Sen. Kerry Focuses on Veterans' Issues
Friday, Jan 23, 2004; 2:13 PM
In an audio report from Manchester, N.H., I discuss a speech by Sen. John F. Kerry that focused on veterans' issues, an important part of the Vietnam veteran's campaign.
Debate Watch
Friday, Jan 23, 2004; 2:39 PM
In a video report, I analyze the candidates' performances in a critical debate Thursday night in New Hampshire. The debate was a somber evening compared to previous affairs, in part due to the Iowa Caucus results.
E-Mail This Item | Print This Item | Link to This Item
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Timeless Art of Dodging a Question
Thursday, Jan 22, 2004; 1:26 PM
MANCHESTER, N.H., – Running for president can be intense. That point was driven home for retired Army general Wesley K. Clark this morning.
Clark appeared in nearby Bedford to speak to the local chapter of Planned Parenthood, reaffirming that "I always have been and always will be pro-choice." He declared: "No one has the right to come between a woman, her doctor, her family and God."
The speech lasted a cursory five minutes before he bolted from the ballroom without answering questions.
In another room, a crowd of journalists awaited the general's arrival for a media availability. All the bigs were there – New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, the networks, plus the local media. It was one of the largest, if not the largest, press packs Clark has faced since he announced his bid for the Democratic nomination last year.
The assembled reporters were eager to question Clark on abortion because he's made a number of seemingly contradictory or just controversial statements on the subject in recent months.
Earlier this month, Clark told a Manchester Union Leader reporter that he didn't have a "litmus tests" for choosing judges. He later called the reporter to say, "I'm not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life." Clark also told the paper that he believed abortion should be legal until the moment of birth. His campaign said later that he had not intended to get into a debate over the timing of abortion.
At the press conference this morning, Clark was not eager to discuss this hot button social issue. He walked into the room and recited a shortened version of his stump speech.
The moment he stopped speaking, reporters pounced. They asked him to clarify his position: Should there be any restrictions on abortion?
Like former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Clark has frequently had to clarify his statements. Some of this comes from simply not being used to the harsh and demanding glare of the aggressive national press corps. It requires a special set of skills that come naturally to few candidates.
"I stand by Roe v. Wade," the former NATO commander said, looking nervous and eager to move on. Would he support partial-birth abortion ban legislation, a reporter asked. "Provided it meets the standards" of Roe v. Wade, he responded.
Do you personally believe there is a point during pregnancy at which abortion should no longer be allowed? "I'm not going to get into a debate over viability . . . I support Roe v. Wade, as modified by Casey."
I raised my hand and asked Clark to clarify recent comments he made that seemed to suggest he would eliminate the military's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy. He told the Advocate magazine: "The armed forces are the last institution in America that discriminates against people. It ought to be the first that doesn't. They ought to have the right to be who they are. They shouldn't have to conceal their identities."
Clark danced around the issue, saying "there are too many examples of [the policy] not working." He said he would ask military leaders to study whether it was possible to "get a policy that represents America."
But he refused to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
This is an old tactic they teach in Public Relations 101. It's called: Answer the Question You Wish You Were Asked. It is the basic tenet of staying on message. Inevitably, some Clark supporters will accuse reporters of picking on the general, as if trying to clarify a presidential candidate's position on abortion and gays in the military makes one a big old meanie.
But the same standard applied to candidate George W. Bush in 2000.
When I covered the Bush campaign for The Washington Post, the press corps was flummoxed by Bush's mastery of Public Relations 101. I wrote a story that appeared on the front-page of the Post in January 2000:
"When George W. Bush was asked at a news conference in South Carolina Wednesday whether he believed the Confederate battle flag was a symbol of the South's heritage, he responded testily.
"I view it as a local issue, and I've spoken to this issue every time I've come to this state and I'm not going to say any more," he said. "The people of South Carolina can solve this issue."
"The nonresponse has been increasingly common from Bush as the fight for the Republican presidential nomination has intensified. While he appears confident on the campaign trail delivering his stump speech, he often has difficulty articulating a clear vision when he's forced to diverge from the script – a failing that rival campaigns and voters have been insistently pointing out."
Bush also demonstrated his talents during the South Carolina primary, when a reporter asked Bush about Confederate flag. "That's a state issue," he said, explaining his refusal to comment on the South Carolina controversy. I was prepared for that answer, which I had heard before, so I asked him to comment on a Texas high school's use of the Confederate flag at athletic events. By his own standards, he should be able to comment on that subject, I reasoned, because he was the governor of Texas.
"That's a local issue," he responded, before quickly moving on to another reporter and another subject.
In one memorable but unreported incident in January 2000 in Pella, Iowa, members of the Bush press corps, including me, prepared ahead of time to ask Bush a series of questions on abortion. When he blew one of us off, another reporter would raise his or her hand and ask the natural follow-up questions.
We wrote out the questions ahead of time. A friend from another news organization happened to keep them and passed them along to me today. Here were the first two questions of six that were asked in succession:
1) You say you won't have an anti-abortion litmus test for the Supreme Court justices you would choose as president, but rather that you would appoint strict constructionists. How do you define "strict constructionist" and what does that mean to you?
2) Give me an example of a Supreme Court decision that is a paradigm of strict constructionist correctly applied and tell me why it's so. And give me an example that deviated terribly from that standard and say how it deviated.
"Strict constructionist" is a term often used by conservatives to mean people who strictly interpret the Constitution. Since abortion is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, in the area of judicial opponents, abortion rights advocates consider it a clear code word to mean anti-abortion judges. During the 2000 election, when asked if he would have an abortion litmus test for judicial nominees, Bush usually answered that he would appoint a strict constructionist to the bench, without explaining his definition of the word or how specifically it applied to the abortion question.
Bush looked horrified at our questions. His face turned red. His hands gripped the lectern. Afterward, a colleague told me Bush cornered him and asked, "What the heck was that?" But he didn't say heck.
Today, that tactic wasn't necessary with Clark, as the media naturally followed up each other's questions.
While some may criticize Clark's performance today, calling him cagey and vague, that might ultimately be better than slipping up and saying the wrong thing.
The strategy didn't hurt the president.
- Terry M. Neal |
