Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Fri, Oct 23 1992 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 04:43:42 EDT Message-ID: 10-23 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Oct. 23-25, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Friday morning in USA TODAY: Endorsements, Daylight-savings time, Neuharth. TODAY'S DEBATE - ENDORSEMENTS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: 'Tis the season for newspapers to endorse presidential candidates. Witness the bushels of them appearing each week in "Opinionline" on the Op-ed page. But there's one endorsement you won't see - ours. In its 10-year lifetime, USA TODAY has never cast its lot with one presidential candidate over another. The reason: There is no right candidate for every person or every region, and we don't propose to tell you there is. We have no links or loyalties to any candidate and don't wish to be seen as having any. So, we'll offer candidate interviews and competing opinions about their programs. But the final decision is yours. This year, the choice is dramatic. The principal decision is between two able professionals with a wealth of government experience and distinct philosophies: George Bush, who is leery of government's skills as a problem-solver, and Bill Clinton, who considers government an ally in getting things done. For those unhappy with the leading contenders, there's Ross Perot and other less-known candidates. They offer a useful outlet for a protest vote, though at the risk of leaving the real choice to others. For those happy with the front-runners, the differences on issues are stark: On the economy: Clinton favors worker training and hiking public and private investment; Bush focuses on private investment and improving trade. On taxes: Bush promises he will not raise taxes; Clinton plans a tax hike on those making over $200,000 a year. On health care: Bush's plan does not guarantee universal coverage; Clinton's plan guarantees all would be covered, though at an unspecified price. On abortion: Bush opposes Roe vs. Wade; Clinton supports it. On defense: Clinton would cut 200,000 more troops and 4% more from the budget than Bush would. Neither has said anywhere near enough about how to reduce the deficit. Which issues are most important? That's for you to decide. We'll settle for giving you information that helps. OTHER VIEW: GILBERT CRANBERG, professor of journalism at the University of Iowa and former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register: This newspaper recently sounded off about term limits and suicide. On the question of who deserves to be president, though, USA TODAY comes down foursquare nowhere. Once again it ducks telling readers which candidate it favors. In 1988, USA TODAY explained its cop-out: "In a nation as diverse as the USA, no candidate is absolutely right or wrong for all people or all regions." The same could be said about other issues the paper tackles. Besides, the purpose of "endorsement" editorials isn't to advise readers how they should vote; it's to stimulate debate by adding to the mix of opinion. Readers know better than, sheeplike, to do an editorial's bidding. It boils down to this: If you editorialize about even minor matters, do it on an issue as paramount as the choice for president. The First Amendment exists, the Supreme Court said, to further the "national commitment" that debate on public issues be "uninhibited, robust, and wide open." The press reneges on that commitment when it gags itself. Sadly, USA TODAY has plenty of newspaper cohorts on the sidelines during presidential elections. Sure, they print a variety of opinions; they just won't tell you where they stand. The editor of another Gannett-owned paper, Geneva Overholser of the Des Moines Register, recently denounced that sideline mentality. Citing an editor who said he didn't want "to presume to dictate to voters who they should vote for," she exploded: "Omigod. Presume! Presume! Can you imagine how many people would kill for the ... potential to inspire that this editor has? And he won't say a word. He doesn't want to presume." Pay attention, USA TODAY. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON DAYLIGHT-SAVING TIME: FARIBAULT, Minn, Dianne Tousignant, 50, realtor: Definitely. It is an advantage to many families to gain more time early in the day. It adds time to our recreation and leisure hours. I plan this Sunday to take advantage of the fall season. SAN DIEGO, Calif., John Guinn, 44, health educator: No, I don't like it. It tends to throw me off and I hate leaving work at 5 in the dark. It seems like you don't have any time to do anything. Waking up in the morning to sun is all right, but I'd rather have the time at the end of the day. INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., Kimberly Fisher, 30, flight attendant: In the Indianapolis area, we don't change our clocks, so beginning Sunday we'll be at the same time as the East Coast. People forget this when they travel to different states, and they are confused a lot. But it's necessary, as far as farming and businesses go, not to change. BOONEVILLE, Mo., Hal McNeal, 36, Pastor, teacher: Being from a rural community, I wish they'd leave the time alone at one spot. I work with the developmentally disabled and any change tends to create problems. It bothers them. Also, as the pastor in a church, I find people show up Sundays either early or late. TOPIC - FREE SPEECH: Al Neuhart is the founder of USA TODAY: "The next century belongs to the Pacific," a futuristic Mike Mansfield told me in Tokyo in 1988 while he was U.S. ambassador. Then, that prediction seemed far-fetched. Now, it's plausible. Many in this part of the world feel economic and social changes in Asia will be more far-reaching than political and military changes have been in Eastern Europe. Those prospects are being assessed by officials and guests of The Freedom Forum, a not-for-profit, non-political, international foundation headquartered outside Washington, D.C. The Freedom Forum, which I'm privileged to chair, is on a seven-country Asian mission. Purpose: To foster free press, free speech and free spirit with programs and grants around the world. Headlines: Free spirit is nearly everywhere in Asia. But free press and free speech still are stifled in China, North Korea, Vietnam. Sometimes in Singapore. China, with nearly 1.2 billion people - over one-fifth of the world's population - is key to Asia's economic future. Hong Kong, this big-money center of 6 million which reverts from British to Chinese control in 1997, is key to China's future. When Margaret Thatcher agreed to let Hong Kong go, some feared its free enterprise system might die. Now, hope is high that Hong Kong will set China's standards. Deng Xiaoping, 88-year-old leader without portfolio, promoted economic reformists in the Politburo this week. His China goal: A touch of capitalism, while preserving communism. A la Mikhail Gorbachev. When Deng dies, his reform-minded successors likely will be tested by hard-liners. A la the USSR. But a free market economy inevitably will replace Marxism in Beijing, as it did in Moscow. Other freedoms will follow. Then China, with huge human resources, will prosper. And the power of the Pacific that Mike Mansfield envisioned may become a reality. Issues & Debate Editor: Ed Kelleher. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM