A Debate in Black and White
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 11, 2003; 8:48 AM
It was not a question a white journalist would have asked Howard Dean.
"Frankly," said Ed Gordon of Black Entertainment Television, with Vermont's population just 0.5 percent black, "there's been some concern . . . that you will have a difficult time connecting and really understanding the concerns of minorities, in particular African-Americans."
Dean argued that "I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences. Black folks have heard lectures from white politicians for a long time. . . . White folks need to talk to white people in America about race."
Moments later in Tuesday's Baltimore debate, Gordon said that unemployment is 10.9 percent for blacks and cited a study that more white applicants than blacks were called back for low-wage jobs.
"And that's why we need affirmative action in this country," Dean said. "There is a built-in bias of people who do the hiring, they automatically assume people who look like them are more qualified than people who don't look like them."
The exchanges were striking because we hear so little on the campaign trail these days about affirmative action or inner-city joblessness. Everyone is chasing the stereotypical swing voters, many of them in the great mass of American suburbia, and mainstream reporters rarely ask about the poor.
It's not surprising that a panel of three black journalists, at a debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, would ask questions from a different perspective (though there were also a lot about Iraq and foreign policy). But it helped take us beyond the usual soundbites (Note to Dick Gephardt: Calling Bush "a miserable failure" worked well in last week's debate; repeating it in Baltimore just gave it a "Groundhog Day" flavor).
I'm usually skeptical of panderfests before this or that interest group, when the questions seem to boil down to "What are you going to do for us?" and the candidates do everything but beg. But because the Baltimore panel, moderated by Fox's Brit Hume, asked good questions, some of the candidates were pushed to address issues important to one of the party's core constituencies. I didn't know that Dean, whose ability to excite black voters remains in question, was a strong supporter of affirmative action. And John Edwards took issue with Dean's stance of being the only contender to discuss race with white audiences.
Fox's Juan Williams asked whether blacks should consider the GOP or flirt with the idea of a black American party. Al Sharpton said to Democrats that "we helped take you to the dance and you leave with right wingers."
Williams asked about substandard education for black and Hispanic children. Edwards replied that "we still have two public school systems in America, one for the 'haves' and one for the 'have-nots.' "
Gordon asked John Kerry if he'd feel comfortable if his kid faced the same opportunities that the average black child does. Kerry said he'd be "outraged." Joe Lieberman used a similar question to talk about having marched with Martin Luther King 40 years ago.
Not all the questions were home runs, though. I could have done without Farai Chideya's "what's your favorite song?" interrogation.
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, at a breakfast with reporters, wasn't ecstatic about the debate, says Salon's Alexander Bolton:
"Strangely McAuliffe didn't want to talk much about the debate held just the night before in Baltimore, sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus. If the Albuquerque debate was a win for the DNC, the second may have been a loss. It revealed some of the party's weaknesses, in particular cracks in the alliance with pro-Israel Jews, and strained ties with African Americans under forty. Maybe it's appropriate the debate was cosponsored by Fox News, which many Democrats lambaste for being a mouthpiece for conservative viewpoints and the Republican party."
Hamlet-in-the-wings Wes Clark has finally gotten the phone call he may have been waiting for, says this Washington Post report:
"Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has asked retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark to join his campaign, if the former NATO commander does not jump into the race himself next week, and the two men discussed the vice presidency at a weekend meeting in California, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Clark, in a telephone interview yesterday, said he did not want to comment about the private meeting."
Which means it must be true. Does Dean think he's got his thing sewed up or what?
The AP's Ron Fournier says Dean is starting to trip over his own tongue:
"Howard Dean is learning that his words count -- and can count against him -- as the Democratic presidential front-runner. From the Middle East to race, Social Security and campaign-finance reform, the former Vermont governor is getting singed by nearly every hot-button issue he touches.
"His eight Democratic rivals hope to slow Dean's momentum by highlighting his policy flip-flops and misstatements, probing every pronouncement for the slightest sign of a gaffe. Dean has given them plenty of ammunition, though his foes have taken some liberties with his record. . . .
"After they were slow to recognize his summer ascent, Dean's opponents opened the fall campaign by questioning his foreign-policy credentials and attacking his positions on taxes and trade. Rival campaigns also highlighted shifts in Dean's policies, including his denial that he ever suggested raising the retirement age, though he has.
"Dean argues that any open-minded politician evolves on issues -- or gets caught musing aloud about possible reversals, a habit Dean says he picked up as governor. 'Sometimes I think out loud when I shouldn't,' he said."
Kerry, who was heard to mutter "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean" in Baltimore, may be playing catch-up with the good doctor again:
"Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he would break a federal spending cap, reject public financing for the presidential primaries, and possibly use his personal funds if Howard Dean's fund-raising strength leads the former Vermont governor to go beyond the federal spending limit," says the Boston Globe.
"Dean sent a letter to the government in June saying he would abide by the limit, but is now considering exceeding the cap. 'If Howard Dean decides to go live outside of it, I'm not going to wait an instant,' Kerry said in an interview at his campaign headquarters. 'Decision's made. I'll go outside. Absolutely. I'm not going to disarm.'"
There goes the ketchup money.
Roger Simon has some post-debate conclusions:
"The Howard Dean camp has to be very worried about Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich and Dean both opposed the Iraq war, but Kucinich is now flanking Dean to the left by saying, 'The best way to protect our troops is to bring them home!'
"Why does Dean have to worry about this, since Dean is the front-runner and Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination? Because Kucinich is going to take votes away from Dean in Iowa, where anti-war feeling runs high, and if Kucinich takes away enough votes, Dean could lose the state to Gephardt, who is running a close second to him in the polls there. . . .
"Dean also got hit again on his gun control stand. . . . Though some in the Democratic party want to abandon gun control as an issue in order to court the Bubba/Nascar vote, they are kidding themselves. They are never going to get those votes. George Bush is the Bubba/Nascar president. Why do you think he landed on that carrier in a flight suit? Why do you think he said, 'Bring them on' to those Iraqis attacking Americans? Why do you think he likes to spend a month clearing brush on his ranch? This guy is a Bubba/Nascar voter!
"And the Democrats, in a vain attempt to win those votes, run the real risk of losing the support of suburban women who like gun control."
Slate's William Saletan does the scorecard thing: "Kerry was as lively as Kerry gets. He'll never convince viewers like me, who find him stiff and absurdly formal, that he isn't stiff and absurdly formal. . . .
"Howard Dean's performance was near-perfect. Strategically, Dean is way ahead of the pack. He has fulfilled the affirmative part of the campaign: giving people enough reasons to vote for him. Now he has the luxury of focusing on the negative part: dispelling the reasons to vote against him. Accordingly, his preparation for the last two debates seems to have focused on acting presidential and conveying competence in military and foreign policy. Tonight he accomplished both. He was at ease and in command. Rectifying his performance in Albuquerque, he projected confidence without constipation."
Now there's a bumper-sticker slogan!
National Review's Michael Graham spanks Dean:
"Sen. Lieberman tried to make hay out of Dean's recent comment that America should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it had little affect. An audience that cheers Al Sharpton with gusto is unlikely to be concerned about the security of Israel. However, Dean made a quite astonishing statement in rebuttal, namely that the Democrats 'need to beat Bush so we can have peace in the Middle East.'
"If there were even a chance that Dean is right, and defeating George W. Bush would bring about peace between Israelis and Arabs, I'd change my voter registration tomorrow. What this comment reveals is the fundamental failing of the Democrats in this debate: While they agreed that every Bush policy has been wrong, they offered virtually no alternative policies to set America right. The fight against terrorism was reduced last night to complaints that Osama is still free and Iraq is still dangerous. But not a single suggestion on what to do about either condition."
Yesterday I cited a Republicans for Dean blog. Andrew Sullivan said it seems "full of far-left rhetoric" and "extremist Bush-hating. . . . If these guys are real Republicans, I'm a hetero." Andrew later backed off, and the site's author, Dennis Sanders, took exception:
"This site is written by a moderate Republican who lives in Minneapolis. The goal of this site is twofold: to be a place for disillusioned Republicans who are interested in the Dean Campaign and to make the case as to how Dean adheres to Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility, limited government and national security in ways that the present administration does not." He says his co-blogger, Steve, after posting some "poorly chosen" words, is moving on and will no longer be part of the site.
The Weekly Standard's Bill Whalen tackles the gender gap in California:
"Chicks just aren't digging Arnold -- and that goes double for Dixie Chicks. 'He is a great film star,' the Chicks' banjo-playing Emily Robison told a German newspaper this week. 'But I find his idea to run for governor absolutely insane. America should be governed by people who have a clue. I hope he doesn't win.'
"It's no shock that the Lone Star trio ventured to Europe and took a swipe at a Republican politician. . . . But what is surprising is how few celebrities have joined the chorus. Sure, there's Cybill Shepherd. She once made out with Gray Davis. Now, she makes out Arnold to be Western civilization's greatest threat. 'That would be the worst tragedy in the history of California,' the former 'Moonlighting' star confided to 'Access Hollywood.' 'I think that we are the laughingstock of the world, with Arnold Schwarzenegger running [for] governor. I think he's a real hypocrite. I think he has a past that is going to come out, and I'm not going to mention what it is, but it's not going to be pretty.'
"But beyond Cybill, Hollywood has taken a pass on Arnold-bashing. There's no liberal vitriol coming from the red carpets, no doom-and-gloom prophecies that a Schwarzenegger administration will rape the environment, re-segregate lunch counters, or condemn women to back-alley abortions -- not one iota of the spite and malice directed at the George W. Bush or a conservative punching bag like Tom DeLay."
In the New Republic, Jill Stewart chides the local press for going on Cruz control:
"You'd hardly know it from the simpering coverage by political reporters who typify the sad state of journalism in California, but recall candidate Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante is proposing fixes that polls suggest are horribly divisive and not at all what voters have in mind. Yet as I watch the deepening media bitterness toward Arnold Schwarzenegger for failing to sit down for one-on-one interviews, and for missing Wednesday's too-safe debate, I see that the journalistic herd is moving to protect its natural ally -- the Democrat Bustamante -- as it prepares for a classic pack journalism stampede.
"Poor Schwarzenegger. The signs are everywhere.
"Bustamante wants to toss out California's much-cherished Proposition 13 -- at least the half that keeps commercial property taxes from skyrocketing. He claims that'll stop 'skyscrapers' from shirking their fair share of the tax burden. But in truth, Bustamante's plan to grab $3 billion in taxes will also hit California's struggling mom-and-pop stores and ubiquitous immigrant-owned shopping strips. Incredibly, the media is virtually silent on Bustamante's controversial plan. Instead, they've repeatedly pummeled Schwarzenegger because his advisor, billionaire Warren Buffett, merely suggested Proposition 13 might deserve a fresh look.
"I marvel, too, over the protective media glow that has encircled Bustamante ever since he refused, in a written response to the Los Angeles Times several days ago, to support a cap on Sacramento's overspending."
The papers are full of 9/11 stories today, on the second anniversary, and Gregg Easterbrook, the New Republic's latest blogger, takes on one sensitive issue:
"So far only about 40 percent of the survivors of those killed on 9/11 have filed for payments from the federal fund. Some of the others may be too paralyzed with sorrow to act, but others of the remaining 60 percent have been waiting for ruling on whether they can sue. Tuesday a federal judge said they can. Set aside the logic of the judge's decision, which in effect held that American, Boeing, United, and the landlords of the World Trade Center all could have reasonably foreseen that 19 suicidal fanatics simultaneously would seize four large airlines and use them as guided missiles. Gee, lots of people foresaw that, didn't they? What's going to happen now is that at least some fraction of the 60 percent of families who have not filed for federal payments will sue.
"Which means: some 9/11 families are getting greedy. It's time this was laid on the table.
"Families who have taken the federal compensation have, so far, received average awards of $1.6 million, tax-free. Families of the United States personnel murdered by Al Qaeda in the Kenya and Tanzania terror attacks of 1998 received, on average, nothing. Families of the several hundred United States military personnel killed in Afghanistan fighting to destroy al Qaeda, and killed in Iraq fighting at least in part against terrorism, received, on average, $9,000, taxable.
"Now some 9/11 families are saying $1.6 million isn't enough. Set aside whether they should be receiving anything from taxpayers, given the myriad other circumstances in which Americans die annually in various horrible events every bit as traumatic and devastating to their families, who receive nothing at all. Assume for the sake of argument that something about 9/11 justifies offering victims' estates a very large special payment. Yet some 9/11 families are saying very large is not large enough. This is greed; it is employing the memory of lost loved ones for gold-digging."
Finally, what in the world is the Justice Department doing investigating ABC News for smuggling uranium? Check out my story in this morning's Washington Post.
washingtonpost.com |
