest; the military is still the biggest ticket item in "discretionary" spending.

In the world according to news media, the U.S. government is situated on high moral ground -- in contrast to some of the intractable adversaries. "The conflict that had been so elaborately dressed in the civilizing cloak of a peace effort has been stripped to its barest essence: Jew against Arab, Arab against Jew," the New York Times reported from Jerusalem.

Soon afterwards, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed: "The cycle of violence has to be stopped." Such pronouncements from Washington get a lot of respectful media play in our country.

If you're in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois or Missouri, the presidential race is high-tension and inescapable. The continuous blat from the air wars -- the television and radio advertising campaigns -- is everywhere. More money is being spent on this presidential election than ever before, but it's being spent in fewer than a dozen states, so the concentrated effect is practically stunning.

When we decide that yesterday's breakthrough purchase has become today's outmoded albatross, we may gripe about the hassle and expense of upgrading to new systems. Sometimes, no doubt, we buy more for reasons of consumer vanity than practical functionality.

But the common determination to keep up with the (Digital) Joneses isn't mere status-seeking. As the Internet continues to gain momentum, we're apt to believe -- for good reasons -- that we must not be left behind. In professional and financial realms, those who lack access to the latest in techno-communication are likely to find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Ooops. Uh, actually, we rather notoriously elect judges in Texas, including those on the state Supreme Court. However, due to a series of early retirements, Bush has been called upon to name four justices, so one can see how he might be confused about it.

Since he brought it up, it's worth taking a look at Bush's picks for the state Supremes, since they do tell us rather a lot about his taste in judges.

The event was a modest announcement by the Office of the Special Prosecutor that there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge of wrongdoing against Bill or Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater investigation.

That story lasted exactly one news cycle, and then we dropped it like a hot rock. If that's a one-cycle story, just what the HELL has been going on for the last six years? Six years, $52 million, and there is no there there? There never was, and I'm sorry to play I-told-you-so, but I told you so. So what was this madness about?

David Maraniss of The Washington Post has this nice riff that he does about Bill Clinton as the Republicans' Moby Dick. They've had their harpoons in this white whale since '92, but they can't kill him -- he keeps dragging them to their deaths in his wake.

The 30 Free Press “Libby” Award winners

It takes a radical activist community to raise a newspaper. While most of its underground predecessors are moldering in the grave, the Freep proudly lives on. Much to the paper’s credit, it was recently barred from raising funds at Ohio State University. And these 30 people are key reasons why we’re still around to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. A list of winners is on page 9.

THE FREE PRESS SALUTES

Dan Cahill and Ida Strong

Two key members of the Prisoners Advocacy Network (PAN) are the main organizers of the “Critical Resistance: Stop the Prison Industrial Complex” Statehouse rally on September 28, 2000. Their hard work has brought together a large coalition of activist organizations from Art and Revolution to the Cincinnati Zapatista Coalition and has raised essential issues concerning human rights and social justice. Slated to speak are Staughton Lynd, Pam Africa on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal and there’s a statement of support from Leonard Peltier.

Ohio Green Party

To go back a mere week, Veep Al Gore won the debate on points, but the immediate spin was: Would it do him any good because he was having such an Eddie Haskell night? The Bush camp complained of Gore's sighing; the media promptly did out-takes of all sighs by Gore, strung them together and -- voila -- he appears as a petulant poseur rather than master of fact and issue.

(I mean, what are we to make of Bush's suggestion that we encourage energy exploration in Mexico so we won't be dependent on foreign oil? Bush actually said he had discussed this with Mexican President-elect Vicente Fox. Shouldn't someone cable Fox and tell him we're not considering annexation?)

OK, the media -- world champions of getting-off-the-point -- now have us worrying about Gore's sighing, but the Bush camp is down to no issues. Nothing works for them, and their only option is to drive up Gore's negatives.

"Charges of Chinese influence-buying in the 1996 U.S. presidential campaign caused a political storm in Washington that has yet to fully abate," the Washington Post noted recently. "By some measures, however, that episode pales by comparison to American political interference in Serbia." The announced tab for aid to foes of Milosevic during the just-ended fiscal year was $25 million. For the next year, the budget is $41.5 million.

We're told that the cash from the U.S. Treasury is necessary because unfair obstacles block opposition candidates as they try to communicate with the Yugoslav public. "The largest share of that money goes toward 'civil society' programs, such as those that support independent media," the Post reported. The newspaper added: "U.S. officials say they are seeking only to level the playing field."