The Crimson often makes mistakes, but in Wednesday's and today's editorials on the environment, it has surpassed itself. Who is running for president? To hear The Crimson tell it, Election `92 is a fierce battle between Vice President Dan Quayle and Senator Al Gore `69.

Impeccable Crimson logic further dictates that since Gore has written a book (a national bestseller, no less!) and Quayle hasn't, Gore is the best environmentalist since Johnny Appleseed. "Clinton and Gore clearly offer the better vision in this area," The Crimson trumpets.

The Crimson never questions Gore's counter-intuitive contention that even short-term economic growth and environmental regulation go hand-in-hand. The Crimson never questions Gore's dark vision of the earth's future, a vision many scientists would contest. But most importantly, The Crimson never questions the idea that Gore's opinions are also Governor Bill Clinton's.

I wonder whether those familiar with Arkansas' "Dioxinville" and other eco-disasters share The Crimson's confidence in Clinton's election-year conversion to environmentalism. Heck, I even wonder whether Gore--who has been given a strict order to mute his eco-talk during this campaign--shares that confidence.

There are three major candidates for president. Not one of them is Al Gore. I guess The Crimson has been mudslinging too long to recognize this simple fact: on the environment, all three candidates stink.