When confronting the crisis of low oil supplies, the two presidential candidates reveal startling differences in their leadership abilities. Texas Gov. George W. Bush merely accuses the Clinton administration of a “lack of leadership.” He deplores the absence of a federal oil policy which would assure ample oil supplies. Such a federal oil policy would constitute an intervention in the economics of the oil industry. Bush’s demand for such a policy is strangely inconsistent with his usual demand for less government meddling in the economy. Bush has nothing specific to suggest about dealing with either the short-term problem of the fuel oil shortage this winter or the long-term problem of protecting the United States from monopolistic exploitation by foreign oil producers.

Vice President Al Gore, on the other hand, showed imagination and bold leadership in calling for the temporary use of about 5 percent of our strategic oil reserves to help meet short-term needs this winter. Gore has also proposed a long-term solution switch from fossil fuels to renewable ethanol made from U.S. grown corn. This switch would not only provide additional income for hard-pressed U.S. farmers, it would also help solve the global warming problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels. U.S. grown, renewable ethanol would free us from the dictates of the foreign oil cartel.

It seems that the two oil industry executives nominated by the Republicans have no idea how to solve our oil shortage crisis. They don’t even try to lead us out of this problem. Fortunately, Gore is demonstrating his leadership capabilities by proposing both short- and long-term solutions to this problem. Gore isn’t hampered by the self-interests which seem to paralyze Bush and Dick Cheney.

I want a president who knows how to lead the nation in solving a crisis. I’m voting for Gore.

Joel Welty
Blanchard, Mich.