MR. GORE: A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE

As we approach the election, there are a few more questions I wish you would answer for us, Mr. Gore.

You dispute Governor Bush's charge that you are a big-government guy and point to your notorious "reinventing government" initiative as Exhibit A. Do you really think the raw size of the government bureaucracy is as accurate a measure of government largesse and intrusiveness as government spending and regulations? Or do you believe the average swing voter is too dense to grasp the difference?

Do you truly believe it is improper for George Bush to have alerted the public to the disturbing problems with our military readiness? Or do you think it's more responsible to conceal the facts so as to reduce the likelihood that corrective action can be taken to shore up our national defenses?

Do you agree with President Clinton's 1999 State of the Union proposal to invest 15 percent of Social Security funds in the stock market? Or do you believe your campaign rhetoric that such plans as Clinton's and Governor Bush's are risky schemes?

Speaking of Social Security, do you have any plan whatsoever to restore its long-term solvency, other than to permanently subsidize it out of general revenue?

Why won't you level with the American people about your actual position on partial-birth abortion? Why do you pretend to oppose it except to protect the mother's health when you know the mother's health is rarely, if ever, an issue with these abortions?

If you are so committed to education, how can you in good conscience keep minority children trapped in inner city schools by opposing school choice?

If elected, which economic plan would you implement: the extravagant one laid out in your campaign or the even more ambitious Global Marshall Plan detailed in your scary book?

Even more importantly, no matter which irresponsible economic plan you ultimately decide upon, how would either scheme allow you to fulfill your promise to continue our prosperity? Since you and Bill Clinton subscribe to the discredited economic theory that lower deficits lead to lower interest rates, which lead to economic growth, how do you plan on sustaining prosperity when either of your grandiose plans would obliterate the deficits and thus thwart your prosperity designs?

Do you believe that a Hate Crimes law would have prevented the death of James Byrd or that more gun laws would have prevented the Columbine murders?

Would you continue to circumvent the Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent by using obscure and inapplicable statutes to appoint people to serve in important government positions, such as Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division?

Would you reappoint Janet Reno as attorney general or someone else whose primary responsibility would be to serve your political interests rather than the interests of justice and the rule of law?

~David Limbaugh of Cape Girardeau is a nationally syndicated columnist.