Presidential Candidates Should Travel High Road
Byline: Jack Mabley
I was trying to figure out how to express how I feel about the presidential campaign. Then I read a New York Times editorial that says it with a bit more authority than I enjoy in Arlington Heights:
"Both Mr. Dole and Mr. Clinton may be thinking that more confrontation will enhance their credentials as effective leaders.
"Naive as it sounds, we think voters would prefer results to further posturing."
Being the Times, they put in a qualifying "naive as it sounds."
It is not naive. It is a hard truth. Most voters are fed up with the sniping and name-calling and the junkyard dog style of political campaigning.
As I heard Dole spout his platitudes about how awful Clinton is, my thoughts were, "Does this guy care about us? Does Clinton put our welfare first when answering Dole? Aren't both of them bent on winning the election, whatever it takes?"
Here's what's naive. Dole and Clinton are the two top political leaders and office-holders. In theory, both want what's best for the American people.
Why can't these two sit down together, lay the government's worst problems on the table and say, "We have different ideas on how to solve these problems, but our goals are the same.
"Let's stop insulting and demeaning each other, reach mutual solutions where we can and put our differences before the American people to decide which of us offers better solutions."
This week's Newsweek says this about the budget impasse:
"A budget deal is unlikely, though that is probably what swing voters want most.
"Ironically, campaign aides shudder at the thought. 'We don't want to let them hug us,' said a top Dole media aide. His Clinton counterpart agreed. 'If we left Clinton and Dole alone, they'd probably settle everything in a half-hour. …