Excerpts from editorial endorsements.

The presidential race

Messenger-Inquirer in Owensboro, Ky., for Clinton:

President Clinton is one of the most complex presidents in memory. He has the makings of a fine president, but he is at the same time subject to great lapses of discipline that can turn success into crisis. . . .

Of course, his own accomplishments are worthy of note. He has delivered on nearly all of the campaign promises made in 1992. Most notably, he pushed through a real deficit reduction package without any Republican votes and then worked to pass welfare reform.

Given his shift to the center and his still formidable potential to emerge as a competent president with bipartisan appeal, we think Clinton should be given a second term.

. . . Despite Dole's long record of great service to the nation and the high esteem with which he is held by members of both parties, he has utterly failed to make his case. . . .

Asbury Park Press in New Jersey, for Clinton:

Based on the performance of the economy and his superior political skills in leading the nation, Bill Clinton deserves a second term as president. Despite Bob Dole's long and praiseworthy record of public service, Clinton's record of accomplishment argues for continued voter support.

. . . It's an obvious understatement to say that Clinton and his administration have their shortcomings. . . .

The way the White House has responded - or failed to respond - to ethical questions has tended to heighten concerns, not defuse them. . . .

During Clinton's term, America has had a sustained, if not spectacular, period of growth, accompanied by low inflation, low interest rates, and low unemployment. Those numbers justify staying the course with President Clinton.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio, for Clinton:

. . . The voluble Clinton can learn about principled politics and modest government from Bob Dole. With the expectation that the president will apply such lessons taught by his first term, we support him for a second.

In his first two years in office, Bill Clinton wounded himself. From gays in the military to an ill-advised $16 billion "economic stimulus" package to inoperable health care reform to lax security and oversight in his own administration, the Democrat who had campaigned as a moderate "new Democrat" got off on the wrong, left foot. . . .

Bill Clinton got to the White House by proclaiming his moderation. It's the course reinforced by his on-the-job training these past four years and revived these past months in his campaign. In the expectation that he will stay that course, we endorse his re-election.

Newsday in Melville, N.Y., for Clinton:

. . . The nation is going through two profound transitions, in foreign and economic policy. . . . These are subjects worthy of a great national debate. The same goes for an issue that has defined so much of our politics this. century, how to achieve equal opportunity for African-Americans.

The reason voters are angry and disappointed with both the campaign and the candidates is that Clinton and Dole have largely ignored these questions. . . . No wonder so many Americans are turned off. . . .

For all of our problems with the undisciplined manner in which Clinton has run his administration and our concern about the charges of ethical misconduct circling him and his wife, we must acknowledge that Clinton understands the challenges facing the nation. He is intellectually one of the brightest presidents in modern times and one of the most articulate. And his record is better than his sloppy, sometimes unfocused style of governing would have led us to expect. . . .

The Columbian in Vancouver, Wash., for Clinton:

. . . The result of Dole's flawed campaign almost certainly will be re-election of one of the less satisfactory inheritors of the mythic mantle of Washington, Jefferson, Truman, and Reagan. . . .

Shouldn't we do better, expect better of the first citizen? Absolutely no question about it. But those expectations have never been realistic or nearly fulfilled when considered at short range. A lot of the citizens in his new nation considered George Washington a bombastic war profiteer. Jefferson's domestic arrangements were subject to excoriation that would make Gennifer Flowers blush. Ronald Reagan, now a shining Republican icon, rode the nation into a sea of debt. Democratic icons Truman and Kennedy barely won election, and Franklin Roosevelt was in his time the most reviled public person in the nation.

We get the leaders we deserve in democracy. Clinton is the leader we deserve because we choose to process candidates through a mill that gives us such unsatisfying choices.

Kingsport Times-News in Tennessee, for Dole:

. . . We're not totally comfortable with Dole's plans for a tax cut because he has not explained how he will pay for it while balancing the budget. But even with that reservation, we endorse Dole's candidacy because we believe he is the better choice to provide leadership sustained by honesty and integrity, traits found wanting in President Clinton.

The Capital Times in Madison, Wis., for Clinton:

Somewhere in Wisconsin today a mother will take advantage of the Family Leave Act to care for a sick child. A teenager will walk to school on streets that gun control laws and new prevention programs have made safer. A family will start a business, confident that it can thrive in a robust and expanding economy. . . .

Bob Dole is a more decent and honorable man than the party he leads. And that is precisely why his election as president would be so dangerous. Dole would not veto Republican initiatives to gut environmental protection programs, undermine the social safety net, and give tax breaks to the rich. . . .

It is easy to be cavalier about distinctions between Clinton and Dole when one is well fed, well cared for and lives in a thriving, progressive community. But for millions of Americans, the distinctions are vital. It is in their name, and in the name of the nation America should be, that we must re-elect Bill Clinton on November 5.

The Dallas Morning News, for Dole:

. . . If one could combine the best qualities of both [Clinton and Dole], the result would be a candidate most Americans could embrace. The candidate would have Mr. Clinton's charisma, intellect, and contemporary outlook plus Mr. Dole's service to country, mid-American values, and mastery of the political process. . . . We believe Bob Dole's ideas would lead America in the right direction as we approach the millennium. . . . Yet we earnestly hope that in the year 2000, all of us will be energized by a choice for president that matches up with the single most important responsibility in the Free World.

The Detroit News, for Dole:

. . . We endorse Bob Dole as the better man for president. The risks of another four years of Bill Clinton are simply too numerous and too great.

There is, to begin with, the risk that President Clinton and his team will mishandle the fragile economic recovery America is enjoying. . . .

Re-electing Bill Clinton is also likely to mean a renewed regulatory assault on job creation. Vice President Al Gore is fairly champing at the bit to unleash his environmental agenda. His book, Earth in the Balance, includes a direct attack on the internal combustion engine - i.e., Detroit. . . .

A Clinton re-election would almost certainly mean a sharp turn to the left in the federal judiciary. . . .

We wouldn't deny that Bob Dole is a deeply flawed candidate. . . .

But there are still important reasons to think the Dole/Kemp ticket would be best for America.

The Register-Guard in Eugene, Ore., for Clinton:

Political obituaries were written for Bill Clinton after the centerpiece of his first two years, universal health care, went down in flames and voters handed control of Congress to the Republicans. Yet far from burying him, those disasters inspired Clinton, and today he stands on the verge of easy re-election.

The paradox is not hard to understand. For Clinton was not wrong in the beginning about where the country ought to go. He was just wrong about how fast it could get there and how big were the steps that Congress could take.

Syracuse Herald American in New York, for Dole:

Bob Dole is not warm and fuzzy. He does not pretend to feel our pain. But he is an honorable and hardworking public servant with a distinguished record of service to his country that began more than a half-century ago. . . .

He is also smart, thoughtful, and sincere. That sincerity sometimes comes in the form of brutal frankness that has brought Dole an unjustified reputation as a curmudgeon. . . .

After four years in office, Clinton remains an ideological enigma. Freed of the need to campaign for re-election, in what direction would he take the country during second term?

The Cincinnati Enquirer, for Dole:

. . . Candidate Clinton has had a Dick Morris make-over and looks at times more Republican than Bob Dole.

. . . Mr. Clinton consumes super-size promises like McDonald's fries. One minute they're there - then they're gone. . . .

A Whitewater cloud hangs over Mr. Clinton's future, making us wonder if his second term will provide the convictions he lacked in his first.

No, President Clinton is not our first choice. Neither is Bob Dole. It's impossible to believe that Mr. Dole is the best his party could produce. If Republicans lose, blame Mr. Dole's stubborn refusal to admit that his presidential parking meter expired in 1988. . . .

Next to Prozac Clinton, Mr. Dole is campaign Sominex. But being a character is no substitute for having it. Americans who want a president they can trust will sleep easier with Mr. Dole in the White House.

The Seattle Times, for Clinton:

President Clinton should be re-elected to a second term. Despite his somewhat dispiriting campaign, he emerges as the obvious choice to lead the country into the next century. On a more parochial level, Clinton also is the candidate best able to nurture the interest of the Pacific Northwest and Washington state.

. . . On the economy, Dole might have had the edge, based on his Senate record as a responsible voice on tax policy and federal spending. Then, as if repudiating all those sensible years in the U.S. Senate, Dole adopted a goofy scheme for tax cuts without carefully matched spending cuts. . . .

One of the surprises of this campaign is that Dole has not been able to move voters with his presumed advantage on the character issue. . . .

Ultimately, the greatest challenge facing the next president and the new Congress is entitlement reforms, particularly Social Security and Medicare.

If Clinton is looking for more than a bridge to the next century, if he wants a path into the history books, that's where he could find it.

Other races

EDITOR'S NOTE: John Young, editorial page editor of the Waco Tribune-Herald in Texas, writes: 'Here's one that did my heart good to write. This is the first time since I've been in Waco - 12 years - that we decided not to hold our noses and recommend the lesser of two evils. I think the editorial still serves an important purpose for the voter's benefit in mentioning where the candidates stand on some key issues. But this time we've left the nose-holding up to the voters. We don't plan to make this a practice or a habit, but it sure feels good every 12 years or so."

From the Waco Tribune-Herald in Texas:

None of the above

For much of the past two years, in effect Texas has had one U.S. senator - Kay Bailey Hutchison. It's not enough.

Republican Phil Gramm and Democrat Victor Morales want to fill in the blank. When one considers what the latter says and the former does, the same applies in either case: It's not enough.

The Tribune-Herald editorial board, though it would like to recommend a candidate in this race, can find neither candidate satisfactory. . . .

Gramm's major problem is that several years ago he decided he'd rather be president than U.S. senator. . . .

The problem with Morales is that he is woefully vague and poorly versed on major issues. . . .

Indeed, there are clear differences between the two on key issues. . . .

Based on these stances, Central Texans should be able to make a choice between the two. But the Tribune-Herald editorial board has too many problems with both to recommend either. . . .

EDITOR'S NOTE: Susan Albright, editorial page editor of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, writes that this editorial endorsing Senator Paul Wellstone, written by staffer Lori Sturdevant, was worth sending along because, first, it was very well-written, and second, the race got a lot of attention nationally.

From the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, Minn.:

By now, it can be no surprise to anyone: Paul Wellstone is liberal. He makes no apologies for it, and on many issues, such as welfare reform, offers sterling reasons for that philosophy. But lost in the emphasis on Wellstone's liberalism is a salient fact about the Democratic senator: Paul Wellstone has become quite effective in representing this state.

. . . He passionately believes that government should be a force for good particularly where the needs of children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged are at issue. This is liberalism in the best Minnesota tradition.

In a second term, Wellstone could enhance that liberalism by advancing a comprehensive budget that blends his principled sense of compassion with fiscal prudence.

. . . Even in his Senate heyday [Republican Rudy] Boschwitz did not display the depth or breadth of thinking that Wellstone does. Boschwitz preferred, then and now, a simplistic across-the-board approach to budget-balancing. Wellstone is more selective, taking care to shield vulnerable people from harm.

. . . Paul Wellstone deserves Minnesota's affirmation as a vibrant senator of the 1990s. He has given six years of strong service and promises six more. It's a promise Minnesota should accept.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This editorial prompted John Young from Waco, Texas, to post this query on NCEW's online mailing list, "Loved the blistering piece from The Capital Times on the jerk who misrepresented your opinion. So, who won the election?" Phil Haslanger replied, "Chuck Chvala, the guy we really did endorse, won. Virtue triumphs again."

From The Capital Times in Madison, Wis.:

Shame on you, Tom Metcalfe

. . . In a last-ditch attempt to restart his failing campaign, [state Senate candidate Tom] Metcalfe has sunk to a new low.

In literature being distributed to voters in the 16th district, Metcalfe suggests that The Capital Times is supporting his challenge to [incumbent Chuck] Chvala. Nothing could be further from the truth.

After meeting with both candidates, our Editorial Board voted unanimously to endorse Chvala. . . .

Now, however, Metcalfe has taken part of a sentence from a pro-Chvala editorial and used it in his literature and commercials. Metcalfe uses the line, "In this campaign, he has been high on empathy for people's concerns - high taxes, fear of crime, the quality of schools. . . ." What Metcalfe doesn't include is the rest of that sentence, which noted that, while Metcalfe touches on the key issues, he is "shockingly short of ideas about how to address those concerns."

. . . Tom Metcalfe's attempt to deceive the voters at the last minute has convinced us that the challenger does not have enough respect for the truth - or the voters - to serve in this important post.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dick Hughes, editorial page editor of the Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore., writes: "This is my favorite editorial that I wrote during the election season because of the tone. It's in opposition to a pro-hunting balloting measure."

From the Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore.:

Ballot Measure 34 isn't sporting

If you're the typical voters in Marion or Polk counties, you're a wacko.

At least according to the leaders of the pro-Ballot Measure 34 campaign. They're publicly labeling their opponents as wackos, extremists, fanatics.

Just who are those opponents? They're the Oregonians - including a majority of Marion and Polk voters - who two years ago passed Measure 18, which banned the hunting of bears with dogs, or with bait, and using dogs to hunt cougars.

. . . Supporters contend that 1994's Measure 18 severely damaged the ability to control bear and cougar populations in Oregon. That's a phony argument.

. . . Skilled, sporting hunters still can get bear and cougar. Even under the new restrictions, hunters killed 624 bears - including one shot by a 12-year-old girl - and 31 cougars in 1995.

State and federal agents retain the authority to kill cougars that threaten or harass people or livestock. In any case, many of the reported cougar sightings in populated areas are questionable.

. . . Measure 18 promoted sportsmanship in hunting, which is why many hunters supported it. What's the sport in using dogs to pursue a bear or cougar until it's exhausted or climbs a tree, and then walking up and killing it? Is it sporting to set out food or other bear bait for weeks before the start of hunting season, training the bears to eat there so hunters can kill them once the season opens?